The Philosophy of God Draws One Closer to Philosophy, Not God

11/7/2024

The Philosophy of God—classical theism— is proudly grounded in logic.

Logic is respected if it is valid. Most of the arguments for God posited by classical theism are logically valid.

But here’s the thing – a logically valid argument need not be true. An argument is considered valid even when its premises or conclusion is false.

Hence, many arguments comprising the Philosophy of God are logically valid; however, such logical validity is not a confirmation of soundness or truth.

Logical arguments must be valid and sound to be true.

That is, sound arguments must contain true premises and a true conclusion.

And that is indicative of a big problem with the Philosophy of God, especially when it comes to metaphysical assumptions.

What masquerades as truth in the philosophy of God is often little more than logical validity.

If anything, logical validity demonstrates the limits of touting logic and “evidence” as the best and only valid sources of truth.

Yet those who adhere to and insist upon the “validity” of the Philosophy of God as the ultimate mode through which God can be understood and “proved” are quick to reject and dismiss the soundness of intuitive direct-knowing as sound; that is, valid and true.

My lived experience tells me otherwise.

The Philosophy of God draws one closer to philosophy and the logically valid "god of philosophy."

Intuition draws one closer to God.

Note added: The above is an intentionally gross oversimplification of the implications of logical validity versus logical soundness. I do not mean to imply that logical validity has no place in reasoning or cannot be employed as a useful tool in thinking or that reasoning completely devoid of logical validity is completely possible or desirable, only that it should not be regarded as truth, per se; particularly when applied to metaphysical assumptions. In this sense, I reject the "usefulness" of logical validity to a great degree.

I also wish to draw attention to the primacy of intuition over logic. I am not suggesting that intuition is infallible; rather, that it should be the starting point of thinking. But that is best left for a future post.

Another problem with logic-heavy paths to God is that they expose faith to logic-heavy paths away from God. I don't think classic theists fully acknowledge how much damage logical validity wielded by atheists and anti-God types has inflicted on Christianity on the whole.

Lastly, logic has a tendency to place the head before the heart, which can lead to all sorts of problems in the long term, religiously speaking.

11 Comments

Laeth

11/7/2024 10:47:16

"The Philosophy of God Draws One Closer to Philosophy, Not God" - a perfect aphorism!

jerry tulio

11/7/2024 22:05:26

I find calviclassical theism entirely illogical from its first premises, i.e. absolute divine simplicity and absolute immutability.

Francis Berger

11/8/2024 03:37:34

@ jerry - Because it is. Moreover, it leaves no meaningful place for the work of Jesus. Yet it insisted upon as logical and any suggestion that things are otherwise are immediately dismissed as absurd.

Stephen

11/8/2024 00:04:16

If I recall correctly, it was William Lane Craig's book 'Reasonable Faith' that first explained to me the difference between soundness and 'mere' validity. Good post.

My intuition has always directed me towards God as the ultimate answer for why there is something rather than nothing. I have never believed in the 'Evil God' gnostic hypothesis; moreover, the Shroud of Turin has always struck me as being genuine (and the recent dating to the 1st century is gratifying).

However, three things about the Bible have always stuck in my craw at an intuitive level...first, God as depicted in the Old Testament comes across as the product of human minds, with an assortment of human defects of character; and secondly, I really struggle to find in the Gospels reason to think that Jesus came for non-Jews. He speaks disparagingly of Gentiles as being less than Jews on more than one occasion. Thirdly, and related to the last point, Paul is a strange character upon whom the entire edifice of Christianity relies. His is the only claimed eyewitness testimony to the risen Lord. All else are hearsay. And it's Paul who goes against the very people who walked and talked with Jesus throughout his ministry, who announces that Christ is lord over all nations. My intuition finds all of this very suspicious.
My intuition toward a loving God seems to place me somewhere between the sterile classical theist god of the philosophers, and the anthropomorphic, ethnocentric turned universalist god of the bible. It irks me that the Abrahamic religions have somehow claimed the patent on monotheism. How is it, I wonder, that there is no non-Abrahamic monotheism? Assuming even that one of the Abrahamics is true, how is it that there are no false monotheisms out there from a different source text? That has always struck me as suspicious, given the variety of myths and legends created over 1000s of years. One wonders what was destroyed at Alexandria, or may be lurking on some Vatican library shelf.

11/8/2024 03:42:44

@ Stephen - Classical theism leaves no room for intuition. It purports to do so, but in practice, it vehemently opposes it.

bruce g charlton

11/8/2024 08:55:19

@Stephen - Paul's " is the only claimed eyewitness testimony to the risen Lord. All else are hearsay."

