FORMAL LOGIC -- Justifying that Initial Premises are TRUE

[Stephen3141]

I propose a thread that will discuss ways to "justify" (the philosophical term)
that the initial premises used in an argument, are TRUE.

I propose this subject, because ...

1 Most of what I would call errors in arguments used by Christian
involve differences in basic definitions (premises).

2 The way in which we try to justify our initial premises, often
include appeals to authorities. What authorities we are appealing
to, is often left out of the arguments.

3 The anti-intellectual Christian traditions appeal to VERY different methods
of identifying authorities, than the Christian groups that are assuming that
formal reasoning methods are part of our shared reality (and so should be
used in Christian apologetics.

4 In Christian apologetics, we should try to explain WHY Christians hold
certain premises, in their arguments. This is part of explaining the
Christian faith.


I think that this topic would be VERY interesting, and reveal VERY different
approaches to dealing with the topic of truth, among different Christian
groups.

 

[Stephen3141]

So, why would a Christian want to justify (the philosophical term) the truth of their initial premises,
in an argument? (These reasons, are why I am writing this thread.)

1 Premises that are UNSOUND (read, not TRUE), that are used in an argument,
yield an argument that is UNSOUND. Do you want to create UNSOUND arguments?

2 Believing some proposition, or asserting some proposition, does not make
it TRUE. There are tested methods of examining personal beliefs and personal
opinions, to "justify" them as TRUE. (Protestant Fundamentalists often use the
terminology of "relative truth" for merely personal beliefs and opinions, and use
"absolute truth" for what they accept as universal truths.

If we do not use universal truths, in our premises of an argument, then the
Conclusion we reach cannot be SOUND.

3 Formal logic (the 20 Rules of inference and the Quantification Rules)
are meant to PRESERVE TRUTH that exists in the premises. If there is a
lack of truth in the premises of an argument, then even if we use valid
logical operations in the argument, the Conclusion reached will be
UNSOUND.

Remember, formal logic does not create truth.
Formal logic preserves truth that already exists (if it does) in the premises.

4 The Christian faith (in the sense of "the faith once for all delivered
to the saints") is a body of truths. If we want to create arguments (this
is a christian apologetics site) that are Christian, then we have to include
orthodox Christian truths in the premises of an argument.

5 Remember, formal logic can represent both PROPOSITIONS (statements
about something), and RELATIONSHIPS (specifically the relationship of
LOGICAL CAUSALITY (read, entailment, causality, material implication).

Note that TESTING the truth of initial premises, involves BOTH testing the
truthfulness of assertion, AND the relationship between assertions.

6 NOTE: Christian definitions must be used in premises.
NOTE: Christian relationships must be used in premises.

7. NOTE: The concept of "evidence" in a fair rule of law (such as the American
judicial system), is very strict. What is allowed into a court trial as "evidence"
cannot be hearsay, or speculation. A supposed "explanation" of the cause
of something, is NOT evidence. This is why most conspiracy theories are
NOT based on what the courts would call evidence.

8. NOTE: The error called "False Disjunction" is based on a false definition
of a problem space (what options there are, that are relevant). You can
view this as an error in the basic definitions in initial Premises.

This is an error common in the younger generations of Americans, who often think that
there are only a few possible motives/intentions that a person can have for doing
some action: and those motives must involve race, sex, ethnicity, or economic
class. Actually, there are thousands of motivations/intentions that a person may
have, when committing an action.


This means, for example, that if we talk about "God" in an argument, we must
use the orthodox Christian definition of "God".
This means, for example, if we talk about how we are "saved", we are talking
about a relationship between the fulfilled requirements for being "saved"
CAUSING (material implication) us to be in a state of being "saved".
<requirements...> ==> saved

Informally, there are many sorts of errors that occur in initial premises...

a. Definitions that are not Christian
result in Conclusions that are not Christian

b. Relationships between propositions that are not Christian,
result in Conclusions that are not Christian.
These are errors in what we think "causes" what.
Example: "I think that I'm a good person" ==> "I am a good person"
(“==>” indicates logical causality)


Note that horrendous errors that are common among people who believe
conspiracy theories, involve both "fake" facts, and "fake" causalities.

c. Including premises that are not relevant to proving the Conclusion

d. Not including premises that ARE relevant to proving a Conclusion.
---------- ----------

WARNING!

