Nowhere Island - No way!

I have just been reading about an interesting project that is taking place on the south coast of the UK. It's called 'Nowhereisland'. Alex Hartley, an artist, and his team of 18 people have excavated 6 tonnes of material exposed by a retreating glacier on an archipelago north of Norway. The manufactured island will be tugged across the south west coast of the UK over the next few months. People have been encouraged to sign up as 'residents' of the island, and also to draw up, and vote on its constitution. I was interested in this picture of the constitution:

There are some good rules here, some weird ("Mocha will be in charge?!"). The one which struck in me particular is obviously the one which says:

Local communities self determining - no gods, no masters

This rule has been well received - judging by the number of ticks. However it illustrates the rejection of the notion of god, and more so the notion of a god who rules. People want to be their own masters, their own bosses. This is a direct parallel to the very first act of rebellion that Adam and Eve took part in in Genesis 3. They wanted to be self determining. They wanted to be in charge - in charge of setting their own set of standards - right and wrong (which is what this constitution is). However noble it may appear, it always ends in failure. The entire human 'project', over the course of history, in its rejection of god (all religion's included), is nothing short of a disaster. We see this in all countries, and increasingly so in the west. After a period of relative stability and decorum (note relative - there have, and always will be sinful people and problems that result), we are seeing the moral breakdown of society as it tries to set moral standards without reference to god. 


As a side note - the statement: "Local communities self determining - no gods, no masters" is self refuting. For what if a community of christians decided to live on the island? In their self determining status, they would want to refer to God as their authority/master, and live by his rules and standards. But according to this rule, they would not be allowed to. So infact, they would not be allowed to be self determining at all, but determined by an arbitrary constitution. The same would apply if a community of people wanted to appoint their own local government, and run their own sub-community as a democracy, voting in and out leaders. They would not be allowed to, and thus, they would not be allowed to be self-determining in a true sense.  


This is a sad consequence of the new tolerance. In its attempt to validate all views and accept everyone, it ends up rejecting and excluding anyone who does not agree with its definition, and in the end, becomes totalitarian and extremely intolerant to anyone who does not agree with its atheistic and secular presuppositions.

Propositional Logic (4)

Rule 4: Conjunction

1. P
2. Q
3. P & Q

Examples

1. Jim is playing the piano
2. Charity is playing the piano
3. Both Jim and Charity are playing the piano

Again this is an easy rule to understand. It includes the ampersand symbol '&', read 'and'. If P is true, and Q is true, then both P and Q are true!

Two British comedians on their atheism

I came across these 2 really interesting YouTube videos, on the  and beliefs of the comedians Stephen Fry and Ricky Gervais, 2 of Britain's best loved comedians:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqibqD4fJZs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dknumOcNVcU&feature=related


Please watch them for yourself - but here are some of my thoughts on each one. I don't want to dissect them as that is always unfair - they are only short youtube videos and not comprehensive papers!

Ricky Gervais

Ricky Gervais describes the day he lost his faith in God, when as an 8 year old, he sensed by her body language that his mother didn't want him to investigate why he believed in God, and thus was hiding the fact that he didn't exist. In his words, from then "he just knew". He then briefly discusses that now he thinks that is it an impossibility that God exists. Gervais is a good example of a person who lost their faith as a child, and since then, has not worked to investigate whether God does indeed exist, or if Jesus is his revealed son and word. It is sad that there are many people who are living their life on this - the knowledge in a particular area (in this case theology) of an 8 year old. If this is you - then I encourage you to investigate whether there is good evidence that God does exist, rather than listen to comedians, who while sincere (and Gervais is sincere and honest in this video which is commendable) may be wrong. 

Stephen Fry

Stephen Fry is an extremely intelligent man, and a very sharp comedian. Here however he makes some remarkable comments:

Firstly, he says that even if it is true that there is an afterlife, we must not believe in it, but must live as if it isn't true, so that we are not intellectually lazy and make the most of our opportunities to learn and grow as people in this life. Whilst it is rightly admirable that Fry wants people to come out of the intellectual sloppiness and laziness that pervades much of modern western society, it seems odd that if it is true that there is an afterlife, we should believe that there isn't one - i.e he wants us to believe a lie, even when we know the truth. This is more than intellectually lazy, it is deceitful!

Secondly, he moves on to why he does not believe in God. His argument is the argument from evil - i.e how can god exist when there is so much suffering in the world. He uses animal suffering as an example. He says that we must take it both ways - we cannot just point to the beauty of creation as evidence for god and ignore the suffering. He is right of course - we cannot ignore the evil in the world: "The wonder of nature must be taken in its totally...we wonder all the way". 

Then he moves onto a criticism of a kind of moral argument - the idea that we don't know what is right or wrong unless we are told it from a book written 2000 - 6000 years ago is absurd. And of course he is right about this too. However that is not the classical theistic moral argument. It is clear that humans have a moral perception - we can discern moral values and duties for ourselves (we don't need a book to tell us for example that torturing a child is wrong). The argument is is that unless there is a transcendent basis for those moral values and duties, they are not objective. If God does not exist, then why is torturing a child objectively wrong? Of course - I agree that torturing a child is wrong, but on atheism (of which Fry's humanism is a sort), there is no objective reason why it is wrong. On atheism our moral values are just social conventions that have developed over the course of human history to aid our survival. But that is all they are - just convention. If someone should come along and decide not to abide by convention because they do not care for human survival, who is to say they are wrong. It is just one person's opinion against another's. There is no independent basis to judge who is right. This leads to the moral argument for God (which is a logical argument using the rule modus tollens):

1. If God does not exist (P) -> Objective moral values do not exist (Q)
2. Objective moral values do exist (¬Q)
3. God exists (¬P)

I think Fry accepts #1, since he talks about people having the responsibility of "maintaining and...creating our own ethical and moral frameworks". God does not exist, so objective moral values do not exist - we need to create our own.

However he then starts talking about 'right and wrong' in an objective sense, when he says "the idea that we don't know right from wrong..but we have to take it from words...in a book..is absurd". So he seems to accept that there is a realm of morality that he can discern apart from ourselves - i.e that is is objective. So he may agree with #2 as well! So logically he would have to accept #3, that God does exist. 

Going back to his argument from animal suffering - which he takes to be objective (else why would he be so indignant at it!). If the argument above holds (it is logically sound and the premises are more plausible than their negations), then you can actually use it to prove the existence of God:

1. If God does not exist (P) -> Objective moral values do not exist (Q)
2. There is animal suffering in the world (R)
3. There is evil in the world (S)
4. There are objective moral values in the world (¬Q)
5. God exists (¬P)

So, far from disproving God's existence, animal suffering, and evil in general actually shows that there is a god, since it is objectively wrong.

Fry is a very sharp man, and I have guessed at his assumptions in the moral arguement (what else can you do with a short youtube video), but I imagine that he has not really heard the good reasons for god's existence, only the poor arguments that are all too present in christian circles (particularly in the UK where the state of christianity and religion is all too unintellectual - what would the church father's say were they to see this!)

I hope this encourages you, having the resources to think and research the question of if God exists to do so thoroughly. I like Stephen Fry and Ricky Gervais, but it is dangerous and misleading to just rely on comedians and celebrities to answer questions such as this for you!

Were the writers of the New Testament attempting to write history?

A small detour from the rules of logic!


Often sceptics will say that the new testament is just 'a book of stories', and that the events of it 'may or may not have happened'. The answer to this hinges partially on whether the writers of the new testament, who unanimously testified to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus were attempting to write historical accounts. If they were, then the new testament must be seriously considered and analyzed to see if it is an accurate account of the life of Jesus and the early church. If the opposite can be shown (that the gospels were never meant to be historical documents), then they can be discarded as myths, or at best - something akin to a Dan Brown novel - a nice story, but never intended to be anything more. 


So, was the new testament (NT) intended to be historical? 
To determine this, we need to look at the purpose the authors of NT were writing with. I will examine briefly some examples of the purpose/intentions of the NT authors Luke, John and Peter. Obviously I am not a world class historian, but just inspecting the text of the new testament and using your brain can help you a lot when answering this question. 

Luke

Luke begins his gospel with the introduction:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, ²  just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, ³ it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴ that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

Here, Luke tells us that:

1. Many people have tried to write a narrative of Jesus' life (verse 1)
2. There are people around who were eyewitnesses to Jesus, and have told Luke what they have seen (verse 2)
3. Luke thought it a good idea to write a compiled account of Jesus life for Theophilus
4. He wrote it down so that Theophilus would be able to have some certainty of what he has heard about Jesus from an account based on eyewitness accounts 

I won't labour on this - but clearly from the outset - Luke is intending to write a factual, historically accurate account of Jesus. Further investigation of the book of Luke and Acts shows Luke to be correct in many many secular historical details that he includes - he is claiming to be a historian, and is one of the highest rank. 

John

John includes a similar statement at the end of his gospel:

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹  but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31)

this is more theological purpose - John wants people to know that Jesus did many incredible things that he did not document. But his purpose is that by knowing what Jesus did they would believe that he is the son of God, and the Christ (i.e God's chosen one and Lord himself). John's intent is not to write a good page turner, but that people may have certainty of eternal life through belief in Jesus. 

Furthermore, the book of 1 John (written by the same John) has this statement at the very beginning:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— ²  the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— ³  that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. ⁴ And we are writing these things so that our^[a] joy may be complete. (1 John 1:1-4)

Here, John is more explicit in claiming to be an eyewitness to Jesus. Look at the verbs he uses:

1. He heard Jesus speak (verse 1, 3)
2. He saw Jesus with his own eyes (verse 1, 2, 3)
3. He touched Jesus with his own hands (verse 1)

So John too - is writing as an eyewitness.

Peter

Peter writes this in 2 Peter:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷ For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,^[i] with whom I am well pleased,” ¹⁸ we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. (2 Peter 1:16-18)

Here, Peter is claiming to be an eyewitness to the transfiguration of Jesus (Mark 9:1-8, Matthew 17:1-8, Luke 9:28-36), at which he was there, with John and James. He stresses that he is not following clever myths, but is writing the truth in his letter to the churches, but that he was an eyewitness to Jesus. It's also significant that he anchors this in his witnessing of the transfiguration, an event recorded in all the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) by authors other than himself. 

I think it is significant that we have 2 out of 3 of Jesus' beloved disciples (the other being James) claiming to be eyewitness and making it clear that they are writing for historical purposes. It is one thing for a historian removed from the events to write an account (other ancient historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, Arrian and Plutarch wrote about events before their lifetime), but for people to write historical accounts having been close eyewitnesses means that their accounts must be taken seriously. 


The sceptic may then argue that because Peter and John were close to Jesus, they would write with a religious bias, and because Luke was a companion of Paul, so would he. However, making this objection concedes the point that Peter and John were close to Jesus, so would have had information about him not available to others. Secondly, all ancient historians write with some bias, be it religious or political (and they still do today) so this accusation can be levelled at any piece of literature/documentation! There may not be similar statements from Paul, Matthew, Mark, James or the author of the letter to the Hebrews, but we can say that the authors of 9 of the 27 books of the new testament make it explicit that they are writing as eyewitnesses, and are trying to write the truth of what they saw and heard. Add to this the further details around the authorship of new testament, such as:

1. All the books were written within 1 generation of the life of Jesus, which was not enough time for the accrual of legends or the removal of the core facts
2. There were enough eyewitnesses present when the gospels and letters were being written and distributed to check them for their validity and factual accuracy
3. The tradition of memorization and oral teaching amongst 1st century Jews was strong, so we can be confident that the facts were retained and that the disciples took great care to use memorization when recalling the facts about Jesus.
4. Closer analysis of the NT finds the authors to get secular historical details correct

We grow ever more confident that when we read the new testament, we are reading accounts meant to be history, and that are historically accurate.

