• About
  • Books

memoirandremains

memoirandremains

Tag Archives: logic

An observation on “A Neuroscientist Prepares for Death”

10 Monday Jan 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Apologetics, Psychology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Apologetics, Argument, logic, Neuroscience

In a recent article in The Atlantic, A Neuroscientist Prepares for Death, a poor man who has learned he will soon die from cancer of the heart provides his philosophical reflection concerning the possibility of an afterlife. Using his expertise as a scientist, he makes a series of three unwarranted jumps to deny an afterlife.

Lut us begin with the scientific proposition, “Now we know that rather than merely reacting to the external world, the brain spends much of its time and energy actively making predictions about the future.” This statement is metaphysically loaded, because it attributes all thought to a physical process, “the brain.”

His conclusion about the “brain” as opposed to a mind goes well beyond anything in observational science. The fact that certain brain functions are associated with a particular mental state does not mean the brain processes are that mental state. The mental state is itself unobservable, it can only be subjectively experienced. The relationship between a brain state and a mental state is a matter of tremendous dispute, but it is simply lazy to collapse thought into synaptic firing.

The second error in his argument comes when concludes that since we anticipate the near future, we cannot anticipate not anticipating the future. “And because our brains are organized to predict the near future, it presupposes that there will, in fact, be a near future. ” But this conclusion actually goes beyond the observation that the brain works to predict the future. There is no reason that the brain could not predict its demise. Our inability to imagine the future cannot be explained simply on the basis that the “brain” makes predictions about the near future.

From the observation that we do not imagine our non-existence, a state he refers to as a “widespread glitch”, he makes a theological/philosophical observation. The widespread religious belief in an afterlife is simply the result of a cognitive glitch which itself results from the mental action of anticipating the future.

But this last step is as lacking in necessary inference as the previous steps. A. The argument also entails a number of other unstated propositions. For instance, the argument assumes that there is no such a thing as an afterlife, and thus the belief must be explained by some material process.

B. The fact there are physical processes consistent with a particular belief does not make the belief untrue. Why would a religious belief have to be inconsistent with physical function to be true? There is no necessity that a religious belief be inconsistent to physical function.

C. Our inability to imagine our nonexistence does not make belief in an afterlife false. The argument that “belief in an afterlife cannot be true because it is comforting” is simply false. When I am ill, I believe that I will recover. On all prior occasions in which I have been ill, I have believed that I will recover–which is a comforting thought. And it was a true comforting belief: I have always recovered.

He ends with the observation that he is not adverse to the existence of an afterlife with those whom he loves.

What then is the purpose of an essay like this? We must remember it cannot be for career advancement, he will die soon. I can’t imagine that the prestige of writing for The Atlantic is sufficient as an explanation.

I think it is to deal with the fear of death. But in what way? His argument is that because I’m a scientist I know there is no afterlife. Why would he need to convince himself (an essay like this is an argument to convince you so that I feel more comfort in my belief) there is no afterlife?

As a Christian, I take it as a given that human beings fear the judgment which lies beyond death. If there is no continuation of life, there is judgment day coming after death. And so he strings out this rather insufficient argument to prove to himself there will be no future.

Hebrews 2:14–15 (ESV)

14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.

How to think about a subject (according to Melanchthon & Joseph Hall)

06 Monday Apr 2015

Posted by memoirandremains in Meditation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Joseph Hall, logic, Meditation, Melanchthon, thinking

According to Melanchthon, the following questions had to be broached in the treatment of a subject: 

(1) What does the word mean? 

(2) To what does that word pertain? 

(3) What are its parts? 

(4) What are its characteristics? 

(5) What are its causes? 

(6) What are its effects? 

(7) To what other things does it pertain? 

(8) To what is it related? 

(9) With what does it conflict? By using such questions, Melanchthon stated, it is possible to build a clear argument for the readers.

Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism
Van Asselt
These are quite similar to the Joseph Hall questioned mention by Donald Whitney is in his excellent book, Simply Your Spiritual Life:
1. What is it you are meditating upon?
2. What are its divisions and parts?
3. What causes it?
4. What does it cause?
5. What is it place, location, fruit?
6. What are its qualities and attachments?
7. Whath is contrary to or different than it?
8. What compares to it?
9. What are its names or titles?
10. What are its testimonies or examples in Scripture? 
Page 70, slightly modified.

Epictetus Discourses 1.1-4

11 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by memoirandremains in Epictetus, Greek, New Testament Background

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Discourses, Epictetus, logic, NT Background, reason

Epictetus was a Greek Stoic Philosopher. A biography is available here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/epictetu/
He lived 55-135 A.D. His philosophical statements are useful in their own respect, and also provide a background for the intellectual climate of Apostolic and Sub-Apostolic period of the Christian Church. His positions make an interesting intellectual foil for reading the NT:

The Encheiridion was translated into Latin by Poliziano in 1497 and during the subsequent two centuries became exceptionally popular in Europe. Spanneut (1972) traces its use in monasteries in superficially Christianized form. Seventeenth-century intellectuals like Guillaume du Vair, Justus Lipsius, and Thomas Gataker generally found Epictetus’ Stoicism to be fully compatible with Christianity; see the discussion in Brooke (2006). Pascal reacted against this perception; he admired Epictetus as a moralist but regarded it as sheer arrogance to believe that the human psyche is part of the divine and can be perfected by one’s own efforts

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epictetus/

This is from the beginning of the Discourses. 1.1-4:

 

Now among all the arts, none is able by itself to understand itself; none is able to test and so approve or disapprove itself. What is grammar able to do? Judge grammatical matters. Or music? Judge melodies. Which of these can actually consider itself? None. Let’s say you want to write a friend. Grammar tells you how to write, but not what to write. Likewise, when it comes to melody, music is the judge. But whether you should sing or play the guitar, music doesn’t say.

So then, what does tell us? What is able to consider itself and everything else? What else, but the power of reason. Reason alone by the power contemplation can take hold of something and say , This is its scope and how much it is worth– and all the rest.

 

Greek Text and Notes:
Continue reading →

Logic as a Person

11 Wednesday Dec 2013

Posted by memoirandremains in Christology, Image of God, imago dei, Thinking, Trinity, Vern Poythress, Wisdom

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

christology, image of God, Imago Dei, logic, Logos, Person, Personal, thinking, Vern Poythress, Wisdom

Dr. Poythress in his recent book Logic contends that logic’s existence reveals God and exists because of God. He first ties together two proposition: (1) God is Lord over all (Psalm 103:19); and (2) “[L]ogic is not created. Philosophers have maintained that it ‘just is'” (63). If we try to place God over logic, then logic somehow is a/the Lord of God.

Poythress notes three aspects of the character of God. “First, God is dependable and faithful in his character” (63). Thus God by nature holds a logical consistency with whom he is. He is a God who “cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). Second, God alone is the Creator — nothing stands above him and nothing stands independently of him. Therefore, his consistency and attributes must be part of who he is: the logical coherence of his being provides the substance of logic. Third, human beings are made in the image of God and think God’s thoughts after God. He quotes Van Til, to the effect that we “think God’s thoughts after Him analogically” (64).

Our logic reflects God’s logic. Logic, then, is an aspect of God’s mind. Logic is universal among all human beings in all cultures, because there is one God, and we are all made in the image of God….Whenever we reason, we are imitating God whether we recognize it or not. The only alternative is insanity, which means the disintegration of the image God in us. 64.

Thus, human logical enterprises an attempt to describe this aspect of God’s character.

Poythress goes on to contend that logic is a personal, not an impersonal, attirbute. He notes that logic is an aspect of human thought — it is not the activity of rocks or trees. Moreover, logic is embedded within language and moves through language. The Bible further teaches that creation itself is the result of rational speech, that is, logical enterprise.

