 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Question on logic and the Christology | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Chaz Finney
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2008
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 7/24/2010 1:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Consider the syllogism: all men are mortal, Socrates is a man :. Socrates is mortal
Now consider this: All men are mortal. Jesus is a man (per our christology):. Jesus is mortal
How can we show that our christology doesn't violate logic? Do we reconstruct our christology from (Jesus is 100% man and 100% God) to something else, or do we play the mystery card and dispense with logic on this issue?
This would be a good challenge from the athiest...
What say you? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/24/2010 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | I would deny that "ALL men are mortal." Depends on what you MEAN by 'mortality'. If you mean 'susceptible to physical death', then yes, Jesus was mortal. He died. Of course, he is not NOW susceptible to death, but neither shall glorified believers be susceptible to death. We'll come to partake in immortality. So if mortality means susceptibility to physical death, then Jesus was (and we now are) mortal. But Jesus is not now (nor shall we be mortal). Yet we shall remain human beings. THUS, physical mortality is not an intrinsic property of human nature. Some humans don't possess this property and yet remain human.
If however by 'mortal human being' you mean those natural faculties which constitute human nature and which are possessed by some human individual human being did in fact come into being at some point in time (and thus are not eternal) then again, there's no problem in saying Jesus is mortal. His human nature (and all his human faculties) came into being and are not eternal. Thus, Jesus was AND IS mortal in this sense.
What is immortal (in the sense of being incompatible with susceptibility to non-existence [and having come into being]; i.e., necessary being) is the PERSON of the SON. What we don't want to say is that the PERSON of the eternal LOGOS is, relative to his PERSON, mortal (that is, the PERSON of the SON either came into existence or is susceptible to passing out of existence.
The problem would be REDUCING the PERSON of the Logos to the human nature of Christ. If Christ's human nature is all the nature the Logos possesses, and if that nature does not exist necessarily (and it doesn't), THEN you have problems. But the PERSON of the Logos is not limited to a mortal human nature.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chaz Finney
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2008
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 7/24/2010 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | | I would agree with your argument that mortality simply means that all men will die. Christ died but then was ressurected as with all the other believers who have been glorified. So logically, Christ is a man, and Christ is mortal. Yet He lives evermore in His new glorified body. This brings the argument back to our presuppositions of life and not logic! I do believe that God created us as body and soul and I don't think we can describe a "person" apart from body and soul without falling into dualism. Yet there is a temporary separation of the body and soul until the final ressurection and the new Jerusalem is restored. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/24/2010 10:37 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm not really trying to argue a certain view of mortality. I'm just saying that what follows logically from your syllogism DEPENDS on how YOU define mortality.
P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Jesus is a man.
CONCLUSION: Jesus is mortal.
The syllogism is VALID. But all that means is that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. It doesn't mean it's TRUE. It can be valid and false.
You feel this is a good challenge from the atheist. I'm not seeing the challenge. There's an important sense in which Orthodoxy INSISTS upon the mortality of Jesus's humanity. So it can't be problematic for the atheist to argue that Jesus was or is mortal (against, depending on what he means by 'mortal'). He must think the problem is affirming this aspect of Jesus while also affirming the necessary existence of the divine person we suppose Jesus to be (incarnate). But again, the atheist will have to spell out the terms of this supposed incompatibility. The syllogism doesn't do it.
I disagree with P1 IF mortality means (A) "susceptible to death," in which case the argument is invalid. Jesus is not NOW susceptible to physical death and so not now mortal.
But IF one means by mortality simply (B) "contingent" (as in contingent physical existence), then yes, the human being/nature of Christ was AND IS mortal, for the incarnation is a contingent event, in which case I agree with the syllogism.
It all depends on what you mean by mortality: (A) or (B). I'm not arguing the English word "mortal" must mean one or the other. I'm just saying, I need the atheist to tell me just what he means so I can know whether I deny P1 or not. If he defines it as (A) "susceptible to death" then I'll deny P1, for all men are NOT susceptible to death. Some are immortal (i.e., not susceptible to death, using the atheist's definition of mortality). But if he means (B) "contingent existence," then I'll agree with P1 only in so far as the humanity of the divine Logos is concerned, and to that extent with the conclusion. The human being/nature of the Son exists contingently. And it always will be contingent (= not necessary) since it came into existence.
