In short, yes.
Where, for basic warrant, we may start here:
In scriptural/historical terms, I am increasingly moved by the power of Paul's defense of himself -- with his life on the line, AD 59, before Festus and Agrippa at Caesarea:
 |
| Paul before Festus and Agrippa (HT: Free Bible Images) |
Acts 26: 6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, 7 to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king! 8 Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead? . . . .
24 And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.” 25 But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. 26 For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” 28 And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” 29 And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”
(But now, in a world of ever more worldviews and endless too often polarised arguments, we need more details. As, knowledge of and living by truth matters. Ultimately matters.)
For some of those "more details," let us now explore in steps, following.
(and that of The Indwelling Holy Spirit of God)
Inescapably, we are morally governed creatures, with a built in "candle" or "compass" that awakens us to duties to truth, to right reason, to warrant [given our error-proneness] and to wider prudence. We can summarise these as aspects of our branch on which we all sit (so, self-evident), Ciceronian first duties of responsible reason:
 |
| Our first duties of responsible reason |
Such first duties are pivotal, as they are first principles of the moral government of our rational, responsible freedom; they are central to our integrity and so to a life of honour and virtue. That becomes doubly important when we ponder some dirty secrets of our hearts (that is, of the subconscious wellsprings of our thought, speech and action). For, as the prophet Jeremiah warns, anticipating modern psychology by 2,400+ years:
Jer 17: 9 The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
10 “I the LORD search the heart and test the mind,
to give every man according to his ways,
according to the fruit of his deeds.”
Yes, there are subterranean, powerful influences of our feelings, perceptions, memories [true or distorted . . . or outright false!], attitudes, motives, lusts, rages, resentments, fears, hurts and more that have more to say about how we reason than we may be willing to admit. This is part of why the very first principle of discipleship in the Heb 6:1 - 2 six principles list, is, repentance, meta+noia, a profound change and right-about-turn of heart and mind in penitent surrender to God leading to a fresh way of life in growing trust and right relationship with God. The life-walk of faith in God, manifested in growing in the truth in love, holy power and godly purity. That is why Prov 4:18 teaches us that "the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day." Whilst, v. 19 warns, "[t]he way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know over what they stumble."
And, this is a key part of why Scripture is so pivotal in Christian foundations:
If you still doubt the fell power of such warping, crooked yardstick influences, kindly pause and consider how so prominent a public intellectual and leading "bright" atheist as Richard Dawkins could make such an own-goal as this -- which actually shows that evolutionary materialistic scientism is self-defeating by self-referentially discrediting the mind of even its own advocates:
 |
| Richard Dawkins' own-goal. His vision of the world is shaped by his evolutionary materialistic scientism as worldview. It leads him to perceive the world through materialistic glasses, undergirded by the prestige of science held captive to atheism in a lab coat. He then rejects design, regardless of evidence for it in the fine tuning of the cosmos or in the copious coded -- so, linguistic -- information in the heart of the cell,. He can therefore see no purpose; not realising that he has therefore eliminated any credible source for our minds to be free enough to be credible [computational substrates are garbage in, garbage out essentially mechanical entities that are no better than their organisation, programming and coding . . . and he has no credible programmer]. He then asserts nihilism, denying the reality of good and evil -- which by the way means he has no right to appeal to the problem of good vs evil in arguing for atheism. In short, is that a free, independent mind coming to responsible conclusions, or just a wetware computer spewing out whatever its programming by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity put in there? |
(And no, this is not a narrow focus on evolutionary materialism, it is just illustrating a telling case of how the subconscious shapes us.)
Now, of course, c 57 AD, the same Paul argued:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Here, we see how the voice of conscience, enlightened by neighbour love, recognises the core duties to neighbour as love will cherish not harm or abuse neighbour.
Similarly, in Chapter 1 we see a powerful, but much rejected and objected-to claim:
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Here, the apostle asserts that the world without and our interior life within jointly testify to us, compellingly, that God is real, the root-source and sustainer of our existence, and is the source of our moral government. So much so, that we owe him thanks as our First Neighbour and Host, leading to due acknowledgement and reasonable, responsible service by doing the good that accords with our evident, morally governed nature. However, too often -- and without excuse, we instead reject and suppress that testimony and put on the throne of our lives the creature rather than the creator. Sometimes, a statue in a temple, sometimes some ideology or other, sometimes wanton pleasures, sometimes money as a god, oftentimes, our own selves.
Predictably, leading to an Acts 27-like voyage of ruinous folly.
This points to some points raised by noted Christian thinker and philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, regarding how an inner awareness or testimony instigated by the Spirit or the voice of conscience invoked by experiences or even memory and perceptions or insights can be properly basic and warranted (even if others disagree and may think you are mistaken . . . sometimes, to the extent of sending you to the gallows).
Let us start with a scenario he suggested at some point.
You are accused of some serious wrongdoing or other (say, theft or worse), and unfortunately, you have no alibi or second party to be a witness in the face of circumstances that make it possible or even plausible to others that you are guilty. Others are now convinced that you are guilty, but you know yourself to be innocent. For, you are in your right mind, have a functioning memory and know directly and distinctly, that you did not do the deed; backed up by a clear conscience. You directly, and properly basically, know yourself to be innocent; even if you are the only one to know that in the face of a whole world that believes you guilty. Of course, that is one reason why we have courts of appeal staffed by the very best Jurists.
The inner witness of conscience and/or the voice of the Holy Spirit is something like that.
For,
a: once, this is indeed a world made and sustained by the good God andb: we are indeed created in his image with his built-in "candle within,"
c: the powerful truths of the reality and manifest presence of God, or of the forgiveness of sins by trusting Christ based on the gospel, or the self-authenticating truth of Scripture (especially the "sure word" of fulfilled centuries-long prophecies of Messiah), or God's miraculous answers to prayer, or God's stirring of our souls, or so much more, can all be duly stirred in us because of spiritual-intellectual-moral senses built into us and stirred by appropriate circumstances. So,
_________________________
d: even in the teeth of a world inclined to be skeptical or dismissive and to raise all sorts of objections (not to mention scoffing), by that transformational witness within we can be rightly and reliably confident of God's reality, divine nature, voice in Scripture and saving, healing, delivering action through the powerful promises of the gospel, etc.
