We are distinguishing these three types of laws based upon how they are known; deductively (mind in the soul), inductively (the physical senses) and by revelation (the heart in the spirit). They are lawlike in terms of force and limiting factor.
Obviously, I can fail to think logically (my thoughts might not consistently adhere to standards of rationality-e.g. fail a test) or I might have a moral failing (my actions might contradict standards of right and wrong). But I can't not fall off a cliff and hit the ground if I deny the law of gravity; I can’t forget or misunderstand the scientific law of gravity and remain suspended in air like in a cartoon. People appear to be bound to and limited by scientific laws even if they are unaware of them (apart from miracles which are apparent suspensions of a law due to a higher law, and not a contradiction). They can violate logical and moral laws without immediate consequence (at least until the day of judgment; some people are evil all their lives then die in relative peace, e.g. Psa.73:1-5, 17-8, 50:16-22). People all over the world are bound by and subject to the laws of math, logic and physics (due to immediate consequences from error- e.g. engineer and constructing pretty much anything) while at the same time are conflicted by a myriad of philosophies and religious and moral positions (most of which evince no obvious immediate repercussions; they seem to live normal lives). But scientific laws (which are known inductively by consistent and continual recurrence and are physically revealed by experiments and measurements [I.e. having dominion over; applying logic and math to matter]- they are distilled generalizations from the many instances; (one from the many) are not like rational laws (which are known deductively and are self-evidential or axiomatic and are known non-physically by just thinking; they are superior to physical laws and are how physical laws, as well as everything else, are identified and evaluated; and how men exercise dominion over creation- Gen.1:26). Rational laws are methods of thought used to analyze sentences for truth value; which truths cannot be determined independently but only in the whole theory of which they are a part (see also the illusion of the analytic, synthetic distinction, Quine, Bahnsen). And neither are like moral laws which are compelling subjective inclinations that are revelations of God and therefore are binding to our consciences. Moral laws do not follow logically from scientific laws which simply declare what is and not what ought to be. Summing up the eighteenth century debate started by Hume, David Berlinski said “There is a gap between what is and what ought to be...They have nothing to say to one another.” (The Devil’s Delusion pg.36) Moral laws are not deduced from logical laws which are used to analyze the validity of an argument, regardless of whether the premises are true. (e.g. if the statement ‘Moses either did or did not give the ten commandments’ is answered historically in the affirmative, it does not directly infer that ‘thou shalt not steal’ is morally binding, any more than the ‘can we just get along’ plea from Rodney King. A world view is necessary to link these things together; God must have in reality given the revelation. For instance- what if an evil deceptive god gave commandments to us? Are they morally binding and logically certain?) Moral law is revelatory, not strictly logically axiomatic, and not empirically proven to be binding; science can tell us what probably is but not what certainly ought to be (Sam Harris is wasting everybody's time). Moral laws are self-evident because God places them in the hearts of men all over the world by nature (Rom.2:13-5). Part of the reason he gave them in stone to Moses was to show that he is the same God who put these matching laws into our hearts. But unless they are objectively realized (in stone, or pen and ink) our consciences can be defiled and stray from his laws. They must be guided by the absolute standard.
The bible can account for these things because it teaches God creates the world in his wisdom and us in his image, able to subdue the earth- (e.g. how absolute universal laws of math can be applied to the world and make accurate measurements and predictions or build things or go to the Moon or Mars, etc.) If someone rejects this, then they must explain these things without the God of scripture, which they cannot do, as the history of philosophy demonstrates (mind and matter dilemma). If God did not create the world and us and does not control everything- then anything is possible and you cannot expect any one thing to happen more probably over any other thing. You cannot even have a reason to trust your own mind. The deductive certainty of logic does not carry over into inductive probability of experience; I.e. the problem of induction. And there is no reason to believe anyone is telling the truth or is even able to. If you start with the assumption that the bible is not God's word- everything else immediately unravels.
The laws of logic, what sorts of entities they are and which are considered laws of logic are debated by logicians, theologians and philosophers. For example, the more recent school of analytic philosophy seeks to absolutely insulate the real objective material world from any metaphysical disconnected ideas which they sought to eliminate. But debate itself presupposes laws of thought and usually at least the traditional three.
“For no very good reason, three of these principles have been singled out by tradition under the name of 'Laws of Thought'. They are as follows: (1) The law of identity: 'Whatever is, is.' (2) The law of contradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be.' (3) The law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be.' These three laws are samples of self-evident logical principles, but are not really more fundamental or more self-evident than various other similar principles: for instance the one we considered just now, which states that what follows from a true premiss is true. The name 'laws of thought' is also misleading, for what is important is not the fact that we think in accordance with these laws, but the fact that things behave in accordance with them; in other words, the fact that when we think in accordance with them we think truly.”- (The Problems of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell pg.113) In other words ‘laws of thought are also laws of reality’.
