Philosophy

Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy.

Philosophy Definition

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic). The word itself is of Greek origin: (philosophía), a compound of (phílos: friend, or lover) and (sophía: wisdom). Though no single definition of philosophy is uncontroversial, and the field has historically expanded and changed depending upon what kinds of questions were interesting or relevant in a given era, it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined assumptions (except for the assumption that there exists a reasonable explanation to something) and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy.

Different philosophers have had varied ideas about the nature of reason, and there is also disagreement about the subject matter of philosophy. Some think that philosophy examines the process of inquiry itself. Others, that there are essentially philosophical propositions which it is the task of philosophy to prove.

Presupposing Presuppositions, Logical Logic, Reasons for Reason, and Rationale for Rationality

Presuppositional Apologetics vs. Classical Apologetics

A presupposition is a position held that assumes something to be true before investigations are complete to prove that it is true. It is a form of "circular logic" as opposed to "linear logic". For example, if you ask evolutionist paleontologists how they determine fossil ages, they will refer to the age of the layer they are found. If you then ask them how they determine the age of that layer, they will refer to the age of the fossils that are found in it. This type of circular argument leads to what is referred to as infinite regress, where the proof is dependent on claims that are assumed by something else to be true. To examine the universe with an assumption that God exists, or an assumption that God does not exist, without first testing for the existence or non-existence of God, will lead to subsequent conclusions based on that assumption. Philosophical systems of thought should not be predicated on leaps of faith or assumptions of any kind, other than, of course, the assumption that we are being rational in our philosophical investigations. However, it should be understood that some presuppositions of logic are required if we want to make any rational sense of anything; The presuppositions of reason, of non-contradiction, and of causality are all necessary presuppositions to make sense of anything. But I hope to dispel the notion that we are presupposing anything else before we examine it, and will labor to avoid any philosophical system of presuppositional apologetics. To presuppose that God exists or does not exist is to be biased before we can examine the universe objectively. I will be using classical apologetics as my method of inquiry and will address this later as I get into an examination of possible origins of the universe.

Philosophical Presuppositions: Reason, Non-Contradiction, and Causality

Even though it is generally encouraged in philosophical discussions to avoid presupposing anything with unexamined assumptions, it should be understood that some presuppositions of logic are necessary if we want to make sense of anything. I would like to briefly look at three such philosophical premises: "The Law of Reason", "The Law of Non-Contradiction" and "The Law of Causality".

The Law of Reason
This law of logic states that to reason at all, we must first presuppose or assume that there exists a rational and reasonable explanation for something that satisfies our quest for reality. If our goal is to investigate anything from a viewpoint of reason, then we must already presuppose that there exists a reasonable way of thinking about it that results in a resolution. To flee from reason is to embrace randomness. If everything were totally and ultimately random and unpredictable, with no reasons involved, chaos and confusion would ensue, and we would never ask why about anything. Since we do ask the question why, we must, therefore, at least assume or presuppose that there is a reason and that there is a rational explanation to our query. So if we value truth, then we must presuppose that a truth that can be understood exists and that logic and reasoning are a valid paths to understanding that truth. If we cannot use reason as a tool for understanding truth, then there can be no reasonable truth. If we cannot reason about truth, then how could we ever test anything to be true or false in any reasonable manner? So, if anything is true in reality or if anything is false in non-reality, there must therefore be a necessary reason or cause for it. Note: One exception to something existing for a reason would be self-existence. It would not require a reason for existing because it would not be something that was caused. However, everything else in existence requires some external cause and, therefore, a reason for its existence. (See "The Law of Causality" below)
The Law of Non-Contradiction
This law of logic states that a statement or claim that contradicts itself cannot make any sense rationally. For example, nothing can be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. It states that nothing can be true and false at the same time and in the same relationship. To violate the Law of Non-Contradiction is to flee from rationality and violate reason itself. To summarize, a statement that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction is a statement that contradicts itself, thereby making absolutely no sense rationally! Reality and non-reality are the antithesis of one another, thereby giving their meanings the necessary inverse contrast needed to distinguish one from the other. Therefore, any philosophical argument that contradicts itself is a non-starter regarding any possible philosophical resolution and is considered nonsense.
The Law of Causality
This law of logic states that every effect must have an antecedent cause. This law is defined as a formal and analytical truth. Uncaused effects are not recognized as valid philosophical reasoning because you cannot have a cause without an effect or an effect without a cause without violating the law of non-contradiction. For example, the idea of self-creation violates both the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Causality because it declares that something exists and doesn't exist, and that something is caused and is not caused. In the past, some brilliant philosophers, in their unfortunate misuse of language, have erroneously declared that the Law of Causality states that everything must have a cause; therefore, God must also have a cause. The problem with this statement is that the Law of Causality never states that everything must have a cause, but rather that every effect must have a cause. So if God exists, He is not an effect; He is uncaused. Thus, He does not require a cause. Therefore, infinite regress does not occur. Self creation is a logical impossibility—Self existence isn't!

