Faith vs. Science: Checkmate (part 1)

Just a quick interlude in my Discovering the Philosopher in You series.

I recently listened to an intriguing podcast of a lecture from a Dr. John Lennox part one here and two here if you care to listen.  The first quote mentioned in the lecture from Bertrand Russell, "What science cannot explain, humanity cannot know."  Dr. Lennox retorts, "that statement is not of science, so if it is true it is false."  I've written of the conflicts between science, philosophy, and religion before in this entry, and this one, and here about the Higgs boson, and it seems like a common theme in my life, so this lecture was right up my alley.

He starts off with a quote from Psalms 91:5 You will not be afraid of the terror by night, Or of the arrow that flies by day.  We all have fear.  Especially in this context of that there's someone somewhere that's smarter than you.  In defense of one's faith this is terrifying, I know I've struggled with this at times.  I know I'm not really all that smart, I'm not as well read as I'd like to be and I'll never catch up to others that have focused their lives their studies.  The context of 1 Peter 3:15 [(NASB) but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence] is one of fear.  Fear of not having all the answers when someone asks.  Dr. Lennox says that he's afraid in this area, which seems crazy to me to hear that from this powerful apologist.  He gives the story of Peter's denial of Christ, and how even this giant of the Church (at least in this story) is afraid and when accosted about his association with Jesus and he denies it three times (vs 34)!

The good news of Dr. Lennox's message is that we (as Christians) don't need to fear science's attacks because in reality there is no war between science and Christianity, the real conflict is between belief in God and disbelief in God, and the conflict has been going on at least since the beginnings of Greek philosophy.  The atomists, and their assertion that the universe is all there is, non-derivative against Plato, Aristotle, and others that believed god or gods were responsible for creating the universe.  Now obviously I believe the Greek gods were wrong, and I think history has proven that.  If the Greeks were right about their view of creation then their religion wouldn't have died out so many years ago.  The New Atheists are waging war against religion/Christianity using the power of science, and for a quite a while now they've been succeeding.  Some seem to think that science excludes faith, but that isn't borne out in reality.  There are so many prominent scientists that have powerful outspoken testimonies for Christ.  I've read Dr. Francis Collins' (Dr. Lennox mentions Dr. Francis and other preeminent scientists that have powerful faith) book and I've written about it on two different occasions, and while we have our differences, his testimony is powerful and he's obviously a consumate scientist.  So obviously scientists can, and many do, have faith.

Authorial intention...  I love Dr. Lennox's anecdote about authorial intention.  He talks about meeting with a man that had written a book about the idea that there is no such thing as authorial intent.  To which he replies, so, if I read your book I'll be convinced that there's no such thing as authorial intent?  Then I'll pass.  (**laughter from the crowd**)  In case it's not obvious, if the book has no authorial intent, then there's no point to the book.

Here are the limitations of science, and they're clearly shown in science's inability to answer the questions of a child; why am I here, where do I come from, and what is the purpose of life.  Scientist cannot give us morality either.  There are ethical foundations of science but not the scientific foundations of ethics, and looking back in history (his not so veiled reference to Nazi eugenics ideals) we can see what ethics are like when based on science.

Dr. Lennox also references what is commonly called an argument from design or a teleological argument.  His example goes like this, say you have a Ford Galaxy like this one:

Now, looking at this car and you're forced to choose an explanation for the car.  New Atheists say you must choose either the laws of physics, mechanics, engineering, and internal combustion, but on the other side you have Henry Ford.  Obviously you can't choose just one, both are required.  The idea is that one has to choose either science or faith, which is a false dilemma.  One of the reasons for this dangerous disagreement is the idea that God is only a god of the gaps, the idea that God is only good for explaining what we don't understand. This is a flawed view of God, because He's the reason for everything.  Science is about studying a given with a given.  Because neither science nor the scientist created the universe.

These problems stem from a misunderstanding of laws and mechanism and agency.  Newton's Principea Mathematica was written so that the thinking man would believe in God.  The more you know about a thing the more impressive one's understanding of what you're studying.  The more you know about art the better you can appreciate Rembrandt; the better you understand mechanics the more you appreciate a Rolls-Royce.

New Atheists are confused about the nature of faith.  It's not about belief without evidence.  It's about belief where there is evidence.  There are so many reasons to believe and there is evidence.  Belief without evidence really is dangerous.  It's where suicide bombers come from.  When Jesus blesses doubting Thomas for his belief, He isn't saying that we should believe without evidence, He's saying that many will do so; it's true there are millions of people even today that still believe in Jesus without seeing Him.  Not without evidence, but just the simple logistics of not seeing Jesus.

I know you all love when I loquaciously carry on, but I'm going to have to divide this into two parts.  I've only covered the first half of the lecture and there's so much more he has to say that I want to pass on to you.  So stay tuned for part two.

Such a beautiful place to live

Faith and Philosophy Blog Carnival, June 2013, 5th Edition

Jonathan Grant presents several entries: How Our Relationship with God Works!, Are There Errors in the Bible?, 10 Ways to Not be a Judgmental Hypocrite!, and Secret to Getting Closer to God all posted at Questions & Answers About Life.

John presents Book Review: Who is this Man? by John Ortberg posted at Fearless Men.

AJ Turner presents The Seventh Time |, Overcome Day 6 and Overcome Day 10 all posted at AJ Turner's Blog, Encouraging, Equipping, Empowering.

Diane Mottl, MSW presents Profound moments… posted at Being Truly Present.

Jason Hess presents Let Your Words Be Life posted at eckSermonator.

Jana presents 10 Ways To Find Peace In Stressful Situations : Wisdom Ink Magazine posted at Wisdom Ink.

Melanie Caldicott presents How to Stay Connected to God posted at Essential Thing Devotions.


Tiheasha Beasley presents The “S” Word: Sometimes its hard to explain! posted at Banner of Modesty.

Jonathan Richard Cring presents I am bad enough to be good June 20, 2013 and Quatrain of Perseverance; June 11, 2013 both posted at Jonathots Daily Blog. 

Thank you to all those that have submitted their work for this month's edition so far, as new entries are sent in I'll update this edition.  The standard caveat applies, I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas presented but I hope you all enjoy reading the various perspectives regarding faith and or philosophy.  Next month's edition will be posted here on the 6th of July.

Discovering the Philosopher in You Part 6: The Basis of Ethics: What Makes Something Right or Wrong?

Continuing the series on the Discovering the Philosopher in You; part six, which is probably the most interesting lecture in the series so far.  Also, it's interesting to me that it confirms what I've thought for a while now, that is that I agree with much of Prof McGinn's views on philosophy.  However, I do completely disagree with him in a specific area as you'll see.

