Bahnsen’s TAG II

[Map: Intro, I, II, III, IV, V, VI]

One of the primary weapons in the armory of the TAG’er is to accuse his opponent of denying that the laws of logic exist. The argument goes like this:

  • My opponent is a “materialist”
  • By definition, he only believes that material things exist
  • The laws of logic are not material
  • The laws of logic exist
  • (Even my opponent believes the laws of logic exist, as demonstrated by his appearance at a debate)
  • Ha, ha, what a dope

In the Bahnsen-Stein “Great Debate”, Bahnsen scored a huge rhetorical hit when Stein fell into exactly this trap in his first cross (and should have seen it coming, from Bahnsen’s immediately previous cross!):

[Tail end of Bahnsen’s first cross-examination]

Bahnsen: Do you believe there are laws of logic then?

Stein: Absolutely.

Bahnsen: Are they universal?

Stein: They are agreed upon by human beings. They aren’t laws that exist out in nature. They are…

Bahnsen: Are they simply conventions then?

Stein: They are conventions, but they are conventions that are self verifying.

Bahnsen: Are they sociological laws, or laws of thought?

Stein: They are laws of thought which are interpreted by men; and promulgated by men.

Bahnsen: Are they material in nature?

Stein: How can a law be material?

Bahnsen: That’s a question I’m going to ask you!

[audience laughter; moderator switches to Stein’s first cross-examination]

Stein: Dr. Bahnsen, would you call God material or immaterial?

Bahnsen: Immaterial.

Stein: What is something that’s immaterial?

Bahnsen: Something not extended in space.

Stein: Can you give me an example of anything other than god that’s immaterial?

Bahnsen: Laws of logic.

[audience laughter, shushed by the moderator]

Now that’s all very amusing, but in my mind a bit unfair, or at least equivocal about terms such as material, immaterial, and exist. Now a materialist might reasonably be expected to hold to a definition of the Universe as “all matter (and energy)” (since Nagasaki and Hiroshima well taught us that matter and energy are interchangeable). This is even, I think, a workable definition for the Christian, who additionally posits a Creator, separate from his Creation (and thus immaterial). Thus the Christian must concede that God’s immaterial existence is a different kind of existence than material existence; and it is only this material type of existence which the materialist means when he uses the word “exists”. (Thus when the materialist says “only material things exist”, he is expressing a tautology within his worldview).

The type of existence of the laws of logic is obviously not material either, therefore the materialist is justified in saying that they don’t “exist”. However, the materialist is in all likelihood an educated physical scientist, and he knows that sounds funny, and goes against intuition. But since his definitions and vocabulary don’t extend to the immaterial, he uncomfortably casts around for another way to say that the laws of logic exist without saying “they exist” (“They are agreed upon by human beings. They aren’t laws that exist out in nature… they are conventions that are self verifying.”) Perhaps a better way to say this would be “The laws of logic don’t have physical existence like atoms or photons, but they are real and absolute.” This is a statement that the Christian apologist would also endorse — especially as he holds that the Laws of Logic (and mathematics) are not part of the Creation (distinct from the Creator), but part of (or a reflection of) the truthful nature of the Creator’s very person. Such an agreement may invalidate a high-scoring weapon in the apologist’s bag of debate tricks, but it would also enable dialog — and isn’t that more important than subjecting the atheist to ridicule?

A separate question than WHETHER the laws of logic “exist” is WHY the laws of logic (for instance) exist, and I’ll be dealing with that in the next post of this series.

As a final note, let me point out that not all atheists will admit that the laws of logic actually exist, in any real or absolute sense. For instance, read here how Derek Sansone claims that the laws of logic are contingent on the paper on which they are written. Or you can listen here (I can’t guarantee how long that .mp3 link will remain valid and free, but you should always be able to buy it from Unchained Radio) to how Dan Barker (who Paul Manata faced in another debate) defines logic not as a thing which can have existence, but only as a function of mind (therefore having no existence outside of mind). I have no patience for such ridiculousness. If necessary, I can make another whole post in this series about exactly why it is ridiculous, but it seems to me that it is self-evident that the truth of the laws of logic and math upon which every scientist relies daily (whether Christian or Atheist) are eternally and absolutely true, were true before any minds existed to understand that truth, and would remain true if all minds were destroyed. I have no problem subjecting this nonsense to ridicule.