Mystery and Paradox

It should be understood that a Mystery or a Paradox is not the same as a Contradiction. Neither a mystery nor a paradox violates any philosophical laws of reason, nor are they self-contradictory. A mystery is something that has a valid and rational explanation, but is not yet explainable due to the lack of data or understanding. A paradox is something that seems self-contradictory or absurd, but in reality expresses a possible truth in a way that can create circular logic.

Erroneous Conclusions Based on Unproven Assumptions

We should never make assumptions without first considering and examining ALL of the evidence and possibilities rationally. Our five senses are amazing and can give us some assurances of the reality in which we live, but are limited in scope in assuring us of absolute reality in the bigger picture. What we experience personally is not always an authoritative reason to make a conclusion or an assumption that it is the truth. The truth can be much more profound than what we can experience or observe with our mere mortal senses or simple reasoning. On the other hand, there is some truth that can be understood using simple logic or experience as our guide. One of the primary goals of philosophy is to reveal and understand the truth about something. If our reasoning methodology is based on incomplete data and/or unproven assumptions, our conclusions may be in error. Some truths may be purposely hidden from us for a time, but I believe that there is enough truth revealed to us as to satisfy our rational curiosity about the universe and ourselves.

To Tell The Truth

Truth (Part I)—Relative or Absolute?

It is argued by some that truth is only relative and not absolute in accounting for what reality is. (Relativism) Those who are persuaded in the "relative" position regarding truth would argue that there is no absolute truth when accounting for reality. In other words, they would argue that truth can be different for one person than for another. It is a philosophical system of belief that nothing is or can be absolute and that everything is only relative to one's perspective of reality.

If you were to ask someone who prescribes to the view that there is no absolute truth, if this is absolutely true, then they would have to respond by either saying no (contradicting themselves) demonstrating that they are not absolutely sure that there are no absolutes, or they would have to answer yes (contradicting themselves) by declaring that the nonexistence of absolute truth is absolute. Either way, it's nonsense (violating the law of non-contradiction), which lends no solution to any real reasoning simply because the very premise of no absolutes is a self-destructive argument!

Truth (Part II)—Absolutely No Absolutes?—A Verbal Contradiction

If truth is only relative and not absolute, then the truth of this philosophy is not absolute and therefore subject to suspicion. Therefore, absolute truth is indeed possible, since relative truth cannot be absolute. But how can there be absolute truth if nothing is absolute? And how can there be a relative truth absolutely, if nothing is absolute? So, if nothing is absolute, then there can be no relative or absolute truth absolutely. But if nothing is absolute, then this cannot be true either because nothing is absolute! As you can see, a philosophy of relative truth stops us cold in our reasoning at all. Nothing creative or constructive regarding intellectual debate regarding reality can ever be accomplished with a relative-truth mindset. What would be the point of engaging in any debate without absolutes?

Truth (Part III)—Is Relative Truth Absolute?—Another Verbal Contradiction

In reality, a philosophy of relative truth is a philosophy of self-contradiction. To reason that relative truth is absolute is a contradiction in terms and therefore an argument against itself. Something cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same relationship, as this violates the philosophical Law of Non-Contradiction, as explained earlier. If truth is defined as something that may or may not be, then the word truth has been stripped of any meaning or relevancy in even using the word to describe anything that is, or is not, reality. If truth is absolute, then falsification is absolute. Something is either true or false, but not both at the same time and in the same relationship. If something is true, then it cannot be false; If something is false, then it cannot be true. Otherwise, these words have no meaning, or an inverse relationship with one another, and again, debating anything would be a fool's game without absolutes. Promoting the idea that something can be both true and false at the same time and in the same relationship is to violate the philosophical law of non-contradiction and reason. Stating that truth is not necessarily reality is the same as stating that reality is not necessarily reality, and again, would be a self-contradictory statement. So, accepting that truth and error are absolute and the antithesis of each other, we can continue to reason together with meaning and purpose.

Truth (Part IV)—Should Truth Ever Be Validated By Majority Opinion?

