Teaching at LTCi Siliguri, based on Ronald Nash's book, Life's Ultimate Questions

1. Ronald H.
Nash
1936 - 2006
…was an Evangelical Baptist philosopher and apologist
in the Calvinist tradition. Nash served as a professor for
over 40 years, teaching and writing in the areas of
worldview, apologetics, ethics, theology and history.

2. The Law of
Noncontradiction

3. An introductory video to give you an idea of what is coming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-v8eKRbz30

4. An introductory video to give you an idea of what is coming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-v8eKRbz30

5. Nash begins by suggesting that a
few decades ago people said
Christianity is irrational, separating
faith from reason, or, not using
science, evidence or logical
thinking - there is now a modern
movement suggesting that some
Christian thinking is too rational!
Nash, in this section, will show
what the law of noncontradiction is
and why accepting it is necessary,
not an option.

6. Are there areas that you find
hard to understand about God?
What defies your ability to
think?
What does the Bible have to say
about understanding God
through logical thinking?

7. Cathcart & Klein define the law
of NonC like this:
“Aristotle’s logical principle that
a thing cannot be both A and
not-A at the same time in the
same respect. It would be self
contradictory to say,
“Your pants are on fire, and,
what’s more, your pants are
not on fire.”
Nothing can be both so and
not be so at the same time.
They also offer this joke to
explain it…

8. Cathcart & Klein define the law
of NonC like this:
“Aristotle’s logical principle that
a thing cannot be both A and
not-A at the same time in the
same respect. It would be self
contradictory to say,
“Your pants are on fire, and,
what’s more, your pants are
not on fire.”
Nothing can be both so and
not be so at the same time.
They also offer this joke to
explain it…

9. A Rabbi is holding court in his village. Schmuel stands up
and pleads his case, saying, "Rabbi, Itzak runs his sheep
across my land every day and it is ruining my crops. It's my
land. It's not fair."
The rabbi says, "You're right!"
But then Itzak stands up and says, "But Rabbi, going
across his land is the only way my sheep can drink water
from the pond. Without it, they'll die. For centuries, every
shepherd has had the right of way on the land surrounding
the pond, so I should too.”
And the rabbi says, "You' re right!"
The cleaning lady, who has overheard all this, says to the
rabbi, "But, Rabbi, they can't both be right!
And the rabbi replies, "You're right!

10. The law of noncontradiction:
“A cannot be both B and non-B at the
same time and in the same sense”
In simple terms,
“An object (A) cannot be both a round
(B) and a square (non-B) at the same
time in the same sense”
“A proposition (A) cannot be both false
(B) and true (non-B) at the same time in
the same sense.
Important in this is seeing the
distinction between B and non-B consider the diagram shown

11. Imagine non-B is the
known universe,
everything that exists.
B might represent a set of
things that have
something in common e.g. all humans, all dogs
etc.
Therefore non-B is
everything that is not
either human or dog
B
Non-B

12. It is impossible for
Richard Chamberlain to
be both man and nonman at the same time in
the same sense.
If Richard was B and nonB at the same time he
would not only be human
but also everything else in
the universe at the same
time, a dog, car, rubber
tree, glass etc.
B
Non-B

13. Gordon H. Clark outlines the implications of this:
"If contradictory statements are true of the same
subject at the same time, evidently all things will
be the same thing. Socrates will be a ship, a
house, as well as a man. But if precisely the same
attributes attach to Crito that attach to Socrates it
follows that Socrates is Crito. Not only so, but the
ship in the harbor, since it has the same list of
attributes too, will be identified with this SocratesCrito person. In fact, everything will be the same
thing. All differences among things will vanish and
all will be one."

14. The Medieval Muslim philosopher Avicenna said
facetiously,
“Anyone who denies the law of noncontradiction should be beaten and burned
until he admits that to be beaten is not the
same as not to be beaten, and to be burned
is not the same as not to be burned.”

15. A man once received a call from the IRS
(Internal Revenue Service, tax collection dept in
the USA) asking why he had not filed his tax
return. He replied that since he did not
To deny the difference between B and there
believe the LNC applied to reality, that non-B
rapidly difference between filing a return
was no becomes nonsense - just considerand
this scenario:
not filing a return. The lady on the phone
didn’t miss a beat and said “If that’s how you
think, then you should also agree there’s no
difference between being in jail and not
being in jail.”

