Is Philosophy Christian?

What is truth?

How is one to discern truth? 

Can one really "love truth?"

When one looks at all that has been offered in way of "higher thinking" and "enlightenment," it is easy to see why this can be confusing.  The thoughts and ideas presented by these great thinkers of times past have little to do with Christianity, and in fact may seem hostile to it.  Modern philosophers seem to be hostile to Christianity as well.  So what is the value for the modern believer?

Here is a brief examination: Point #1; the thoughts of the great thinkers of the past.  Many of them came from the polytheism of their respective countries, namely the Greeks.  So, many of these early thinkers had no concept of the monotheistic God of the Bible, let alone contact with the Hebrew culture.  Thus, the source of many of these observations, religious in nature were not based on the God of the Bible.

Many of the observations made transcend or cut across religious lines, human nature has been commented on, critiqued, reviewed, analyzed, understood and recorded.  The basics of human nature are not subject to religious control or prerogative.  The difference becomes apparent when one develops these even more.  For example, human nature would suggest one behavior, while Christian teaching would suggest and encourage the adherent or follower to modify this behavior.  The Greek would call this “enlightenment” while the Christian calls this “growth” or “maturity.”

Point #2; many modern philosophers are hostile to Christianity.  Examining the phrase “a priori” and “a posteriori” helps to understand this position.  The first term “a priori” simply refers to the beliefs one holds without any proof or justification.  The ideas or ideals are personal and may be challenged, but usually with emotional turmoil for the one with the belief.

“A posteriori” is/are the beliefs held with justification, thought, research, justification.  These may be challenged with little to no emotional turmoil.  Debate, discussion even deep arguing might be possible.  The values held by the person in general, and here the philosopher specifically will shape the information presented.  This may be in support or opposition to Christian values.

The belief system of the individual will shape the positions taken on many, most or all of life’s decisions, including religious and personal values.

A very safe conclusion from this brief exposition is that the observations made the earlier philosophers, and even the modern philosophers do carry some value.  All of the beliefs of these individuals need not be accepted, but certain parts as stated above do have value.  Accept these after screening them through the filters of scripture.

Tools of Philosophy

Stating what you believe is not the same as defending it.  Sometimes we see a position attacked not on the facts, but on a personal level.  For example:  One who believes that social spending should be adjusted might here be told "that they hate the poor."  The one who thinks national defense spending should be adjusted might hear that they "hate the country," or "don’t care if we as a country are attacked."

The response the initial premises are really not related but instead shift the focus from the facts of the position to that of an attack. Perhaps the most useful tool of the philosopher is the argument.  This is NOT to be confused with the argumentative person, that is one who stirs up verbal strife or verbal wars without considering much relevant data.  All have encountered the person who presents their position something like this:  “I know what I believe and the facts (or the truth) will not make me change my mind.”  This not argumentation, this is not debate, it is opinion.

Argumentation (the act of presenting an argument) is to present facts in a systematic fashion, either building on each other or as a whole allowing a conclusion to be reached.  The perfect argument has no speculation, but some can make its way into the argument.  The result is the facts lead logically to the conclusion.  The simplest has two premises and a conclusion.  Complex arguments can have many premises.  The premise is a statement of fact or some speculation.  If speculative, the conclusion must be speculative.  Some frogs are small, does not mean all frogs are small.

Aristotle introduced Deductive Reasoning, where the general premises lead to the specific.  This has been the standard for countless decades and generations.  Detectives use the same idea, clue 1, clue 2, clue 3, clue 4 examined lead to the conclusion.  Example 1+2=3 add 4 = conclusion.

A specific form of Deductive Reasoning has been developed that suits some needs of philosophical inquiry.  This is called the Deductive Syllogism.  The syllogism has two premises, each one with two parts or phrases.  Each phrase is called a "term."  The premises when put together, following established rules will yield the conclusion, also with two terms.  Thus the syllogism has three lines, the two premises a,d the conclusion. 