So ethics, obviously a difficult subject which Prof McGinn approached in a quite logical straightforward manner.  I totally recommend you listen to the audio recordings if you can his style is quite approachable and easily understood.  The first question (and one that I agree with Prof McGinn on) is about ethics being knowable.  That is, are ethical truths the same as truth as we discussed previously?  In case you missed that part of the series and don't want to read it, I'll sum it up...  Truth is objective based in reality.  You can't think something into falsehood.  Snow is white no amount of wanting it to be different will change that truth.  Now if (and I hold that it is) ethics is knowable truth then it is also not subjective.  Also, it must also be a priori as was discussed previously.  Again, I'll sum that idea up; a priori is NOT necessarily something that is known from birth, rather something that can be known without experience.  The prime example is mathematics, one can know that 1+2=3 but no one can point to a one, two, three, plus or equals (not the symbols, but the objects, which don't exist as we think of existence).  So one can know that murder is wrong without being able to see wrong or right in and of themselves.  So, knowledge of ethics definitely falls under the realm of a priori knowledge.

Well, there are many that dispute that claim.  The primary disagreement is that moral or ethical claims are merely emotive statements, in fact emotivists say they're less than that.  To an emotivist, saying, "murder is wrong," is the equivalent of saying "murder, boo."  Emotivism is just one of the many attempts to escape the reality of moral truth.  The most important thing to take from this lecture is about how non-cognitivists (those that believe morality is not knowable truth) are guaranteed to come away with moral relativism.  It's obvious, if saying, "rape is wrong" is equivalent to "boo, hiss" then what's the point of any moral statements?  They're all worthless.

Here's where I have some disagreement with Prof McGinn...  After talking about how he believes that moral truth is NOT subjective, that it's completely objective and just as trustworthy as mathematical truths.  So far, I can agree with him.  Then, he starts into a critique of divine command theory.  Let me first say, I'm not a fan of the divine command theory.  I've read the Euthyphro dialogue (granted, it was a few years ago in college) but I do remember enough to know that Prof McGinn seems to make a mistake, like the one he made when he retold the cave myth from the Republic.  He says that Socrates meets Euthyphro while walking around Athens, which is not true to the dialogue.  In the dialogue, Socrates meets Euthyphro on the porch of King Archon (steps of the courts) because he's on trial.  They strike up a conversation, and the so called, "Euthyphro dilema."  I've written about this before, Is something good because God commands it, or is something good commanded by God because it is good?  Euthyphro doesn't have a good answer, and as I've mentioned before, I feel that's mainly because of a misunderstanding of the nature of God.  The ancient Greek gods were very anthropomorphic and fallible.  God as He actually is, isn't fallible as a man, he's immutable, perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, among other characteristics, all of which are the furthest any being can be from humanity.  God is not the foundation of morality, God is the definition of morality.  Murder isn't wrong because God says it's wrong (per se) rather because it's against the very nature of God and morality.

Discovering the Philosopher in You Part 5: Knowledge and Experience: Where Does Knowledge Come From?

Continuing the series on Discovering the Philosopher in You with Prof McGinn, lecture five is on Knowledge and Experience: Where Does Knowledge Come From?  Here Prof McGinn says that we're going to move on from the basic building-blocks of philosophy and getting to the more meat-and-potatoes questions of philosophy.  So here we are and where does what we know come from?  This is a question from epistemology (the theory of knowledge).  In the lecture Prof McGinn talks about two specific sides of this argument, the empiricists and the rationalists.

Before we cover those two sides of this issue, let's first talk about what we mean by knowledge.  It's not what you and I know.  It's more like how people attain knowledge in general.  One of the ideas set forth in different theories of knowledge is that we can and do know certain things without experiencing them.  Keep in mind this is not that you learned something without experiencing it.  Take math, you say you learned it from your teacher, which is a type of experience, but that's not what we are talking about because that teacher learned it from some other teacher.  What we're trying to get at, is where the first person learned math.  That's one way of looking at it; another is the idea that to know that 1+2=3 doesn't take experience.  Think about it.  How do you experience the numbers 1, 2, or 3.  The concepts of plus or equals?  It's not like you can experience these things like this cup of water I'm drinking.

The empiricists, notably all British, claim that knowledge can only be attained experientially.  One of the first things Prof McGinn mentions about the empiricists is one of the main things that makes me doubt their views and neutrality on philosophical questions.  He talks about one of the primary motives behind the empiricists was a desire to depart from religion.  If one starts out with a specific motive it's hard to stay impartial.  I know I'm not, but at least I'm honest about it, and I try to maintain impartiality in most things.  So, in order to get away from the ideas of revelation that religion relies on, which it does at least in some ways it relies on the idea that God reveals knowledge to His followers that is outside the realm of experience for those not involved in the revelation.  So to empiricists all knowledge comes from someone's experience.

The rationalists held an opposing view that at least some knowledge doesn't come from experience.  They don't deny experiential knowledge, that would seem counterintuitive.  However, they held that some knowledge is not derived from experience.  It's commonly referred to as "a priori" knowledge.  As opposed to "a posteriori" knowledge, which is experiential knowledge.  So, as opposed to the empiricists' claim that all knowledge comes from someone's experience, the rationalists claim that at least some knowledge is innate and cannot come from experience.  This other source of knowledge is often called "pure reason" hence Kant's writing The Critique of Pure Reason and a Critique of Practical Reason.

For this discussion I've always liked the example of the dark side of the moon.  Now I know astronauts have landed on and encircled the moon and they have experienced that in a way, but before they did.  Did we know experientially that there was a dark side of the moon?  No.  No one had ever experienced it or seen it or photographed it.  So at that time we knew from logical conclusions that if an object has one side it must also have another side, and even though we may have never seen it, we know it's there.

Photo Courtesy of: Blogs Voice of America News

Others argue that language is an a priori knowledge.  Most notably the famous linguist Noam Chomsky who argued that some form of grammar and linguistic ability is innate/a priori.  I tend to agree with this concept of a priori, except that it doesn't seem like it'd be knowledge as we typically think of knowledge.  More like skills or abilities, or even ways of thinking and pattern recognition, not necessarily knowledge.

One last comment...  The discussion of a priori (about which I had some interesting comments from a Google+ discussion) is NOT exactly like the debate of nature vs. nurture.  Also, genetically hardwired instincts technically don't fit with a priori knowledge either (sort of).  Whatever your view these are all very interesting questions about knowledge and while the debate isn't as heated as in the days of John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume (British empiricists) with René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, and Immanuel Kant (not all rationalists but mostly), it is still an interesting discussion in epistemology.

I love sushi!  And getting good sushi is easy here in Japan

Discovering the Philosopher in You Part 4: Logic: What Is Valid Reasoning?