Chaz: I don't think we can describe a "person" apart from body and soul without falling into dualism. Yet there is a temporary separation of the body and soul until the final ressurection and the new Jerusalem is restored.
Tom: So which is it? If the 'person' I am can be temporarily separated from my body, then PERSON and BODY can exist separately. But if, as you say, we "cannot describe a person apart from body..." without falling into dualism, and dualism is false, then you can't go on to concede that person and body can be separated. My feeling is that dualism means different things to different people. There are definitely dual aspects of the God/World relationship that I don't have trouble affirming. To deny all sense of duality is to collapse into pantheism. But neither do I want a classical Cartesian worldview. But that's a whole other discussion.
I think we have to say that it's possible to instantiate human PERSONHOOD (human personal existence) apart from one's material body, for "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." One could argue some sort of soul sleep, but that just assumes a lower form of dualism--i.e., that the soul/spirit continues to exist apart from the body. It's just not animated consciously. But we're still saying that the PERSON isn't EQUAL TO her body in every way. And that's at least a mild form of dualism.
I think God's intention for FULFILLED HUMAN BEING is embodied personal existence. Whatever sort of personal existence we may have while not embodied (absent from the body but present with the Lord), we can't say it's non-existence but neither can we say it's all God intends for us, for God intends to resurrect the body and have us partake of the divine nature as embodied persons. Yet, it's a form of personal existence with the Lord. We just can't say in what form we're animated.
But we're sidetracked...
All of that to say...depending on how the atheist defines mortality I can agree or disagree with his syllogism. But neither agreeing nor disagreeing presents me with a challenge to Orthodoxy that I can see.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 7/25/2010 12:39:26 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chaz Finney
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2008
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 7/25/2010 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | | I think the concept of mortality as used in this syllogism is quite clear viz. finite life terminating in death vs. imortality. The only approach is to challenge premise one with regards to its implications. Paul said "this mortal will someday put on immortality..." Every person will put on immortality with a new body and spend eternity in either the lake of fire or the New Jersulam. Yes Jesus was mortal, yet behold He lives forevermore. This is the heart of the gospel; the defeat of death! Man was created as body and soul (or body soul and spirit), even though he may temporarily lay his body aside, he will be reunited his body since this is the ontological makeup of man.
I guess the short answer is Yes Jesus died since He was mortal (yet this is only part of the story) since premise 1 is somewhat truncated with regards to the role death plays in God's plan for mankind. Actually the more I think about it I realize that premise 1 is contingent and false. We have empirical proof of one man Elijah who never died. Now the athiest would never accept it but none the less it is empirical proof and as justifiable as any other person in history.
I think I should mention the purpose of this post: Not to argue with anyone on this BB but to hear your responses because I am preparing to get back on the stump this fall preaching at college campuses and this challenege is one that I have yet to deal with and am surprised no freshman philosophy student has thrown at me, So I am trying to sharpen my sword in preparing a quick response that deals with it on a secular basis (if possible) yet provokes the rest of the bystanders to thought. Post Edited (Chaz Finney) : 7/25/2010 2:43:56 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chaz Finney
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2008
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 7/25/2010 4:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Because the bible records that he was taken alive to heaven in chariots of fire, we also have emperical proof of life after death in that Peter saw Moses and Ellijah taking to Jesus on the mount of transfiguration. This again is empirical and every bit as sound as my belief that Nero existed or any other persons in history. So premise 1. is inductive at best and can be shown to be a valid unsound argument.
