About Logic

think that this has something to do with logic of statements.

Statements phrased as beliefs are still statements. They behave similarly to other statements. And logic applies here.

Logicians have notations they like to use.  They say that statement P is true necessarily means that Not P is false. P is a symbol for any proposition, and Not P is the symbol for its opposite. 

Clearly, believers in a god do not agree with the atheists who say there is no god. One denies the other. Therefore, we can easily say that the atheist doubts that there is a god and the believer doubts that there is none.

Belief and doubt work best when we don’t know the details. Let’s say that P is “God exists”. What we mean is that something fills the roles normally attributed to God.

Thus, Not P is “God does not exist”. This could mean that either nothing fills a role normally attributed to God, or that no single thing fills enough of the roles. 

Often, the second proposition gets called Q. For economy, we’ll follow that tradition. We will say that Q is the statement Not P.

Those who believe in God believe the statement P is true. They also doubt the statement Q, or believe that Q is false.

But those who believe that God does not exist believe that Q is true, and thus they believe that P is false. Or they doubt P.

Shedding Some Light

his is fine for Logicians, but Ps in big, flashing, neon letters are hard to come across in the real world. Still though this logic works even in cases where the truth of P is a little more in doubt, as in a real life case.

To say “It is dark outside.” denies much that “It is still light out,” implies. We will doubt one based on what we believe about the other.

If I stumble up the steps of my front porch at night because the porch light was not on, and my friend Skeeter comes into the house a half hour later to tell me that it is still light outside, I am not inclined to believe him. I might think that he has good night vision, or it is light enough for nuts like him.

The first one partially validates Skeeter’s statement, the second partially discredits it. While the first one would most likely be accompanied by the claim that maybe he could see outside, but the vast majority of us mortals cannot. 

The second idea would likely accompanied by the thought that he can go out and bust his head open on a tree stump if he wants to, or that I have no idea what he would consider dark. All that is in keeping with my current conclusion that it is dark outside.

I do not need to look out the window to conclude that if my conclusion is right (although it might be the best way), his statement is in some way lessened.

Also, if I begin to suspect my own conclusion, because I remember that I had sunglasses on—or some other little detail like that— I allow more range for Skeeter’s conclusion, based on how much I take away from mine.

Just to throw a phenomenological slant in here: We pretty much know that if it is dark, it cannot be light as well. However, what we call dark is up to judgment. And perhaps like my friend Skeeter, there is no sky that is so dark that someone wanting to stay out playing football will not call light. However, our judgment of how light it is depends on how dark it is. The judgment against the counter claim depends on the degree that we accept the positive claim.

Just as this example does not depend upon the absolute truth of proposition P, the value of christian doubt as seen by christians does not depend on the value of the entire system. The value of doubt is relative to the system. In other words, Christianity can be entirely mythological, yet be found to value doubt.

Doubt In the Bible

h, but I do!” I can hear some of you say. Funny—but I’m talking about the Bible’s support of doubt—or at least allowance for it.

Let me quote a Bible verse that illustrates my point that though Christians are called to have faith, they are called to doubt.

In 1 John 4, we find “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”(NIV)

“Do not believe everything,” the writer of 1st John says. “Doubt what is not consistent with what you “know” about God.”

If you accept that reading, we can begin to see the value of doubt in a Christian context. The doubt does not cut against the faith, it shields it.

If time permits, I would like to detail the entire structure of doubt within the Bible. But I can only hint at it here.

Isaiah caricatured pagans who made idols out of wood or stone only to fall down and worship it. The conclusion being that the pagans worshipped a powerless chunk of rock or wood.

The Bible also contains the statement that the God of Israel is the “only living God”. That suggests that the gods of the other tribes were suspect.

It is the God of Israel who names himself I am who am. I find the idea of that name interesting. Moses asks “Which god should I say sent me?” The God of Israel answers  “The god that IS, pal, the god that is.”

But getting back to the 1st John quote, I paraphrase it thusly: “Test assertions against first principles (i.e. God), because there are misguided, delusional, and deceptive people out there. You can be misled if you don’t watch out.” (Now, I know that he said Spirits, but I am centering on the simpler idea of “false prophets” here.)

Right here, I have enough familiarity with the critics to feel that some readers are thinking right now, that that sentiment was not carried far enough in Christianity. Some are saying that it is as true of Christianity, and therefore, they need to watch out for the number of deluded and deceptive people in Christendom as well. To which, I say, “Ah, so you are recognizing the structure of familiar doubt in Christianity!”