I'm sorry for such a long time between entries!  If you're following my series, or my blog in general, the last entry was on the nature of truth.  This lecture/entry is on logic and reasoning.  There's a few courses available on this topic available at Coursera.org.  As we've been discussion truth is objective in relation to reality, or as Prof McGinn says, "Beliefs are true or false; reasoning is valid or invalid."  So here we are discussion logic in relation to validity NOT truth/falsehood. The best classical example comes from Aristotle, All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.  The thing I like (and hate at the same time) about logic is the way it can be expressed somewhat mathematically.  The problem comes in knowing what the symbols mean.  I learned about this use of symbols in a class on logic but I haven't really gotten the hang of how to use all the symbols.  This simple lecture from Prof McGinn doesn't really go into all that but I feel it's worth mentioning here.  That classical example would be written something like:

∀ P ⇒ Q     All Ps are Q               All men are mortal

A ⇒ P        A is a P                      Aristotle is a man

∴ A ⇒ Q      Therefore, A is Q    Therefore Aristotle is mortal

If everything of a group has a certain property, then every particular part of that group also has that property.  Also, if one particular thing has a property, then something has that property.  I know it sounds silly and basic, but that's the way it's supposed to be.  Logic, for the most part, is straightforward and basic.

While Prof McGinn doesn't go over that symbolic logic, he does cover the three main classical laws of logic.  As I understand it, they were codified by Aristotle and the lectures refer to them as, "three traditional laws of logic: the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of noncontradiction."  I don't necessarily agree with this idea as common sensical as it seems, but Prof McGinn says that these laws of logic are inescapable and the even the concept of a universe where these rules don't hold true is inconceivable (you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means).  The book, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid seems to say that "kōans (公案)" are examples of mankind's ability to step outside this idea that logic is inescapable.  I don't completely agree with everything that book says but it seems that is the case.  One of problems I have is these sayings are just that, sayings.  They may indicate that mankind can think illogically, but that doesn't mean one can escape the rules of logic.

Take the law of identity, everything is identical to itself.  It seems to me that it's possible to conceive of a place where that isn't the case.  But, just because one can conceive it doesn't mean one can actually go to such a place or make something that doesn't follow that law.  Or the law of excluded middle, which says that everything has a given property or it lacks it.  Or the law of non-contradiction, which says that nothing can have a given property and not have the same property at the same time.  So, we can conceive of things that don't follow these laws, but we can't actually make things or find things that don't follow said laws.

Now that's a snake

Discovering the Philosopher in You Part 3: Truth: What Is the Nature of Truth?

As I move through this lecture series by Prof Colin McGinn on discovering the philosopher in each of us and dealing with the big questions in philosophy, I'm liking this prof more and more.  As far as philosophers are concerned, he seems quite down-to-earth.

Today's topic has to do with truth and the analysis of truth.  In the last lecture, we used the word truth several times and now we're dealing with analyzing truth itself.  According to these lectures, there are three common theories behind truth, the coherence theory, the pragmatic theory, and the correspondence theory.  One thing I have noticed though is how Prof McGinn seems to make powerful claims when most other philosophy teachings I've heard don't make simple straightforward claims like Prof McGinn.  Claims like, how there are these three theories but how the correspondence theory is the correct one and that the others are just quaint ideas that we discuss almost out of hand just to be kind to the ideas because they're wrong and there's no two ways about it.  I find this approach to philosophy surprising and slightly refreshing.  Anyways, on to the different theories.

Coherence theory: leaves out the world in so many, potentially dangerous ways.  Basically it says that something is true if it is coherent within a set of beliefs or belief system.  If a fact is consistent with your other beliefs or a web of belief systems, then it is true.  A slightly more basic way to put this is, if something is consistent with a large group of people's belief then it is true, like if enough people believe something is true, then it is.  Of course this goes against one of the things Prof McGinn has said a number of times, that one cannot force oneself to believe something that isn't true.  Of course technically, in this concept of truth, it's completely relative to the person/people involved.  This concept has no grounding in reality, which I'm sure is why it's considered a poor theory of truth.

The pragmatic theory: this (kind of) leaves out the world as well.  The basic idea is that whatever is good for one is true.  Like if I jump off this tall building it will be bad for me, and therefore it's true.  While this at least relates truth to reality there's an important distinction to be made.  The example in the lecture is of living under a despotic tyrannic government.  In a place like that it would be good for one's health to believe the propaganda that the government is good and wonderful.  If you truly believe otherwise, the secret police would be knocking on your door.  But that doesn't change the truth of the evil tyranny you're living in.  (Not that all tyrannies are evil.)

Last but not least, the correspondence theory: this is the most simple, straightforward of all these theories of truth.  It's simple, the truth is what actually is.  The statement that snow is white, is true, not because it is coherent with what I believe about snow, or the fact that believing snow is white is good for me in some way, but because snow actually is in fact, white.  The truth of the matter has nothing to do with one's beliefs or wants.  It is subjective, that is, outside one's wants or ideas.  Well, this concept brings up the topic of tolerance to which the professor gives a very good response: "Tolerance is not a matter of allowing that everyone believes the truth, no matter how much they disagree; it is having the policy of not persecuting people for their beliefs even when they are egregiously false."  Stating that truth is subjective is not intolerant, it's a fact.  It's not putting people who believe otherwise down, it's simply stating a truth about how facts correspond to reality.  There's no such thing as something being "true to me, but not true to you."  That's not how this works, it's either true or not, those types of statements are faith statements value statements relating to one's beliefs, not to truth or falsehood.

One last thing to say on this topic, there are different types of truth.  This discussion has been about factual truth.  I'm sure that later discussions/lectures will deal with value statements and moral truth.  That will come later I'm sure, so stay tuned!

Technology in Education

Well, I've decided to take a short break from the Discovering the Philosopher in You series.  First a little background...

As part of my training to lead workout sessions, I've taken the certification training for CPR.  Also, I've taken general first-aid and even been an instructor for those first-aid classes.  Well, on Wednesday morning this last week I took a class on teaching CPR and I noticed a couple things.

First off, the most annoying thing in general about CPR training is the seeming total reliance on videos.  Even the training to teach CPR by video, is taught by video!  The thing that bothered me about this in this situation started with the preliminary training videos, it was actually full of great information. They had a variety good instruction tips, with good examples and help on how to deal with all types of situations.  One of the scenarios they dealt with was how to teach and deal with a break down in your technology.  But, apparently the only option for teaching CPR is with a video course.  They're inconsistent!  Here's how to deal with technology, but the only option available for teaching CPR is a video.

Here's another thing that gets me, they said at the beginning of the instructor training video that they've done research and that it showed how video instruction is just as effective as more traditional instruction.  I'd be interested to see what that study covered.  And as a hopeful future teacher, I died a bit inside when they said that!

I've discussed my opinion on technology before, but this is a serious question for educators and students.  A fellow blogger/former teacher that I've discussed various topics online with, Jason Robillard, wrote an entry about this very topic.  I've thought about this as an online learner and in general I've noticed that I don't really like the online "environment."  Though online teaching is less like the integration of technology in education so much as lectures broadcast for a wide audience.

