This is part two of my response to Dusman on his post about
circularity and logic. I covered the circularity issue in a previous
post and now will discuss his position on logic and knowledge.
In the second part of Dusmans’ post, he argues that logic
and knowledge must be “grounded in God”. His basis for this seems to be two
main points; that logic is “immaterial” and that logic has a “moral component”. On the first point of the “immaterial” Dusman
gives us two syllogisms.
“That logic is immaterial is demonstrated via the following
syllogisms:
1. Material things are extended in space.
2. Our concepts of "logic" are not extended in space.
3. Therefore, our concepts of "logic" are non-material.
4. Some versions of materialism posit that no non-material entities exist.
5. Therefore, assuming some versions of materialism, concepts of "logic" do not exist.
Syllogism two:
1. Concepts are immaterial.
2. But some versions of materialism hold that anything that exists is material.
3. Our concepts are not material things.
4. Therefore, concepts do not exist.
5. Our concepts of "logic" are immaterial.
6. Therefore, in some versions of materialism, "logic" does not exist.”
2. Our concepts of "logic" are not extended in space.
3. Therefore, our concepts of "logic" are non-material.
4. Some versions of materialism posit that no non-material entities exist.
5. Therefore, assuming some versions of materialism, concepts of "logic" do not exist.
Syllogism two:
1. Concepts are immaterial.
2. But some versions of materialism hold that anything that exists is material.
3. Our concepts are not material things.
4. Therefore, concepts do not exist.
5. Our concepts of "logic" are immaterial.
6. Therefore, in some versions of materialism, "logic" does not exist.”
Unfortunately for Dusman he shows his lack of understanding
of naturalism in both syllogisms by equating naturalism to some form of
reductionism/materialism. In the naturalist world view, not everything that exists
need be extended in space or reducible to “matter” so his conclusions fail. We
also do not posit an immaterial abstract realm as he seems to suggest in his
following statement.
“The immaterial Christian God grounds immaterial logic as
God is rational and orderly by nature and originally imputed said order to His
created order, especially for those created in His image. Positing an
immaterial abstract realm like Plato's realm of ideals contradicts naturalism
as it appeals to "other-worldly" explanations which are disdained in
most modern naturalistic philosophizing, doesn't tell us how the immaterial
realm of the forms informs the physical world, nor is an abstract, impersonal
immaterial realm able to ground the personal moral obligation to be
logical. Arguments to the contrary have been demonstrated to be unsuccessful. “
Notice how Dusman starts with assuming his intended
conclusion through non-sequitur by claiming since logic is “immaterial” and God
is “immaterial” that God is therefore grounds for logic. Even if we grant
Dusman both that logic and God are “immaterial” it does not follow that God is
the grounds for logic.
Dusman gives us a link to another of his blog posts to try
to support his position more. I do not intent to review the entirety of his
other post as I think most of it is already covered in this one, however there
are a couple items that stand out that I think should be addressed.
Dusman says: “Of course, our materialist detractors have
said, "but concepts are material and can be reduced to electrochemical
reactions in the brain" and so syllogism 1 is false. But this shows the
ignorance of our materialist friends on so many levels”
It looks as though Dusman is doing nothing more than trying
to appeal to the ignorance of his Christian audience since I know of no
materialist that would say concepts are reducible to electrochemical reactions
in the brain.
Of his other points refuting the straw man that he has
created Dusman does say something I find very interesting.
“This position generates an interesting dilemma: If logic is
an emergent property, then there were no truths before logic emerged and
contradictions could be actualized. So, assuming an evolutionary timescale,
what are we to make of claims about the distant past by cosmology and
paleontology before physical human brains existed? How can they be true now
unless they were also true then?”
The key thing I noticed here is where Dusman says; “If logic
is an emergent property, then there were no truths before logic emerged and
contradictions could be actualized”. This is interesting because he now
suggesting that if there were no logic that “contradictions could be
actualized”. Dusman has now taken the
position that objective reality or rather what exists is dependent on logic.
This is obviously absurd since even if we grant the immaterial nature of logic
as being a process of an immaterial mind then in Dusmans world view no minds or
logic can exists because their existence would be dependent on the logic of
other minds adinfinitum.
Moving on, Dusman tries to show us how logic has a “moral
component”.
“Second, logic has a moral component; i.e., we are obligated to
be rational and logical. Appeals to survival value via natural selection,
appeals to logic
as an emergent property of the material brain, or social contract theory
are irrelevant as they tell us what is the case not necessarily what
should be the case. To ground universal personal moral obligation, you
need such obligation grounded in a personal transcendent, universal
source. Such grounding is satisfied in the Triune God. Thus, unless
you begin with this God in all of your reasoning, you can't account for your
reasoning processes because those very processes require resources that can
only exist, be grounded, and normative if the immaterial God of Scripture
exists.”
While Dusman claims “we are obligated to be rational and
logical” he does not give us a reason why this is the case. To who are we
obligated? I also think he misses a major fact that in many cases humans are neither
rational nor logical and it could even be argued that we more often than not
act in an irrational way. What he is trying to get at here is that naturalism
cannot say why one “should” be rational and logical. Of course this is flatly
wrong, as naturalism would simply say that if one wants to better understand the
world (what actually exists) then one should be rational and logical. A
“should” without a reason is meaningless.
Dusman now moves on the topic of knowledge and provides us
with a lengthy quote from a Dr. James Anderson. I will only provide the link to
Dr. Anderson’s paper as to not clutter this post any more than already is the
case. [http://www.proginosko.com/docs/knowledge_and_theism.html]
Dusman continues on and quotes himself with:
“Knowledge is
justified true belief or warrant. Naturalism must appeal to one's senses and
reasoning to verify one's senses and reasoning. This is a classic version of
question begging and it can only be escaped by appealing to an all-knowing,
personal, a priori source. Hence, God.”
And then in follow up to my request for clarification he
continues:
“I mean that to confirm or assume that they are functioning
properly you have to use them to confirm and assume them. This is a
classic example of begging the question because you're assuming the very thing
you're trying to prove in order to prove it without going outside of the same
plane of reasoning to prove it. Thus, this doesn't meet the classic
definition of knowledge normally defined by philosophers as justified, true,
belief. In order to escape this vicious circularity and have knowledge
that your senses are valid without appealing to irrationality to do it, you
must appeal to an all-knowing Source that exists outside of your senses that
can confirm the general reliability of your senses (Proverbs 20:12). For
more information see my article Sensation,
Reason, and Christian Epistemology.”
Why he wants to lump “senses” and “reasoning” together here
as if they are the same or even similar is beyond me however its clear Dusman
has an issue with the use of reasoning to “justify” reasoning. This is quite
funny as justify in this context essentially means to give good reason for
something. It seems quite odd to ask for a good reason for reason. Dusman also seems to think the question of
what is knowledge is settled and has taken it upon himself to declare it as
“justified true belief” (JTB). If he is going to take this position, he needs
to show us how (JTB) is any better than mere true belief. Not only does he need
to show how justification adds any value to true belief but he also needs to
account for scenarios where one has (JTB) that would not be considered
knowledge.
In conclusion, Dusman not only shows a lack of understanding
of naturalism by giving us straw-man arguments for some reductionist version of
materialism but also shows a clear misunderstanding of what logic is and offers
us only what his thinks it is not.