We previously asserted that logic is ‘methods of thought used to analyze sentences for truth value’ as well as identify and evaluate or enumerate everything else. But these methods emerge from our consciousness which is dependent upon God’s consciousness. We are thinking God’s thoughts when we think rationally and we are mapping our thoughts and orienting them with these self-evident laws onto the objective created world. Where Descartes asserted ‘I think therefore I am’ (some philosophers deny the ’I’ or ego), a more rational assertion would be ‘I think therefore God is’. My conscious awareness is expressed through and dependent upon the abstract laws of logic. If ‘I am’ then I am dependent upon the laws of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction. My self-awareness contradicts my non-existence. My consciousness either is or is not. I am aware that I am conscious by the laws of logic; my consciousness is expressed in these laws of reality and continually depends upon them. They are not my creation they are my conscious matrix. Their existence is accounted for by God’s ultimate existence- “I AM THAT I AM”. (Ex.3:14) I am because God is and he created and upholds me. In him, we live, and move, and have our being (Ac.17:28).
The contrast between logical laws and physical laws is further developed in this section from a debate between Gordon Stein and Greg Bahnsen. Consider for a few moments, thoughts from that exchange. Quoting from Dr. Bahnsen- “If the laws of logic are conventional in nature, then you might have different societies that use different laws of logic.” “As universal, they are not experienced to be true. There may be experiences where the laws of logic are used, but no one has universal experience. No one has tried every possible instance of the laws of logic. As invariant, they don't fit into what most materialists would tell us about the constantly changing nature of the world. “; If “all these laws are conventional. All these laws are not really law-like in their nature, they're just... something that happens inside the brain. But you see, what happens inside your brain is not what happens inside my brain. Therefore, what happens inside your brain is not a law. It doesn't necessarily correspond to what happens in mine. In fact, it can't be identical with what is inside my mind or brain, because we don't have the same brain.” (Bahnsen 1st rebuttal in Stein debate.)
“Dr. Stein told you, "Well, we use the laws of logic because we can make accurate predictions using them." Well, as a matter of fact, that doesn't come anywhere close to discussing the vast majority of the laws of logic. That isn't the way they're proven. It's very difficult to conduct experiments of the laws of logic of that sort. They are more conceptual by nature rather than empirical or predicting certain outcomes in empirical experience. But even if you want to try to justify all of them in that way, we have to ask why is it that they apply repeatedly in a contingent realm of experience. ...The laws of logic are just not treated as conventions. To say that they are merely conventions is to simply say "I haven't got an answer." Now if you want to justify logical truths along a posteriori lines, that is rather than arguing that they are self-evident, but rather arguing that there is evidence for them that we can find in experience or by observation - that approach, by the way, was used by John Stuart Mill - people will say we gain confidence in the laws of logic through repeated experience, then that experience is generalized. But in some weaker moments I think Dr. Stein was trying to say that. Of course, some of the suggested logical truths, it turns out, are so complex or so unusual that it is difficult to believe that anyone has perceived their instances in experience. But even if we restrict our attention to the other more simple laws of logic, it should be seen that if [their] truth, cannot be decided independently of experience, then they actually become contingent. That is, if people cannot justify the laws of logic independent of experience, then you can only say they apply, as far as I know, to any past experience that I've had. They are contingent, they lose their necessity, universality, and invariance. Why should a law of logic, which is verified in one domain of experience, by the way, be taken as true for unexperienced domains as well? Why should we universalize or generalize about the laws of logic- especially in a materialistic universe, not subject to the control of a personal God?” (Bahnsen 2nd opening statement in Stein debate.) It has also been pointed out the necessarily circular nature of arguing for logic using logic. Someone might argue for the logical law Modus Ponens- If A then B, A therefore B. And the argument might look like: If all these logical arguments for modus ponens are true then modus ponens is true. All these arguments are true, therefore modus ponens is true. We used the method of argument to prove it. Circularity in argument is necessary at a presuppositional foundational level and cannot be avoided.
With regards to scientific laws, we receive the instruction of wisdom from creation regardless of how small. (Psa.19:1-3, 33:15, Rom.1:19-20) We can consider the ant (Prv.6:6), the lilies (Mt.6:28), the ravens (Lk.12:24), the hawk flying (Job 39:26) or the heavens (Psa.8:3, 136:5) and receive instruction. O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. (Psa.104:24) The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. (Prv.3:19) The laws of nature are navigated by and identified through laws of logic (wisdom). Laws of logic are not derived from laws of nature for they are essentially different. To subject the laws of logic as derivatives of physical laws of nature is to abandon them to the destructive epistemology of David Hume. They might abruptly change.
The material world of empiricism cannot be the matrix of the abstract world of logic and mathematics for several reasons even apart from scripture revelation. They are different sorts of laws.