In all the online courses I've taken, especially the Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) I've taken at Coursera.org, the biggest shortcoming is in testing.  Especially with the topics I've taken classes in, philosophy, logic, etc., there's no way to test EVERYONE.  Though I heard this the other day and really liked the idea: tests aren't for the teacher, the teacher (should) already knows if the student has been studying.  The test is for the student, to test to find out if one really knows (in a measurable way) what one thinks one knows.

How does the integration of technology look in today's education world?  I don't really know, though what I do know is that it's still not to that point where education should be taken over by machines.  It's an exciting and scary prospect as I someday hope to make a career of teaching.  Maybe someday (God forbid) we'll be at the point where teachers are replaced by machines, but hopefully I'll be ready for that day by educating myself on the best integration of technology in my own teaching (when I get to that point).

Don't look too close, there's some dust spots... but a beautiful sunset nonetheless

Faith and Philosophy Blog Carnival, May 2013, 4nd Edition

Jana presents How To Slow Down Recurring Unwanted Manifestations, Our Work in Manifestation: How To Focus More On What Is Wanted, How To Drop The Ego and Attachment: A Spiritual Conundrum : Wisdom Ink Magazine all posted at Wisdom Ink.

John Williams presents 10 Reasons Christian Parents Should Enroll Their Kids in Christian School posted at Live-In Nanny.

Jonathan Grant Jonathan Grant presents How to Read the Bible (And Stick With It!), God Doesn’t Want Us to Avoid Evil, He Wants Us to Shine His Light Into it! and The Devil’s Favorite Tactic! (He’s Using it on you Right Now) all posted at Questions & Answers About Life.

Linda Donegan presents 4 Tips to Help You Pray Continually posted at Grow Thru Adversity.

Joshua Tilghman presents Three and a Half Coils, Kundalini, and Revelations Chapter One posted at The Spirit of the Scripture.

Tia Ramsey presents Check Your Ego at the Door, Bloom Where You Are Planted, and You Want Me to Do What, Lord? all posted at Olive Valley.

Mark I Rasskazov presents POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOMENTUM posted at TRANSEGOIST DAILY JOURNAL.


Ron Moser presents Old Testament Prophecies of the Second Coming: Still future?–Part One posted at Where Eagles Gather (and other sayings of Christ).


Robin Bremer presents 3 Secrets to Easy Prayer & A LIST of What to Pray in Our NEW COVENANT posted at Robin Bremer.net.

John presents What is Manliness? posted at Fearless Men.

Mantas presents Have Some Hope posted at Life and Thoughts of an Ordinary Guy.

Thank you to all those that have submitted their work for this month's edition. The standard caveat applies, I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas presented but I hope you all enjoy reading the various perspectives regarding faith and or philosophy.  Next month's edition will be posted here on the 6th of June.

Discovering the Philosopher in You Part 2: Knowledge: How Should Knowledge Be Analyzed?

For those of you that missed my last entry, I'm working my way through a series of philosophy lectures by Prof. Colin McGinn of Rutgers University.  I find it kind of interesting that Prof McGinn chose to lecture in this order because in lecture one about skepticism the idea that we have knowledge or certainty (I'll be using the term knowledge for this entry but the two are more or less interchangeable in this context) is assumed.  I would think it might have made a little more sense to cover what is knowledge before questioning and being skeptical that one can have knowledge at all.  Nonetheless, we're on lecture two now about analyzing knowledge.  I apologize in advance because some of this stuff is considered dry compared to some other topics within philosophy.

Some of the first things we must consider when starting a philosophical analysis of something is what are the necessary conditions and what are the sufficient conditions for the idea being considered?  In this case, what is necessary for one to have or do to know something?  And, what is sufficient for one to have or do to know something?  The traditional answer to this question goes back to Plato's time (though I haven't personally studied Plato's epistemology), that is, a true, justified belief.  Belief, in this sense isn't the same as a religious or political belief (per se), rather a stab at the truth in thought.  One cannot think something is false and yet believe in it.  So, belief in its nature includes at least the attempt at truth, though one can guess at something and end up getting it wrong.  Justification is important for knowledge because, if one is to be rational, one cannot just say, "I believe this or that just because" or if one refuses to consider objections to one's beliefs they're being irrational.  Also, without justification things can end up being true by guessing and that's not complete knowledge either.  These things seem to be necessary conditions for knowledge, but as we'll see with the examples they aren't necessarily all the sufficient conditions for knowledge.  Let's move on to those examples because, to me, they're the fun parts of this concept.

Example number one to show how having simply true, justified beliefs are not enough to claim knowledge.  Suppose my brother comes to visit me every Tuesday afternoon, and it's a Tuesday and I'm expecting him and my friend, who is generally trustworthy, tells me my brother is at the door.  However, for whatever reason, my friend happens to be lying this time (the reason for the lie is not important), and my brother is not at the door.  At first we have an untrue, but justified belief that my brother is at the door.  However, as I'm going to meet my brother at the door, unbeknownst to my friend, my brother shows up at the door.  Did I know my brother was at the door?  No, not really even though it was true that he was at the door and I was justified in that belief.  But, no I didn't know that he was at the door at any time.  The second one is better (at least I think so).  You're driving through the countryside and you're seeing all the typical things one would expect to see, fields with bales of hay or straw, barns, livestock, etc.  Then, without realizing it, you are driving along and the things you've been observing, are now all fake.  So here we have justified beliefs (that the things we're seeing are real) but they're not.  Then, without your knowledge of it being so, there's a real barn in amidst the fake.  There, you have a true (at least about that one real barn) justified belief.  But that doesn't seem to be enough for knowledge in this case.

So there you have it, true, justified beliefs are required to have knowledge of something, but apparently are not the only things necessary to know something.  There have been many arguments and there doesn't seem to be any clear answer to what else needs to be added to true, justified beliefs to comprise true knowledge.  I certainly don't have the answers, again I'm just bringing up the question.  According to Prof McGinn's lecture it seems that there has to be some kind of causal relationship the truth and the belief(s) to be true knowledge.

Here's my only divergence from Prof McGinn.  I'm not saying that it's true knowledge, but I would posit that having a justified belief can lead to one believing that something is true to the point that it's true to that person.  Take the characterization of the mathematician, John Nash, in the movie A Beautiful Mind, the character played by Russel Crowe is plagued with delusions so powerful that he truly believes that they're real.  So, in effect, they become real to him.  It may not make any difference in reality, but to the individual things that are not true, with enough justification and powerful enough belief it can become real to that person.

What does this mean to you and me?  Honestly, not much.  I believe that there's a personal creator God.  There are many different justifications for that belief, they're generally covered in apologetics.  No one can prove or disprove the truth of that claim, but at least two of the necessary conditions for knowledge have been met for me.

Hiji Falls

Discovering the Philosopher in You Part 1: Intro and Skepticism: What Do You Really Know?