On the surface, the topic of this thread sounds pretty boring and benign.
But actually, getting into HOW we justify that a proposition or relationship
is TRUE, gets into really politically incorrect discussions about very
politically incorrect subjects.

Please keep in mind, that these may be very difficult topics for some people.

 

[Stephen3141]

Note the references that I may refer to is this thread:

[Epistemology]. Epistemology: a contemporary Introduction, Goldman and McGrath,
Oxford University Press, 2015

[Epistemology, Wood] Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous, W. Jay Wood,
IVP Academic, 1998.

[BDAG]. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, Third Edition, revised and edited by Frederick
William Danker, based on a reference book by Walter Bauer. 2000

Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction by Alvin I. and Matthew McGrath Goldman - Paperback - First printing - 2015 - from Common Crow Books (SKU: B60808)

New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. First printing . Paperback. Near fine. Printed paper wraps, octavo, not illustrated. Book has mild shelfwear to wraps, binding tight, text clean bright and unmarked.

www.biblio.com

EPISTEMOLOGY: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous by W. Jay Wood - Paperback - from Russ States (SKU: 10-1157)

Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic (1998), 216pp, light shelfwear to cover.. Trade Paperback. Very Good +/No Jacket.

www.biblio.com

On the Incarnation (Greek Original & English)|Paperback

Popular Patristics Series Volume 44A"When I first opened his De Incarnatione I soon discovered I was reading a masterpiece... for only a master mind could have written so deeply on a subject with such classical simplicity." -C.S. Lewis, from the IntroductionBy any...

www.barnesandnoble.com

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature / Edition 3|Hardcover

Note that there is little difference between the Third Edition of [BDAG] and the Second Edition,
which is much cheaper, and on biblio.com.

I include the tract by Athansios "On the Incarnation of the Son of God" because it is
difficult to find. And, because many people who say "I don't believe in the Church
Fathers" regularly quote phrases used by Athanasios.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You're provided a great deal of structure about *why* people should justify their premises, but so far not much on the initial promise to "discuss ways to "justify"" them. *How* to justify premises. Perhaps you're working up to that.

Perhaps it would be helpful, to get discussion going, if you could give examples of premises you accept, and how you justify them.

Or, failing that, you could show how you would justify (or not) a premise like:

All men are mortal.

 

[Stephen3141]

Some Interesting Quotes...

For Christians, who are interested in Apologetics, you may want to read some basic
material by modern philosophers, as to what they think truth is, and how they think
you should establish that a proposition is true.
---------- ----------

Here are some interesting quotes from a book on Epistemology from Oxford University. It was published in 2015.
I think that these quotes lay out respectable statements about Epistemology.

“Here are some points of widespread agreement. First, knowledge implies truth; you cannot
know that P unless P is true.” [Epistemology, 5]

“The idea that knowledge is not merely true belief goes back at least to Plato’s dialogues.”

[Epistemology, 55]

About group voting about what is true...
If each person in a democracy has > 50% chance of picking the right answer, then the group vote will tend toward 100% accuracy, as the group gets larger. [Epistemology 237]

If each person in a democracy has < 50% chance of picking the right answer, then the group vote will tend toward 0% accuracy, as the group gets larger. [Epistemology 239]

Note that when discussing a single topic, there are often many different conclusions/answers that someone could pick. So, if a person randomly picks an answer, then the probability that that answer will be right, is far less than 50%. [Stephen]

“Epistemology is the study of knowledge and the related phenomena such as thought, reasoning, and the pursuit of understanding. [Epistemology, 3]

“Can one ascertain the truth by just reaching out grasping some facts? It isn’t clear how one does that.” [Epistemology, 4]

“Belief beings to a family of psychological attitudes directed at propositions.” [Epistemology, 4] Others are disbelief and agnosticism.