It was my intent to get you to recognize doubt occurring within a belief system, not that Christianity offers the best form of doubt. That is what I meant the quote to demonstrate.

Some Sources

 problem in seeing the relationship between the belief and doubt is that many people confuse naturalism or materialism with skepticism. Naturalists argue that nothing is super-natural. Materialists argue that essentially only matter exists. While, skeptics argue that we cannot tell what can be known with certainty. Add “by man” to that and you have the makings of a more Christian Skepticism.

You can refer to the following links to see that I do not manufacture my definition of Skepticism. I believe you’ll find that both of these sources have little in common with me, except for our similar definitions of Skepticism.

Skepticism (definition)
Skeptic’s Dictionary

If under the tenets of skepticism, I can’t even say that we know something, the only way I can deal with anything is through belief. Sextus Empiricus, a classical greek skeptic, and Francois Bayle, the attributed founder of modern skepticism have made similar statements.

Likewise, certainty is not stressed in scripture so much as faith—though we are called to have faith that becomes like a certainty. “Blessed are those who have not seen, but yet have believed.”

Here, I believe I stated a pretty good case on why Christian skepticism is not an oxymoron. Christian naturalism would be. Christian materialism would be (but some people make a pretty good living off of that one.) But not entirely so Christian skepticism. If you thought so up at the top, I hope that I’ve convinced you that

1. You were wrong, though you believed that you were right.
2. That you doubted I was right, based on your belief about what you thought you knew.
3. That you can learn something from a confessed Fundamentalist Christian.(See A Few Definitions )

If you were more familiar with skepticism, and accepted what I said in the first place, then perhaps you learned that a Fundamentalist Christian can know the definition of skepticism.

I Was A Teenage Skeptic

was a skeptic in good standing for many years. I rested in safety and comfort that the better of a skeptic I was—the fewer premises to which I could constrict myself—the better I could squelch the arguments of others who assumed more than I did.

I was on the watch for anything that even resembled a non sequitur in a discussion. I felt that if I could just believe less, then soon I would be the Ultimate Fighting Champion of argument.

At some point, though, I realized that ultimately to pursue this course I had to believe in skepticism as a path to enlightenment. This is what I noticed: I struggled toward true knowledge, and my mental sinew was being increased through skepticism.

But, I did not know of anyone I considered as having this perfect knowledge; I knew that I didn’t have it; although I felt I was getting there and skeptical treatment provided the avenue. But, in this, I had no proof that skepticism would get me there.

The skeptic in me hates analogies, but they can be useful illustrations. I want to go north. skeptic Street runs north and south. As long as I stay on the road, I’m going north.

Can I then assume that this road will take me to the North Pole if it has gone 2 miles?

A body builder has gone from curling 10 pounds to 110 pounds. His biceps have grown over 6 inches in the last 6 months.

Can we then assume that all he has to do is increase his curling weight 100 pounds every 6 months and his biceps will be 6 inches bigger?

Children make assumptions like these, not men. (I can just see myself as a little kid fantasizing about 3-foot arms in 2 years and 400 pounds.) I had added to my reasoning by stripping the fluff of convention, but were there limits to what could be done from a skeptical perspective?

Maybe, a seasoned skeptic out there will say that my problem was pursuing a kind of enlightenment. Maybe I was too mystical in the first place. Skepticism is down-to-earth, pragmatic. There is no reason to believe that anything can provide the certain knowledge that I looked for.

First, I describe it now as a search for enlightenment. I did not think of it then as such. Back then, I would have agreed that we struggle to find just exactly what can be known in the first place.

Second, if we can’t be sure of our knowledge, we can never be sure of our central argument as well. Thus, skepticism is useful, but if it is turned back on itself, it would cut itself to shreds. Any skeptic that holds this central argument can only ever believe it.

Skepticism, to me, is a discipline. (See references above ) I still practice it. Eliminating unnecessary conclusions has led me to a better understanding of the conclusions that I was drawing, and which conclusions I could draw.

These essay pages will serve as an example of the conclusions that I have drawn. And I think my thinking has progressed to the point that I know most of the assumptions I am making.

I use various schools of thought as disciplines—I try to think in their context as much as possible, so that I can understand the issues raised by that particular dialect of thought. I am familiar with skepticism’s evil twin, Nihilism. I also am conversant with Logical Positivism, Positivism, and Phenomenology. I do extend to Naturalism, but only until I feel my brain sludge over.

With that, welcome to my web pages. Welcome to the wonderful world of Christian skepticism!