Advertisements

39 Responses

  1. As far as I’m aware, math and logic (this latter being part of math) are absolutes defined with respect to themselves. We don’t need humans for either of them to work, but we do seem to have made a reasonable job of grappling with them to a limited but expanding extent with activity including mapping math onto our observations and performing extrapolations and interpolations. I think we extrapolate to the possibility of the existence of a God, but I believe it highly unlikely. There are infinitely more cardinals than one.

  2. Rube,

    I can’t remember the third, but in the debate, Bahnsen refers to the laws of logic being “abstract, invariant, ????, entities.” He asks how anything like that can ‘exist’ in a materialist universe where “all is matter.” (I guess that’s fine for it to include energy). Do you remember the third attribute? And, it seems like above you forget that he made that point when you talk about ‘existence.’

    Jeff

  3. Oh, “universal,” that was the third.

    Unviersal, abstract, invariant entities.

    Jeff

  4. math and logic (this latter being part of math)

    As to the primacy of math vs. logic, that’s a sticky question, but I’m inclined to think that there is a sense in which logic is more universal than math. For instance, consider the two “kinds” of math: Euclidian Geometry and Spherical Geometry. The difference is that they are both based on the same four geometric axioms, except the fifth axiom (Euclid’s red-haired stepchild, which he always hated and wished he could prove as a result of the other four, elegant beautiful axioms).

    Through a point not on a given straight line, exactly one line can be drawn that never meets the given line.

    That is just fine, for Euclidean (planar) geometry. If you change that exactly one to no, then you get the completely different, yet equally valid, Spherical Geometry. The math of Planar geometry accurately reflects the reality of points and lines as drawn in a flat plane. The math of Spherical geometry accurately reflects the reality of points and lines as drawn on the surface of a sphere (where “lines” now do not have infinite length, but meet themselves after going all the way around the sphere). It is interesting to note that (as every SAT test-prepper knows) the interior angles of a triangle always sum to 180 degrees in planar geometry, but they always sum to MORE than 180 degrees in spherical geometry.

    Back to my point, though, both of these maths, which are Universal, Abstract, and Invariant (and useful and reliable for describing reality in different ways), are founded on the same logic. You start with axioms (four plus this, or four plus that), and the same laws of logic crank through those axioms and define the rest of the geometry.

  5. For years, MacDowell and others have gone to great pains to demonstrate that God cannot be disproved by the scientific method, because to do so, we would have to be outside of time and space to be able to say “Aha; there is no God here!” I think the argument of order in the universe is much more powerful, because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, with apologies to my mathamatically astute brethren, I think physics would be a better arena within which to expose atheists as inconsistent.

    By the way, do you guys watch the tv show Numb3rs, in which a math prof is the crime-fighting hero? I think they do a good job of making math interesting and understandable to the unwashed masses.

  6. Albino Hayford, tell us what you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics says.

  7. RubeRad, I think you’re applying Wikipedian geometry. Spherical and Euclidean geometry are particular projections of general geometry. We pick whichever one applies most conveniently to a problem we are trying to solve. They are quite distinct, and we have to maintain an understanding of the underlying structures if we are to relate them to each other. You don’t appear to have done that. You might as well say that the Laplace Stieltjes transform allows you to perform multiplication by addition. It does indeed. But only through transformation between working spaces. So what?

  8. I haven’t had time to read through the comment thread yet, but let me say this:

    Such an agreement may invalidate a high-scoring weapon in the apologist’s bag of debate tricks, but it would also enable dialog — and isn’t that more important than subjecting the atheist to ridicule?

    Amen! No attacking straw men — even if the straw men are being erected by your opponent. Make every concession that’s reasonable and address the best, not the worst, of your adversary’s positions.

    Part of why Al Gore lost is because he throttled Bush in the debates — and looked like a jerk for doing so. Bullies don’t win much appreciation.