Truth and justification are not necessarily the same thing. [Epistemology, 5]

The Regress Problem: how do we see our beliefs, offering support to other beliefs we hold? [Epistemology, 7]

Foundationalism: a view of beliefs that says that some beliefs are basic, and self-justifying. [Epistemology, 7-8]

“Coherentism depicts a body of justified beliefs as a holistic system whose parts mutually support one another.” [Epistemology, 10]

Coherentism doesn’t guarantee that conclusions are true. [Epistemology, 37] What is required to have a belief “justified”? [Epistemology, 13]

“Belief per se should not be considered an evidential state; only justified belief deserves to be counted as evidence.” [Epistemology, 28]

An attempt to define “evidence”. [Epistemology, 32]

“It is crucial that the belief-forming process used be of an appropriate or suitable kind. Which belief-forming processes are suitable and which are unsuitable?” [Epistemology, 33]

“If one starts with justified beliefs in the premises and applies a valid reasoning process to it, the output of the reasoning process will also be justified.” [Epistemology, 33]
(This is the basis of the concepts of “logically sound” and “logically valid” in formal logic.)

“The term perceptual experience isn’t part of common parlance, but it is connected to talk of how things look, sound, feel, and so forth. When we have a visual experience, things look certain ways to us; when we have an auditory experience, things sound certain ways to us, and so forth. The ‘ways’ things look, feel, sound, correspond to the properties present to us when we undergo these experiences.” [Epistemology, 132]

*** There have been different levels of belief, with regard to a hypothetical situation, among different ethnic groups. [Epistemology, 192]

Different people may evaluate the same evidence differently, because they have different mental models. [Epistemology, 192]

People may evaluate the same evidence differently, because they are evaluating it with regard to different propositions. [Epistemology, 192]

We need some way to calibrate out intuition. ‘[Epistemology, 189]

Calling a method scientific, doesn’t make it so. [Epistemology, 190]

“Historically, science has overthrown many common sense beliefs that had seemed so secure that as to be immune from critical scrutiny.” [Epistemology, 193]

Hume thinks that we can infer whether testimony is reliable. [Epistemology, 208] If we can’t how can we evaluate testimony in a court of law?

I consider the theories of social epistemology to be mainly B.S. [Stephen] “Knowledge can be acquire by listening to the words of others.” [Epistemology, 207]

The meaning of not giving testimony (being silent) depends on the surrounding social system. [Epistemology, 212]

What about people who claim to be experts? Is their testimony worth more? [Epistemology, 214]

* There are negative trends in deliberation in democracies. [Epistemology, 239]

Group voting accuracy goes way up, when the weight of accurate voters is increased. [Epistemology, 240]

The idea of “followers” and “mavericks”. [Epistemology, 243]

Adding 10% of mavericks to a population of followers, increased success by 214%. [Epistemology, 244]

In a group seeking solutions, “diversity trumps ability.” [Epistemology, 245]

Note that the definition of “diversity” here is not Barack Obama’s “non-white-male” definition.
I don’t like the process of probabilistic epistemology. [Epistemology, 251] Stephen

[Epistemology] Epistemology: A Modern Introduction, Alvin I. Goldman and Matthew McGrath, 2015, Oxford University Press.

 

[Stephen3141]

You're provided a great deal of structure about *why* people should justify their premises, but so far not much on the initial promise to "discuss ways to "justify"" them. *How* to justify premises. Perhaps you're working up to that.

Perhaps it would be helpful, to get discussion going, if you could give examples of premises you accept, and how you justify them.

Or, failing that, you could show how you would justify (or not) a premise like:

All men are mortal.

I'm working up to that.

 

[Stephen3141]

From the initial quotes from McGrath on Epistemology, it should be clear that,
although many of the anti-intellectual Christian groups assert that they do
not engage in thinking about these "philosophical" topics, in reality, they do.

The anti-intellectual Christian groups often bypass all the rigorous logical
methods of "test all things -- hold onto what is good", and jump right
to appealing to authorities that they trust. NOTE: These groups still try
to justify their assertions as TRUE, but their approach is often a direct
"Appeal to Authority" instead of a use of critical Bible study skills, and
logic.