Where, in fact -- despite many confident claims and seemingly impressive . . . but ultimately, fatally flawed . . . arguments, no atheist, rationalist, professor, hyperskeptical academic theologian, scientist, writer, documentary narrator, etc. has yet provided a sound, cogent case that God does not exist. Nor, is such a case even remotely in prospect.
As Plantinga outlines:
I’ll take Calvin as suggesting that there is a kind of faculty (like sight or hearing) or a cognitive mechanism — what he calls a “sensus divinitatis” or sense of divinity — which in a wide variety of circumstances produces in us beliefs about God.
[--> the Prov 20:27 "candle within," and/or voice of conscience and the testimony of the Spirit. Where, the snide suggestion of delusion, here, would lead to the issue of grand delusion, thus self defeat for the objector, too; not just the allegedly "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" Christian believer. ]
These circumstances trigger the disposition to form the beliefs in question; they form the occasion on which those beliefs arise. [--> i.e. they stir, they are not the root source or a proof in themselves] Under these circumstances we develop or form theistic beliefs. More exactly, these beliefs are formed in us in those circumstances; in the typical case we don’t consciously choose to have those beliefs. Instead, we find ourselves with them, just as we find ourselves with perceptual and memory beliefs. (You don’t and can’t simply decide to have this belief, thereby acquiring it. 5 ) These passages suggest that awareness of God is natural, widespread, and not easy to forget, ignore, or destroy. Seventy years of determined but unsuccessful Marxist efforts to uproot Christianity in the former Soviet Union tend to confirm this claim . . . .
Calvin’s idea is that the workings of the sensus divinitatis are triggered or occasioned by a wide variety of circumstances, including in particular some of the glories of nature: the marvelous, impressive beauty of the night sky; the timeless crash and roar of the surf that resonates deep within us; the majestic grandeur of the mountains (the North Cascades, say, as viewed from Whatcom Pass); the ancient, brooding presence of the Australian outback; the thunder of a great waterfall. But it isn’t only grandeur and majesty that counts; he would say the same for the subtle play of sunlight on a field in spring, or the dainty, articulate beauty of a tiny flower, or aspen leaves shimmering and dancing in the breeze: “there is no spot in the universe,” he says, “wherein you cannot discern at least some sparks of his glory.” Calvin could have added other sorts of circumstances: there is something like an awareness of divine disapproval upon having done what is wrong, or cheap, and something like a perception of divine forgiveness upon confession and repentance. People in grave danger instinctively turn to the Lord, asking for succor and support. (They say there are no atheists in foxholes.) On a beautiful spring morning (the birds singing, heaven and earth alight and alive with glory, the air fresh and cool, the treetops gleaming in the sun) a spontaneous hymn of thanks to the Lord — thanks for your circumstances and your very existence — may arise in your soul . . . .
It isn’t just that the believer in God is within her epistemic rights in accepting theistic belief in the basic way. That is indeed so; more than this, however, this belief can have warrant for the person in question, warrant which is often sufficient for knowledge.
The sensus divinitatis is a belief-producing faculty (or power, or mechanism) that under the right conditions produces belief that isn’t evidentially based on other beliefs. On this model, our cognitive faculties have been designed and created by God; the design plan, therefore, is a design plan in the literal and paradigmatic sense. It is a blueprint or plan for our ways of cognitive functioning, and it has been developed and instituted by a conscious, intelligent agent. The purpose of the sensus divinitatis is to enable us to have true beliefs about God; and when it functions properly, it ordinarily does produce true beliefs about God. These beliefs therefore can meet the conditions for warrant; when they do, if they are strong enough, then they constitute knowledge.
Finally, according to the A/C [= Aquinas/Calvin] model this natural knowledge of God has in many or most cases been compromised, weakened, reduced, smothered, overlaid, or impeded by sin and its consequences. [--> the dulling/ warping/ blinding issue] Due to sin, the knowledge of God provided by the sensus divinitatis, prior to faith and regeneration, is both narrowed in scope and partially suppressed. The faculty itself may be diseased and thus partly or wholly disabled. There is such a thing as cognitive disease; there is blindness, deafness, inability to tell right from wrong, insanity; and there are analogues of these conditions with respect to the operation of the sensus divinitatis. According to Marx and Marxists, as we saw, it is belief in God that is a result of cognitive disease, of dysfunction. From their perspective, belief in God is irrational; there is a failure of rational faculties to work as they should. But here the A/C model stands Freud and Marx on their heads; 8 according to the model, it is really the unbeliever who displays epistemic malfunction; failing to believe in God is a result of some kind of dysfunction of the sensus divinitatis. [Ch 3, Knowledge and Christian Belief (Eerdmans, 2015). Pardon extenso, and annotations as there is need for clarification.]
In short, the one who has had life-transforming encounter with the living God through the power of the gospel attested by scripture is not at the mercy of the man with a clever skeptical argument. Even, if s/he cannot answer that argument with a rebuttal acceptable to the objector.
And, Vern Polythress highlights just how soon -- and how close to hand -- this sense finds a spark:
2 + 2 = 4 is true at all times and at all places. 2 We have classic terms to describe this situation: the truth is omnipresent (present at all places) and eternal (there at all times). The truth 2 + 2 = 4 has these two character-istics or attributes that are classically attributed to God. So is God in our picture, already at this point? We will see.
