After a recent show in which Alex and SES Professor Jason Reed discussed the need for Christians to learn to think well we received the following listener comment: WE NEED TO LEARN HOW TO THINK!?? HERE IS A NOVEL IDEA. READ THE BIBLE!!!
Sometimes it’s hard to think. Sometimes it’s even harder to think logically. But to “get on” in the world, we must not only think, we must also think logically. It’s true that thinking logically and rationally helps us succeed in the world. Yet this should not be a surprise if we are made in the image of God (cf. Gen. 1:26, 27; 9:6). That is, if God is rational, then it stands to reason that we are also rational. A prime example of this is when God asked Israel to “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). Note well that God said “together,” not just Him by Himself or just us alone, but together. And what about the prodigal son who took his inheritance and squandered it? Didn’t he also “come to his senses” and return to his father’s house (cf. Luke 15:11-32)? He indeed listed his reasons for returning (Luke 15:17-19). Even Paul told the Corinthian church to “not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature” (1 Cor. 14:20). But it was Solomon who said it best: “On the lips of the discerning, wisdom is found, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks understanding” (Prov. 10:13). It is clear that from these few examples God wants us to think clearly and logically. But what resources do we have at our disposal to do this critical thinking? Our intellect? The Bible? Our English teacher? Our parents? The answer is not quite so simple. Thus we will have to critically think about the subject in order to find a correct answer.
Since many non-believers charge Christians of not thinking rationally because they believe in the Bible, let’s consider what role the Bible has in how we should think. Now, it’s absolutely true that you can’t dig a whole with a screwdriver if you want to get done anytime soon. That is, a screwdriver is not the tool for digging a hole to plant a rose bush. The same is true about the Bible. The Bible has a certain function to perform (i.e., special revelation from God to man) and is not supposed to be used for other things like teaching grammar or syntax; in fact, grammar and syntax are best learned from an English teacher and a grammar textbook, not the Bible. Neither is the Bible a tutorial book on how to actually read; rather, it is assumed that a person can read and understand words before the person can utilize the Bible to understand what God has communicated. Likewise, even though there are parts of logic in the Bible (e.g., syllogism, sorite, enthymeme), the Bible is not purposed for teaching how to form a valid syllogism even though the Book of Romans uses syllogisms throughout. No, the Bible is primarily concerned with imparting content (e.g., the Gospel), not reading skills or phonics. And even though It will not be the formal instrument to each grammar and the like, the historically-grammatically correct information in the Bible will definitely cause you to think and discover God’s timeless truths.
So aside from the Bible, what other resources does man have at his disposal that can help him think critically and discover truth? In other words, if the Bible is primarily concerned with imparting information, what does man have at his fingertips to discover what the Bible says and means? The answer is rationality, which, by the way, is the prime characteristic or attribute that separates mankind from the animal kingdom. Yes, we use our innate ability to rationalize in order to discover truth. But when we use rationality to discover truth, we are, in other words, necessarily thinking critically about a topic or subject; we are weighing and adjudicating data points; we are discarding untrue or irrelevant information; we keep what is true and necessary. Isn’t this what God wanted Israel to do with respect to her sins? Didn’t God want to use the innate faculty of rationality to get national Israel to understand where she had sinned? Of course He did. Even the reckless (prodigal) son used some basic logic to discover that it was better for him to return home rather than to physically live with the pigs! (And given the same situation, I’m sure you and I would, too.)
Now, rationality is firmly based on logic. As Geisler notes, “Logic deals with the methods of valid thinking; it reveals how to draw proper conclusions from premises. It is a prerequisite of all thinking, including all theological thought. Logic is such an inescapable tool that even those who deny it cannot avoid using it, for it is built into the very fabric of the rational universe” (Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Bible, vol. 1 [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2002], 84). Writers such as Thomas Aquinas and Stephen Charnock are famous for using logic to arrive at valid theological conclusions. And what logic laws did Aquinas and Charnock normally use to discover truth? There were three of them: (1) The Law of Identity (A is A); (2) The Law of Non-Contradiction (A is not non-A); (3) the Law of Excluded Middle (either A or non-A). Let’s consider several examples of how these logical laws are used to discover truth. BTW, these laws are fundamental to all rational thought (Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, 6th ed [New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1982], 319ff).
The Law of Identity (A is A): “You [Israel] are My witnesses, and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me” (Isaiah 43:10, emphasis mine). “I am He” is the same as saying A is A. Here’s another A is A situation that dovetails nicely. The high priest said to Jesus, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Messiah [the Christ], the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). Jesus then answered him in the affirmative (Matt. 26:64). And what was the high priest’s reaction? He tore his robes and said, “He [Jesus] has blasphemed!” (Matt. 26:65). And what did the other Sanhedrin members say? “He [Jesus] deserves death!” (Matt. 26:66). In other words, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah which is why the Sanhedrin said He deserved death – a logical consequent of A is A.