I'm going to try something I've never done in this blog before.  That is, write a series of posts along the same vein.  This idea was sparked by a philosophy podcast from learnoutloud.com entitled "Discovering the Philosopher in You."  Well, the introductory podcast was very interesting, it's a series of lectures from a professor Colin McGinn about all the "big questions" in philosophy.  So, I've decided to write parallel blog entries for each of the lectures.  I downloaded the study guide as well, so I'm referencing that guide as well as the lectures. Without further ado, introduction and lecture one, Skepticism: What Do You Really Know?

By way of introduction I'll mention that these lectures and parallel blog entries are not in chronological order.  That's intentional, as Prof McGinn says, because all of the questions in philosophy are ancient questions that can't be answered.  It's not like we're coming up with new issues for philosophers to ponder over all the time.  Though I would say that doesn't mean that new problems don't come up every so often, but I'd say that these new issues are just new twists of old problems. Some of these questions include, what the ultimate nature of the world is, what the self is, whether we have free will, how our minds relate to our bodies, whether we can really know anything, where ethical truth comes from, what the meaning of life is, and whether or not there is a God.  These are some of the topics that I'll be covering over the next fourteen (or so) entries.

One thing of note in the lecture is how Prof McGinn describes Plato's famous cave parable.  The way it reads in the Republic is pessimistic.  It's like someone has chained the poor people in the cave and are manipulating their perceptions by walking behind them with stick-borne puppets making shadows on the cave walls.  The way Prof McGinn describes it is much more optimistic, that they aren't chained and that the people casting the shadows are just passersby.  I don't know the reason for his oversight, perhaps it's not oversight and that's the way it's described in other platonic writings.  I don't really know, but I thought that minute mistake, if it was one, was interesting.

The skeptical questions of what do I really know, leads down a long path ending with solipsism, and the other minds problem.  If you don't want to read those links, I'll summarize those ideas, solipsism is the idea that nothing else exists other than your own mental state.  There's also a temporal version of solipsism where we cannot know for certain that there was anything in the past or that there will be anything in the future.  All we can know for sure (sort of) is that we are knowing something right now.  The other minds problem is related to solipsism though more specific.  It's the idea that one cannot know that anyone else's mind exists.  We see others' bodies and actions and assume that they are analogous to our own minds but we can't know for sure that they're not just cleverly devised automatons or robots.  The problems that the skeptics, like Descarte raise, are many and there aren't complete answers to all of their questions, and on the surface it may seem like madness that can neither be proven nor disproven.  Prof McGinn talks about an interesting problem that skepticism can bring with its questioning all knowledge.  I'll try to summarize his points.

Suppose you had $10,000 in the bank, then when you check your balance, you suddenly find, without reason or expenditure that you actually only have $.10.  How would that make you feel?  Consider knowledge in the same manner.  We think we know so much, we think we have an intellectual bank account with 10,000 pieces of knowledge and with just a few jabs from skeptics we find that we actually only know 1 thing.  As Descarte argued "I think therefore I am."  Doubting is thinking, which is an action that only something that exists can do, therefore I exist.  But, with solipsism and the skeptical issues that's all we can know for sure.  Prof McGinn seems to say that these skeptical issues are detrimental to a one's intellectual wellbeing.

My personal views on this problem are a bit contradictory.  I love to play around with skepticism, but it's just childish play to me.  Are you reading my blog?  How do you know you're reading my blog?  How do you know you're not dreaming?  (Maybe because in a dream the writing would be better, haha!?)  The Matrix brings a scifi twist to skepticism.  How do you know that you're not plugged into some supercomputer that's feeding you all you think you're sensing?  Can you trust your senses?  Are you sure you're seeing red as I'm seeing red, or are you just calling purple red because that's what you've always been told?  These are fun but silly to me.  On the deeper issue of skepticism intellectually bankrupting people, I don't really see how it changes things or people for that matter.  I mean think about it, what if right now, the only thing that you actually know and can know, is your current thoughts?  So what?  Are you going to behave differently?  I presume not.  Therefore, if not knowing anything that you thought you knew doesn't actually change your life why worry about it?  I certainly don't and I hope you don't either.

Time

WOW deep stuff!  There's a whole Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article (sixteen pages long in 12pt type!) about time.  Needless to say, my entry won't be anywhere near as comprehensive.  Which I'm sure you'll all agree that's a shame.  Ha!  Well, here goes.  As usual this discussion was inspired by the History of Philosophy podcast, this time it was an episode about Aristotle's view of time.  I've done a quick search on my blog alone and found that I've used the word "time[s]" approximately 126 times (before this entry of course, I've used the word six times in this entry alone!).  Of course not all those usages were the simple noun, time.

We use the word all the time, but what do we really know about time?  "I don't have enough time."  "I ran out of time."  "A stitch in time saves nine."  "Time flies."  Numerous other casual references to time pop up in conversation all the time.  What do they all mean?  Is time measurable movements as Aristotle seems to define it?  Is time an empty void to be filled as Plato seems to define it?  Both seem to be acceptable ideas/definitions of time.  And when it comes down to brass tacks does it really matter?  The argument is, sort of, moot.  It's a discussion piece but it ends up in the same regression to which epistemology eventually runs, there's the skeptical answer that no matter how you slice it, you can never know for certain that you're experiencing what you're actually experiencing and that it's not all a figment of your imagination/dream/Matrix/brain-in-a-vat.  It's very similar when it comes to time.

We can number or measure time, we call it a watch or clock.  We experience the passing of time, assuming that we can trust our senses, at least we can see change over time which is how we perceive as time changing.  Is that what time is?  Change?  Something more substantive?  Does time actually exist?  If there weren't any minds to perceive time, would it still exist, if it exists in the first place?  I certainly don't have any answers, in fact, I really only want to bring up the questions about this.  What do you all think?  Do you have the answers?  Sorry to be pessimistic, but philosophers have been arguing/considering these thoughts for years and no one really has all the answers, so I doubt you (though you altogether form a formidable intellectual force) will be able to answer these questions.

One parting thought, these questions of the existence of time bring up the concept of infinity that I've discussed before.  Aristotle, because his concept of time relates to movement requires that time be infinite.  Here's my synopsis of the argument.  If time is the measurements related to movement then it has to be infinite, because if there was something that moved the first movement of time, then there had to be time before time.  So, if time is something moving or at least related to movement then it must be infinite.  I'll sum up my view, as I've already mentioned.  Infinity in time is related to space in that physical universe cannot be infinite and therefore time cannot be infinite.  God, however, is outside space and time and is the infinite unmoved mover, and uncaused first cause of all causes.  That's just my view, no real answers just what I think.  Good luck with your search for your answers.

If the tsunami/waterlevel ever gets this high, pretty much the whole island is screwed.

Teleology and Chance

Sorry (again), for the long time between entries!  I've been so busy.  It sucks too because I've been trying to focus on reading a book I borrowed from a coworker and I haven't been prioritizing well and my Bible reading has been suffering.