He then notes the manner in which the Bible makes plain this rational speech of God is the Word of God, the Logos:

Logic, we said, is personal. Now it becomes more evident why it is personal. It not only personal, but a person, namely, the Word of God. But we should be careful to underline the the fact that this person, the second person of the Trinity, is much richer than our human conceptions, either of logic or of reason or of language as a whole. He is infinite, an infinite person, with all the richness of God himself: “for in him [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9). Thus logic in a narrow sense is only one aspect of who God is. (71).

20131210-222949.jpg

How to Distinguish an Apparent and Actual Contradiction

19 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by memoirandremains in Bible Study, Hebrews, Preaching, Uncategorized, William Gouge

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Contradiction, Hebrews, hermeneutics, logic, Preaching, Teaching, William Gouge

Willam Gouge in his commentary on Hebrews (if you are ever going to teach or preach on the book of Hebrews, you must consult Gouge’s commentary. He raises every issue — at the very least, he misses very few — which you could or should consider for a text), considers the text of Hebrews 1:3, “he sat down”. Gouge notes that Acts 7:55states that Stephen saw Christ stand.

Gouge sets out a three part test to determine whether an actual conflict or contradiction exists between texts. Many supposed conflicts could be resolved if readers thought more carefully about what was said. Gouge’s test will help distinguish between a conflict which arises from careless reading and an actual conflict.

Since this was the 17th Century, Gouge expected his readers to have a substantial, classical education — hence the use of Greek and Latin to make his point clear. If you don’t know either, don’t worry. The English phrase at the beginning of each sentence is merely repeated in Greek and Latin:

There are three limitations wherein different acts cannot be attributed to the same thing.
1. In the same part, κατὰ τὸ ἀυτὸ, secundum idem. In the very same part a man cannot be sore and sound.
2. In the same respect, πρὸς τὸ ἀυτὸ, ad idem, a man cannot be alive and dead together in the same respect, but in different respects one may be so; for ‘she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth,’ 1 Tim. 5:6.
3. At the same time, ἐν τῶ ἄυτω χρόνω, eodem tempore, one cannot sit and stand together at the same time; at several times he may

.

Applying this test to Hebrews 1:3 and Acts 7:55, Gouge shows there is no contradiction:

Again, to take this phrase metaphorically (as it is here to be taken), Christ may be said to sit, to shew his authority (as before); and to stand, to shew his readiness to hear and help.1 In this respect did Christ most fitly present himself standing to Stephen, Acts 7:55.

Pathos as an Element of Speech

19 Monday Nov 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in 2 Corinthians, Biblical Counseling, Ministry

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

2 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 5:11, 2 Corinthians 5:20, Biblical Counseling, Emotion, emotions, How to Argue Like Jesus, Imagery, Jesus, logic, Ministry, Pathos, Paul, Persuasion, Persuasive Speech, repetition, Shared Artifacts, The Mute Christian Under the Smarting Rod, Thomas Brooks

(As part of the course on Business Law at The Masters College, I include a discussion on how to make an effective and persuasive argument. The following are some notes on the emotional content of a persuasive speech.  Learning how be a more effective communicator is useful for all sort of activities — including Christian ministry. By including appropriate emotional content, you are seeking to make your proposition clearer and more accurate. For example, a sermon on the majesty of God which induces an emotion of levity as opposed to reverence would misrepresent the text. Or, a sermon on joy which does not make an emotional space for joy would misrepresent the topic.

One cannot read the Bible without noting that the book of Lamentations seeks to produce sorrow and then hope through sorrow — it is not a disinterested theological tract on suffering. The story of Ehud and Eglon (Judges 3:15-30) is written to produce a sarcastic smirk about idolatry followed by welling triumph.

In counseling, the counselee will typically come overwhelmed by emotions. While the goal is not merely the transfer of emotions to some new state, biblical counseling must take into consider the emotional content of the counsel. To ignore the emotional state of the counselee would be deny the explicit command of Scripture , “Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15). Such emotionally appropriate information must entail more than tears and smiles, it most also infuse one’s speech.

As part of their training, I have the students read the book How to Argue Like Jesus, by Joe Carter and John Coleman. I happily recommend the book to anyone seeking a good introductory text on persuasive speech. The notes below are meant as a supplement to the material contained in the book.)