I should say that it in no longer valid to think that it is (only) certain Christian
denominations that are anti-intellectual, as the younger American
generations have generally rejected formal logic. They substitute
personal emotions and group popularity for formal logic. This
confusion of emotions with logic, is also a silent type of "Appeal
to Authority". And so the topic of justifying that a personal belief
or opinion is TRUE, is also bypassed.

And, these questions of how to justify a proposition as TRUE, also
applies to non-Christians and Christians alike.

 

[timothyu]

When it comes to truth, the problem seems to lie in man's theology rather than what is blatantly obvious in scripture... that mankind is a screwup due to misuse of our self will, and refusal to follow God's will instead as He keeps asking us to do since the Garden. Another truth from God, not man, is written that one day He will return to take away control of man over man so our truths will mean nothing anyway. Our truths have done nothing but support the idea of a world built in our own image.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

 

[Stephen3141]

Quotes and Ideas from [Epistemology, Wood]

Note that when Wood uses the working “lend belief”, he is talking about some action or conclusion or method that suggests that a proposition is TRUE.

“It is clear, however, that not all of our beliefs are on a par; they do not enjoy the same status or possess the same credentials.” [Epistemology, Woods, 14]

“We would not hesitate to call some of our beliefs instances of knowledge, while other beliefs are of an inferior grade, meriting no status superior to highly confirmed belief, mere belief, hypothesis, considered opinion, conjecture or just plain hunch.” [Epistemology, Wood, 14]

“As the title suggests, this book introduces students to some of the central concerns of epistemology, while also recommending that these concerns be pushed by taking seriously our growth in the intellectual virtues.” [Epistemology, Wood, 7]

By the way, Wood considers intellectual virtues to include:

Wisdom
Understanding
Foresight
Love of truth
Attentiveness
Circumspection
Creativity
Teachableness

Wood considers the intellectual vices to include:
Gullibility
Willful naïveté
Close-mindedness
Intellectual dishonesty

Wood considers that the growth in virtues, is NOT automatic. [Epistemology, Wood, 20]

Wood considers that the growth of what we commonly consider to be moral virtues, and the growth of the intellectual virtues, must go together. [Epistemology, Wood, 20]

“There is nothing new, of course, about approaching epistemological concerns with matters of intellectual virtue and vice uppermost in mind; indeed, this approach was once the staple of Judeo-Christian as well as ancient Greek ways of thinking.” [Epistemology, Wood, 8]

Epistemological questions arise when … “The short answer is almost anytime we stop to ask ourselves such questions as how we acquire our beliefs, whether what we or others believe is true, whether we believe rationally, or whether we ought to reconsider beliefs that have been criticized.” [Epistemology, Wood, 10]

“In Western academic philosophy religious belief is commonly regarded as unreasonable and is viewed with condescension or even contempt. It is said that religion is a refuge for those who, because of weakness of intellect and character, are unable to confront the stern realities of the world.” [Epistemology, Wood, 12]

“…behind many objections to religious beliefs…” are epistemological beliefs that state basically, that God cannot be experienced. [Epistemology, Wood, 12]

There are different schools of thinking, regarding how we should/could justify a belief, as TRUE.

————— —————

Strong Foundationalists: severely restrict what can count as a basic belief, what kind of support it lends to to the other beliefs that we hold, and the manner in which this support is communicated to nonbasic beliefs. [Epistemology, Wood, 85]

————— —————

Weak Foundationalists: “…weak foundationaglists (also called ‘soft’, ‘modest’, ‘minimal’, and ‘mitigated’ foundationaglists) have good reasons for relaxing the standards of proper basically and expanding the way in which basic beliefs lend support to nonbasic beliefs.” [Epistemology, Wood, 85]

“First a belief is properly basic if it is self-evidently true.” [Epistemology, Wood, 85]

“A basic belief must be evident to the senses.” [Epistemology, Wood, 86]

————— —————

“… entailment is the only logical relationship that preserves certainty.” {Epistemology, Wood, 87]

**** The above quote, is why formal logic is so important. Its core relationship is that of entailment (logical causality, material implication).

“Almost everyone believes in the reliability of of one’s senses and memory and consciousness.” [Epistemology, Wood, 89]

Note that the above quote, is perhaps why the Bible presents our shared reality as what we can perceive with our senses, and what we can deduce through reason.

