Sunday, 26 February 2012

Induction, Deduction, and the Truth

I was recently in Saskatoon, Sasketchewan for a Track meet. One of those evenings the tv was on as people did various things in our room. The movie playing was Sherlock Holmes(the first of the two more recent hollywood movies). In the movie, Holmes states something to the effect of "I merely deduced from the facts the conclusion." But there is a big problem with that statement, what Sherlock Holmes does and what people understood deduction to be are two very different things. In fact, this cultural misunderstanding of the difference between deduction and induction(something people don't really know about) is evident in the fact that the movie has Holmes stating it is deduction, when in fact it is induction. You can look up the definitions sometime if you choose, but here is the gist. In reference to logic, deduction is the process of coming to a conclusion that is NECESSARY based on the facts on which the conclusion is based. Induction is a conclusion that may logically and reasonably come from the facts, but is not necessary. Basically, supposing the underlying facts used to make a conclusion are correct, then if it is truly deduction, then the conclusion MUST be true. Otherwise it must be induction, for if the facts are true and the conclusion is false, then there is no necessary connection.

Now this brings me closer to my point for this blog. We live in a culture that highly values logical induction, but masquerades it as deduction. In fact, true deduction is something that is rather rare, for we almost never have all the necessary facts for conclusions. We can make reasonable conclusions and guesses based on the facts we can observe, but the fact remains that we don't know, see, hear, or observe everything and therefore rarely get the chance to truly use deduction. Furthermore, deduction is a rather artificial thing since we only really ever get to use it when solving logic problems or using math. Ultimately thats what deduction truly is, pretty much math. Its a logical mode of thought that puts things into a rather black and white configuration.

I have no particular problem with induction, its what we use the most when trying to think logically, but here is what bothers me. Deduction carries with it the weight that given a set of facts a conclusion MUST be true. This becomes very problematic when people make such claims when in fact their arguments are inductive, and are not NECESSARILY true. Take Evolution for example. People have observed certain facts about the world we live in. They take certain facts that corroborate their hypotheses and using those as a basis for their argument claim to deduce evolution from it. There are two major problems with this from the get-go. First is that they often completely ignore other facts(which negates any claims of deduction). Second is that they claim from these facts their conclusion must necessarily be true, using a mode of thought akin to deduction rather than induction which is what they actually are using.

Induction and Deduction are closely related, after all there is only one minute difference between the two. They are both modes of logic, an approach to understanding the world that much of Western culture has been built upon. Logic in many cases has become synonymous with reason, truth, and correctness. But it is not the only mode of understanding the world, and in itself does not DETERMINE truth. It is a method of understanding truth developed by one culture(or set of cultures) and passed on to others in a way that nowadays logic is often thought of being truth. Its just too bad that so many people are decieved into believing that logic=truth and if something isn't logical, then it must not be true. Don't get me wrong, I use logic all the time. I'm a very logical person using lateral thinking all the time. In fact, much of what I'm saying here is based on logic. I bought a magazine full of logic problems today and enjoy thinking logically. I just constantly need to remind myself that it is only a tool, and not necessarily even the best one for understanding truth and the world around us.

For His Glorious Name,

Sunday, 19 February 2012

Stoicism, Gnosticism, and Spirituality

It has been a while since I have shared any thoughts, almost 2 months exactly. However, as I drove home this evening I was having a bit of a droopy mood, which was kind of odd because I heard a rather invigorating and compelling sermon that makes one think about one's true allegiances. Which got me thinking about my emotions. I'm a man who historically has struggled to understand my own emotions. I have come a long way in this, but I still bear some of the burden of my past being raised in a culture that highly values stoicism. This eventually led me to thinking about the different parts of a human being. In the Bible and North American culture(though subculturally and across cultures the distinctions sometimes are blurred or not recognized at all) we generally categorize the human into 4 parts that interact in various ways, the body, the mind, the soul, and the emotions.

I got to thinking about these distinctions and what it means to be spiritual. What does it mean to be fleshly? Paul, in 1 Corinthians 3:1 says, "But I, brothers could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ."(ESV) This is somewhat dangerous territory as the Gnostics show is historically. The temptation is to conclude that everything of the flesh is evil and only things that are spiritual are right and just and holy. This led to heresies concerning the nature of Christ on earth. So what was the gnostics' mistake? Well, its really one of degree. They took something to its extreme end. Well, if these fleshly things are bad, then all flesh must be bad right? Therefore we should have nothing to do with the flesh. And we still have many of those kinds of thoughts in North American culture.

But things of the flesh are not always in conflict with things of the spirit. Is our desire for companionship and fellowship a fleshly desire or a spiritual desire? Its both. The problem comes when they are in conflict. We can't always have agreement between the mind, the spirit, the emotions, and the body. So what does it mean to be spiritual? It means to choose the spirit above the other aspects of ourselves when they are in conflict. When the body tells you to gawk at the girl across the room, but your spirit tells you it is sin you have two choices. You can be fleshly by gawking, or spiritual by not gawking. Whichever of the two is the impetus for your decisions is what you are. For Stoics, the idea of emotions is like the gnostic idea of the flesh. It is to be avoided at all costs. If a person makes all their decisions based on emotions, we would call them an emotional being. And I myself often find my emotions in conflict with other parts of myself, especially my mind and spirit. But not always.

We have some pretty deep roots in North American culture concerning both gnosticism and stoicism. We highly elevate the mind and the spirit, even within Christendom, and consider emotions and flesh to be evil. Though I might still even say that I would consider the mind and spirit to be more motivating factors for my decisions, to consider the emotions and flesh to be evil is wrong-headed and sometimes dangerous. Here is my problem with it all. If you consider the emotions and flesh evil, what do you do when your whole being is in accord with something? What if something that you decide or are considering or experiencing resonates with all of you mind, spirit, body, and emotions? If emotions and the flesh are evil a priori, then you would likely choose against it just because of their involvement in it. Now I don't think anyone holds to this particular extreme of decision making, but I want to use it to highlight our general misconceptions about everything God has given us as humans. He has made us in the flesh, with a mind, with a spirit, and with emotions.

So a spiritual man is someone who considers the spirit to be the top priority. An emotional man considers the emotions the top priority. A fleshly man think first of the body. And a logical man(though this is not exactly accurate for logic is only one mode of thought, but is usually used generically to refer to things of the mind) considers the mind to be the highest. So ask yourself, are you spiritual?

For His Glorious Name,