A. The empirical method of reasoning involves a formal fallacy in logic of affirming the consequent (If A then B, B therefore A.) instead of the antecedent (If A then B, A therefore B).
B. If you deny a law of logic or math you end in contradiction (A is not A; 2 +2=5). But to deny an empirical fact involves no self-contradiction (All men are not mortal; the earth does not revolve around the sun).
C. To apply infinite mathematics (mind) to the physical world (matter) involves infinite regress errors (You couldn’t have infinite points of division between two measurable points in space; or an infinite number of past causal events- Zeno’s arrow paradox. See also G).
D. If logic and math are generalized from experience then they are only probably true. And infinite possibilities (open universe) cancel out any probabilities, making probable knowledge impossible.
E. The inductive principle would be invoked to justify math and logic and it cannot justify itself without circularity.
F. One instance of mathematics or deduction does not increase its certainty with more examples of it, but induction or empirical knowledge does.
G. Russell’s class paradox (class of all classes that is not a member of itself- is a member of itself and therefore not a member itself at the same time).
H. Set of all whole numbers is equal to the set of all even numbers- again an error assuming finitude when categorizing the infinite. Numbers (not the symbols that represent them) are not particulars they are abstract universals. And the laws of math or the relations of these numbers (addition, division etc.) are absolute and unchanging; not something experienced in the material world.
I. Facts are apprehended by observation not deduction; by empirical data which is not logically necessary; therefore, they are different.
J. The law of identity (whatever is, is) would exclude any change.
H. Numbers appear to be abstract objects- that is not in a location and not causal interaction with other objects. (this is how mathematicians generally think of them)
J. Numbers and logical laws are perceived and verified other than with the senses. We don't causally interact with them. (The process of abstracting- like the idea of the color blue from looking at blue things, and an abstract object such as number.)
The fear of the LORD acknowledges the uniformity of nature as being a product of his word and wisdom and thus is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge (Psa.111:10; Prv.1:7, 9:10). Not attributing uniform physical laws to random chance or pantheistic eternal cycles or that ‘it just is, because the alternative is too troubling’. Christians believe in true science (Dan.1:4) while rejecting “science falsely so called” (1 Tim.6:20) which would include philosophies (Col.2:8) of science which do not start with an acknowledgement of the necessity of the Creator at the foundation of the uniformity of the external world and our sense perceptions. Science is based upon God upholding all things by the word of his power (Psa.119:90-1, Heb.1:3, Col.1:17, Neh.9:6, Gen.8:22, 2 Pt.3:7). This is for his purpose revealed in prophecy of the scripture and is the basis for expecting nature to be uniform (Jer.31:35-6, 33:20-26). Likewise, we find design and order in nature as God reveals his wisdom in creation (Prv.3:19, Jer.10:12, Psa.19:1, Rom.1:19-21) as well as his invariableness (Jer.31:35-6, 33:25-6).
With regards to the moral law which we find operating in our conscience placed within our hearts, it is likewise known a priori. And as we mentioned previously, due to the effects of sin and lusts our consciences can be altered and distorted. (Dan. 5:20; Tit.1:15) This is why we find many conflicting ethical systems and need the objective standard of scripture and the renewing power of the Spirit of God. (Rom.12:2, Eph 4:23, Col.3:10, Tit.3:5) Men are evidently so inherently corrupt that no laws or policing are sufficient to restrain them from evil.
Moral law cannot be a self-generated preference and be binding to anyone. I cannot condemn something as an evil simply because I don’t have certain feelings inside me with regards to it. And yet most people who deny the true and living God and do not like to retain him in their knowledge do so for this very (psychological) reason. They contend that ‘God does not exist because of the existence of evil’. Yet, if God does not exist what pray tell is evil? This conundrum caused C.S Lewis to repent of his atheism and embrace Christ. Note his experience- “When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most...”, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” “Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too— for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies... Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” (Mere Christianity pg.43,5-6)
Lewis further addresses the view that ‘all men are created with certain unalienable rights’ and not ‘all men evolved certain herd instincts’. Deniers of God try to explain the existence of rights and moral obligations as an evolutionary preservation mechanism. Lewis demonstrates the fallacy with clearer reasoning. A “good many people find it difficult to understand just what this Law of Human Nature, or Moral Law, or Rule of Decent Behaviour is.” "Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?" Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct—by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires—one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them.” “Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing.” (Mere Christianity pg.23-4)
Clearly this ‘third thing’ is not mere herd instinct or self-preservation as it judges between instincts. These three types of laws are different upon reflection and yet equally dependent upon the one transcendent God who created all things and who upholds all things by the word of his power. If one does not presuppose his existence then sense cannot be made of these axiomatic realities. They are made to cohere by the biblical revelation of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Col 2:2-4) Therefore, as Bahnsen concludes Biblical Interpretation is the supreme science; and our conclusion here, it is the precondition for these three types of laws.
Comments