Thomas Reid: the Scottish commonsense philosopher. [Epistemology, Wood, 99]

 

[Stephen3141]

When it comes to truth, the problem seems to lie in man's theology rather than what is blatantly obvious in scripture... that mankind is a screwup due to misuse of our self will, and refusal to follow God's will instead as He keeps asking us to do since the Garden. Another truth from God, not man, is written that one day He will return to take away control of man over man so our truths will mean nothing anyway. Our truths have done nothing but support the idea of a world built in our own image.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

How do you get your theology?
How do you determine what is "blatantly obvious in Scripture"?

These are exactly types of topics in how to justify our beliefs/opinions.

Although knowledge and understanding that we gain in this life,
may not apply that much to the next life, STILL, gaining knowledge and
wisdom are activities that the Bible promotes. You should not ignore
these biblical commands, in this life.

 

[PloverWing]

I should say that it in no longer valid to think that it is certain Christian
denominations that are anti-intellectual, as the younger American
generations have generally rejected formal logic. They substitute
personal emotions and group popularity for formal logic.

Heh. Not the students in my theory of computing class. They did just fine on the symbolic logic proofs on their last exam, I'll have you know.

More to the point, I'm not comfortable saying that my generation had a great command of logical reasoning, while the younger generations have rejected logic. I'd prefer to say that across generations, people trained in mathematics and philosophy tend to have a good command of formal logic, and people without that training are less adept at logical proofs. It's a skill that one learns through practice. Some people value logic more, and practice it more.

If you have data, of course, saying that there are fewer math and philosophy majors now than there were in 1960, or 1900, or some similar metric, then I'll yield to the data.

 

[timothyu]

How do you get your theology?
How do you determine what is "blatantly obvious in Scripture"?

Because it simply says without need of interpretation, His will be done, not ours. As a result our lives are built upon trying to get around that.

STILL, gaining knowledge and
wisdom are activities that the Bible promotes.

Agreed but they refer to wisdom and Knowledge of God and his Kingdom, not the world we have made in our image.

 

[Stephen3141]

Heh. Not the students in my theory of computing class. They did just fine on the symbolic logic proofs on their last exam, I'll have you know.

More to the point, I'm not comfortable saying that my generation had a great command of logical reasoning, while the younger generations have rejected logic. I'd prefer to say that across generations, people trained in mathematics and philosophy tend to have a good command of formal logic, and people without that training are less adept at logical proofs. It's a skill that one learns through practice. Some people value logic more, and practice it more.

If you have data, of course, saying that there are fewer math and philosophy majors now than there were in 1960, or 1900, or some similar metric, then I'll yield to the data.

I disagree. Although I am speaking in generalities (because this topic is not really the
point of the thread), I think that the generality is true.

Those who take philosophy classes or classes in symbolic logic, are a minority.
I am speaking about the majority of younger generations in America.

And, STEM courses although they teach applied types of logic, do not teach
the ability to reason or form arguments about more primitive concepts, that
are upstream of applied logics. Such as Epistemology, Ontology, questions
about whatever may be "transcendent", and Moral Theory.

You may see a different slice of younger Americans than I do. But in general,
I see generations that have turned dark and skeptical about the abilities of
the intellect. This leads to a strange duality that is internally contradictory.
There is the appeal to some of the vocabulary of certainties ("truth"), but
in daily life, I see the huge effects of popular opinion and the volume of
what I would almost call informal propaganda, in social media. There is some
positivism toward the hard sciences, but very little ability to discuss rigorously
Moral Theory. There is a reticence to make assertions about virtues and vices
(In the historic definition of these concepts), yet a strong appeal to a fair rule
of law and "justice" which depend on very clear definitions of virtues and
vices. And parallel to this, there is a ME (Moral-ethical) system that asserts
very strongly that only certain views of morality-ethics are allowed to be
believed, or even seriously discussed. This is a sort of philosophical close-
mindedness (Wood calls this an intellectual vice) that does not fit with those
who may claim to be logical and open-minded.