  9. I can make another whole post in this series about exactly why it is ridiculous, but it seems to me that it is self-evident that the truth of the laws of logic and math upon which every scientist relies daily (whether Christian or Atheist) are eternally and absolutely true, were true before any minds existed to understand that truth, and would remain true if all minds were destroyed. I have no problem subjecting this nonsense to ridicule.

    While I’m tempted to agree with you, I believe a humanist has more wiggle-room than you allow. You’ve attributed the absolute nature of the laws of math to the laws of logic, but neglected to delineate their domain.

    For example — an American might craft an argument explaining why it’s illogical to smoke, but that wouldn’t be logical to a Chinese Communist smoker, for whom smoking is a dutiful way to bolster the nation’s economy. The difference here is one of culture and the Chinese assumption (or presupposition, if you will) that community takes precedence over the individual, versus the American assumption that reverses those priorities.

    So my question is this: are the laws of logic — not of math, now, but logic — culturally universal? Better yet, are they universally culturally relevant? A great many Eastern philosophers criticize the Western mode of rationalism. Does Eastern philosophy follow a different mode than our laws of logic?

    Not that I’m disagreeing with you — I just think that humanists can pose better challenges to the universality of the laws of logic than the silly Sansone argument above, and those should be addressed.

  10. Spherical and Euclidean geometry are particular projections of general geometry. We pick whichever one applies most conveniently to a problem we are trying to solve. They are quite distinct…

    I don’t think we disagree, but I won’t press the point, because I don’t think it’s important. You will agree, I think, that Spherical and Euclidean geometry share the four axioms that define general geometry, and their distinct fifth axioms, combined with shared reliance on absolute laws of logic, yield “quite distinct” geometries. This quite apart from any attempt to embed the geometries in any intuitive physical space; logic alone is content to push around well-defined words like “point”, “line”, “contain”, “intersect”, “parallel”, “circle”… Similarly, look at arithmetic; “addition” and “multiplication” have distinct behavior in finite groups of various sizes (for instance 3 times 5 is 3 in the modulo 6 group, but 1 in the modulo 7 group), but we can rely on proper application of the same laws of logic to enforce consistency and rationality within any system for which we have chosen a set of well-defined terms and non-contradictory axioms. And Forester’s chinese smoker helps to make this point:

    For example — an American might craft an argument explaining why it’s illogical to smoke, but that wouldn’t be logical to a Chinese Communist smoker, for whom smoking is a dutiful way to bolster the nation’s economy.

    You are correct that it comes down to a difference in presupposition (worldview/axiom). However, the logical Chinese Communist would have to concur that to the end of maximizing individual health, smoking is an illogical (and indeed moral) action, and likewise the logical American would have to concur that to the end of supporting the viability of the Communist state, smoking is a logical action. And the important point is that in both cases, it’s the same logic to which both appeal. (Note that the ends of individual or societal health perfectly illustrate WHY-type questions)

    A great many Eastern philosophers criticize the Western mode of rationalism. Does Eastern philosophy follow a different mode than our laws of logic?

    Bahnsen uses exactly this question to pin Stein down on the universality of logic. In Stein’s closing rebuttal of segment 1, he has this to say about Zen ‘logic’:

    Stein: [Bahnsen] says that laws of logic are the same everywhere. This is not true, although they are mostly the same and I wonder if he’s ever heard of a Zen koan; and the answer to a Zen koan is something, which, like “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” is the most famous Zen koan. The answer to that kind of a question is in a different type of logic in a sense, or is “extra-logical” if you want to call it that. But I do think that most logic as we accept it in the Western world and most of the Eastern world is basis of agreement on people that reflect something about the universe.

    Bahnsen comes back to this in his cross in the second segment:

    Bahnsen: Do you accept the Zen Buddhist logic that allows for koans, the different kind of logic that you referred to, used by Zen Buddhists?
    Stein: I used the word “extra-logical”, and I think that’s the right word. It is outside of the normal kinds of logic. And it is not necessarily a different kind of logic but it’s just non-logical.
    Bahnsen: Okay.
    Stein: But accepted in place of logic.
    Bahnsen: Is it also… are extra-logical things absurd?
    Stein: It may seem that way to us, but no, I would say they are not absurd in the grand scheme of things.
    Bahnsen: Can extra-logical things be true? Can claims about extra-logical matters be true?
    Stein: That’s an impossible question to answer because if we are using logic to answer whether something is true or not, then extra logical things are not subject to the analysis given by logic.
    Bahnsen: All right. So are claims about extra logical entities allowed or disallowed in your world-view?
    Stein: In my world-view? That depends on what we are talking about. If we are talking about things like Zen Buddhists, and they confine themselves to these philosophical speculations there then yes. If we are talking about science, no.
    Bahnsen: Sounds very arbitrary.