Regarding premise 1. I think I can takea couple approaches in a short refute: 1. Deny that all men are moral and point to Ellijah and mention its inductive nature. 2. I can agree with the athiest that all men are mortal and that Jesus in fact died, yet it doesn't create any logical bind for His ressurection nor the ressurection of everyone else. Nor does this create any logical binds with our Christology since Christians believe that there is an inmaterial aspect of man viz. the soul and even though Christs body died, He remained alive and rose from the dead. In fact this is a good lead into the need for salvation...
Regarding the implication being clear...I would say that if you ask 100 people what being a mortal meant; they would tell you that it would mean finite life ceasing to exist at death; this is borne out in the fact that we use Socrates as an existential enstantiated example in premise 2; who is by the way dead today.
Peace, going through these hypotheticals help me widdle down a quip of an answer that provokes the students to question their worldviews without losing the crowd amonst a fog of verbiage.
Thanks for the input Tom! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chaz Finney
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2008
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 7/25/2010 8:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom;
I believe that epistemically, what we read from eye witnesses is considered empirical, a posterori, or experiental. I know that George Washington was the first president of the united states. This knowledge is a posterori opposed to a priori. Jesus ressurection is a posterori knowledge or emperically grounded. Someone in the bible was told a story from an eyewitness, it is emperical knowledge. I am not sure what we would consider knowledge that Moses received from the Holy Spirit in his writing the creation story? Scientists acquire their knowlege out of text books thru "testimony"; a biology student who reads about an expirement that he never conducted himself, this knowledge is still emperical or experiential. The bible is loaded with experiential knowledge of God, the issue is that the unbelieving world won't accept it.
This is a point I drive home with the students because they seem to think that knowledge of the Christian God is something less than secular knowledge - but it is not.
Tom I re-read the story of Ellijah's translation and there is no doubt in my mind that 1. he was alive and 2. Elisha was an eye witness which grounds this knowledge emperically. 2 kings 2:1-11 specifically verse 11 "the two of them were going along and talking..." and whoosh, off went Ellijah Post Edited (Chaz Finney) : 7/25/2010 9:29:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/25/2010 11:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Chaz,
By the way, it's a posteriori, not a posterori. 
One can define things how one wants I suppose. But this understanding of "empirical" is not one that carries much weight. It's certainly not the prevailing understanding among philosophers.
"Empirical" means relying on experience (experiment) or observation alone, that is, you have empirical evidence for what you observe or experience. But if you read an eye witness report of an event you did not personally experience, you do not have "empirical" evidence for that event, for you're depending on someone ELSE'S experience. You may have good reasons to believe them, yes, but technically, your evidence (a person's report to you about what they experienced) is one step removed from the event itself. And if an "act of faith" stands between your believing that some proposed event actually happened (on the one hand) and the event itself (on the other), then you don't have what philosophers call empirical evidence that the event actually occurred. You have direct empirical evidence of what the witness SAYS, but only the witness has direct empirical record of the event reported on.
In other words, not all a posteriori beliefs are based solely upon empirical data. "Empirical" and "a posteriori" are not, as you suppose, coextensive. This doesn't mean we're irrational for believing in something we don't have empirical evidence for. On the contrary, reason may justify belief (and condemn disbelief) in what we have no empirical evidence for.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 7/26/2010 10:07:46 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chaz Finney
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2008
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 7/26/2010 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | | Tom;
|
Here is one article on the issue: Empirical or a posteriori knowledge... The vast bulk of the empirical knowledge that ordinary people possess is gained via a mixture of direct experience and the testimony of others about what they have experienced—iterated in an interesting way that is studied in the field of social epistemology as well as other fields. More complicated and organized methods of gaining empirical knowledge are the methods of science—see scientific method—which result in perhaps the best examples of rigorously codified, scientific empirical knowledge, namely, physics. In philosophy, testimony includes any words or utterances that are presented as evidence for the claims they express. ... Social epistemology can be split into two broad camps: the radical and the non-radical. ... The scope of this article is limited to the empirical sciences. ... Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning. ... A Superconductor demonstrating the Meissner Effect. ...
| |
It is not a matter of defining things as one wants; but rather an issue of convention. Philosophers will all agree that testimony is experiential knowledge; this isn't Chaz's private interpertation. Empirical or a posterori is actually subsumed by Experiential knowledge, empirical is mutually exclusive with a priori knowledge, whereas the experiential and a priori overlap a bit. Secondly "testimony" is empirical and experiential knowledge - this includes the testimony of eye-witnesses in the bible as well as any historical knowledge.