Among Christians, I see an apathy toward doctrine, and catechism.
Christianity Today has mentioned this. It is as if the younger generations
cannot distinguish the need to talk about core truths, as apposed to
activities that they see as "religion".

I see a degradation of the knowledge of human language. And, the
corresponding inability for younger generations to express what they think,
or to understand great ideas that have appeared in history.

It is a strange generality. I have an M.S. in Computer Science, in Artificial
Intelligence. But I worked for a hardware engineering company and had
engineering PhD's as managers. And they had an abysmal understanding
of how logic is used in algorithm design, to produce modern software.
They were at least 20-30 years behind in software design. And they had
no use for rigorous thinking about philosophical primitives, such as
Epistemology. Their seemingly advanced use of logic in hardware engineering
was accompanied by an appalling lack of logic and knowledge outside of their
immediate degrees, and specialties. And this tended to cripple their thinking,
with regard to trying to solve new and complicated problems in their own
fields, using computer code to do it.

Regardless of an external sheen of "high tech" knowledge, I see a common
inability of modern Americans to handle formal logic, or to reason about
the beginning topics that philosophy addresses.

And, throw in the big acceptance of strange conspiracy theories that are
promoted by people such as Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones. These subcultures
have abandoned a sound logical foundation of evidence, and reason. In the
past there have always been fringe small groups that believed this sort of
gossip. But today, we have a large component of the Republican Party that
has seemingly abandoned all the historical rigor of Epistemology.

 

[Stephen3141]

Because it simply says without need of interpretation, His will be done, not ours. As a result our lives are built upon trying to get around that.


Agreed but they refer to wisdom and Knowledge of God and his Kingdom, not the world we have made in our image.

"His will be done" does not deal with the nature of our shared reality, which is the
point of this thread.

If you read the book of Exodus, God commands Moses to fined men who are skilled in the knowledge
and wisdom of what we would call "arts and crafts", to build the tabernacles and its furniture.
I think that you basically misunderstand the Bible's definition of knowledge and wisdom.

As in the preliminary quotes that I include from authors on epistemology, Christians have
heavily focused on our shared reality, that we perceive, as a ground of thinking. That is
why I include the reference to Reid, who is a Scottish realist, philosophically. Christianity
is grounded in this sort of practical concept of reality, and one of its main moral-ethical
commands is "You shall not bear false witness." This is the definition of lying, in Judaism
and Christianity. Bearing true witness, involves truthful representation of ALL of our
shared reality, not just a small slice that some denominations may associate with "the
Kingdom of God".

I will deal with topics of truth, and logic, and knowledge and wisdom as dealing with
ALL of our shared reality. I believe that this is the approach of Scripture. You are free to
disagree.

 

[PloverWing]

I disagree. Although I am speaking in generalities (because this topic is not really the
point of the thread), I think that the generality is true.

Those who take philosophy classes or classes in symbolic logic, are a minority.
I am speaking about the majority of younger generations in America.

I still think that those who took philosophy classes were in the minority in generations past, as well. But, as you say, this is a side issue.

From the initial post, it looks like you're going to present methods of justifying the initial premises of religious belief in general, and Christian belief in particular. I look forward to seeing the methods you propose.

 

[timothyu]

This is the definition of lying, in Judaism
and Christianity. Bearing true witness, involves truthful representation of ALL of our
shared reality, not just a small slice that some denominations may associate with "the
Kingdom of God".

The object is to get passed our shared reality. It is built upon the backwards premise of self.

 

[Stephen3141]

Going forward: This is a site for Christian apologetics. So I will come at the topic
of justifying initial premises, from a Christian point of view.

This will mean jumping ahead, from a philosophical point of view,
and not going through basic questions such as "Do I exist?"
or "Does this site exist?"

I will also skip over the philosophical debates about our perceptions,
and how accurate they are, and what they can perceive.

When I speak of a Christian point of view, or a Christian worldview,
what I mean is the picture of "reality" that the Bible presents.
---------- ----------
OUR SHARED REALITY

"Reality" is important, because what is "real", is True.
And we are talking about how to justify that initial premises are true.

