Philosophy 4: Faith and Reason

In the previous writing, we looked at the relationship between greater and lesser things. I gave a few examples of the types of distortions that can occur when lesser things are elevated over the weightier matters. I showed that this often occurs when one takes a perfectly good word, like pragmatic, and attaches an “-ism” as a suffix, making it the central purpose for everything else, foundational, or the “greatest thing.” Then we then went on to look at how logic flows from the appropriate order and relationship of things, arranging them in categories or classes. We looked at the three most basic laws of proper inference (logic), showing that they cannot be refuted, and why that is so.

To refresh the reader’s memory, here are the three most basic laws again:

1) The Law of Identity: a thing is what it is; and is not what it is not. (A=A)
2) The Law of Noncontradiction: something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same relationship. (A≠~A)
3) The Law of Excluded Middle: A thing either is or it is not. (A v ~A)

Essentially, these are three ways of looking at the same thing. All of them are saying that a thing is itself, and not not itself.

Logic judges statements, or propositions. The terms “married bachelor” and “square circle” are statements. They are proposing that two mutually exclusive categories or classes belong together, when they cannot. Therefore, the two statements are a meaningless combination words. Likewise, a sentence contains a subject and a predicate. When the subject is negated by its predicate, the terms do not cohere, meaning, they cannot go together. So if I write, “This apple is not an apple,” the same laws apply to the statement and I've contradicted myself.

But what if the so-called “apple” was mistakenly called apple? In such a case, we are dealing with a different state of affairs. Such expressions like, “This “apple” is not an apple after all,” are not violating the laws of proper inference, but affirming them. The sentence is affirming that the object mistakenly called an “apple,” did not belong to the class of apples after all, since it is not an apple. Logic studies the coherency of proposed states of affairs, the relationships of classes of things, signified by the words or symbols which represent them. It deals with systems of truth-claims. It doesn’t deny the use of poetic expressions or non-literal speech. The point is that apples that are not apples do not exist. They are non-things—nothing. There is nothing behind the words. They are nonsense, meaningless states of affairs, empty words. The philosopher is after the reality behind the words, not semantics.

What we're driving at here is that logical coherence precedes actuality.  The scientist, for example, doesn’t need to scour the universe looking for evidence of square circles or married bachelors because these are false, analytically. They are false by definition. What we are doing here is formal thinking. A thing must be possible before it can be actual. In other words, logic precedes evidence. Logic is the greater thing. Philosophy exists prior to the evidential. Whether the evidence is based on experience, empirical data, sensory perception, or anything else, it must be possible before it can be actual.

The basic building blocks of logic apply not only to a couple of words or a sentence, but to entire arguments as well, and from entire arguments to an entire thesis, and, once again, from an entire thesis to an entire worldview. Logic mirrors the order behind the entire universe (Rom 1:20). It judges our statements, our sentences. A meaningful sentence consists of a subject and a predicate, something the subject of the sentence is predicated of—being and essence.

Logic precedes creation. It is prior to nature, the physical things. When I say this, I am not talking about the symbols and expressions which man formulates to express it, but to the reality behind the symbols and the language. I am saying that truth is an invisible, spiritual, real object that creates, designs, and unifies all things according to classifications, structure, and order. A created thing, an earthly, physical thing, for example, HAS being. However, truth IS being. God is self-existent; creation is utterly and irrefutably dependent on His being. This is the metaphysical relationship between Creator and creation we are looking at. It is monotheism. Christians affirm this metaphysically, but deny it epistemologically.

They do this by pitting faith against reason. Fide vs Logos

What they do is affirm this as a metaphysical truth, but say that we cannot know it by “human reasoning.” What this does is separate epistemology from metaphysics as though they were two, separate realties. They try to overcome this divide by redefining the term “faith” (“pistis” in the Greek) as though it were an entirely blind leap into the dark. This strips the Christian of his intellectual faculties, which God commands us to use, and reduces faith to a private experience inaccessible to the mind. So in faith, we can have square circles writ large, because that’s “man’s way of knowing.” As the fideist will tell us, with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. This anti-systematic system of thought is called “Fideism,” from the Latin word “fide” or “faith.”