There is a third catagory of knowledge: (ratiocinative) this overlaps both experiential and a priori knowledge and would be applicable in cases where you could come to know things by either logical inference and experience - but this doesn't apply to our discussion. You should check up on your epistemology because "testimony" is emperical and experiential knowledge. These are only ways of grounding knowledge more specifically historical knowledge.
But don't take my word for it...google "testimony" or read up on "types" of knowledge. This is a long standing view in epistemology. It is important because as I stated the world seems to think that claims about Jesus are somewhat less truthful than say claims of Nero or Ceasar. Yet we acquire our knowledge of both men in the same way viz. experientially, in this case through testimony. biblical knowledge is no different than scientific knowledge; its all a matter of "do you believe the sources?. Do you trust the testimony of historians (we know that the victors get to write the history) or the bible? So all knowledge is a matter of our justification for our beliefs.
Christians need to know that their knowlege of the bible (if the bible is true) is acquired no differently than knowledge of historical figures or any other world events. We are on the same plane. This is critical when defending the faith because our biblical kowledge is based on truth that can be justified just as any other knowlege. Unbelievers walk away from Christianity because they think it is all a matter of faith and has no grounding in fact. This is not the case. There is more empirical evidence for the ressurection than the existence of many characters in history.
My wife is a scientist, she could not have possibly re-run every single expirement in college that she read about so she acquired this knowledge by authority (testimony) of others who acquired this by experience. Her knowledge of certain expirements that she read about is empirical.
Yes my spelling sucks!
Make love, not war, cz Post Edited (Chaz Finney) : 7/26/2010 12:12:38 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/26/2010 12:20 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Chaz: Philosophers will all agree that testimony is experiential knowledge…
Tom: It’s experiential knowledge for the eye witness (assuming he’s telling the truth and is accurate). But his testimony does not give those who only hear his testimony the same direct, experiential (empirical) access to the witnessed events.
Chaz: Empirical is actually subsumed by Experiential knowledge…
Tom: No disagreement here. I’m not suggesting otherwise. Empirical data are the data of direct experience. That’s precisely why reading about Elijah soaring up into heaven is NOT the same as being there and experiencing it for yourself. One must specify the experience whose data constitute empirical evidence. “Listening to an eye witness report” is an experience/observation of something, certainly, but that something is the empirical data of their own experience of having sat in a courtroom, having seen a witness take the stand and the oath, and having heard somebody relay THEIR experience to the jurors. But this testimony is not one and the same as the event being witnessed to—say, a car accident or a murder. Those hearing the testimony do not have the same experience of the event as the witness has. The witness has empirical knowledge of the accident (because she was IN the car). But the jurors only have empirical knowledge of her testimony. And her testimony of the accident is not the accident. So simply hearing an eye witness’s testimony of having experienced X (by having seen or heard or felt X, etc.) is not “an (empirical) experience of X.”
Chaz: Secondly "testimony" is empirical and experiential knowledge - this includes the testimony of eye-witnesses in the bible as well as any historical knowledge.
Tom: It’s empirical for the testifier, certainly. It is not empirical for the hearers.
Chaz: Ask Alan he did his thesis in epistemology.
Tom: I already did. I often check with Alan, since I’m not a professional philosopher. Here’s this mornings exchange:
---------------------------
Alan,
I’m chatting with a friend who claims that we have “empirical” knowledge of, say, Elijah’s being translated to heaven without dying, or that that any of the events in the Bible actually happened. He says the eye witness reports of Scripture are empirical evidence of the events discussed.