Technically, God’s eternity is usually conceived of as being “above” or “beyond” time. But words like “above” and “beyond” are metaphori-cal and point to mysteries. There is, in fact, an analogous mystery with respect to 2 + 2 = 4. If 2 + 2 = 4 is universally true, is it not in some sense “beyond” the particularities of any one place or time? . . . . 2 + 2 = 4 is “above” time in its universality, but “in” time through its applicability to each particular situation. Two apples plus two more apples is four apples . . . . The attributes of omnipresence and eternity are only the beginning. On close examination, other divine attributes seem to belong to arithmetical truths. Consider. If 2 + 2 = 4 holds for all times, we are presupposing that it is the same truth through all times. The truth does not change with time. It is immutable.
Next, 2 + 2 = 4 is at bottom ideational in character. We do not literally see the truth 2 + 2 = 4, but only particular instances to which it applies: two apples plus two apples. The truth that 2 + 2 = 4 is essentially immate-rial and invisible, but is known through manifestations. Likewise, God is essentially immaterial and invisible, but is known through his acts in the world. Next, we have already observed that 2 + 2 = 4 is true. Truthfulness is also an attribute of God . . . .
Natural numbers conform to arithmetical properties and laws that are already there, laws that are discovered rather than invented. The laws must already be there. 2 + 2 = 4 must actually hold. It must “have teeth.” If it is truly universal, it is not violated. Two apples and two apples always make four apples. No event escapes the “hold” or dominion of arithmetical laws. The power of these laws is absolute, in fact, infinite . . . . 2 + 2 = 4 is both transcendent and immanent. It transcends the crea-tures of the world by exercising power over them, conforming them to its dictates. It is immanent in that it touches and holds in its dominion even the smallest bits of this world. 4 2 + 2 = 4 transcends the galactic clusters and is immanently present in the behavior of the electrons surrounding a beryllium nucleus. [Redeeming Mathematics, Crossway 2015, pp. 15 - 17.]
(Of course, we do not usually so reflect on something like 2 + 2 = 4, but, once we do . . .)
Where, too, let us note how Plantinga moves from mere belief that one has a personal or collective subjective right to, to knowledge, by objective warrant:
warrant, [is that] property enough of which distinguishes knowledge from mere true belief [and also moves beyond merely justified, true belief], [that is,] a property or quantity had by a belief if and only if (so I say) that belief is produced by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a congenial epistemic environment according to a design plan [reliably and] successfully aimed at truth. [Where,] rationality (in the sense of proper function of rational powers) is included in warrant . . . [ch. 4]
And yes, this is a declaration of intellectual freedom and conscience-cleared independence.
and/or "mistranslations" objection,
As we can see from Paul's experience in the court room, c AD 59, this is an ancient claim. For epochal example in our time, let us clip from the widely notorious, wildly popular assertions promoted by Dan Brown in his The Da Vinci Code:
In first response, here is the apostle Peter, on the eve of his judicial murder c AD 67, on the manifestly false charge of treasonous arson against Rome:
2 Peter 1: 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,9 with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. [--> eyewitnesses faithful unto death, speaking from memory]
19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed [--> the importance of prophecy of Messiah, cf. esp. Isa 53 & 1 Cor 15], to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
[--> Scripture does not merely speak with man's voice and suspect notions, it was produced by God's power and he stirs our hearts to receive it today, with the inner testimony of the Spirit]
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. [--> Inspiration of Scripture by God, so it bears his voice, character, authority and power]
There are all sorts of related objections that claim or imply grave error or fraud or delusion. A current one, implies that widely available, commonly used responsible translations -- I am not here trying to support things like the New World Translation, or the so-called Queen James Bible, etc! -- are readily dismissed "mistranslations." Similarly, many in the Caribbean are inclined to think that White Man write the Bible, so it is as suspect as that race from which came the slave traders and slave masters. Others are dismissive about preservation of the original text (however, cf. here -- and this includes the roots of the KJV's source text). And many more claims like this.
Such assertions are dangerous and pernicious, as the only credible access 99+% of Christians have to Scripture is in responsible translation, this holds for even many parsons with a course or two in Greek and Hebrew, and for those who use commonly available Bible research tools. So, immediately, we need to point out that there have been widely circulated responsible translations for over 2,000 years, starting with the Septuagint (which was freely used by the Apostles and other early church leaders). We can readily point to Jerome's Vulgate, then, a thousand years later the efforts of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, the King James version and on down to many good translations today; all of which generally speaking faithfully render the scriptures as we may say, see for ourselves from sound interlinear versions that lay out the translation process before us. Of course, some white men did grave evils, but that does not prevent others from making sound translations. And so forth.
But, we notice and must not sideline the central importance of prophecy. Here, let us compare the AD 55 1 Cor 15 with the 700+ BC Isa 53, attested by C2 - 3 BC Dead Sea scrolls that confirm accuracy of transmission (as is also witnessed by the Septuagint translation from the same era):
1 Cor 15: 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received [as the reliable testimony of the college of apostles and witnesses, c. 35 AD]:
[I] that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
[II] 4 that he was buried,
[III] that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and
[IV] that he appeared
to Cephas [--> the first legally acceptable witness in C1], then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
Isa 53 fleshes out the prophecy fulfillment "according to the scriptures":
Isa 53: 4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed. [--> foundation
of gospel theology]
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
[--> Resurrection, and widespread impact of the gospel against all odds]
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
Where, we need to ponder Frank Morison:
[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus' resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . .
Why did it win? . . . .
We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] - we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 - 115.]
Food, for thought.
Yes, many hold other views and on their traditions, may see themselves as justified so to do. However, here, "the more sure word of prophecy" backed up by the four that facts and the unwavering witness of the 500, has energised the gospel witness that has led millions to meet and be transformed by God in the face of Jesus the Messiah. He, who came at the right time on the prophetic clock and by being "a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know [Ac 2:22]" and who, by unjust death became lamb of God and Saviour, who rose from the dead with 500 witnesses. And of course the 3,000 at Pentecost c AD 30 became the first-fruits of the successful spreading of the gospel, against all odds.
In this light, our attitude to scripture, rightly, becomes that of Jesus, the God-attested Risen One: "scripture cannot be broken [Jn 10:35]." We have warrant, not mere belief.