Inductive Reasoning leads us in a different direction; A good inductive argument will have a highly probable conclusion.  This moves into an area of probability, with the conclusion not being True or False, but adequate or inadequate.  The conclusion at best is probably true.

Many may claim that a certain belief is or is not “scientific.”  Oddly enough, that can be very true.  Personal values often have little to do with science, but personal observations, and perhaps emotion.  Put these together with the ability to sense things in human behavior, most call this “intuition.”  Here again, not a scientific principle at all. 

But the concept of science comes up many times, earlier in history (1870’s or so) great strides were made in the realm of science, more was yet to come.  Many who disbelieved in anything or type of God now used science as an excuse to not believe.  That statement survives today.  The scientific method or reasoning has these parts:

1)      Formulating a statement carefully and clearly.

2)      Predicting the implications of such a belief.

3)      Performing controlled experiments to confirm or refute these implications.

4)      Accepting or rejection the initial statement as a result.

A key point here is that ALL of these steps must be repeatable, all of them.  Changing any part negates the process, once established.

No one method will be conclusive in the quest for truth or answers, but working together it is entirely possible to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Will the conclusion fit into the individual value system?

The construction of the argument usually makes use of deductive reasoning, but other elements may be used.  Portions may involve recreating the events in question.  Sometimes a mix of inductive and deductive reasoning is applied. 

In using logic, and deductive reasoning, some important rules need to be applied.  Since Deductive Syllogisms are used frequently, these rules apply to syllogisms followed by a flaw or fallacy if misused:

Ø  Two premises are used, each with two terms or phrases

Ø  One Conclusion shall be presented

Ø  Of the four terms in the premises, one term is to be repeated, allowing for a total of three terms. (Fallacy of Four Terms)

Ø  No term is to be used in an equivocal sense (Fallacy of Equivocation)

Ø  The repeated term (or middle term) is to be distributed at least once in the premises, using the word “all” or “no.” (Fallacy of the undistributed Middle Term)

Ø  No term can be distributed in the conclusion that is not distributed in the premises

§  If this occurs involving the first premise, this is the Fallacy of the Illicit Major

§  If this occurs involving the second premise, this is the Fallacy of the Illicit Minor

Ø  The syllogism or argument is invalid with two negative premises (Fallacy of the Exclusive Premises)

Ø  If one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative

Ø  For an affirmative conclusion to be valid, both premises must affirm class inclusion. (Fallacy of drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a negative Premise)

Ø  A particular conclusion cannot have two universal premises

§  Suggests more than two premises

§  Universal combinations suggest or lead to a conclusion devoid of needed information

§  Boolean logic flow leads to logic flaws; extrapolates additional premises

§  (Existential Fallacy)

Ø  Two unrelated ideas is Non-Sequiter

Ø  Forcing a decision with an extreme or absurd opposite is False Dichotomy

Ø  Attacking the person rather than the premise is Ad Hominem

Ø  Using small numbers to represent the whole is hasty Generalization

Ø  Assuming one premise is true is Begging the Question

Ø  Occurring before the cause is Post Hoc-False  Cause

Ø  When the questioner need not prove much or anything is Burden of Proof Reversal

Ø  Insisting that because of ignorance, premise must be true is Ad Ignoratum Fallacy

Ø  Insisting that a popular premise is true is bandwagon Fallacy

Ø  To exaggerate the claim or premise to make it easier to attack is Stawman Fallacy

Avoiding logic flaws is important.  Referring back to a priori and a posteriori statements, it is important not to confuse these.  A personal value system need not be well supported for the adherent to believe it, but it needs to be well supported to share this with others.

One may return to this simple statement frequently, “Why do you believe what you believe.”  The philosopher and the study of philosophy will provide tools that will help to answer this all important question.

Let the learning continue.