But the Fourth Gospel describes itself as eyewitness testimony from a disciple. I personally believe this is true - and that the Fourth Gospel is a primary source, and the only primary source; and that the Synoptic Gospels are secondary sources, and of much less validity.

If this is accepted, then some of the inconsistencies you describe disappear - and a clearer and simpler understanding may emerge.

I wrote about this in an online mini-book:

https://lazaruswrites.blogspot.com/

Alt Numlock

11/8/2024 04:39:08

There is a virtuous circle between the head and the heart. I've found that deeper philosophical understanding turbo charges my affection for and adoration of God. It shouldn't be either-or.

11/8/2024 05:20:09

@ Alt - "It shouldn't be either-or." I agree. However, there must be some acknowledgment about what is primary and what is secondary. Even someone like William Lane Craig acknowledges that it is his communion with the Holy Spirit, not things like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, that solidifies his faith. Philosophical understanding is fine and can help strengthen faith and understanding, but philosphy should not dominate or be the sole foundation of Christianity.

Kristor link

11/8/2024 07:01:47

Absolutely correct; great post, Francis.

On the one hand, we may feel confident that a doctrine of God (or anything else) that is logically invalid must be wrong somehow (even if right in spirit). On the other, it is massive, radical foolishness to suppose that a God we can understand - by reasoning, or in any other way - is coterminous with God in reality, the God Who Is, the Great I AM who far outpasses human telling. Every mystic without exception will attest to this.

That does not mean reason and logic have no place in our thinking about God. It just means that the most we can expect from them is help in ruling out incoherent notions of God, that don't pass even the small test of mere human understanding.

Finally, we must remember always that our apprehensions of logical validity (and such) are not themselves the outworks of reason. We just see that an argument is invalid; that it does not follow through properly to its conclusion. Or, we just see that the premises of a valid argument are not credible, and call for further examination.

On the contrary: our apprehensions of logical validity and of the credibility of premises are as it were the inworks of reason. Logic and reasonability and verisimilitude of premises and conclusions are all at bottom deliverances to us of our intuitive sense - of our illative sense, as Newman called it.

What is logically incoherent can't be true; but our recognition of coherence and incoherence is at bottom aesthetic. Incoherence fails to fit together properly, somehow, either in and to itself, or to the rest of experience.

Dewey was all over this; the phenomenology of uncertainty versus confidence.

11/8/2024 07:53:45

Must disagree that classical theism leaves no room for intuition. On the contrary, it operates on intuition - of validity, verisimilitude, common sense, and so forth. It tests propositions against the raw data of experience - not only its own, but that of all its forbears - as any school of honest careful investigators ought to do. Its greatest proponents have been profound and sapient mystics: Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, David, Daniel, Plato, Plotinus, Ezekiel, Maimonides, Nimbarka, Jesus, Paul, James, Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Boethius, Dionysius, Eckhart, John of the Cross, the Gregories, Maximos, Thérèse, Teresa, Mary Margaret, Francis, Dominic, Hildegard, Böhme, Herbert, Donne, Milton, Dante, Pope - and Gödel, G. Spencer Brown, Lao Tse. Also Chris Mangan, for what it's worth; he does not seem to me to be a mystic, but he is reputed to be the smartest man in the world; whether or not that is true, I find no fault in his reasoning (for what that is worth). Some would add Gautama to that list (I sure would). Then there are the authors of the Rig Veda and the Upanishads, and Zoroaster; and let us not forget the pagans of all lands, who one way or another all praught the obscure incomprehensible Most High God, who stood behind and above their pantheons as the origin and basis thereof.
These all converge upon classical theism, and urge us to it. All of them say that our minds cannot comprehend the Ultimate Reality, who is God; but that we can apprehend him, at least in part, albeit but through a glass, and darkly..

The notion that they are all wrong – not just those famous names (the list could go on much longer), but their billions of students – has a tough row to hoe.

I mean, think of it. The contrary to classical theism is that there is no ultimate basis to reality. If that is so, then *everything is up for grabs,* and there is no right or wrong. Satan then is just as right and correct as Jesus, and just as wrong. It’s a nutty notion. It throws all of human life into a cocked hat.

Don’t want to go there; should not. That way lies damnation; insanity; solipsy.

11/8/2024 12:43:57

@ Kristor - "These all converge upon classical theism, and urge us to it. All of them say that our minds cannot comprehend the Ultimate Reality, who is God; but that we can apprehend him, at least in part, albeit but through a glass, and darkly."

Let's agree on "less" room for intuition -- without having to go into what often happened to Christians whose intuition did not converge upon classical theism or who were considered a little too intuitive.

Also, it's Christopher Langan.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

The Philosophy of God Draws One Closer to Philosophy, Not God

Leave a Reply.

Archives