“I believe it because it is absurd” is a statement often attributed to the church father, Tertullian. Whether he said it, I don't know and don't care. But it is essentially what Fideism is saying. So as a matter of course, I claim that God is an ant named Willie who the lives under my front porch. He lies to me all the time. It is because of this type of non-reasoning that atheists have created a mock-deity called the “Flying Spaghetti Monster,” and refer to themselves as “Pastafarians.” Speaking gibberish and using empty words as though embracing absurdity was wise is not truth-telling, but speaking falsehoods.

 It is true that God can accomplish “all things,” but those things are just that—things! They are things with a nature that actually exist, states of affairs that really are possible. Things are not non-things. God cannot create square circles any more than He can lie or cease being what He is. He is the ultimate thing and cannot be anything other. If he could, then He couldn’t be God! There would be nothing. So, epistemology (“pistis”+”ology”) is the study of how we can know that what we believe is true. It studies the nature of faith in a coherent, systematic way. To believe something is also to claim it as a metaphysic—a real and true state of affairs.

Metaphysics and epistemology cannot be divided into two, separate and opposing realities, no matter how much we may dislike the word “systems.” God loves “systems.” He wants us to notice them, to notice what He says about Himself through their mind-boggling intricacies, and their beauty. He did not give us minds just so that we can see these things, and loathe them. God is well-pleased with His creations. He gave us minds so that we cannot wait to look at the things He has made, how He organized them, created complex and intricate systems, by His speech. So that by studying these things, we may hear Him, and behold His glory through the things He has made. So let us return to the question of faith, to see how it coheres with reason.

Although we do not normally think of faith this way, consider this: When I sit in my chair at the dinner table, I do so trusting the integrity of the chair. Will it support me? Will it break? Will I get injured? Normally, I just take for granted the chair’s structural integrity and plop right down on it, with barely a thought. However, if I noticed something about the chair that caused me distrust its ability to hold me up, I am not likely to sit on it. My decision would be based on the evidence perceived through my senses. It is a matter of practical wisdom that I do not sit in the chair and risk injuring myself. But what, according to our own metaphysic, has more integrity? Is it the chair that I take for granted everyday or God? If it is God, then why does the Christian claim faith as a “great leap,” while taking the structural integrity of almost every chair he sits in for granted? Doesn’t trusting the chair require a greater leap of faith?

Sin is unfaithfulness to God. It is irrational.

We define “faith in God” as a “great leap” because of our sinfulness. We have contradictions in our faith, every single one of us. The Christian is a sinner, a saint, and a skeptic all at the same time. However, what makes matters worse is that our current definition of faith is not from the Bible, but from secular humanists that have no faith. To them, faith in God very much seems to be an irrational leap in the dark. According to Webster's Dictionary faith is "an unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence." The authors of this dictionary must have been listening to fideists. However, our concern is what does the word of God mean by the term “faith?”

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” (Hebrews 11:1–3, ESV)

The translation of the first sentence is slightly unfortunate, but notice that the Scriptures draw together the first and the third sentences into a coherent unity, epistemology and metaphysics into one reality. To put a finer point on it, let’s look at how other English versions translate the first sentence, then I'll provide a very literal translation of that verse.

“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (NIV84)

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (NKJV)

"Now faith is the reality of things being hoped for, the proof of things not being seen." (a literal translation)

The first word in question is “hypostasis.” For those of you that are more theologically informed, you might recognize this word from the theological term “hypostatic union,” which refers to the two natures of Christ existing within one person—“the God-man.” The word literally means “substance,” “nature,” or “essence.” And it also means “trust,” “confidence,” and “certainty.” What is being claimed here is that essence of something is causing the believer to trust in that something. What are those “things” that causes the trust? They are invisible things, things not seen.

The writer of Hebrews is talking about things that are not physical, that are not material, earthly things. It is referring to spiritual things, things that we cannot see with the naked eye or detect by our five senses. What most Christians mean by “not seeing” nowadays, are things they say cannot be known, meaning, spiritual things. They mean they cannot be “seen” with the mind’s eye. But that’s not what the Bible says because the other word, “elenchos,” means “evidence” and “proof,” which can only be considered by the mind, but not with physical sight. Indeed, the verbal form of this word, “elencho,” means “to rebuke” or “to refute” using rational arguments.