Methods of Philosophy

There are many who have pondered the questions of "How," and "Why," about many topics.  Many seek to prove a particular belief, perhaps a simple idea, or a more complex thought or series of ideas that come together.  Philosophy seeks to find answers, a popular tool is investigation, which leads to building an argument to prove or disprove an idea, thought or whatever it might be called.
     Socrates is given credit for the earliest recorded method called Interrogation. By employing question and answers his goal was to find truth, or at the very least reduce error.  He started with the presupposition that truth was inborn or native to the human mind.  Based on Plato's teachings, man had a wealth of information within because of previous life experiences (reincarnation my not be far eastern alone) .  Thus, when the proper questions are asked, the memory can be "jogged" to retrieve these pieces of information (truth?).
     The presupposition is obviously flawed due to the prior life part, but we can gain something from the application of the question and answer.  Clear questions are very beneficial, and do aid not only retrieveing information, but also as a valuable learning tool.
     A very negative point to this is that the questioner could load the question (which does happen today) to elicit the desired response.  Many more are inclined to follow Locke's theory of "Tabula Rosa" or the blank slate.
     Nonetheless, all would agree on the value of good questions not only here in, but in all aspects of life.
     Zeno, a contemporary of Socrates had a different method of investigating and discerning truth, he would reduce alternative positions to the absurd. "Reductio ad Absurdium" guided many to a simple conclusion, no position that generates contradictions can be considered true.  This helps in applying the law of Non-Contradiction.  The premise of the opponent can be proven flase by reducing it to a contradiction.
     Aristotle , who lived after Socrates and Zeno, brought us the deductive method, or Deductive Reasoning.  This method moves from the general to the specific.  An example follows:

All Dogs are four-footed animals  (premise)
Fido is a dog                                  (premise)
Fido is a four-footed animal           (conclusion)

     The syllogism, seen above is the standard form of deductive reasoning.  Syllogisms will be explored in depth later.
     The biggest weakness with this form of reasoning  is alack of universal premises.  many of these may seem like universally accepted, but in reality they will fail the strict tests.  The bigest one is that the premise must be verifiable 100% of the time.
     For example, the issue of mortality, but if a person is unobserved, do we really know they die?  Validity or soundness is different from truth, validity helps to arrive at truth, but not always the other way.
     Moving to the 1500's we see a "newer" method, advanced by Francis bacon, called the Inductive Method.  Later this was formalized by John Stuart Mill, in The Cannons of Inductive Logic.   These four rules are a good summary.

1) The Method of Agreement:  The one factor common to all antecedent situations where an effect occurs is probably the cause of the effect. 
2) The method of Difference:  Whenever an effect occurs when A is present but not when it is absent, then A is probably the cause of the effect.
3)  Combine the first two methods when one method alone does not yield a definite result.
4)  The method of Concomitant Variations:  When an antecedent factor varies concomitantly  with a consequent factor, then the former is probably the cause of the latter.

This led to the Scientific Method, which is not scientific, needs to be replicated, and adds three methods of reasoning, deductive, inductive and adductive.
Simple steps are here;
1)  Situation generates a problem
2) Formulation of the problem (what is it?)
3) Observation of relevant facts
4) Use of previous knowledge
5) Formulation of a hypothesis
6) Deduction from the hypothesis
7) Testing the hypothesis
8) Conclusion

     More recently, newer methods have been developed.  The first of these is existentialism. Existentialism has had many work on its development, but the one who did the most is Sören Kierkegaard.  The existentialists were reacting to the scientific methodologies, which were considered to be incomplete.  Simply put, objective truth exists, but this is not as as important as subjective truth.  While saying "truth is subjective," he would also state that unless one believes something passionately and subjectively, one does not possess the truth.  He went further to state that truth is not just subjective, but in the supra-national, paradoxical realm of belief, where rationalism is set aside for the revealed truth of experiences.  He used the story of Abraham and Isaac to show how Abraham took a "leap of faith" in obeying God.
     Jean-Paul Sartre took issue with this by stating that "man is condemned to freedom" with no values to be discovered within any factual or objective realm. Sartre went so far as to describe how values are not discovered, but created by man's free choice.  Perhaps the best example to contrast with the scientific method is not the test tube, but the one holding the test tube.
     To be fair, there is value with existentialism, for scientific fact alone does not explain everything, for there is much in life that is indeed existential, especially one's religious beliefs.  For there is more to life than objects, there are subjects or persons.  But lean too far in this direction is unwise, and perhaps dangerous. Fortunately, the Abraham and Isaac story turned out for the good. One could respond to this story being used here with the question, how does one really know if its God or Satan telling Abraham what to do?
     The Phenomenological Method is an attempt to return to per-theoretical approaches to one's primary awareness. (Take a minute and work the words through slowly).  The goal is a neutral approach to examining and resolving issues.  The claim is this is a pre-suppositionless method, letting bare facts speak for themselves.  Presuppositions are avoided by drawing on one's experiences.  The development of this method resulted in many variations, including directly analyzing the "I" results in "me" being analyzed by "I" who is outside looking in and analyzing. Consciousness is always conscious of something, including itself, so there is no way to ascertain or get to the pure consciousness of anyone, or any thought.
     The difficulty of  presuppositions being removed by experience alone is problematic, for one can never really set aside these base thoughts and principles.  The radical separation of subject and object is difficult to work with, let alone feasible. To insist on no pre-suppositions is itself a pre-supposition, so the method is difficult to work through to a logical conclusion.
     The Analytic Method has two approaches, Verification and Clarification.  In Verification, to be truly meaningful, it must be purely definitional or analytic; or in order to be meaningful it must be verifiable by one or more of the five senses.  All other statements, such as theoretical, theological, ethical) are meaningless -- non-sense.  Another view of this is that a statement is meaningless unless it is subject to falsification, such that if any part of the statement cannot be used against it, it is not have meaning, or even be true.
     However, in Clarification the analysis of language is used to understand the puzzles that are faced.  By working through the rules and understandings of language one can grasp the solution, and the truth of an issue.  While one of the verification scholars would legislate the use of language, the clarification proponent would have the role be to listen to the use of language.
     The value of the Analytic Method is this, we need clarification to understand the issue, but the focus on experience leaves it falling short in areas that are important to many.  Faith, etics, personal values could fail many of these criteria.
     The approaches discussed above show us that philosophy has many faces, and all have value.  The callenge will always be in understanding fully what is before us, what to do with it, and what to do in the future.  Philosophy works to help all have a better understanding of many aspects of life, and for some, integrating differing value systems into a workable life view.  the biggest question faced by many who read this is basing these values on the teaching, principles, values, and ideals of Jesus Christ.

Vocab 1-C

The last of the terms from the first list defined.  As other terms come to use, they will be defined.

Subjectivism –  the doctrine that all knowledge is limited to experiences by the self, and that transcendent knowledge is impossible, or any of various theories maintaining that moral judgments are statements concerning the emotional or mental reactions of the individual or the community, or holding that certain states of thought or feeling are the highest good

Syllogism – an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise)  contains the term (major term)  that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise)  contains the term (minor term)  that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term)  that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C, deductive reasoning

Tautology – needless repetition of an idea, especially in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness,  a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.”

Teleological – of or pertaining to the philosophical doctrine that final causes, design, and purpose exist in nature

Temporal – of or pertaining to time, pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly: temporal joys, enduring for a time only

Theism – the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation

Transcendent – going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding, superior or supreme,  

Scholasticism above all possible modes of the infinite experience; not realizable in human experience, referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness

Unequivocal – unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation,  absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions

Univocal - having only one meaning; unambiguous. 

As can be seen, the terms used, whether here or in day to day life experiences deine life, and everything around us.  

Philosophy helps us to understand, well almost everything.  "Clarifying" is one word used to help us bring understanding to something.  Other words will come out as well, and be defined and explained.