Propositional Logic (3)

Rule #3: Hypothetical Syllogism

P -> Q

Q -> R

P -> R

Examples

1. If the light is on -> there is a current flowing through the circuit

2. If there is a current flowing through the circuit -> the temperature of the wire goes up

3. If the light is on -> the temperature of the wire goes up

1. If it is raining -> there are clouds in the sky

2. If there are clouds in the sky -> less light reaches the surface of the earth

3. If it is raining -> less light will reach the surface of the earth

Reflections

This is quite a simple rule - it is very intuitive, and not much needs to be said on it!

Propositional Logic (2)

Rule #2: modus tollens

1. P -> Q
2. ¬Q
3. ¬P

Examples

1. If it is raining (P), there are clouds in the sky (Q)
2. There are no clouds in the sky (¬Q)
3. It is not raining (¬P)

1. If the match is lit (P), then there is oxygen in the room (Q)
2. There is no oxygen in the room (¬Q)
3. The match is not lit (¬P)

This rule works by denying the consequent of the first premise. The consequent is the statement after the '->' (implies) symbol. The antecedent is the statement before the '->'. 

Necessary and sufficient conditions, and framing a premise correctly

This rule of logic brings up an important point. 

The antecedent is a sufficient condition of the consequent. If the antecedent is true, then that is sufficient to say that the consequent is true (i.e if it is raining, then we have enough to be able to say that there are clouds in the sky). 

The consequent is a necessary  condition of the antecedent. The antecedent is never true without the consequent. If Q is not true, then P is not true either, because Q is necessary for P to be true.

Therefore, when you write premises in the form of P->Q, make sure that the necessary condition is Q, and the sufficient condition is P. For example:

"The light is on only if there is a current flowing through the circuit"

Now the necessary part is "there is a current flowing through the circuit", since this must be fulfilled for the light to be on. The sufficient part is "The light is on". So we frame it like this:

1. If the light is on (P) -> there is a current flowing through the circuit (Q)
2. There is no current flowing through the circuit (¬Q)
3. The light is not on (¬P)

Logical Fallacy: Affirming the consequent

Using the previous example, what is wrong with this argument:

1. If the light is on (P), there is a current flowing through the circuit (Q)
2. There is a current flowing through the circuit (Q)
3. The light is on (P)

It is not good argument. Just because the current is flowing in the circuit, it doesn't mean the light is necessarily on. What if the filament in the light bulb was broken? Where the argument falls, is that is in the fallacy of 'Affirming the consequent'. You cannot affirm Q and then take P to be true. For an argument of the form modus ponens and modus tollens, you can either:

• Affirm the antecedent (say that P - the sufficient condition - is true)
• Deny the consequent (say that Q - the necessary condition - is false)

Propositional Logic

The 9 Rules of Propositional Logic

Propositional logic is the most basic level of logic, dealing with inferences based on sentential connectives, such as "if...., then", "or", and "and". There are 9 rules of inference. Equipped with these, you will be able to assess the validity of most of the arguments you will ever here. Remember that a good deductive argument is one which:

1. Is formally and informally valid (i.e the conclusion(s) must follow from the premises in accord with the rules of logic)
2. Has premises which are more plausible than their negation

I'm going to post each of the 9 rules here in 9 separate posts, with examples and perhaps a short discussion on each. I'll start with the first, "modus ponens". Knowing these rules is vital in the task of christian apologetics. First we must know that our arguments and reasons for believing in the existence of god and the christian gospel are reasonable. Secondly, we must be able to point out any logical inconsistencies to refute and correct others (with gentleness and respect - 1 Peter 3:15)

Rule #1: modus ponens

1. P -> Q
2. P
3. Q

Examples

1. If John studies hard, he will get a good grade in logic
2. John studies hard
3. John will get a good grade in logic

1. If it is a Sunday, the library is closed
2. It is a Sunday
3. The library is closed