16. A man once received a call from the IRS
(Internal Revenue Service, tax collection dept in
the USA) asking why he had not filed his tax
return. He replied that since he did not
believe the LNC applied to reality, that there
was no difference between filing a return and
not filing a return. The lady on the phone
didn’t miss a beat and said “If that’s how you
think, then you should also agree there’s no
difference between being in jail and not
being in jail.”

17. It is not possible to prove the
law of non-contradiction - but
we can see some reasoning
evidence (called modus
tollens) suggesting it - for
example:
If one proposition (p) implies
another proposition (q) and q
is false, then p must be false.
Consider:
If (p) Richard Chamberlain is a
former winner of the Masters
Golf Tournament, then (q)
Richard has played on the
Augusta National Golf Course

18. But it is false that Richard
has played on the Augusta
National Golf Course (not-q)
Therefore Richard is not a
former winner of the Masters
Golf Tournament
Remember: If p implies q,
and q is false then p is also
false

19. Logic and human communication
We must distinguish between B and non-B in Language
(speech), thought and being.
To speak or write intelligibly a word cannot have contrary
meanings at the same time and in the same sense.
For a word to mean something it must not mean something else
- words do often have >1 meaning but this is limited and
ambiguity avoided by assigning differing sets of symbols to each
meaning.

20. We might say, “Julius Caesar is a
man”
Man is ambiguous - we could say it
has 5 meanings - we then distinguish
each meaning of man by defining
them as man-1, man-2 etc.
If the law of non-contradiction is
denied there is no difference
between any of the meanings of man
and anything that is nonman.
In fact every word would have
thousands of meanings.
At this point meaningful speech
becomes impossible as words have
so many senses to them.

21. Importantly here if the law of
noncontradiction is denied then
nothing has meaning. The sentences
of the people who are denying the
law of noncontradiction cannot make
sense.
If the laws of logic do not mean what
they say , nothing else can have
meaning, including any sentences
that purport to deny the laws.
So if logic is indispensable in human
thought, speech and action, then the
law of noncontradiction is not
arbitrary but is necessary and
indispensable in human being and
thought.

22. Logic and human action
To deny the law of noncontradiction
here seems obviously silly - if B and
nonB are the same then…
- drinking milk is the same as drinking
poison
- driving on the right hand side of the
road is the same as driving on the left
(though often it is in India!)
- there is no difference between my
wife and a house
- adultery is the same as being faithful
- God and the devil would be one and
the same

23. Logic and human thinking
Denial of the law of noncontradiction
would make human thinking
impossible - for example in a class
taught by someone believing this…
- how could there be any difference
between a good exam and a bad
one?
- how could there be any difference
between a good grade and a bad
one?
Surely all students should get the
same grade in such a class.

24. Logic and God
Some religious people say the law of
noncontradiction does not apply to
the God who made it - simply he
operates according to a higher or
different logic than humanity.
Nash suggests that when they are
asked to explain how God can think,
communicate, and act when B and
non-B are the same they take refuge
in the idea of mystery.
Nash starts to explain his reasoning
for believing this law applies to God
by referring to things He cannot do

25. Hebrews 6:13 - swear by a being
higher than himself
There is no being greater than God and this is an application of the law
of noncontradiction
Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18 - God cannot lie
God seems to distinguish between a
true (B) statement and a non-true
statement (non-B)
If God did not operate by the law of
non-C then at the final judgement he
could do anything - though that
wouldn’t matter as heaven and
hell would be the same!

26. Nash gives some
examples of how illogical
and irrational some of the
arguments against the law
of nonC can be. I shall
quote a few here:

27. Irrationalism in the academic world
During a class a professor spoke
against logic, which she claimed was
too black and white, too B or nonB.
She was also strongly opposed to
Christian faith.
A student approached her after the
class and asked her 3 questions:
Student: Since you reject all use of
logic, don’t you realise that you can’t
prove any of your anti-Christian beliefs
are true? (Proving something does
appeal to the laws of rational inference)
Prof: no response, she didn’t appear to
have thought of that before

28. S: Don’t you realise that when you
repudiate logic you cannot prove that any
of my Christian beliefs are false?
P: Again no response, this had not been
thought of before
S: Since you have admitted that you
cannot prove your anti-Christian beliefs to
be true, and that you cannot prove my
Christian beliefs are false, why don’t you
become a Christian?
The professor could not prove her rejection
of christianity with an argument as she had
rejected logic - she apparently finished the
conversation by simply stating she did not
like Christianity

29. Self referential absurdity
The law of nonC can be applied to discover positions that suffer
from self referential absurdity. This is where the application of a
theory to itself involves a necessary falsehood or logical
nonsense.
Nash gives an example from skepticism:

30. Nash suggests that skepticism is an
example of a logically self defeating
position. He offers 2 possible
definitions of skepticism:
2. No proposition is true
1. No one can know anything
Your strategy is the same as for
In response to someone saying this
question 1:
you ask a simple question:
“Is your statement (proposition) true”
“Do you know that no one can know
What is the result of our skeptic
anything?”
answering yes or no?
If the skeptic answers yes - he then is
Nash then suggests this that no one
story further
asserting that he knows
proves his anything - in effect he has
argument:
can know
defeated his own argument
If his reply is no he is admitting that he
doesn’t know what he is talking about

31. 2. No proposition is true
Your strategy is the same as for
question 1:
“Is your statement (proposition) true”
What is the result of our skeptic
answering yes or no?
Nash then suggests this story further
proves his argument:

32. During class a philosophy professor was attacking the
existence of God:
“Is there anyone in this room who has seen God?”
Silence.
“All right, has any of you touched God?”
Again silence.
“Has anyone here heard God?”
Again no one said anything. The professor triumphantly
pronounced,
“Therefore, there is no God”

33. Then one of the students rose and asked if he could
speak:
“Has anyone in this room seen our professors brain?”
Silence.
“All right, has any of you touched our professors brain?”
Again silence.
“Has anyone here heard our professors brain?”
Again no one said anything.
The student smiled and triumphantly pronounced,
“Then using our professor’s logic, our professor has no
brain”
Reportedly the student got an A

34. Scientific Positivism
A general mood in much (Western)
society is expressed in the idea that,
“It is wrong to believe any
proposition not verified by the
scientific method”
(Most Christians would have no
problem with science or scientific
method)
But, is science and its methodology
capable of bringing us into the
presence of all that is true?

35. Scientific Positivism
Can you think of any examples where
science could not prove truth?
What scientific experiment could
possibly verify the claim that it is wrong
to believe any proposition not verified
by the scientific method?
There is none!
Therefore scientific positivism is a
logically self defeating position

37. Evidentialism (Nash’s term) was expressed by a 19th
century thinker WK Clifford,

38. Evidentialism (Nash’s term) was expressed by a 19th
century thinker WK Clifford,
“It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence”

39. Evidentialism (Nash’s term) was expressed by a 19th
century thinker WK Clifford,
“It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence”
Clifford suggests people have responsibilities with regard
to their acts of believing…especially with regard to religious
beliefs. And Clifford said there is never sufficient evidence
or proof to support any religious belief. Consequently
anyone who accepts religious belief (like God’s existence)
is guilty of acting irrationally, immorally and irresponsibly.

40. Evidentialism (Nash’s term) was expressed by a 19th
century thinker WK Clifford,
“It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence”
Clifford suggests people have responsibilities with regard
to their acts of believing…especially with regard to religious
beliefs. And Clifford said there is never sufficient evidence
or proof to support any religious belief. Consequently
anyone who accepts religious belief (like God’s existence)
is guilty of acting irrationally, immorally and irresponsibly.
This viewpoint has been widely argued against and Nash
asks the significant question,

41. Evidentialism (Nash’s term) was expressed by a 19th
century thinker WK Clifford,
“It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence”
Clifford suggests people have responsibilities with regard
to their acts of believing…especially with regard to religious
beliefs. And Clifford said there is never sufficient evidence
or proof to support any religious belief. Consequently
anyone who accepts religious belief (like God’s existence)
is guilty of acting irrationally, immorally and irresponsibly.
This viewpoint has been widely argued against and Nash
asks the significant question,
“Where is the evidence / proof for his own claim?”

42. Evidentialism (Nash’s term) was expressed by a 19th
century thinker WK Clifford,
“It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence”
Clifford suggests people have responsibilities with regard
to their acts of believing…especially with regard to religious
beliefs. And Clifford said there is never sufficient evidence
or proof to support any religious belief. Consequently
anyone who accepts religious belief (like God’s existence)
is guilty of acting irrationally, immorally and irresponsibly.
This viewpoint has been widely argued against and Nash
asks the significant question,
“Where is the evidence / proof for his own claim?”
Nash says, “He provides no evidence;nor could he”

43. Deconstructionism, summed up
by Nash as,
“It is impossible to ever know the
meaning of any written text”
Popular in academic circles, esp.
English departments - in effect it
means that all meaning is subjective;
a text means whatever it means to
the reader.
We might crudely suggest it is telling
you to make up your own
interpretation and that is ok. Don’t
read what anyone else has said, or
worry about syntax or spelling

44. If it is impossible to know the
meaning of a text how can you
understand the texts or textbooks
used by a professor?
What would this mean when applied
to the Bible - that it is impossible to
know the meaning of any given text,
we cannot know the meaning of the
Bible.
Once again we have an idea,
deconstructionism, that is the
paradigm of a self defeating theory.

45. If it is impossible to know the
meaning of a text how can you
understand the texts or textbooks
used by a professor?
What would this mean when applied
to the Bible - that it is impossible to
know the meaning of any given text,
we cannot know the meaning of the
Bible.
Once again we have an idea,
deconstructionism, that is the
paradigm of a self defeating theory.

46. Is Nash oversimplifying the arguments?
He suggests there are 2 ways he can
respond to such criticism:
1. Take a deconstructionist position
and interpret the criticisms as
endorsements of his position. After all if
all meaning is subjective surely he can
do this?
2. Assume the critic means that each
of his arguments represents the
position being criticised as a universal
claim, a statement allowing no
exceptions.

47. Nash suggests people advocating the
positions he has debunked might feel
the victory is cheap. However he
suggests the following as a defines of
his own position: Consider the
following pairs of propositions:
1a. all propositions not verified by the
scientific method are false
1b. some propositions not verified by
the scientific method are false
2a. all statements that are neither
analytic nor synthetic are meaningless
2b. some statements that are neither
analytic nor synthetic are meaningless

48. 3a. all acts of believing propositions
not supported by sufficient evidence
are immoral
3b. some acts of believing
propositions not supported by
sufficient evidence are immoral
4a. all texts are meaningless
4b. some texts are meaningless
Nash assumes that his critics want
people to believe that the (b)
propositions more fairly represent the
view of the evidentialist,
deconstructionist etc.

49. 3a. all acts of believing propositions
not supported by sufficient evidence
are immoral
3b. some acts of believing
propositions not supported by
sufficient evidence are immoral
4a. all texts are meaningless
4b. some texts are meaningless
Nash assumes that his critics want
people to believe that the (b)
propositions more fairly represent the
view of the evidentialist,
deconstructionist etc.

50. As the b positions are obviously true
any attempt to reject them or qualified
versions of them is unfair and
simplistic.
Nash goes on to say that an attempt to
defeat his arguments in this way fails
for 2 reasons:
1. Even though the b positions are true
they are trivial in the sense that no
informed person doubts them. We
should note that some texts are difficult
to interpret - but this difficulty is nothing
to do with deconstructionism. In fact if
deconstructionists limited their thinking
to proposition 4b no one would object.

51. However no one would care,
such a stance is simply a
trivialisation of their position - it
would be a very watered down
way of defending a position
resulting in a “so what?” type of
response.
2. Nash states the problem is
that those taking these
positions do assert them as
universal claims not as the
“some” position he postulates.

52. It is a very different thing
agreeing that some texts are
difficult to interpret and saying
that all texts are in the same
category. Nash compares it to
someone who introduces
themselves as a skeptic and
then defines his position by
saying that some propositions
are not true (as opposed to
saying no propositions are true)
As far as skepticism is
concerned this person is a
fraud.

53. Conclusion
The law of nonC cannot be ignored
- it is a true, universal and
necessary principle of human
thinking, communicating and acting.
It is a principle that functions in the
mind of God.
God does not operate at a higher
level than the law of nonC, if he did
then there would be no difference
between good and evil, God and
the devil etc.
Such positions are nonsense and
irrational.

54. Conclusion
The law of NonC will help us in
evaluating world views and in
seeing inconsistency- but it can
never be the only criterion - we
need others too.

56. Which means I shall be back with
more philosophy - bet you can’t
wait…