How many times do we hear someone say that a majority opinion "must" be the correct view of any given truth claim? It's very tempting to adopt an opinion of the majority in any peer group because to reject the majority opinion on a given subject is to submit ourselves to scrutiny from the majority. Gang mentality is very difficult to combat. Out of a hundred people, if ninety-nine people hold to a truth claim and one person objects, usually that one person will be considered an arrogant extremist, not worthy of making a valid argument against what everyone else considers to be the truth. This can be very dangerous, especially if that one person is actually correct! Truth should never be validated by what "most" people believe to be true on a given topic. Majorities have been wrong in the past, especially when majorities have shared in the same biases, assumptions, and presuppositions that are part of some traditional way of looking at something. The majority opinion on any given subject can certainly be a useful thing, but should NEVER be the litmus test of absolute truth. A democracy can certainly be based on truth, but the truth should never be based on a democracy!

What Jesus Says About Truth

Jesus declares in John 8:32 (NIV) that "the truth will set you free", which suggests that without truth, we are not free. We have to be willing to accept truth to be free, or perhaps we must be made free to accept truth! Jesus exclusively declares in John 14:6 (NIV), "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." If Jesus was telling us the truth here, then He is the ONLY way to the Father and to salvation - not Islam, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, and certainly not Atheism. If Jesus was telling us an untruth, then He cannot possibly be The Way at all, since He would have been telling us a lie. Truth sets us free, and being free enables us to understand truth. This may be considered a paradox or circular logic, but it seems to be the case either way. I think Jesus simply meant that because He is "the truth", He can "set us free"!

Here's Thinking of You

I Think I Can Think, I Think

Some may find it a little unsettling to have someone else make suggestions on how to properly think. After all, what could be simpler than thinking, and why should someone else tell us how to do it? But let me point out that reckless thought or self-seeking logic can be devastating to anyone honestly seeking truth or eliminating error in their quest to discover reality. We all get philosophical at times, whether we realize it or not, and are capable of some degree of independent thought. However, this does not mean that we are all good philosophers. Sometimes, it is good to get some direction in organized thinking, lest we become overly biased in our own subjective opinions without considering the bigger picture. I would never want to be accused of telling anyone what to think. However, I feel no guilt about suggesting how to think in a manner consistent with true philosophical systems of reason and rationality. If truth is absolute, then our system of reason should be rational in pursuing the truth. If truth is only "relative", then any system of rational thought would be without rules, leading to reckless, self-serving, and meaningless conclusions!

"Free Thinkers" Are Not As Free In Their Thinking As They Think

Some have declared themselves as being Free Thinkers because they have rebuked theological viewpoints regarding the nature and origins of the universe or have formed their opinions based on reason, independent of authority or tradition. The problem arises, however, when considering what bias or presuppositions our reasoning is tainted with. Can any of us truly be free in our thinking, without all of the presuppositions and biases that have been installed in us by our circumstances, acquaintances, media exposure, institutional teachings, traditions, and last but not least, pride? We cannot be totally free in our thinking if we are not totally free in our being.

We have many limitations and obstacles to being free in our thought processes. Unfortunately, we are more biased than we would like to admit, so being free in our rationale is more about wishful thinking than reality, unless we have been made free through the power of God's provision of grace. Some of our presuppositions and biases can be put in check if we can be honest and careful in our thinking, especially if we are willing to admit that perhaps we have been wrong in assuming certain things that we have believed in the past. Plato and Socrates understood this as well and spent their lives trying to liberate themselves from personal bias using systems of logic and rationality. I believe that Christians have an advantage here because the power of God's Spirit reveals truth to His subjects, transcendent to any system of mere human logic that attempts to deduce truth. God's Spirit has a way of divorcing us from our former way of thinking to a new way of thinking that is more honest and unbiased. As stated earlier, Jesus declares in John 8:32 (NIV) that "the truth will set you free", and in John 14:6 (NIV) "I am the way and the truth". Therefore, the only way to be free in our thinking is to "be made free in Christ". "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed". John 8:36 (NIV)

Re-examine Your Thinking And Why You Believe What You Believe

Logic, by means of abstract or deductive reasoning, will never solve all the mysteries of the universe, but it can be very beneficial, at least, in eliminating some of the common misconceptions about certain ideas that we have maintained and taken for granted, with closer examination. At some point in our lives, I think it is prudent to re-examine what we believe about anything and rediscover why we believe it. It is reassuring to know that our coveted conclusions about truth can be proved out rationally, whether its source is Scriptural, truly scientific, etc., instead of being based on what someone else, smarter than us, told us is truth according to their presuppositions and bias. Question and test everything, including what I am writing!!