    I don’t think Stein comes out of this one too well, but I also think Bahnsen could have made his point better by pushing on Stein’s “extra-logical=non-logical”.

    In short, my answer to your question is that if/when Eastern philosophy deviates from “Western” logic, they are illogical. This is different than constructing a system using the same logic, but different axiomatic presuppositions. This is using flawed “logic” to construct a self-contradicting, and thus false, system. In other venues, I have heard Bahnsen respond to criticism of “western logic” with “Well then Step up to the microphone, and make sure everybody hears your honest assesment that your worldview requires denial of logic, that your worldview is irrational.”

    Part of why Al Gore lost is because he throttled Bush in the debates — and looked like a jerk for doing so. Bullies don’t win much appreciation.

    Interesting analysis — never heard that POV before. Certainly Bahnsen is also a bully in the forum of a debate, and that’s partly why I’m doing this series. Just goes to show, you can win the debate battle, but lose the philosophical war.

  11. In short, my answer to your question is that if/when Eastern philosophy deviates from “Western” logic, they are illogical. This is different than constructing a system using the same logic, but different axiomatic presuppositions.

    I would be interested in hearing how one of these supposed Eastern philosophers would respond to this assertion from you. Precisely how do they depart from Western rationalism? I don’t know enough myself — just reporting what I’ve heard.

    However …

    … and not to cause us to linger on this unimportant point too much, but only because it occurred to me …

    The strict materialist still has an out by suggesting that the laws of logic aren’t based on immaterial concepts, but instead derive from the biological framework of our brains. This would be similar to Noam Chomsky’s assertion that grammatical concepts arise from separate structures in our brains, as evidenced (in part) from the observation that as children learn language, they make many mistakes but never the mistake of confusing nouns for verbs or vice-versa.

    Nietzsche preempted Chomsky — he proclaimed that in reality, there is no doer behind any deed, no noun behind any verb. Only verbs, actions, processes, change exists. That we conceptualize everything in terms of nouns/verbs, that we conceptualize objects at all, is simply an illusion — one perhaps supported by Chomsky’s research. How do we escape the illusion of nouns when the very minds we think with are wired to perceive them?

    Similarly, the laws of logic could be seen as biological, not immaterial, constructs. That some people depart from them, even on an everyday basis, is no refutation — people write incomplete sentences frequently, but this doesn’t mean their minds aren’t still wired in nouns/verbs.

    Ultimately this reduces to tautology, of course, as so many things do. But I point it out to address this from you:

    I have no patience for such ridiculousness.

    Simply because Sansone posed a weak argument criticizing the universality of logic doesn’t mean that more formidable arguments can’t be made. Do I agree with them? No, but it’s good to keep opposing arguments in mind.

  12. Hmmm, I’ll have to think on that. “Biologically-wired logic” as you describe it is certainly a more coherent concept than Sansone or Barker was able to offer (although maybe that’s what Barker was trying to say with his “logic is a function of mind”, but you are a better communicator).

  13. If logic is a function of mind, then who’s to say that my function of mind isn’t ‘logical?’

    I believe that in the debates discussed above, the theist would have loved to get the atheists to admit that it is a function of mind, because then it is the easiest to refute, like when Barker admitted it. I felt he was so very weak in his argumentation.

    If you boil logic down to materialism or biology, then everything becomes arbitrary and there are no universals, no absolutes, and no abstracts. You can’t rely on induction or logic, and therefore you can’t even rely on rationality. If one follows this argument and labels it ‘rational’ or even ‘irrational,’ then that ‘one’ is making my point.

    Universal, abstract, invariant entity’s do ‘exist.’ They are impossible to account for in an atheist worldview, therefore the atheist worldview is bunk.

  14. I should add that I mean the ‘material’ atheist worldview is bunk. I guess there could be non-material atheists, right?

  15. Wehay! I get to say thay Jeff is writing nonsense. No offense, it’s just a fact.

    I like the term “biologically wired logic” – like “female logic” but not so dangerously loaded. I think you guys are operating on biologically wired logic. It’s natural to feel religious, but we’re capable of seeing through it. Some choose not to, and put a lot of effort into fending off “universal” logic. This is fun.

  16. On a more sober note, Stein is a bit of a muppet. Possibly Gonzo’s nose.

  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows:

    “There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work.” — Lord Kelvin as quoted in A.W. Smith and J.N. Cooper, Elements of Physics, 8th edition (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1972), p. 241.

    In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.

    World-renowned Evolutionist and avid anti-Creationist Isaac Asimov confirmed that:

    “Another way of stating the second law then is, ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself – and that is what the second law is all about.”

    [Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even”, Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

    “The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of available work you can get out of the energy of the universe is constantly decreasing. If you have a great deal of energy in one place, a large intensity of it, so that you have a high temperature here and a low temperature there, then you can get work out of that situation. The smaller the difference in temperature, the less work you can get out of it. Now, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is always a tendency for the hot areas to cool off and the cool areas to warm up — so that less and less work can be obtained out of it. Until finally, when everything is one temperature, you cannot get any work out of it, even though all the energy is still there. And this is true for EVERYTHING in general, the universe all over.”

    [Isaac Asimov in The Origin of the Universe in the ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be video series (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications, 1983).]

  18. Spot on. So how does this relate to an attempt to demonstrate God?

  19. The point is that evolution = universe gets more orderly, which violates the 2nd Law (unless there is somebody behind the scenes ordering things) — but all of this is a side-track to my original point (via “I think the argument of order in the universe is much more powerful…”)

  20. The point is that evolution = universe gets more orderly, which violates the 2nd Law (unless there is somebody behind the scenes ordering things)

    Oh boy, here we go again

  21. Ok, limefella,

    Here is the 2nd Law in “The Message” paraphrase:

    You don’t leave watch parts in a paper bag in the desert for 1,000 years and magically form a new watch.

    1,000 monkeys pounding on 1,000 typwriters for months will not produce Shakespeare.

    The world is breaking down, not getting better…order does not spring from chaos

  22. Oy veh. We did this already. You don’t understand this stuff. You may take that as a challenge if you wish, and I will respond.

  23. It’s just occurred to me there’s a minor resonance with the unproof thing. You can’t (or won’t) think of a way our perception of universal progress is consistent with the 2nd law. But you certainly haven’t proven the non-existence of such a consistency. I’ve explained the consistency if you’d only listen. I’ll understand if you don’t want to, because I know you want it to be God. Just be honest?

  24. And of course I want it not to be God because the concept offends my scientific sensibility.

  25. I forgot one.

    A junkyard full of old airplane parts is hit by a tornado. The tornado leaves behind an airplane ready for takeoff. Preposterous! Not if you believe in evolution, it’s not.

    Limefella, if you really want to get angry, read my tirade against evolution here: http://jimost.wordpress.com/2006/02/06/why-evolution-is-stupid-and-dangerous/

  26. I’ve explained the consistency if you’d only listen.

    AH wasn’t a participant in our previous race ’round this tree (as linked by Forester)

    Here is the 2nd Law in “The Message” paraphrase:

    LJ quite probably doesn’t know what “The Message” is, but the problem is not that he doesn’t understand your point, it’s that he disagrees with it.

    ‘bino, just know that Forester, Limejelly and I have brought this discussion about as far as we could. I’m certain you guys won’t resolve it any better here. I think the link back to the old discussion should suffice.

  27. Ok, Reuben, I humbly bow to your bloggorrheaic sovereignty.

  28. OK, but I have to say to Albino there is no parallel between evolution and the bag of components thing. Nothing whatsoever. Evolution is a long process of formation of things which have functions by tiny tiny steps, each of which is tested by its environment and *it requires breeding and mutation between generations subjected to selective pressure or advantage*.