Pathos: Emotional content and emotional connection are necessary elements to be persuasive in communication. Before going further, note that persuasion does not mean to deceive.  In 2 Corinthians 5:11, Paul writes, “we persuade men”. In in 5:20 he implores others to be reconciled to God. 

A logical talk devoid of passion will not persuade. An emotional speech devoid of truth and logic will swindle: you will persuade for the short term, but when the trick is found out, you will be hated.

Elements of pathos:

Imagery: We are largely moved by sight: if we see a starving baby we weep. If we merely hear about a starving baby, we may feel a twinge, but little more. A fine writer will cause you to see the circumstance by means of words.

Jesus uses extremely graphic language to make his point. Here is an exercise: take the text of the Sermon on the Mount and mark every single instance in which Jesus paints a word picture. Note how Jesus does not just say, “Don’t worry about tomorrow, God is sovereign.” Rather, he points you to animals and plants – which likely would have been present when he was speaking – and uses that picture to demonstrate his point.

Shared emotional ties: If you share some content, some value, some story, some “artifact” with the audience, use that shared element to connect to the audience. Now, it is perfectly possibly to manipulate someone by means of such a trick. Perhaps the most famous or infamous instance of this is waiving the bloody shirt:

bloody shirt,  in U.S. history, the post-Civil War political strategy of appealing to voters by recalling the passions and hardships of the recent war. This technique of “waving the bloody shirt” was most often employed by Radical Republicans in their efforts to focus public attention on Reconstruction issues still facing the country. Used in the presidential elections of 1868, 1872, and 1876, the strategy was particularly effective in the North in attracting veterans’ votes.[1]

Thus, stories about George Washington – or stories about “your neighbors” being foreclosed upon; stories about growing up in a poor neighborhood (before I became a millionaire politician) and thus can “feel your pain”[2] or understand your circumstance – all can be very effective to tie you to the audience. They feel they can trust you, because you are similar to them.

Expressing emotion: When persuading, it can be very useful to express appropriate emotion. By expressing emotion you show yourself to be human, to be like the audience. You also cue them up on how to understand the statement. Movies do this when there is a sad scene and the camera cuts to someone crying: since we tend to imitate the emotions we see (we catch the emotion), showing emotion makes it easier for audience to share and then to express the same emotion.

Conversely, not showing emotion, or showing the wrong emotion, can be devastating for one’s standing with an audience.  George H.W. Bush famously looked down at his watch during a debate and gave the impression that he didn’t care (emotionally) about what was happening (he may have just wanted to know the time, but it was the impression that he created which mattered)  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/a-damaging-impatience

Four years earlier, Michael Dukakis was asked a question about the death penalty and his own wife being the victim. His response made him sound like some sort of automaton (I certainly do not attribute that lack of love to the governor): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxKFJ3UAbco

Creating emotional content by rhetorical structure: Something as simple as repetition, when rightly done, can create emotional content.  Here is an example, taken almost at random, from Thomas Brooks:[3]

Look upon death as a rest, a full rest.

A believer’s dying day is his resting day . . .

  from sin,

  from sorrow,

  from afflictions,

  from temptations,

  from desertions,

  from dissensions,

  from vexations,

  from oppositions,

  from persecutions.

 

This world was never made to be the saints’ rest.

Arise and depart, for this is not your resting place,

because it is polluted! (Micah 2:10)

 

Death brings the saints . . .

  to a full rest,

  to a pleasant rest,

  to a matchless rest,

  to an eternal rest!

To see many more such examples (this was a matter of which Brooks has particular skill) look for the “choice excerpts” from each of the books:

http://gracegems.org/Brooks2/suffering9.htm

http://gracegems.org/Brooks/Mute%20Christian%20QUOTES.html

http://gracegems.org/Brooks/choice_excerpts.htm

et cetera.

Here is a strategy for making an argument: I heard a variation on this technique explained by a senior lawyer when I was just a clerk, “Tell them what you’re going to tell them; tell them; tell them what you told them.”