Part of our hesitancy about logic, and about philosophy in general, is due to Rationalism. In this worldview, existence is reduced to what I can conceive of in my head. It is that kind of thinking that says, “Well, I've never seen it, so it must not exist.” “If I cannot wrap my head around it, surely it is bogus.” Being a rational person is a good thing. We were created to be rational. Rationalism, on the other hand, is not good because reality is much bigger than what we can comprehend. This is one of the crucial differences between Rationalism and Realism. In Realism, reality is much larger than what I can grasp in my mind. It is the mind that is informed by what is real, actual, and objective, not the other way around.  I can know real things about real things because those things really are there, and the ordering of them is actually there too.

It is not us reaching all the way up to God, but God condescending to reveal Himself to us, informing our minds. Our knowledge of all things depends upon revelation, God revealing them to us. So faith is not a leap of anything, but resting on something certain. Faith is not doubt, but quite the opposite. It doesn’t mean, “Well, I'm not too sure about God, but I'll take my chances.” That’s gullibility, credulity, and foolishness.  That is the skeptic and the sinner talking in us. The answer is to seek the truth about the matter, to seek after His knowledge and His wisdom because those are what produce faith.

Although men cannot “grasp” or “comprehend” everything that exists (like God, for example), this is not to say that men cannot understand or know. What men cannot have is a comprehensive knowledge, having knowledge about all things. That would make him omniscient, “all-knowing.” Only God can be all-knowing. However, people do not have to know all things in order to know some things. I only mention this because there are some who claim that in order to know anything, one must know everything. My rebuke to them is: Really? How do you know? The mud does not need to see the inside and the outside of the shoe to receive the imprint of its sole. Likewise, my mind does not need to possess infinite or exhaustive knowledge in order for God’s speech to be known by it.

We live according to what we believe. The question is whether or not what we are believing is real. Is it really knowledge? Or is it the mind viciously turning away from the piercing light of truth and reason, falling into the irrationality and the madness of darkness, seeking the alluring comfort of empty words?

Philosophy 3: The Logic of Things

Philosophy is the search for ultimate truth….

We have a strong tendency to begin our conversations in a pragmatic, moral framework and to work outward from there. “Does it work,” we might ask? “Is it equitable or fair?” In such a system, or way of thinking, usefulness and equality are heralded as the supreme virtues, the democratic ends of modern society. One does not need to go very far to see evidence of these virtues in our own country. Political debates concerning economics, for example, revolve around proposals for “responsible and fair budgeting.” Many conservative groups use the phrase, “balancing the budget,” as a utilitarian means of avoiding an economic crisis, such as the “fiscal cliff.” Meanwhile, more liberal groups often chirp back that conservative proposals do not work because the monetary distributions involved in such schemes give preference to the wealthy, which is neither equitable nor fair.

But political economics isn’t the only place we see the manifestations of such virtues. We observe them everywhere. Our conversations about education revolve around who’s not getting enough of it:”No Child Left Behind.” Speaking of children, we often teach them to disregard “being right” in exchange for “getting along.” We also say things like, “Well that might work in theory, but in the real world….” We even read the Bible through our consumer-driven, egalitarian, democratic lenses. “What does this verse mean to you?” or “What can God do for you?” We even tend to regard faith as “something that works” for us: “If you just trust God, He will make you feel less guilty,” or “boost your confidence,” or “bless you with success.” Recently, I even read an article that reinterpreted the biblical narrative of Jonah to mean being less “…narrow, nationalistic, racist and exclusive….”

The problem with being equitable and pragmatic is not that these are bad or undesirable virtues in themselves. The story of Jonah may very well be applied to speak to narrow-mindedness and exclusivity. We should also avoid any “fiscal cliffs” as well as favoritism.  I agree that racism is wrong, partly because it isn’t fair and it doesn’t work. God’s forgiveness does indeed assuage feelings of guilt and of shame. The problem with these begins when they are plucked from their context, from their proper order within reality, and set up as what is central, or foundational, to it. In other words, while there is nothing wrong with being pragmatic; there is something wrong with pragmatism. There is nothing wrong with equality or equity per se, but egalitarianism is a denial of reality.

Are all people really equal? Are all people equally wise, intelligent, or strong? Do all people share the same economic status, physical abilities, or charisma? Are all men equally able to lead, or to inspire, or to speak? Upon what basis does one claim all men to be equal, if there is absolutely nothing intrinsic to man that even suggests that anything like equality should ever exist? (See my blogs, “Politics 101,” for an explanation on what sense all men are “created equal”)


Philosophy looks at the highest things in existence. When the pragmatists ask, “Does it work?” The philosopher asks, “What is “it”? Does “it” work for what?” Consider our modern day concern with our economic crisis: The pragmatist, both conservatives and liberals, wants a system that works. I do too. However, I also know that I must learn what economics is and for what purpose it exists PRIOR TO the development of any economic system. This pattern is really important: What precedes what in the order of things. To illustrate the magnitude of it, let me say that how we think about this will shape how we read the Bible, and even how we think about the Gospel. 

If equality and performance are the highest virtues, what becomes of how we read and interpret the Bible? If those are the highest things in the church, then everything else is subordinated to those things, and brought into conformity with them. Jonah’s story is no longer seen as a story depicting a sovereign God moving all of history along as He pleases, according to His eternal plan of redemption, where even the vegetation and the creatures of the sea obey Him. Instead, it’s about being “open” to the perspectives of those different than you.  It’s about not being “nationalistic” or “racist,” even though those concepts did not exist in those days. 

How about the Gospel? Why did Jesus come to die? Well, He came to save sinners from death. Who would disagree with that? Obviously, no Christian would…at least until he realized that a “sinner” no longer means someone who is offensive to God’s holiness and that “death” no longer refers to eternal separation from, and damnation by, God. Instead, a sinner is a narrow-minded “bigot” who disagrees with progressive reinterpretations. “Death” means holding on to those old ways, which prevent us from pressing on to a “better tomorrow.” Jesus died for what works and so that we may all be treated equitably, or equally. At least, that is the Gospel I see many Christians, including some of my own friends, constantly post about. 

The biggest things in life are invisible and spiritual. We know they are bigger because everything else is shaped by them, given meaning and existence by them. The lesser things are contained within the greater things. All of the biblical writers were very concerned that we thought this way about everything in existence. Jesus Christ even condemns those who get this wrong for their hypocrisy:

““Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matthew 23:16–24 ESV, emphasis added).

What did these men do but to exchange the heavenly things for the earthly things? Giving up the weightier matters for mint, dill, and cumin? And replacing the greater things with lesser things?

“It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.” (Hebrews 7:7) 

It is, indeed, “in Christ” that we have been saved. We are inferior to Christ; therefore, we are blessed by Him, and not because of who or what we are, but because of who and what He is. It is in Him that we are shaped and given our being. Everything in existence follows this pattern: The greater things blessing or informing the lesser. It is by the altar that the gift is sacred, not the other way around. When we swear by the altar, we are swearing by everything contained by the altar because it includes all of those things. The altar is the bigger classification, and the gift is contained within that classification, along with everything else on the altar. This is how all of existence works; it is also precisely how logic works.

Logic exists and works because of what the Logos is. 

The Logos is the truth, the rational ordering principle of the entire universe. All things are as they are because of what the Logos is. It is this Logos which creates and designs all things, giving them order, substance and form, from the greater to the lesser. A thing is a thing because of the nature of truth itself. A thing is a thing? This also happens to be first law of logic.

Epistemology deals with logic, or truth criterion. How do we know that we know? How do we know that we know that this God-ordered universe and not something else? How do we know that we know the Bible actually is the word of God? What does it mean “to know?”