That changes the balance of power on comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory balance, across competing worldviews. So, now . . .
Notoriously, we live in a deeply polarised world, with many contending worldviews. This is not new, that was so in C1, where as Gibbon summarised, the common people thought the stories of the gods were equally true, the philosophers that they were equally false, and the politicians that they were equally useful. That is perhaps too broad-brush and overly cynical, but it makes the point.
A good place for us to begin, is with Plantinga's summary and critique of Freud's once all but all-conquering dismissive characterisation of faith in God as infantile wish-fulfillment, not least as it draws together much of the above about the subterranean wellsprings of the heart in another telling real world case -- but in the end, not as Freud imagined:
[Pref:] A third suggestion, owing to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and Karl Marx (1818-1883), is that Christian belief isn’t reality oriented: the belief-producing processes or faculties that cause such belief aren’t aimed at the production of true belief, but at the production of belief with some other property — perhaps the ability to carry on in the cold, cruel, heartless world (Freud) that we human beings find ourselves in. I’ll argue that this is the most sensible construal of the objection we are considering. I’ll also argue that this version of the objection is really the claim that Christian belief doesn’t have warrant, the property or quantity that distinguishes knowledge from mere [accidentally] true belief . . . . [Ch. 2:] Thus according to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), we puny human beings find ourselves in this cold, cruel world, and we can make life endurable only by projecting into the heavens a father who really does care for us (and is a lot more powerful than our human father). But such belief is irrational . . . . [Ch. 3:] And how would Freud or a follower establish that in fact the mechanism whereby human beings come to believe in God (come to believe that there is such a person as God) is not in fact aimed at the truth? This is really the crux of the matter. Freud offers no arguments or reasons here at all. As far as I can see, he simply takes it for granted that there is no God and theistic belief is false; he then casts about for some kind of explanation of this widespread phenomenon of mistaken belief. He hits on wish-fulfillment and apparently assumes it is obvious that this mechanism is not “reality oriented,” i.e., is not aimed at the production of true belief, and hence lacks warrant. As we have seen, this is a safe assumption if in fact theism i s false. But then Freud’s version of the de jure criticism really depends upon his atheism: it isn’t an independent criticism at all, and it won’t (or shouldn’t) have any force for anyone who doesn’t share that atheism.
See, how a deep, prior assumption acts as a yardstick that then leads to rejecting what does not match? But, what if the yardstick is crooked? Would not that crooked yardstick, taken as reference standard, then lead us to reject what is genuinely straight, accurate and upright? Precisely, because it fails to match the prior -- crooked -- standard?
Sadly, yes.
And here is Jesus' response, a chilling wisdom-teaching we should all hear and ponder carefully:
John 8: 39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character [NIV: his native language], for he is a liar and the father of lies.
45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
It is possible to be under the delusion that because we are from a certain prestigious tradition and have the "right" yardsticks (it matters not if it is being of Abraham's seed, or of a school of philosophy, or that we wear the Holy Lab Coat, or whatever else tickles our itching ears), we have therefore cornered the market on truth. But instead, one of the key genuine first truths is just how prone we are to darkness within, thus to reject the true light when it comes to us; so, we need to be humbled enough to be open to repentance, the true start-point of a right relationship with God.
As Jesus put it in the Sermon on the Mount, echoing Plato's parables of the Cave and of the Mutinous Ship of State:
Matt 6: 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
This, of course, brings us to the structure of our worldviews and the pivotal role of our yardstick "first plausibles," the well-springs of our reasoning, thinking, perceiving, attitudes and motives:
Here, we see how ever so much of how we think, argue, perceive and act is shaped by deep, yardstick first plausibles; which, too often, are crooked. Thus, Solomon aptly warns us, "[guard] your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life. [Prov 4:23.]"
This is, of course, where Freud, Marx and ever so many others went wrong.
Thus too, it surfaces a key issue on worldviews: they all bristle with difficulties, even as we struggle with being finite, fallible, morally struggling, being too often angry, stubborn and ill-willed. This is why comparative difficulties analysis is vital to sound philosophy, and it is why we must be sensitive to the voice of sound conscience, so open to repentance. Where, we assess the difficulties of worldviews on a comparative basis, across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ill-tailored ad hoc patchwork). Where, a key coherence issue is that sooner or later, hard basic questions become self-referential, so we have to be particularly careful not to argue in question-begging circles or to lead to self-defeating self-contradictions. After all, a very good definition of philosophy is that it is the department of hard basic questions; hard, precisely because they have no easy answers.
We have already seen, through Dawkins' own-goal blunder, how evolutionary materialistic scientism -- atheism in a lab coat -- fails. We need to look at other, wider, deeper options, the X-theisms (including philosophical atheism).
A good place to begin is, why is there something (a world) rather than nothing (utter non-being).
This leads to the concept, a possible world (which needs not be actual, but could be). We can roughly define this as, a set of propositions that sufficiently identify a way this or some other world was or may have been, or is or might be, or will be or might be. We specifically include the abstract logic-model worlds of mathematics, modelling theory and related computer simulations. Not, the machines on which the simulations run as collections of bits or the like [which obviously must exist in an actualised world], but the imagined possibilities that play out in the software.
Once we have this, we can see possibilities for being/non-being and states of affairs that could be the case. For, some suggested entities or states of affairs -- think, a Euclidean plane square circle -- are impossible of being in any possible world as they would require manifestation of a self-contradiction. Other things would exist in at least one possible world, possible beings. Some, contingent beings, exist in only some possible worlds; these are causally dependent. Other, necessary beings, exist in every possible world, as part of the fabric for a world to actually exist or have potential to exist; such necessary beings do not begin nor can they end, they are eternal. And yes, that means that as a world is, something always was, the root of reality. As, were utter non-being ever the case, as such has no power to cause or sustain being, such would forever obtain . . . there would be no world, no reality.
For example, distinct identity is embedded in any possible world W as different from a near neighbour W' as W = {W'|A}, A being the distinct factor. As a result, two-ness, thus structure and quantity are embedded in every possible world. This is why the core Mathematical sets NZQRCR* etc and their properties are universal, hence the general power of Mathematics in answer to Wigner's wondering.
We may tabulate:
One consequence of this, is that for a serious candidate necessary being, S -- flying pink elephants and spaghetti monsters (being composites built from prior things) need not apply, it is either impossible of being or else it exists in every possible or actual world. That is:
[S => {A AND ~A} = 0] OR ELSE [For any possible/actual world W, S exists]
To see this more clearly, try to imagine a specific, distinct possible world, W where two-ness does not exist, or begins to exist, or may cease from existing. Of course, already, just to have a distinct world W, twoness is already present in that distinction from some close neighbour W` as, W = W`|A}, or else it is not at all distinct from it (other than, perhaps having a different label, e.g. Venus as Morning and as Evening stars). Which, as noted, brings with it the power of core mathematics.
As one result, those who argue for or entertain atheism and/or agnosticism, need a good argument that either God is not a serious candidate, or else is impossible of being. They have none, and none is in prospect. God is the most serious candidate, and (especially after Plantinga's free will defence) there is no good reason to think God is impossible of being. So, other things being equal, we should expect to see that most people are open to or confident of the reality of God.
But of course, as Habermas and Licona note:
"Americans generally have an abysmal level of knowledge of the Bible," [Emory University's Luke Timothy] Johnson observes. "In this world of mass ignorance, to have headlines proclaim that this or that fact about [Jesus] has been declared untrue by supposedly scientific inquiry [ --> in actuality, claims of radical fringe groups such as the Jesus Seminar or a Dan Brown, etc] has the effect of gospel. There is no basis on which most people can counter these authoritative-sounding statements."' This is where the Christian's role in sharing his or her faith requires some knowledge of the facts about Jesus and his resurrection. Blomberg comments, "The problem is that other worldviews and religions make the same claims as we do. To defend your view in the marketplace of religious ideas, you have to be able to give reasons for why you believe the Bible's claims about itself."' The apostle Peter told us to "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense" to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). [The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Kregel, 2004, intro to Part I.]
Similarly, Ravi Zacharias summarised:
Today, many people think it is naïve to believe in God because there is not enough evidence for His existence. Others conclude that even if He does exist, He has insufficiently revealed and inadequately explained Himself; therefore He has not convinced us that He is real. Even less has He affirmed that the claims of the gospel of Jesus Christ are true and lead to a worldview that offers the most coherent and logical answers to life’s four essential questions—origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.
For the Christian this is where the battle must be fought, for no worldview suffers more from the loss of belief in God than the Christian one. And unless the “logic” of God—the evidence He has provided us of His existence—is defended, is sought after, is fully engaged with our hearts and minds, every essential of the Christian faith will be deemed illogical and untrue, thereby making them unworthy of rational assent. [The Logic of God, Zondervan, 2019, Preface.]
So, why is there such a gap between perception and reality? Because, it has been gradually built up, bit by bit and given dominance and by far and away most Christian leaders [much less, ordinary laypeople] are utterly unprepared to answer.
That has to change.
For key example, what of the vexed problem of evil?
Already, just the formulation is inadequate. Yes, just as thorny bushes draw our attention, evil's painful, repulsive, hard to eliminate nature tends to fix our attention. But the full issue is actually the problem of good and evil, not just evil. And that then surfaces the issue that evil is evidently secondary and parasitical: the frustration, truncation, twisting out of line of the good from its due end and fulfillment. For example, lying cannot work unless communication is predominantly truthful, and if it spreads like an epidemic, community life breaks down, frustrating human thriving. So, the root challenge is the issue of the good and its root, thus too, the bridging of the is-ought gap, itself a facet of the problem of the one and the many in a whole evidently unified, ordered world, a cosmos (as opposed to an utterly disordered, unpredictable, destructive chaos, in which evil and -- for that matter -- good would not even be viable concepts).
As Dembski notes,
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” . . .
 |
| A thorny thicket |
This leads to the Free Will Defence, where is becomes evident that there are possible circumstances where the existence of God and the reality of evil (thus, good and evil) are mutually consistent. For example, the freedom to love, be virtuous and have a credible mind cannot be one-sided, so twisting things out of line with or blocking them from their due end -- evil -- is possible. So, God can have a good reason for creating a world with love, truth, virtue and credible minds, but such a world is one in which evil is automatically possible. Of course, that leaves the thorns effect on the table, the incidence and objectionable nature of evil lead some to argue that God is not plausible in a world so full of evil. That is, the so-called inductive form of the problem of evil is intertwined with the existential/pastoral form, making it hard to deal with without seeming to be a cold-hearted apologist for evil and seemingly needless pain etc.
It seems, the best answer, is to pull back the zoom, and recognise that the problem is good and evil, not just evil. On those terms, though there are any number of extreme cases of evil, even the good that prizes careful thinking and a world where love and virtue are possible, must acknowledge the need for freedom, which means that freedom can be abused, leading to evil. The existential pain of evil and its impact, then lead to the need for counselling, pastoral care and healing of the wounded heart. Where, the Christian contention is that, through redemption and a second chance, God is dealing with evil in his own time, himself paying the price of redemption.
We can thus turn to other X-theisms, for example:
In a multi-polar, globally connected, increasingly polarised world, we now need greater familiarity with once exotic views. These include not only pantheism but also panentheism and dualism, thus also issues tied to the one and the many: how do we have unity, diversity, varied views, good vs evil and credible responsible, rational freedom in our common world?
While panentheism offers an increasingly popular alternative to classical theism [--> notice, a trend], both panentheism and classical theistic systems affirm divine transcendence and immanence. But, classical theistic systems by prioritizing the difference between God and the world reject any influence by the world upon God [= God is already fully actualised, so maximally great, wise, good etc] while panentheism affirms the world’s influence upon God. On the other hand, while pantheism emphasizes God’s identity with the world, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine.
(This also shows how hyperskeptical, radical theological schools of thought feed into such exchanges and how here, Chopra distracts from the balance on comparative difficulties by trying to push Koukl on the backfoot by tossing some bouncers. He clearly disdains Koukl's well founded corrections (notice, his facial expressions), and would go on to publish two later books with the same errors Koukl aptly corrected. Sad. [Cf. here for a wider discussion.])
1 Cor 1: 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Col 1: 15 He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Also,
Job 38: 1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Dress for action1 like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
9 when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10 and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
11 and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?
12 “Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
and caused the dawn to know its place,
13 that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth,
and the wicked be shaken out of it?
14 It is changed like clay under the seal,
and its features stand out like a garment.
15 From the wicked their light is withheld,
and their uplifted arm is broken.
16 “Have you entered into the springs of the sea,
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth?
Declare, if you know all this.
And then:
Prov 1: 1 The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel:
2 To know wisdom and instruction,
to understand words of insight,
3 to receive instruction in wise dealing,
in righteousness, justice, and equity;
4 to give prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the youth—
5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning,
and the one who understands obtain guidance,
6 to understand a proverb and a saying,
the words of the wise and their riddles.
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Amen,
WORK (YET) IN PROGRESS . . .
PS: Appendix, an algebraic exploration of attributes of the reality root i/l/o logic of being and requisites for a world containing morally governed creatures, using extended modality operators:
ALGEBRA FOR ETHICAL THEISM
WA Dec 19, 2024
Let's start with a picturing of our challenge:
This raises questions as to what reality is (and by extension, possibilities) thence how does reality reach where states of affairs and included entities now are, thence what are potential futures and our ability to influence what is actualised. It also draws out issues of capability to accurately perceive and describe or explain. An account of reality that is sound would have to credibly bridge our perceptions and reasoning and actuality, including roots of reality, origin of the world (including us, morally governed responsibly rational and so significantly free creatures). This is of course the truth question, and the warrant question: can we accurately, credibly describe, perceive, understand, explain reality. Any scheme that leads to or invites grand delusion fails by being absurd, undermining even the proposer of the scheme. We may and do err but it is unreasonable that we are hopelessly deluded . . . maya fails, though it is understandable why a whole domain of worldviews ends up there. Similarly, evolutionary materialistic scientism and its invited computationalism fails though it is understandable why the vision of all-conquering Science leads many there or nearly there, now struggling to account for rationality. Likewise, any scheme that undermines rational responsible freedom or implies morality and our sense of being accountable to a built in law are radically relativised so not credibly objective similarly undermines even the one proposing the scheme.
Where, again, objectivity -- here, that ever so humble Wikipedia testifying against ideological bent: <<Objectivity can refer to: Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy), either the property of being independent from or dependent upon perception Objectivity (science), the goal of eliminating personal biases in the practice of science Journalistic objectivity, encompassing fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship>>
That leads me to . . .
Plantinga, on warrant as posted [at blogger] a few days ago:
<< warrant, [is that] property enough of which distinguishes knowledge from mere true belief [and also moves beyond merely justified, true belief], [that is,] a property or quantity had by a belief if and only if (so I say) that belief is produced by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a congenial epistemic environment according to a design plan [reliably and] successfully aimed at truth. [Where,] rationality (in the sense of proper function of rational powers) is included in warrant . . . [Knowledge and Christian Belief (Eerdmans, 2015), ch. 4]>>
That brings me to my summary on possible worlds
<<A good place to begin is, why is there something (a world) rather than nothing (utter non-being).
This leads to the concept, a possible world (which needs not be actual, but could be). We can roughly define this as, a set of propositions that sufficiently identify a way this or some other world was or may have been, or is or might be, or will be or might be. We specifically include the abstract logic-model worlds of mathematics, modelling theory and related computer simulations. Not, the machines on which the simulations run as collections of bits or the like [which obviously must exist in an actualised world], but the imagined possibilities that play out in the software.
Once we have this, we can see possibilities for being/non-being and states of affairs that could be the case. For, some suggested entities or states of affairs -- think, a Euclidean plane square circle -- are impossible of being in any possible world as they would require manifestation of a self-contradiction. Other things would exist in at least one possible world, possible beings. Some, contingent beings, exist in only some possible worlds; these are causally dependent. Other, necessary beings, exist in every possible world, as part of the fabric for a world to actually exist or have potential to exist; such necessary beings do not begin nor can they end, they are eternal. And yes, that means that as a world is, something always was, the root of reality. As, were utter non-being ever the case, as such has no power to cause or sustain being, such would forever obtain . . . there would be no world, no reality.
[Let me add, Dec 21: that a given entity or state of affairs, r, in a given world Wk, exists is true if under relevant circumstances for Wk, r is the case or obtains. Obviously in a neighbouring world Wk', r -- say, a fire -- may not exist if key causal factors are absent; which also shows how we may identify such causal factors. But if instead an entity n is present in any possible world Wk, that is because it is part of the in-common factors for any Wk to be actualised; e.g 2 and the sets NZQRCR*. We thus see contingent vs necessary being. Also, while we may contemplate utter non-being, 0, as a world is such a situation cannot be actualised: for were 0 the case, as it has no causal powers, 0 would remain the case. This brings us back to, once a world W is, something, root reality W0, always was. The issue, then, is to characterise W0.>>
My comment, here, is that this seems valid in its own right, as in effect an extension of what is in a weak, inquiry form principle of sufficient reason that simply invites exploration of possible vs impossible being and contingency.
Which, extends to the world and to possible worlds.
So, it needs to be addressed by a vantage point scheme. That suggests modal logic on possible and necessary being and states of affairs, as well s on ability to perceive accurately and reasonably reliably.
N(W) -- necessarily, a world W including us, or on self referentiality, S, incoherence.
Let's try for that, S(W = 0) = 0
Then, N[P( N(W0) --> W1 . . . W, . . . Wn . . . )] = 1, Necessarily, there is a possible root world/reality W0, with ability to cause other possible worlds W1 etc including of course W.
On S5, it is possible that there is a necessary world root, causing or capable of causing W1 etc including W.
Where, obviously, N(W0) = 1, there was and is a necessary root of reality, in effect, as
N[ 0 --> 0] = 1, were there ever utter non being, it can only lead to the same. Thus
N[0 !--> W1 etc] = 1, utter non being is not capable as a root of reality.
Also, by observation [F] and self referentiality [S], W includes us, rational, responsible, morally governed creatures, let's try:
F&S[W = {x0, xi . . . crc1 . . . crcn . . . }] = 1, crc being conscious, rational, enconscienced creatures . . . us.
So, N [W0 --> {x0, xi . . . crc1 . . . crcn . . . }] = 1, the root must be capable of such creatures as us. And that root is not 0.
I think this then opens up a bill of requisites for W0, that bit by bit will lead to an entity recognisable as the God of generic ethical theism.
Moretime . . . breakfast is needed.
Breakfast in hand, let's continue:
B/F: "So, N [W0 --> {x0, xi . . . crc1 . . . crcn . . . }] = 1, the root must be capable of such creatures as us. And that root is not 0."
N[W0 --> {crck}] = 1, necessarily W0causally founds the set of crc's including us, crck being a typical representative of the set. This of course goes beyond just humans.
Now, is W0 an infinite extension of the quasi-physical, causal, temporal, thermodynamically constrained world? No, as on R* mileposted by Z* as "years" on a timeline of transfinite span, no transfinitely remote -H, can succeed causally year by year to a finitely remote zero point:
. . . -(H-1), - (H-2), - (H-3) . . . -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 . . . n . . ., where n is now.
Obviously, adding one year to -H etc only puts one, stepwise, finitely further on from H. In short you cannot traverse a transfinite span stepwise. (This took three years to fight through! If you only contemplate the restricted reals, R, you will miss the issue of transfinite implicit extension.)
Nor is W0 0, as 0 !--> W etc. (and circular retrocausation is another version of starting with 0).
So, we are left with W0 as small-c creator, where F&S, we have a fine tuned world with crck in it. We need W0 to be morally foundational [G] and capable of creating/causing a fine tuned world, i.e. intelligent, I. Call, G&I, good and wise.
So, F&S{ G&I[W0]} = 1, W0 is good, wise and as necessary being, eternal, E.
Let's extend: F&S{G&I&E(W0)} = 1
Where, we can also add explicitly, creational capacity to cause worlds, C
F&S{G&I&E&C(W0)} = 1
We are obviously seeing attributes of God emerging. All we need onward is maximal greatness, which is described under Idea of God.
Plausibly, maximal greatness, X, let us interpret that as possibly . . . a serious candidate:
P[F&S{G&I&E&C&X(W0)} = 1] = 1
But a serious candidate NB is either impossible due to self-contradictory core characteristics, or is actual. And W0 is required to be a necessary being.
So P&F&S{G&I&E&C&X(W0)} = 1, we have a best explanation candidate with no serious alternatives in sight. Also, intelligent, choosing action to create a world is a critical sign of personhood.
We see here, the God of generic ethical theism: inherently good, utterly wise, creator, a necessary and maximally great being. Is there a serious alternative for W0, I think not.
PPS: A second Appendix,
Here, I speak to foundations of logic based on another WA comment, responding to ideological manipulations of law and government.
********
Here, we see the disorder caused by denying 1 Cor 14:7 ff first principles of right reason, under false colours of rights and freedoms; also, the Isa 5:20 ff iniquitous darkness for light moral inversion. This then leads to warped law and misgovernment. (Accordingly, we need to restore the Rom 2:24 - 15 vision of the natural, creation order, conscience witnessed built in law and moral government, also the Rom 1:19 - 24 associated built in awareness of God that triggers itself as we reflect on the world around us and on our conscience guided responsibly rational interior lives.
Of course, I am highlighting scriptural endorsement of first core principles of right reason and linked core first duties, I am not just reeling off a few Bible verses to impose on an allegedly gullible religious-minded part of the public. Ironically, in Rom 1, 2, 13 it is made clear that first duties are self evident, and in 1 Cor 14:7 ff, it is clear that first principles of reason are so self-referential that the attempt to deny or dismiss them is just as instantly self-defeating and absurd. But, that does not prevent the mystery of iniquity from seizing domination of our hearts, lives, societies and dominant -- "seven mountain" -- institutions.
Let us start with Isa 5, on the mystery of iniquity in apostate cultures:
<<Isa 5: 20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!
22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
and valiant men in mixing strong drink,
23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
and deprive the innocent of his right!
24 Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours the stubble,
and as dry grass sinks down in the flame,
so their root will be as rottenness,
and their blossom go up like dust;
for they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts,
and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. >>
This mystery is clearly at work in the perverted order that cultural marxists and fellow travellers would impose, which needs to be turned back. A key insight comes from the duties to fairness and to justice, due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. For, we cannot justly claim a right unless we are in the right on the matter, we cannot justly impose on others that they taint conscience by lying that a man can become a woman or that he can truly marry another man; whatever has been imposed under colour of law.
Similarly, let us ponder the principle of distinct identity that is at work here in the difference between and complementarity of our two sexes.
<<1 Cor 14:7 If even lifeless instruments
[--> basis case, the simple one readily admitted by all],
such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves
[--> a fortiori, just as much so, for us as living, rational, communicating, language using creatures],
if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. >>
Here, Paul endorses and uses the principle or law of distinct identity in the context of communicating or reflecting on meaning and intelligibility. A is itself, A in light of its core characteristics that stand it apart from anything else. Consider some A . . . try, a bright red ball or apple on a table . . . in the world, W, so we recognise the difference between A and the rest of the world, what is not a [~A]:
W = {A | ~A}
Clearly, A = A, marked out by its core characteristics [e.g. bright + red + ball (or, apple)]
Compare:
 |
| Notice, the distinct differences: ball, cricket ball, shadow of the ball [so, the Sun], the bat, its handle, the hand holding the bat, the sky behind. And, the way we use language here |
This is the law of distinct identity, which embeds two-ness in any possible world Wk, including our own. A is a 1, ~A is another 1 (here, complex unity, everything else in the world), and of course the pipe character shows the sharp partition, which is empty, 0. Yes, first Mathematics lurks here, and we can repeat the succession, 0,1,2,3 . . . n . . . and see how infinity is just next door in any possible world. This set, the natural counting numbers, N, then brings in integers Z, Rationals Q, reals R, Complex numbers C and hyperreals R*, thus core mathematics. Yes, mathematics is embedded in the heart of reality and only a fool would try to deny it. (A favourite skeptical tactic is to respond to P => Q, by denying Q to reject P [destroying the ability to credibly know P], cannot be done here.)
It goes beyond, as 2-ness is necessary and framework to any Wk. Try to imagine some distinct world Wk, where 2 does not exist, or begins to exist, or can cease from existence. Absurdly impossible. But this means, there are necessary beings or entities, and that these are inherently eternal. Also, for every contingent world Wk that credibly has a beginning, there is a root world W0 that is necessary and eternal. If a world W now is, something, the root of reality W0, always was. (And once we see how our world is fine tuned for Carbon Chemistry, aqueous medium, terrestrial planet cell based life, and that we as morally governed creatures are part of such life, we can see good reason to argue that there is no other plausible explanation than that reality's root is the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of our fealty and of our rational, responsible service in light of our morally governed nature. Yes, much lurks in those few verses! A much that is largely overlooked in haste to jump in on one side or another of debates over spiritual gifts. For shame!)
We can extend the law of distinct identity to two other corollaries, non contradiction (which maybe should be non confusion!) and excluded middle (the pipe is empty). Recall:
LOI: W = {A|~A}, where A = A, i/l/o its distinct characteristics, so too,
LNC: no x in W can be A and ~A in the same sense and circumstances:
LEM: any y in W will be A or else ~A, not both or neither.
Once, we have distinct identity, these instantly apply. Basic math, e.g. 2 + 3 = 5, is a classic, core, undeniable, undeniably universally holding case in point: II + III --> IIIII. Something hyperskeptics who love to dress in the holy lab coat would do well to bear in mind. Yes, even to do the math of say Quantum physics, often dragged in in attempts to dismiss these laws.
So, Paul rightly endorsed these laws and applied them to intelligible meaning, communication, knowledge, enlightenment that builds others up.
Bonus, he also used a fortiori reasoning, showing us a powerful and persuasive principle of reasoning. Do we dare say, that if 2 is a necessary eternal being, how much moreso, God, the root of reality and creator of worlds?
Where too, if we are inescapably governed by first duties to truth, right reason, warrant (and wider prudence), sound conscience, neighbour, so too fairness and justice, is that not a strong sign that we and our world are the creation of the eternal, inherently good, utterly wise God?
 |
In which light, is it not folly and darkness in place of light iniquity to reject that:
<<Matt 19: 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [--> and this is naturally evident, anchored in creation order that scripture accurately reports] 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” [ --. and just as much so, nor should we pretend that we can join what is not joined by God in the one flesh union of man and wife]>>
And so forth . . .
PPPS: March 17/18 2025, let us add from WA another addendum, an excerpt that clarifies vantage points, possible worlds speak and modal logic/language/symbolism:
[[Benthem on modal logic:
<<Sec 2.2 . . . . Definition 2.2.1 (Possible worlds models). 6 A possible worlds model is a triple M = (W, R, V) of a non—empty set of possible worlds W, a binary accessibility relation R between worlds, and a valuation map V assigning truth values V(p,s) in {0,1} to proposition letters p at worlds s.7 Often, one works with pointed models (M, s) having one distinguished “current world” s serving as the “vantage point”.
There are many interpretations for “possible worlds” s, ranging from metaphysical worlds g to worlds in science-fiction, states of a computer, board positions in chess, or deals in a card game. [--> apply a fortiori to see these as yardstick cases, so we readily recognise: and the like] With such interpre-tations, the accessibility relation R can be universal (every world is accessible to every other), or constrained to game states reachable by later play, epistemic states constrained by what agents can see, points in space with their neighbours, etcetera. A particularly helpful geomet-rical interpretation is in machine diagrams or process graphs, where modal formulas describe possible evolutions starting from the current state of the process, with accessibility arrows for possible transitions.
Remark (Poly-modal languages). Transitions in process graphs are often labeled with action types or events, so that we can have dif-ferent accessibility relations Ra, and corresponding labeled modalities (a), [a], (b), [b], etc. [Modal Logic for Open Minds, Johan von Benthem, 2010, Center for the Study of Language and Information]>>
That seems to be quite interesting.]]
I remark onward:
[[The above, first supports the flexible approach I have taken to possible worlds, and particularly, scenario based planning and analysis. Further, the concept that a mathematical axiomatised system or model lays out a logic model world (including computational simulations) allows the concept to be applied there. Necessary entities identified thusly apply to all worlds, on the principle that a NB/E is part of the fabric for a world to potentially/actually exist. In particular, the identification of 2, 1, 0 as present in any distinct possible world and the von Neumann construction from { } --> 0 to N, then allows NZQRCR* etc to be seen as necessary, world framework structure and quantity. Also, modality applies generally and flexibly, i.e. box and diamond or any other reasonable symbols allow representation of various forms of modality in logic. Thus, my modal analysis here as seen Dec 15 last https://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2024/12/can-we-be-warranted-to-believe-gospel.html Notice, how this leads to characterisation of God as [serious candidate] necessary worlds root being, given ourselves as rational, responsible, morally governed, significantly free, contingent creatures. And so forth.]]