State your proposition: Do not worry, because God is sovereign.

Elaborate, demonstrate, prove.

Restate your proposition: If you can do this in a pithy and clear way, even better.

In the first few sentence, Brooks raises the proposition:

First, There is a stoical silence. The stoics of old thought it altogether below a man that hath reason or understanding either to rejoice in any good, or to mourn for any evil; but this stoical silence is such a sinful insensibleness as is very provoking to a holy God, Isa. 26:10, 11. God will make the most insensible sinner sensible either of his hand here, or of his wrath in hell[4].

Having raised the proposition, Brooks next tells a story which demonstrates his point that a Stoical silence is actually wicked:

It is a heathenish and a horrid sin to be without natural affections, Rom. 1:31. And of this sin Quintus Fabius Maximus seems to be foully guilty, who, when he heard that his mother and wife, whom he dearly loved, were slain by the fall of an house, and that his younger son, a brave, hopeful young man, died at the same time in Umbria, he never changed his countenance, but went on with the affairs of the commonwealth as if no such calamity had befallen him. This carriage of his spoke out more stupidity than patience, Job 36:13.

And so Harpalus was not at all appalled when he saw two of his sons laid ready dressed in a charger, when Astyages had bid him to supper. This was a sottish insensibleness. Certainly if the loss of a child in the house be no more to thee than the loss of a chick in the yard, thy heart is base and sordid, and thou mayest well expect some sore awakening judgment.

Brooks interrupts the examples to stop make a comment upon the situation. By doing so, Brooks is showing you how to respond. Note the graphic language used express his outrage.

This age is full of such monsters, who think it below the greatness and magnanimity of their spirits to be moved, affected, or afflicted with any afflictions that befall them. I know none so ripe and ready for hell as these.

Having made his comment, provides yet another example (this time citing to Aristotle and Seneca, who would be understood as great human authorities – though certainly not as great as Scripture):

Aristotle speaks of fishes, that though they have spears thrust into their sides, yet they awake not. God thrusts many a sharp spear through many a sinner’s heart, and yet he feels nothing, he complains of nothing. These men’s souls will bleed to death. Seneca, Epist. x., reports of Senecio Cornelius, who minded his body more than his soul, and his money more than heaven; when he had all the day long waited on his dying friend, and his friend was dead, he returns to his house, sups merrily, comforts himself quickly, goes to bed cheerfully. His sorrows were ended, and the time of his mourning expired before his deceased friend was interred.

He makes another valuation, thus showing one should respond and then restates the original proposition: the silence commended in Scripture is not the silence of the Stoics:

Such stupidity is a curse that many a man lies under. But this stoical silence, which is but a sinful sullenness, is not the silence here meant.

Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, Volume 1, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 295.

 


[1] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/69963/bloody-shirt

[3] Thomas Brooks was a literary genius. If he had not been a Puritan, he almost certainly would be required reading in any literature department. He was Spurgeon’s favorite writer. As you read Brooks, you will see where Spurgeon learned his style of speaking and writing. In addition to be an extraordinary writer, Brooks was a profound and practical pastor. The quote is from a book of his called The Mute Christian Under the Smarting Rod. The book concerns how a Christian may properly respond to trials brought by God. In the first stage of his argument, he begins by explaining the possible meanings of the concept of silence in the face of trials. The section quoted is the first kind of “silence” which could be meant.

[4] Note the word play: Brooks works off of both the sound and the meaning of the words:

                God will make

                                The most insensible sinner sensible [note the “s” sounds]

                                                either of his hand here,

or of his wrath in hell.

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior. 1.1.6
  • Thinking About Meaning While Weeding the Garden
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior 1.1.6
  • Addressing Loneliness
  • Brief in Chiles v Salazar

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior. 1.1.6
  • Thinking About Meaning While Weeding the Garden
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior 1.1.6
  • Addressing Loneliness
  • Brief in Chiles v Salazar

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • memoirandremains
    • Join 630 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • memoirandremains
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar