Yes

As a very general response to the Federal Vision vs. PCA debate, and in light of a couple of worthy posts by my worthy brothers, a few thoughts:

Abe mentioned that “The PCA has allowed its intellectual base to erode, and ignorance is governing what’s happening.” John also argued (without apparent relation to the FV/PCA debate) that “theology is escapism: neat and clean. Theology, in short, is not talking about the same reality as the Bible is.”

It seems Abe and John have combined their forces to bring a mighty sledgehammer squarely down on the proverbial Nail.

As for what Abe says, there is fuzzy logic on the PCA side, yes, but they are no intellectual dummies either. The intellectual base, at the core, has arguably suffered some erosion, but not due to the lack of smarts of various brains. Enter John. While I disagree that Theology inherently is “escapism,” I will agree that it can degenerate into escapism, or perhaps more aptly, and much less concisely, up-in-the-clouds reasoning. It starts to become theology and doctrine for its own sake.

This is where the image of theology “coming out the fingertips” is so apt: it ties theology (properly and realistically and grittily applied) to love and Real Life.

For an example of this balance, Doug Wilson’s response is admirable.

fjord (fee-YORD) n. A Norwegian cjar.

Kiosk Word History:

The lowly kiosk where newspapers are sold or advertisements are posted is like a child in a fairy tale raised by humble parents but descended from kings. The word kiosk was originally taken into English from Turkish, in which its source kosk meant “pavilion.” The open structures referred to by the Turkish word were used as summerhouses in Turkey and Persia. The first recorded use of kiosk in English (1625) refers to these Middle Eastern pavilions, which Europeans imitated in their own gardens and parks. In France and Belgium, where the Turkish word had also been borrowed, their word kiosque was applied to something lower on the scale, structures resembling these pavilions but used as places to sell newspapers or as bandstands. England borrowed this lowly structure from France and reborrowed the word, which is first recorded in 1865 with reference to a place where newspapers are sold. [American Heritage Dictionary]

Here is a transcript of the debate between Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens on the question “Is Christianity Good for the World?”

Click.

This is good to read as an exercise in identifying examples of good and bad logic. Hitchens is very good at making passionate and formidable assertions about Christianity. But as you can see, as with many bad arguments, it is assertion without adequate support. Just disguised in good turns of phrase. Hitchens’ brother doesn’t even agree with him. For an interesting rebuttal of Christopher Hitchens by brother Peter Hitchens, click here.

But for what it’s worth, even bad arguments are sometimes difficult to answer, so what C. Hitchens says is worth listening to. Though even more educating are Doug Wilson’s responses.

The previous post makes some obvious points, it would seem. It’s obvious that 1 + 1 = 2. It’s obvious that Aristotle’s Law of Noncontradiction (A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense) is true.

What’s not so obvious to some is that these are laws. These are not social constructs. A law is inherent to the fabric of the universe and was never made up and then “written into” law. It is law, intrinsically.

The human mind can conceive of many extraordinary and silly things. For instance, we can conceive of a world in which Unicorns exist. We can conceive of a world in which humans naturally have three heads. We can even conceive of a world in which 1 + 1 = 3 . . . or can we?

Variations of natural objects is certain conceivable yes, like Unicorns. But though we may at first think so, conceiving of a system in which 1 + 1 = 3 is not even possible, even in a weirdly distorted, crazy, fantastical world. What would change would merely be definitions. “One” object (in the true sense of “one”) added to another object cannot ever be more or less than two, regardless of how we change definitions.

Logic is not a reality only in physical nature; it’s a reality of mind and conception as well. If one claims that logic is a social construct, he must also be prepared to agree that no other “construct” is valid, except from a personal level. Without one Standard for reference, there is no basis for any other standard, however weird or reasonable.

There are certain things that man did not come up with himself. For instance, the way things are did not originate from cultural and social decisions. Most particularly, logic and truth are not social constructions; man did not decide on the rules of logic. He discovered them and organized them.

For instance, logic involves categorization and numbering. At some point, some enterprising fellow (presumably Adam) discovered that the world consisted of multiple things. There was more than one tree and certainly more than one bug. So that he could keep track of things, he attached names to amounts: one, two, three, etc. He also found out that having “one” bug in each hand was pretty similar to having “two.” Addition. Obvious, yes. But here’s the rub: simply because he applied names (“one,” “two,” etc.) to various items does not mean that he personally created numbers, addition, and the ability to draw conclusions from such operations. The rules of numbering, mathematics, and logic are a part of the created order; they’ve always been. If this is not the case, anything goes. No exceptions.

Here is Sir William Blackstone: Of the Nature of Laws in General

Law in it’s most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate, or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which th inferior is bound to obey.

Thus when the supreme being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When he put that matter into motion, he established certain laws of motion, to which all moveable bodies must conform . . . .

This then is the general signification of law, a rule of action dictated by some superior being;and in those creatures that have neither the power to think, nor to will, such laws must be invariably obeyed, so long as the creature itself submits, for it’s existence depends on that obedience . . . .

For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purpose of those laws.