The Law of Non-contradiction (A is not non-A): Moses wrote, “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make good?” (Num. 23:19). But Joseph Smith wrote, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). The Law of Non-contradiction demands that only one can be true at the same time and in the same sense, but not both. The Law of Non-contradiction is definitely a good tool for discovering truth; A is not non-A. BTW, Jesus said that God is sprit (John 4:24).
The Law of Exclude Middle (either A or non-A): “Choose for yourselves whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the river, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15). You will either choose to serve the LORD or some other god. Another topic: hell. Either hell exists or it doesn’t. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that hell does not exist. “The fiendish concepts associated with a hell of torment slander God and originate with the chief slanderer of God (the Devil)” (“Reasoning from the Scriptures” [Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985], 175). But Jesus believes differently; He actually mentions the actual existence of hell on numerous occasions (e.g., Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15; 23:33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5) as does James (3:6) and Peter (2 Pet. 2:4). Thus, the Law of Excluded Middle demands that we choose one or the other. Is the Watchtower society telling the truth about the existence of hell or is Jesus? BTW, remember that the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the ultimate proof of His divine credentials (cf. Ps. 49:9; 16:10) which, if divine, necessarily requires telling the truth in all matters (e.g., hell’s actual existence). In contrast, if we take the JW’s statement and logic to its necessary conclusion, then the concept of hell was propagated by one of the Devil’s minions, Jesus. (Kinda makes you shiver to consider that implication, doesn’t it?)
Logic is not the only prerequisite for discovering truth; a lens or worldview is also necessary. So what is a world view and what is its purpose? “A world view is a way one views the whole world. [It] is a way of viewing and interpreting all of reality” (Norman Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart: A Handbook on Word Views, 2nd ed. [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1989], 11). In other words, a world view is the lens or mechanism which we use to interpret what we see and experience (i.e., reality). Without question, how you view the world impacts how you think as well as how you act; it just can’t be helped. For example, your worldview to the question “Where did we come from?” will influence how you interact with the world. If you believe that creation came from nothing (ex nihilo), then you’re a theist. If you believe that creation resulted from existing matter (ex materia) and man evolved by chance, then you’re likely an atheist. If you believe that creation was created out of God himself (ex Deo), then you’re likely a pantheist. These are the only options available from which to choose (again, A or non-A).
Take, for example, atheist professor and philosopher Theodore Drange. He wrote, “The very concept of an afterlife is in one way or another incoherent or inconceivable. In other words, it is an idea which cannot even be entertained in thought, and it is in a certain sense meaningless to speak of people surviving their own death” (Nonbelief & Evil [Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998], 364). If an atheist approached the world with the lens of atheism, then an afterlife is certainly incoherent. But if an atheist changes his world view, like Antony Flew did (There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind [New York: Harper Collins, 2007]), then supernatural acts are now possible such as creation ex nihilo or even the Resurrection. Indeed, miracles are only possible if God exists. But to have a reasonable basis for the existence of God takes the use of logic and an open mind. For example,
1. Whatever has a beginning has a beginner (the philosophy).
2. The universe had a beginning (i.e., the Big Bang).
3. Therefore, the universe had a Beginner (i.e., God).
In the above syllogism you can see the following at work: (1) philosophy, (2) scientific evidence, (3) logic laws and deduction, and (4) a world view – the genuine and likely possibility that an eternal Being created a temporal world. Without question, this is the art of critical thinking – using all available resources to discover truth as we did in this simple yet critical syllogism.
So, how should we think? As Christians we undoubtedly need to think through the lens of theism. But we cannot limit our world view to matters of faith only. Viewing the world through theism should also take us through the maze of other endeavors such as advertising, wars, the environment, marriage, etc. As Harry Blamires suggests, the theist is quite firm in his world view in matters of faith. But when it comes to the secular world, the Christian is the first one to abandon his world view just so that there is no conflict ( The Christian Mind: How should a Christian Think? [Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2005]). Rather, we should demolish false arguments (2 Cor. 10:5). We should defend the Gospel (Phil. 1:7). We should contend for the faith (Jude 3). And we should refute those who oppose truth (Titus 1:9), all done in love (1 Peter 3:15) and with all available tools at our disposal (e.g., logic, rationality and the theistic world view). But this requires us to think – to think critically, which we are designed to do albeit with some effort. So, what do you think? Wisdom or the rod waits on what you decide.
By David Diaz Sonnen
