Dusman on Circularity on Dusman Part II (Logic)

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.”

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.