Reality is important, in a Christian worldview, because what is in that
reality is what our senses can act on (or to, or in response to), and
what our mind can reason about.

Reality is important, in a Christian worldview, because it is the basis
of telling the truth, and lying. That is, if we accurately describe reality
then we are telling the truth, and if we bear false witness about reality,
then we are lying. This is the Jewish and Christian definition of lying.

Lying is important in a Christian worldview, because lying is a sin in
both Judaism and Christianity, and in a Christian worldview, persistent
lying will mean THAT WE CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, 9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, 10 the unchaste, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 1 Ti 1:8–11.

5 Every word of God is tested;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Add nothing to his words,
lest he reprimand you, and you be proved a liar.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Pr 30:5–6.

30 I myself know his arrogance—oracle of the Lord—
liar in word, liar in deed.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Je 48:30.

19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, 21 occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Ga 5:18–21.

25 During the day its gates will never be shut, and there will be no night there. 26 The treasure and wealth of the nations will be brought there, 27 but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any[one] who does abominable things or tells lies.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Re 21:25–27.

These verses give something of a sense of how bad lying is.
But we should remember that lying, is misrepresenting reality.
And here, we see that God's moral-ethical (ME) code is based in our reality.
---------- ----------

*** We can ask, "Whose reality is the one that determines whether
someone is lying, or not?"

But the Bible presents reality as unified.
There is one reality.
This is what I am calling "our shared reality".
Because, on this foundation, God defines what lying is.

What this means for Christians using logic,
is that initial premises must accurately represent our shared reality.
That is, we must not lie in our premises.
We must no add false premises, to make a proof work.
We must accurately define terms that we use in a proof.
We must add all relevant premises, in a proof.
---------- ----------

Our Shared Reality at least includes...

-- Our physical universe and biological life
-- valid reasoning methods
-- The basic ways in which human beings perceive with their senses
-- Human language, spoken and written
-- The conscience, and a knowledge of right and wrong
-- Written history
-- Oral history
-- abstract concepts
...

Note that what the biblical authors hold us morally-ethically responsible for,
is all part of our shared reality.

Note that the hard sciences also accept "what works" with regard to
the physical universe.
---------- ----------

Note that as the Bible presents our shared reality...

-- Each of us inhabits a different location in that reality
-- Each of us has certain perceptions that are accessible
-- Some perceptions of this reality are accessible to all
-- Some of these perceptions can be found out by an individual
human being, if they search carefully
-- Whether or not we reason about, or reason properly about,
our perceptions of this shared reality, creates a number of
different topics or logical cases.

But note that God holds us morally-ethically RESPONSIBLE for
perceiving certain things from this reality, and applying our mind
in certain sound ways of thinking about these perceptions.
---------- ----------

Our Shared Reality at least includes...

-- Our physical universe and biological life
-- valid reasoning methods
-- The basic ways in which human beings perceive with their senses
-- Human language, spoken and written
-- The conscience, and a knowledge of right and wrong
-- Written history
-- Oral history
...

Note that what the biblical authors hold us morally-ethically responsible for,
is all part of our shared reality.

Note that the hard sciences also accept "what works" with regard to
the physical universe.
---------- ----------

Note that as the Bible presents our shared reality...

-- Each of us inhabits a different location in that reality
-- Each of us has certain perceptions that are accessible
-- Some perceptions of this reality are accessible to all
-- Some of these perceptions can be found out by an individual
human being, if they search carefully
-- Whether or not we reason about, or reason properly about,
our perceptions of this shared reality, creates a number of
different topics or logical cases.

But note that God holds us morally-ethically RESPONSIBLE for
perceiving certain things from this reality, and applying our mind
in certain sound ways of thinking about these perceptions.
---------- ----------

 

[Stephen3141]

More on Our Shared Reality...

*** Note that someone may not agree with the reality that the
biblical authors present. THEN it is a challenge of a Christian
apologies to explain or defend WHY it is reasonable that the
biblical authors describe reality, the way they do.

*** Note that some Christian groups are historically anti-intellectual.
This trend goes back at least to the European enlightenment.
In essence, these groups do not accept that "Valid reasoning
methods" are part of our shared reality, and so, they are not
responsible for using them.

Although this is a common attitude among some people, as the
Bible presents the components of reality, "sound reasoning" in
the Bible is not differentiated from telling the truth. That is, the
biblical authors act as if sound reasoning methods ARE part of
our shared reality. *** THIS MEANS THAT THE ANTI-INTELLECTUAL
CHRISTIAN GROUPS ARE LYING ABOUT REALITY.

Note that in the biblical view, "facts" are part of our shared reality.
But finding them may take a lot of personal effort, and discipline.
Therefore, gaining knowledge and understanding, while accessible
to many people, are NOT actually gained by many people.

Note that because the biblical authors (and Jesus) acknowledge
the accuracy of the Old Testament Scriptures, Christians are forced
to conclude that written accounts MAY be accurate, and accurately
communicated. To the degree that it is reasonable that God would hold
us morally-ethically responsible to recognize that this type of accurate
writing has become part of our shared reality.


Note that there are major philosophical schools, in how philosophers
approach Epistemology (questions about "truth"). The Rationalists
put a great emphasis on reason. The Evidentialists put a great emphasis
on evidence. Kant can be described as having a third way to approach
reality. BUT, The rationalists still have to reason about evidence, and the
Evidentialists still have to reason about evidence. And the biblical authors
present BOTH the concept of evidence, and reasoning about evidence.

Note that philosophers may make a distinction between Direct evidence
(what is personally experienced by an individual), and indirect evidence
(what is communicated to us by another method than personal experience).
BUT, note that the biblical authors will hold people morally-ethically responsible
for some information that falls into BOTH types.

Note something that is very obvious, that the method of "justifying" personal
opinions or personal beliefs, is VERY different among those who embrace all
sorts of conspiracy theories, and those who hold to a rigorous testing of
beliefs/opinions in order to find what is true.

Note another thing that is very obvious -- anti-intellectual Christian groups
have a VERY different method of trying to justify opinions/beliefs, than
Christians who embrace the intellect as a gift from God, and who embrace the
proposition that "sound reasoning methods" are part of our shared reality, and
so we are morally-ethically responsible to use them.

 

[Stephen3141]

On Our Shared Reality...

---------- ----------
Note that abstract concepts are part of our shared reality.

Example: I have a toothpick. It is mine.
I give the toothpick to you.
There is nothing in the hard sciences that can detect something about that
toothpick that was different, when I owned it, and when you owned it.
Ownership is an abstract concept.

Yet, the Bible recognizes the existence of abstract concepts, and the great
importance of some of them, when God commands "You shall not steal."
"No thief will inherit the kingdom of heaven."
---------- ----------

Note that many Christian (and non-Christian) groups claim to use
valid reasoning methods. But it is VERY clear, upon examining what
these groups mean by that phrase, that they have quite different definitions
of "valid" and "reasoning". As a result, they do NOT hold to the same
list of components that they accept as making up our shared reality.

As a result, note that Christian groups that embrace the goodness of the
intellect, would say that anti-intellectual groups are misrepresenting
the components in our shared reality. I would say simply that anti-intellectual
Christian groups are LYING about the nature of our shared reality.

Note that conspiracy theory groups that have sloppy definitions of
what "evidence" is, are misrepresenting reality. For that reason, they
are LYING about the nature of reality.
---------- ----------

 

[partinobodycular]

Note something that is very obvious, that the method of "justifying" personal
opinions or personal beliefs, is VERY different among those who embrace all
sorts of conspiracy theories, and those who hold to a rigorous testing of
beliefs/opinions in order to find what is true.

And I would suspect that there's a very logical reason for this... nature is stupid... it has no idea what the correct course of action is, and so it simply tries them all. Would it be better if giraffes were tall, or would it be better if they were short? Nature doesn't know so it tries both versions and then miraculously finds the correct one. Voila giraffes should be tall. It's probably the same way with logic, is it better to be dogmatic, or is it better to be rational? Well let's try them both and see which one works. In the meantime if the results are inconclusive nature seems to allow both versions to exist simultaneously... it's patient, and it doesn't mind if the process isn't always pretty.