For example, he says:
I believe that epistemically, what we read from eye witnesses is considered empirical, a posteriori, or experiential. I know that George Washington was the first president of the united states. This knowledge is a posteriori opposed to a priori. Jesus’ resurrection is a posteriori knowledge or empirically grounded. Someone in the bible was told a story from an eyewitness, it is empirical knowledge.
I’m not a professional philosopher, Alan, but this really sounds wrong to me. Hence, my response:
“Empirical” means relying on experience (experiment) or observation alone, that is, you have empirical evidence for what you observe or experience directly. But if you read an eye witness report of an event you did not personally experience, you do not have “empirical” evidence for that event, for you’re depending on someone else’s experience. You may have good reasons to believe them, yes, but technically your evidence (a person's report to you about what they experienced) is one step removed from the event itself. And if an “act of faith” stands between your believing that some proposed event actually happened (on the one hand) and the event itself (on the other), then you don't have what philosophers call empirical evidence that the event actually occurred. In other words, not all a posteriori beliefs are based exclusively upon empirical data.”
Alan’s response:
I think you nailed it in your response. The guy you are chatting with seems to suppose that “a posteriori” and “empirical” are coextensive. They’re not, unless one defines “empirical evidence” broadly enough to include both eyewitness and testimonial evidence. Thus, testimonial evidence is a posteriori but it is only empirical in an indirect sense. We may have direct empirical evidence of what the eyewitness has reported, but only the eyewitness has direct empirical evidence of the events reported on.”
-----------------------------
Chaz: Christians need to know that their knowledge of the bible (if the bible is true) is acquired no differently than knowledge of historical figures or any other world events. We are on the same plane.
Tom: Precisely. But our knowledge of ancient figures and events (Caesar, the Babylonians, etc.) is also NOT empirical. We are trusting (for whatever reasons) that the sources we depend upon for our knowledge of these events are trustworthy. We “believe” them. We have no direct empirical knowledge of Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon or other ancient events. So yes, we Christians are on the same plane as those who believe in the historicity of other ancient events they have no direct, empirical knowledge of.
Chaz: My wife is a scientist, she could not have possibly re-run every single expirement in college that she read about so she acquired this knowledge by authority (testimony) of others who acquired this by experience.
Tom: Right, she need not re-run those experiments. She may depend upon the weight and trustworthiness of accepted authorities who did run those experiments. No problem.
But…
Chaz: Her knowledge of certain expirements that she read about is empirical.
Tom: No, it’s not. She has empirical knowledge of having read their testimony. “Reading” (not experimenting) is HER (empirical) experience. But her reading their testimonies does not give your wife direct empirical knowledge of the experiments or their results. It just doesn’t. She’s choosing (for good reasons perhaps) to believe that x behaves this or that way when exposed to this or that chemical, for example (don’t know what kind of scientist she is). But her reading about their experience isn’t the same as her performing their experiment or having their experience. The empirical data constitute the stuff of experience only for those who have the experience, those whose personal experience is constituted by the data in question (seeing Elijah go up, seeing Jesus raise Lazarus, etc.).
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 7/26/2010 12:51:38 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/26/2010 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Chaz: Your theory denies empirical knowledge of every event in history, every expirement, etc.
Tom: No it doesn't. Lots of people have direct empirical knowledge of historical events...the events THEY'VE experienced. But you do not have direct empirical knowledge of what you have not directly experienced.
Daniel: Chaz, put down the empiricists and read some rationalists. Just because I have not directly experienced Caesar crossing the Rubicon, doesn't mean I cannot know that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Epistemology doesn't collapse into empirical knowledge, indeed it can't. If it did, we'd be left wondering whether or not anything at all actually happened. In light of phenomenology, and more nuanced understandings of consciousness, empirical knowledge needs some sort of rationalized epistemological foundation that isn't empirical in itself. That foundation is called a number of things, but I have a feeling it boils down to belief. Thus the postmodernist shudders. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/26/2010 5:35 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/26/2010 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | Rather than discussing empirical "knowledge" perhaps empirical "claims" should be the topic. An empirical claim can be passed on in a way empirical knowledge cannot. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:48 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|