Off the Rails: And How to Get Back On

By Barry H. Baker

The train is off the rails! What is wrong with the train cars? What are the train cars? And how do we get them back on track? Each train car represents a different topic. We examine each train car to understand the topic and then figure out whether to abandon the train car or see if it can be useful again.

In part 1, some of the topics we examine include: What is logic? Is there objective truth? What about objective moral values? Can we know the world around us? Are we good people? Do we have free will? Are any of the four major ethical codes adequate?

In part 2, we examine the following questions: Does God exist? Is there any evidence for his existence? What are the implications of the evidence? Is Jesus a myth? Can we trust the biographies of him in the New Testament? How does Jesus solve the sin issue? What is wrong with certain aspects of the current church?

There are many challenging concepts that are examined in this book. It is not for the fainthearted; there are many claims in this book that challenge the current status quo.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: May 19, 2022
• ISBN: 9781639032785

Book preview

cover.jpg

Off the Rails

And How to Get Back On

Barry H. Baker

Copyright © 2021 by Barry H. Baker

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission requests, solicit the publisher via the address below.

Christian Faith Publishing

832 Park Avenue

Meadville, PA 16335

www.christianfaithpublishing.com

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 1

Chapter 1

Chapter 1

To my friend

For his vision

Acknowledgments

To all those who helped both directly and indirectly.

The faces and names that I recall, and names that I have forgotten.

Whose friendship warms the heart now and many, many years later.

Ezekiel 3:17

Luke 19:12–27

Your results are only as good as the assumptions that you make.

Preface

Simply put, the goal is to help the reader be able to critique ideas. If one feels uncomfortable about a possible challenge to your belief system, then it is possible that your belief system is flawed or not up to the challenge. While it is certainly possible that the challenge itself is flawed, reasoned debate can ensure as to the what, why, and how the belief is flawed or the challenge is flawed. We all have beliefs; the question becomes whether a specific belief is true. The intent of this book is to encourage critical thought and constructive dialogue.

When I look around the world, I see injustice, pain, and lost hope. I am but one man; I cannot fix all the wrongs I see. Yet what to do…? I can write! I have been educated in philosophy and theology. I will claim that certain positions are true, whether or not they are a popularly held position or politically correct. There is a great ruling paradigm, and that is truth. We will hold dear to truth, for in truth there is great utility and safety.

Let the reader understand that I am not claiming moral or intellectual superiority. I am a flawed human, yet I am claiming insight into important issues and questions. This insight is not just from myself but from some of the great literature of the Western tradition. Any questions about the quality of the insight, you will have to judge that for yourself.

Introduction

The train is off the rails—not just one or two cars, but every car! The imagery of this book is that of a train that is off the tracks. The concept here is that of a train that is made up of many cars, and each car has gone off the tracks for a different reason(s), and thus the train cannot move. The presumption here is that a train that is off the tracks and thus cannot move is not good. Each individual train car represents a different issue. However, are these different issues possibly related in the history of human thought? The questions that we will explore are: What caused the car to go off the tracks?¹ And are there train cars that are being used, even though they are off the rails, that should be abandoned? Also, what to do about each individual car that is off the tracks? We will see that while there are different reasons that each car has gone off the tracks, there is a consistent theme that underlies each of those reasons each individual car is off the tracks.

Part 1

Man

We must start somewhere. Which train car should we get back on the tracks first? Yet there are so many important points, many interconnected and interwoven. The dilemma is that to argue one point, we will use some things that we have not demonstrated—yet. Please be patient; we will return to the important parts. We can only examine one thing at a time. When I was in seminary, my mother would ask me several interrelated questions, but I could not answer all the questions at once. We will tackle one train car at a time with the understanding that some of the foundational concepts that I use to explain, say logic and truth, will be taken up in later sections. So is there one train car that if we are able to get it back on track, it would help us to get the other cars on track? Yes, logic is the most strategic train car because it provides the tools to judge between different ideas. Logic will help us get the other train cars on track so the train can move again.

Logic

In some ways, this is the most important train car; it is by understanding logic and properly handling it that the difficulties in questions can be sorted out. By using logic, we can understand why a concept may not work in practice; only then is it possible to correct the situation. But why is the train car logic off the tracks in the first place? Before we can examine that question, we must understand what logic is and how it is supposed to function.

Properly used, logic promotes clear thinking. Can logic answer all questions? No, but with the proper exercise of logic, one can ensure that one’s thinking is on track, which leads to the question: can I trust my judgments? There are several possible responses:

No—But if I do not trust my own judgments, then I may as well stay in bed all day (not a bad option if one can get away with it, but not really practical)! This is itself a judgment that one must, by definition, trust because it is you who is following that course of action.

No—Because I know the mistakes that I have made. But to know that I have made a mistake, I must know what is a mistake (or should I say was a mistake). And what was not a mistake. Also, if I know I have made a mistake, then there is a good chance that there was a decision made and the option not chosen was not a mistake (or it could have been a different mistake).

Or yes—I can know that I made a mistake or know that I did not make a mistake, somethings can go wrong without any mistakes being made.

Can I trust my judgment? This is a question that is examined by René Descartes (1596–1650) in his work Meditations. He examines this question in the fourth meditation. His conclusion is that yes, one can trust one’s judgments, if one is careful and reflective.² This is the position this work will take, that one can make right judgments and recognize them as right judgments. (If not, then why read further?) There are good reasons for taking this position. One reason is past experience. Each person has made judgments in the past and either the judgment was correct, or it was incorrect, or it was correct in some part but not others. Another reason is the counsel of other people. Also, we have the accumulated lessons from history to give light to decisions. Anyway, one learns about their own judgment-making capacity and others, for good or ill. Finally, we have rational principles that guides us to clear thinking. Of these guides, the first three numbered are first principles.

The Law of Identity: A is A.

My friend Ed and I were discussing this law one fine day in a nearby park. Ed claimed that this law did not hold. In the park, there is a place where a grand old oak tree is within arm’s reach of the sidewalk that we were standing on. I literally put my hand on the tree and said tree, then I put my hand on his shoulder and said Ed, then I repeated the process in reverse. We all know there is a difference between Ed and the oak tree. Different things are different, and this law, at a minimal level, describes that difference—that there is a difference.

The Law of Noncontradiction

Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense, at the same time. This is the law that those who want to keep the train from moving break often. We will examine this law in greater detail later.

The Law of the Excluded Middle

This one is a bit tricky. The law states that there are two choices and only two. Typically, this law is in view with either or statements. It is either one thing or another, such as Either I walk to work or drive the car. The problem is that it may be the case that there could be a third thing; in the case of the example, I could ride my bicycle to work. Also, there is both and logic, such as "I like both sausage and onions on my pizza. Either or logic and both and logic do not work against each other. They each have their own area. The train car goes off the rails when someone confuses the two types of logic or claims that all one should use is both and" logic.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason

An explanation must give sufficient reason(s) for the cause. For example, there is a car in my garage. There are also some tools and materials in the garage, but the tools and materials in the garage are not sufficient to explain the existence of the car. The carmaker’s factories would be a sufficient explanation for the car’s existence. The problem with the principle of sufficient reason is that I have not found a consistent number of criteria necessary for the principle. Therefore, when we bump up against a problem where the principle of sufficient reason is needed, we will make a case-by-case judgment on whether there is sufficient reason(s) for the specific situation.

Self-Referential Incoherence

A premise cannot live in the world it creates. For example, the statement Truth does not exist. Can this be true? If so, how? This statement creates a world (metaphorically speaking), but it cannot live in the world it creates. Another example, if one’s position is that the law of non-contradiction is invalid and uses the law of non-contradiction to argue that position, that is an example of a self-referentially incoherent argument. If one could argue that the law of non-contradiction is invalid without using it, then the argument would not be self-referentially incoherent.³ Another example of a self-referentially incoherent premise is the verification principle. According to Moritz Schlick (1882–1936), a statement is meaningful if it is either true by definition (such as ‘All bachelors are unmarried men’) or is in principle verifiable by experience.⁴ Except that the verification principle itself cannot be verified by experience. Thus, it cannot live in the world it creates.

All the above principles hang together—that is they have coherence; they do not violate each other. Together they may be understood as part of reason and logic along with the subject of the next chapter: Truth. Therefore, when some statement does not pass the test of reason (and truth) just listed, it will be judged null and void and should not be used. Also, there are a number of logical fallacies that need to be avoided. As we come across them, they will be pointed out and explained. To attempt to hold on to a position that is contrary to the above principles of logic or incorporates a logical fallacy would not be rational.

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

For both deductive and inductive arguments: The premises are the evidence, or grounds, of an argument. The conclusion is the proposition that is claimed to follow from that evidence.⁵ While there are several types of arguments, we will examine only two.

Deductive arguments: "In a deductive argument, if valid, the premises guarantee the conclusion [the ‘ ’ or ‘therefore’ statement]. That is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows with logical necessity and cannot be false."⁶ The following is the classic example of a deductive argument that has a valid form and true premises:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Deductive arguments can have a valid form, but have false premises:

All elephants are blue.

This is an elephant.

Therefore, this is a blue elephant.

This argument has a valid form, but premise 1 is obviously false. (Painted elephants don’t count!) For a deductive argument, if the form is not valid, then the argument is false. Also, if the form of argument is valid and the premises are not true, then the argument also is false. However, if the form is valid and the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. The catch here is to make sure that both the form is valid and the premises true. Further, the conclusion must be deduced properly from the premises. Please note that, the two examples given are syllogisms, which have a specific form. Deductive arguments do not necessarily have to have the form of a syllogism, and they can have more or less than two premises.

Inductive arguments: "Inductive arguments the premises claim to give some evidence for the conclusion.…Thus, inductive arguments are said to be either adequate or inadequate, not true or false."⁷ Also, there is an element of force or persuasion as it relates to the strength of the argument. An inductive argument that could possibly change someone’s mind would be said to have force. In an inductive argument, there can be any number of premises possibly including, but not necessarily, using a deductive argument.

*****

Now, how and why has the train car logic gotten off the tracks? The train car logic is functioning just fine. Yet there are two broad reasons why the logic car is off the tracks; it is the application of logic—this is the