Anyways, in the course of my listening to the History of Philosophy podcast, I've recently come across a couple recordings talking about Aristotle's ethics.  Well, two of the ideas Professor Adamson has mentioned about Aristotle that I've enjoyed learning about are the ideas of chance and teleology.  I'll cover chance first because it is the most interesting and in my mind the most controversial.

According to the podcast talks about Aristotle defining chance being only intelligible in the light a final cause or goal.  In general, I enjoy this professor's impartiality, however, in this particular podcast Professor Adamson makes it abundantly clear that he is completely convinced that Darwin's theory of Evolution is completely true and unquestionable.  Aristotle clearly believes in a teleological view of nature and that chance as something that is NOT the norm, incredibly exceptional.  Aristotle wouldn't have any concept of how nature, which is uniform (in many ways) and has predictable processes, could come about through random chance, since chance is NOT normal.  To this concept, Prof Adamson says that Darwin has since proven that random chance does lead to nature/life as we understand it.  I'm sorry Prof but I have to disagree with you, no one has yet to prove that random natural occurrences/changes can lead to the diversity/complexity of nature.  I'm not stupid, there appears to be some evidence, and I certainly don't have answers to all the evidence and some of my answers are based on faith, but it's certainly not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.  What bothers me is that Prof Adamson takes Darwin's ideas one-hundred percent on faith as truth.

The other concept that I can get behind from the lectures on Aristotle I've already somewhat alluded to, teleology.  If you're not familiar the idea revolves around the concept of a sense of purpose.  The main argument for God that comes from this concept goes like this.  Do your eyes have a purpose?  Do your ears?  Do all you separate organs/body parts?  How can it be that each disparate part could have a purpose and come together as a random assortment.  Life does have purpose.  I feel that Aristotle and so many others have missed that purpose, or as the Bible says "[they have] changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."  (Romans 1:25 KJV)  I'm not usually one for ceremony but I like the way the Westminster Shorter Catechism states this final end for which man was made by God, "What is the chief end of man?  Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.  If one lives with that in mind the teleology of Aristotle is clear, that God made mankind with the purpose of loving God forever.

I love this beautiful place

Faith and Philosophy Blog Carnival, Apr 2013, 3nd Edition

Jana presents The Way Of The Zen Master: What Causes Stress & Tension & How To Rectify It and How To Find A Direction In Life both posted at Wisdom Ink.

Alicia Smith presents Letting Go…and Holding On | Inspirational Christian Blogs posted at Inspirational Christian Blogs.

Paula Tan presents Creationism inspires faith; evolution destroys it posted at Paula's Blog.

Ashley Reid presents An End to Lent & Easter 2013: It's Not Enough to Understand Grace, We Must Live In It - Romans 14 posted at The Real.

Jonathan Grant presents I’m Too Fat for My Husband and 5 Skeptics Who Tried to Disprove Christianity (and got saved)! both posted at Questions & Answers About Life.

Rose presents Does God Give Us More Than We Can Handle? posted at Rose Godfrey.

Ryan Smith presents To Tattoo or Not To Tattoo… posted at Arise - Procaiming the Life of Christ.

John presents 10 Myths for Why God Loves Us posted at Fearless Men.

Ron Moser presents Does “soon,” “at hand,” “shortly,” etc. really mean “nearly two-thousand years and counting”? and Can God Keep Time? (More on the Bible’s time-specific statements) both posted at Where Eagles Gather (and other sayings of Christ).

Graham Stoney presents How To Look Spiritual, Even When You're Not posted at Graham Stoney.

Jessica Clark presents 10 Famous Preachers Proudly Named Ken posted at Kenney Myers.

Tehra Burton presents sex will save us. posted at sex will save us.

Adrienne Morris presents Rich Like Rockefeller posted at Books at Middlemay Farm.

Olga Rezo presents What is the Higher Self posted at Metaphysical light rays meditation.

Sarah Bernstein presents Hedonists and Hula Hoops posted at YourZenFriend.

As more entries come in, I'll update this edition. Thank you to all those that have submitted their work so far.  The standard caveat applies, I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas presented but I hope you all enjoy reading the various perspectives regarding faith and or philosophy.

Philosophy of Language

Plato's Cratylus again Plato shows his uncanny aptitude for inovation by discussing a part of philosophy that is generally considered modern.  Once again, he's ahead of his time.  Here's the two primary lines of argument.  First, language is more or less arbitrary, words get their meaning based on arbitrary assignments or convention.  Second, language comes from a source like nature or god and our use of it is an imperfect reflection of true language.  In general, Plato, using Socrates' voice argues both sides of the issues and then ends up supporting neither.

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, I pretty much side with Plato on this one.  I don't think either side of the coin answers reality.  I mentioned this before, this is a stereotypical giraffe:

What if I told you I have a beautiful giraffe that has short legs and a short neck and looks like this:

So, what say you?  Is that a giraffe?  What if lots of people all started calling this a giraffe?  What if EVERYONE started calling this a giraffe? People in Korea call it a 기린 (gilin--kīrīn), people in China say 長頸鹿 (chángjǐnglù), people in Japan say キリン (kirin--kīrīn, not surprising that it's nearly identical to Korean), people call it kameelperd in certain versions of Afrikaans.  If we're to subscribe to a source for our language why don't we all call it a kameelperd?  We probably should, if there's some ethereal language source out there by which all languages are derived.  If language is completely subjective and reliant to what people prefer then it makes sense that we now call that first picture a giraffe at least in English speaking places.  Obviously it makes sense that that we use just the word giraffe rather than always saying, wow look at that nice long-necked, long-legged, 16-20ft tall, approximately 3,500lb, mammal, etc. etc. just to describe a giraffe.  Obviously it's much easier to just use the word which apparently comes from Arabic, zarafa (زرافة).

I believe that God created human and taught Adam and Eve how to speak.  Perhaps not the way we think of teaching per se, but rather like the Matrix where information is just uploaded into the subject's mind.  I think (just an assumption, since the Bible includes Adam and God communicating) that God must have made Adam and thereby Eve with language.  Though Adam may have taught Eve how to communicate.  So, I believe the answer is both, God taught Adam language and that language has changed over the years since.  Also, the verses in Genesis about the Tower of Babel are telling.  Obviously God saw fit to use the power of language to enact change.  Then, over the six thousand some odd years since language has changed.  It's interesting that we seem to be following a cycle.  According to biblical history humans all started out with the same language then everything changed so that there are many different languages but we seem to be heading towards globalization of a single language again.  That idea happens to be prophesied in the Bible as well, though it seems quite a long ways in the future.

What say you?  Is there some magical source of language?  Is it merely convention?  Is it both?