“To know” means to have the mind informed by the object of study. It is not man opining about how he feels about the object, whether it feels right or good to him. It is not man merely “thinking” in any way he pleases, so that he might build some sort of cognitive model out of words that point to nothing in particular. Those are vain imaginings, empty words, and are referred to as such in the Bible (Eph 5:6, Matt 6:7). Words and statements are true because they point at something real, something that exists and has a nature. Words have content and substance because they faithfully articulate the being and essence of the things spoken about. To be “informed” is to look at the object (truth, justice, faithfulness, etc…) that the mind might be transformed into its image (Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 3:18). 

What philosophy does is to smash empty words, meticulously plucking them out of our faith. These are interferences—sin—dwelling in our minds, blinding us to what is real. It uses logic to this. Philosophy is superior to sophistry. Reason is greater than irrational babble, and checks the statements of poor thinking, or the speech of those who would use empty words to deceive. Pluck out the log that causes blindness from our own eye, and we can see clearly to remove the speck from our brother’s eye.

The first three laws of logic are like three sides of the same prism. Looking through this prism, falsehoods begin falling away. We've already mention one, the law of identity, which states that a thing is what it is, and is not what it is not. For example, a fish is a fish, and is not a rock, or a chair, or the Sun, and so forth. This law is often expressed as A=A, meaning A is equal to A. Therefore, a thing is equal to itself.

Doesn't that seem ridiculous and simple? But it’s violated all the time, as we shall see. For instance people will say God is unique, eternal, and unchanging. But then these same people will also claim that the God of the New Testament is nice, gentle, and merciful, while the God of the Old Testament is mean, vengeful, and full of wrath. Likewise, people will emphasize God’s mercy at the expense of His justice. However, the God of the OT is the same God of the NT! And while it is true that God is love, it is also true that He is justice. God’s justice is loving, and His love is just. The reason people fail to consider such things is because they do not have this law of logic, or the other laws, ingrained into their thinking. It takes practice. A bigger reason this is violated is because man is fallen, and suppresses the truth of God in his unrighteousness. But if we practice, then we can grow into maturity.

The second side of our prism is called the law of non-contradiction. This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same relationship.  Or to put it another way, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. A≠~A (≠ means “not equal to” and the ~ symbol is a negation, meaning “not” or “non”). In other words, “A” is not equal to “non-A.”

The third law of logic is called the law of the excluded middle: A v ~A, which means A or non-A (the “v” in logic means “or”).  A thing either is or it is not. There is no third option and it cannot be both. Either a statement is true or it is false. The law of the excluded middle does not apply to gradations within a category or class, but to the existence of a class. Either it is a gradation or it is not. If I referred to a blue-green button as being “blue,” this does not violate the law just because the button is also green because it is also blue. However, if I said the blue-green button was not blue-green, then I just contradicted myself. Either it is blue-green or it is not.

When Christians seek to refute logic as “human reasoning,” they are refuting themselves in the process. One cannot deny these laws and still maintain validity in their arguments or claims, since all valid statements depend upon these. They just threw truth and reality out the window, so to speak. They have denied the very laws that their own statements depend upon. So when someone says, “I don't believe in human reasoning and logic, I only believe in the Bible,” they are refuting their own statement. When they said, “the Bible,” did they also mean “anything unbiblical?” Obviously not. Did they mean to indicate that “believing” and “not believing” were mutually exclusive categories? If not, then to believe is also not to believe. If so, then they are depending on logic, what they call “human reasoning,” in order to make the assertion.

What logic does is to wreck empty words, which deny or confuse the order—the classifications—of things. A bachelor, for example, refers to a man who is not married. A person is either married, or he is not. A bachelor is a man that belongs to the class of people. What kind of people? Unmarried people. So if I said, “married bachelor,” I am speaking gibberish because the categories “married” and “unmarried” are mutually exclusive. The same can be said of square circles. It cannot exist because a square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square. Saying “square circles” is a meaningless combination of words. They point to nothing at all.

What does all of this have to do with Christianity? 

Absolutely everything. If God created all things, then there is an order and a design to all things. All of the things that He created bear something of His stamp. When God spoke, out comes creation. Does any Christian seriously believe that God speaks gibberish? Or do the things that He spoke into existence bear His message? All things say something about God. Whatever God speaks into existence He speaks it out of His very being, it is filled with content and information about His own nature (Rom 1:20).