To Error is Human – Part One

Isaiah 55:6-9 Seek the Lord while He may be found; call on Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him., and to our God, for He will freely pardon. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts higher than your thoughts.”

In this overview study between “Theism” and “Atheism” on the existence of God that I’ve been delving into, it has became very apparent that the logic, philosophy and psychology is involved in the belief or unbelief in the search or abandonment of truth. As Sproul pointed out, in the objective realm of the question of the existence of God both sides cannot be right, so logic must be a constant guide in the rational debate; that contradictions don’t lead the issue astray from truth. For philosopher Aristotle’s system of truth, logic was defined as being the origin of all science and truth-seeking. That is, logic is viewed as a necessary instrument or tool by which knowledge could be coherently expressed and understood. Statements that contradict are non-sense statements, to be meaningless with respect to context because we learn nothing from them and an atmosphere of confusion is permeated. We cannot solve the tension of the disagreement by affirming both poles. So how is it possible for men of equal brilliance, of equal intellectual prowess, of equal educational backgrounds and sophistication to arrive at two mutually exclusive conclusions? Experts, of course, are capable of making mistakes. Even, the great minds in the debate are subject to error. Wasn’t the world once thought by Scientists of old to be flat and the Sun rotated around earth? There are innumerable ways in which errors are made in the process of rational debate, because logic, philosophy and psychology are involved or not.   

Jeremiah 5:21-22a “Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear: Should you not fear me?” declares the Lord.

Four basic ways in which errors are made and by which disagreement comes are: (1) Epistemological errors, (2) Formal errors in reasoning, (3) Factual errors in empirical investigation, and (4) Psychological prejudice that distorts conclusions. By understanding these error factors, we can better see the issue of conflict in belief and unbelief today ... what people believe and why.

Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that deals with the question of knowledge. It deals with definition of truth and the methods of attaining truth. The two most famous schools of thought here are rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism has a great emphasis to the function of mind and reasoning in order to arrive at truth. The accent has fallen upon the formal and theoretical rather than upon the material and the tangible. Conceptualist argued that which can be conceived in the mind in rational categories must exist in reality. Conceptualist might argue that to conceive of God is perfectly proper within the context of rational speculation and is not irrational.  On the other hand, empiricist sought to discover truth through the examination of hard data, through what is perceived by the five senses, than through logical speculation.  A very strict empiricist would argue that a metaphysical Being called God, who cannot be perceived by the senses cannot be true. The conclusion to the theist or the atheist may be largely conditioned by the validity or invalidity of the epistemology employed. 

Sproul also explains that even though a philosopher uses a perfectly valid epistemology, that will be no guarantee that the conclusions of their thought will be equally valid because it is quite possible that “Formal errors in reasoning” may occur throughout the thought process. All philosophers have resorted to some kind of reasoning process to argue their views. The question of formal truth concerns the question of internal consistency. It involves questions of logic and of statements that can be verified or falsified by reason. Thus, a major reason why brilliant people disagree about important issues is because even brilliant folks are capable of making mistakes in their reasoning process. We must not assume that they all been consistently reasonable in their formal argumentation.

A long post today for me to get the whole message in, so breaking this one up for easier reading. i'll pick this study up tomorrow right where i left off today.

In Christ, Brian