Favorite Modern Preacher/Teacher

I'm usually not a big fan of mainstream speakers/teachers/pastors etc., but I do have two favorites, Alistair Begg of Truth for Life and Ravi Zacharias.  I recently listened to a podcast from Pastor Begg and the first thing that hit me was how nice it was to be taught something or in other words I focussed on learning something not analyzing some philosophical treatise by someone that I don't agree with (on metaphysical issues) taught by someone that I totally disagree with on metaphysical issues.  It was nice to be able to just relax and learn from this eloquent man of God that I respect.

I don't really remember (now, it's been a few weeks and I haven't listened to him at all since) what the message was about, but it brought to mind how much I've been listening to stuff that I pretty much completely disagree with.  I like thinking about the deep subjects brought up by the various philosophy podcasts to which I regularly listen, but it's sometimes difficult to find the gems of truth that are sometimes buried in their texts.  I'm not so stubborn and close-minded to think that the Bible is the only source of knowledge and truth.  But sometimes it's nice return to the well of truth especially when it's expounded upon by such an orator as Pastor Begg.

Do you have a favorite teacher/speaker/pastor?

Update on New Year's Goals

In case you've forgotten or missed that entry here's my goals for this year:

• Read through the Bible cover-to-cover and post about it on Facebook
• Read 50 books throughout the year
• Train for and complete at least a half ironman triathlon

Well, if you follow me on Facebook (there's only one Samuel Ronicker on Facebook, there's a Sam Ronicker but that's my dad) you'll know that I'm not really keeping up with my daily Bible reading and commenting on my progress, but I'm not too far behind and I'm fairly sure I'll be able to catch up completely soon and that I'll be able to finish the year.  Of course it's still early, but it's actually not that tough of a goal I don't know why I haven't done it before.  I've read all of the Bible at one time or another but never from cover to cover over the course of a year.

On the second goal, here are some of the other ground rules I've added to just "read 50 books."  I won't count (nor read) books that I've read before unless I never read the whole book or it has been so long ago that I don't remember any of it.  I also won't count the children's books I read to the boys at night for their bedtime stories, I might in the future but in general I read things to them that I've read before so it's discounted by the first "rule."  I will attempt to read a wide(er) variety of works.  I generally read nonfiction, but there's some worth to some fictional works so I've tried to add some to my reading list.  If you look on the right border of my blog you'll see my current reading list.  It's in the order that I added them to the list so they're not in any real preferencial order or anything like that; basically, they have been added as I find them and decided to read each one.  Also, I won't quit reading any book I start.  I have only done that a few times anyways so it shouldn't be a problem.  I quit Hugo's Les Misérables because it was just too heavy and long, maybe I'll finish it someday.  I also quit Nabokov's Lolita because it made me sick to my stomach.  I DO NOT recommend that book to anyone.  It was sickening.  My progress is quite behind schedule on that front also.  I should be at about eleven books and I'm only at four!  I am about half-way through one other and I'm told Red Phoenix will be a quick read.

On the triathlon preparation...  This is turning out to be the most difficult one of all.  I know that may not be a surprise to most of you but that is a bit surprising to me.  I've done sprint-distance triathlons before (two of them, about four years ago) and I am an avid runner and I, prior to my trip to Southwest Asia, regularly rode with a serious biking club.  I couldn't keep up with the club, but I was working on it before my duty so rudely interrupted me.  Since I've returned little inconveniences have gotten in the way of me rejoining that club.  Namely, sleep and the desire to do sleep rather than ride on Saturday mornings.  I'm doing okay with my running preparations though I need to do more long runs.  My desire for sleep has hampered that as well.  Also, the club that I was meeting on Sunday mornings seems defunct.  I'm considering starting my own club or seeking out a new one.  I hope I can find one closer to home as the previous club was about a 30 minute drive (one way) to meet up for the run.  I'm signed up to do a half-marathon on 7 April, though I'm really not ready I'm sure I'll at least be able to complete it.  Though I'm intending to do it barefoot and that'll be the first time I've attempted that distance barefoot.  I've done as much of my training runs barefoot but unfortunately I can't run barefoot for official unit physical training because of the uniform rules.  Over this week I'll try to get in more barefoot time to be completely ready for the half in two weeks.

One last thing not really related to my goals for 2013.  I would like to start working on a book.  I've mentioned it before and I've been encouraged by my friend Steven Specht's success with Notes from Afghanistan.  I think I'd like to just start with writing about 100 words a day about learning a new language.  I'm a bit worried that it'll be very easy at first, then I'll completely run out of things to say long before I get anywhere close to enough to fill a book.  My attempts to work on updating that other book, How To Learn Any Language: Quickly, Easily, Inexpensively, Enjoyably and on Your Own, have hit a dead-end.  That is, I have NEVER heard anything back from the author or publisher about my desire to write an update to that work.  So, I've decided that I'll just start work on my own book and with the goal of writing somewhere around 100 words a day hopefully I'll have something to start with next year sometime.

So there you have it, I'm doing okay on one of three of my new year's goals.  How are you doing?  Did you even make any goals?

This place has such beautiful flora

The Multi-Million Dollar Question

Matthew 16:15 "[Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?"

I've recently read a couple blogs that mention making choices, but this is the only choice that really matters.  To buy this car, or that.  To take this job or that.  To live in this place or that.  Eggs over easy, sunny side up, over medium, scrambled, poached, etc.  Or like the quote from You've Got Mail:

"The whole purpose of places like Starbucks is for people with no decision-making ability whatsoever to make six decisions just to buy one cup of coffee. Short, tall, light, dark, caf, decaf, low-fat, non-fat, etc. So people who don't know what the hell they're doing or who on earth they are can, for only $2.95, get not just a cup of coffee but an absolutely defining sense of self: Tall. Decaf. Cappuccino."

So, you have so many decisions to make but this is the only one that really matters, what is Jesus to you?  So many people talk about Jesus as just a great moral teacher and about how the Bible is just a story made up about this teacher's life and how he went around teaching people to love each other and to all get along etc. etc.  My favorite answer to that idea comes from CS Lewis:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse." 

"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

There are many answers to this trilemma and it doesn't really appeal to committed atheists/agnostics.  It's not really a powerful logical dilemma because there's so much riding on Jesus' claims.  So, the difficulty in this argument is that so many people take issue with whether or not Jesus actually claimed to be God.  I can understand that it's a complicated issue and not everyone agrees.  Even among people who are wholly committed to faithfully interpreting the Bible according to God's will, there's some disagreement as to Jesus actually claiming to be GOD.  I feel the issue is clear and that Jesus really does claim to be God.  However, I don't feel that a 100% strict interpretation of Jesus being God as opposed to Lord or having some other form of Godhood that gives Him the power and authority of God in certain aspects is somehow required to truly receive salvation through God's forgiveness.

Even after all that, the most important question in life still stands, "Who is Jesus to you?"  Whatever your choice, make sure you know what the repercussions are for that choice.  Think carefully about your choice and don't ever give up on pursuing why you believe what you believe.

One last word on dogmatism.  If you have truly done this, made all the inquiries you can into your beliefs and searched out all avenues of your beliefs and the contrary beliefs, then you have every right to be dogmatic (to a point).  If you truly, I mean truly, believe what you believe after making every effort to seek out the truth from multiple points of view then you have every right to feel you're right.  I believe what I believe after years of inquiry into the Bible and various interpretations and alternate views.  I have every right to believe that what I believe is true.  Am I going to shove it in everyone's face all the time?  No.  I'm not rude.  I share my thoughts here because that's what this blog is about, my thoughts on various subjects relating to faith and philosophy and the like.  The problem I have is when people call me dogmatic as a slight.  I believe what I believe and you're welcome to believe what you believe, but don't hate me because I'm faithful to what I believe.  I certainly don't resent you your beliefs don't resent me mine.

Cape Hedo, the northernmost tip of Okinawa

Aristotle on Logic

When it comes to learning logic Aristotle is one of the founding fathers.  If you want to study logic a great place to start is Aristotle's collective work called the Organon traditionally made up of 8 different books: The Categories, On Interpretation, Prior-Analytics, Posterior-Analytics, Topics, Sophistical Refutations, Rhetoric*, and The Poetics*.  The last two are the ones that many modern philosophy/logic students often don't consider logical works, and it seems like these last two were just kind of thrown into the mix.  Sophistical Refutations is kind of like a text on anti-logic, a kind of how to spot the sophistical, empty arguments.  Of course, these works cover a wide range of logic and Aristotle's works in general cover a very broadly defined concepts of logic and philosophy.  There's no way I or anyone else could even try to attempt to cover every bit of these works but I've been listening to the History of Philosophy podcast, and Professor Adamson gives a nice overview of these works.  He talkes about how ancient philosophy students would start their foray into logic and philosophy with these works.

So far the podcast, as I've been going through it, has only given a broad overview of the logical works. To me, the most interesting book is the first one listed, The Categories.  In general, it's about categorizing various things.  The categories for different objects are listed as: substance, quality, quantity, relation, place, time, position, state, action, and being acted upon.  How certain parts a thing are essential to that that thing, and some are accidental.  It may seem silly but there's a problem I have with this.  One of the concepts within the philosophy of language is that words are given their meaning through a somewhat arbitrary process.  Prof Adamson uses the example of a giraffe quite often, so I'll follow his example.  I'm assuming everyone of my readers knows what a typical giraffe looks like.  One of the examples is a giraffe painted blue, so we have a blue giraffe, but that's just an accidental characteristic of that particular giraffe, or if there was a giraffe with a broken foot.  Those are accidental characteristics of giraffes.  So here's my question, one would assume that a long neck and legs would be considered essential characteristics of giraffes.  However, what if I told you that I had a short-necked short-legged giraffe?  What makes what I'm calling a giraffe?  Me calling it a giraffe?  According to some concepts of linguistics that's part of what makes it a giraffe.

The next on the list, On Interpretation is also quite interesting.  To me, it has one of Aristotle's most important contributions to logic and philosophy.  I've always heard it called the "Law of Non-contradiction" though Prof Adamson doesn't specifically mention it.  In general, this particular text is about negation and how to make statements and syllogisms.  I don't have the space to explain all that but I would like to talk a little about non-contradiction.  According to the professor of the logic course that I was taking through https://www.coursera.org/ negating a statement isn't as easy as it appears.  The most straightforward method is to append the statement with "it is not the case that..."  So, the non-contradiction idea is this: two statements that are contradictions of each other cannot both be true at the same time.  For example, the statements "giraffes exist" and "it is not the case that giraffes exist," cannot both be true at the same time.  Obviously, at some time in the future or in the past giraffes may or may not exist, but at the same time they cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.  Though according to Prof Adamson, it seems that Aristotle leaves an exception to this idea, namely, for statements about the future.  For example, the statement "I will win the lottery tomorrow" is about the future and it is both true and not true at the same time.  Tomorrow, when I'm taking a bath in gold and jewels like Scrooge McDuck, I still can't say that statement was true or false just because it ends up coming true doesn't mean that when it was made it was true.

Plato's Republic Book 10 and 11

Wait for it... oh sorry, you've been waiting for this for several weeks now.  It's my final entry at least for now, on Plato's Republic; specifically, books ten and eleven.  As before I have a couple caveats to my entry before I begin.  First, my thoughts that fall under the 'Book 10' portion of this entry aren't really a commentary on what that particular section is about, more like my thoughts on Plato and Socrates' concepts of God and my imagined response they might have had to Jesus.  Secondly, if you're reading these notes, I hope you understand that these are just my reactions to listening to Plato's work in audiobook format, NOT some in-depth study or analysis of Plato's works or philosophy.  I like to think I have some good insights into his work, but I'm probably just one of thousands of people (most of which are MUCH smarter and better read than I) that have said their opinions about what Plato meant when he wrote this work.

Book 10.  When listening to this section I wasn't really all that focused on Plato's idea of the "forms" (I'm going to dispense with the use of quotation marks to refer to Plato's idea that there's an ideal representative thing for everything that exists), as much as I was thinking about how Plato would have responded if he had met Paul or Jesus or C.S. Lewis or some other great Christian teacher/apologist.  Plato is expanding some of his concept of forms and all I can think is "the God of the Bible is the God that you're describing!"  If Plato had the chance to sit down with Paul and discuss theology and Paul had taught Plato about the God of the Bible, that I serve, and shared with Plato that which Jesus had taught him, I think Plato would have become a great apologist himself.  Plato already talks about a god that made the universe and made the forms of all things and then he goes astray from this great god and still believes in Zeus and Athena and the like.  If he could have dispensed with all that mythology and just stuck with the idea of one God that made all things including the ideal forms of all things then his theology and his philosophy wouldn't have been that far off the mark.  As his book affirms Plato was totally caught up in the Greek mythology of his day.  His concept of this originator god that created the forms of all things is novel and borderline blasphemous.  Sadly, Plato lived hundreds of years before Christ and it doesn't appear that he had any influence or interaction with any Jews or anyone else that believed or followed the biblical texts as they existed at the time.

Book 11.  This is the final section of the Republic and in some ways the most distressing.  He has mentioned a few times previously about the illegitimacy of poetry and various poets.  He even suggested that art and poetry be completely regulated and censored.  Then, after blasting the poets for making up fairy tales and twisting the truth.  What does Plato do in book 11?  He makes up a fairy tail mythology to support his concept of how the soul is immortal and how it pays to be a wise philosophical person, both for this life and the next.  One other thing I dislike about this last section, Plato makes it clear in his fairy tale that souls are immortal and just pass from this life into the next then come right back (a bit similar to Hindu reincarnation).  However, (unless I heard wrong) in book 10 he said that god creates souls.  So which is it Plato?  Are souls immortal or were they created by god?  It seems that he wouldn't have such a glaring internal inconsistency given that he's basically a genius and one of the greatest fathers of all western philosophy.

Alex whale watching