  29. Unfortunately for you, in this little universe of which I am supreme lord and master, I justify by works, not grace! I’m going to add you to my spam blocker until you fly out to San Diego and take my whole family out to Ruth’s Criss.

  30. Yup, Limeboy. Your magic wand is always, “billions and billions of years”, sort of like the car salesman’s “monthly payment plan”. Order can’t spring from chaos, I don’t care how many years we wait around. There is nothing in science to show us that unintelligent matter produces intelligent life. Come on, bro., don’t be deceived. You must have an intelligent creator. I would even respect a “space alien” theory more, but we would still have to arrive at his origen as well.

    Anyway, I will respect the wishes of our bloglored, and cease from reinventing the wheel for those of you who already went down that road (but wait, didn’t the wheel just evolve?…snicker)

  31. Actually, I have realized that the evolution/thermo topic is completely relevant to one of the upcoming posts I have all laid out in my mind for this series. Not that I really want to keep talking about it. My face is pretty blue already, what with all the tongues-talking going on next door

  32. Albino, there’s no magic wand. 6 days is fine if you want magic to explain it. However, it’s more complex than you are either capable of or willing to perceive.

  33. Dreadful construction, sorry. Make it “capable of perceiving of willing to investigate”. I’m off to bed because an irritating evolutionary throwback means I need to sleep.

  34. And that would be “or” not “of”. Snooze.

  35. Substitute “replication” for “breeding”, by the way. Slip of the brain.

  36. […] Well, it appears that it is necessary, as Forester (playing devil’s advocate) posited a much more coherent way to think of logic as non-absolute than I had ever heard from the materialist camp. (Seriously, go read it, then come back.) The common problem that logical negativists (did I just coin that?) fail to address is this: if logic is just something that happens inside our heads, why does the logic in my head conform to the logic in your head? As a Christian, my worldview dictates that the absolute invariance of logic derives from the truthfulness of God’s person. I can demand logical consistency from others (in particular, any materialist with whom I happen to be arguing about the existence of God), because we are all appealing to an external standard of how to judge truthfulness, correctness, consistency, etc. What right does the materialist have, however, to demand logical consistency of me and my arguments, if there is no connection between the logic in my mind, and the logic in his mind? […]

  37. […] “This is how things should work”. LoL again, are kind of a funny beast. As discussed here (and previous), LoL are “content-less”, and to be used within a system, need to be […]

  38. The strict materialist still has an out by suggesting that the laws of logic aren’t based on immaterial concepts, but instead derive from the biological framework of our brains. This would be similar to Noam Chomsky’s assertion that grammatical concepts arise from separate structures in our brains, as evidenced (in part) from the observation that as children learn language, they make many mistakes but never the mistake of confusing nouns for verbs or vice-versa.
    Nietzsche preempted Chomsky — he proclaimed that in reality, there is no doer behind any deed, no noun behind any verb. Only verbs, actions, processes, change exists. That we conceptualize everything in terms of nouns/verbs, that we conceptualize objects at all, is simply an illusion — one perhaps supported by Chomsky’s research. How do we escape the illusion of nouns when the very minds we think with are wired to perceive them?
    Similarly, the laws of logic could be seen as biological, not immaterial, constructs.

    How strange to find science vindicating postmodernism:

    Time: What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

    At first read, it seems less dangerous to Christianity than to another cherished pillar of Western thought — that “objective” beliefs like “2 + 2 = 4” and “subjective” beliefs like “torture is bad” belong to entirely separate categories of thought.

    … It suggests that within the brain pan, at least, the distinction between objective and subjective is not so clear-cut. Although more complex assertions may get analyzed in so-called “higher” areas of the brain, all seem to get their final stamp of “belief” or disbelief in “primitive” locales traditionally associated with emotions or taste and odor. Even “2 + 2 = 4,” on some level, is a question of taste. Thus, the statement “that just doesn’t smell right to me” may be more literal than we thought.

    … or then again, maybe not so strange after all. If nothing else, reader-response theory is biologically correct.

  39. […] for finding errors in his publications. And it doesn’t hurt to be familiar with the presuppositional apologetic tactic of taking a materialist to task for unjustifiably making use of the immaterial laws of logic. OK, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: