Is all truth propositional?

[Philip]

Fundamental question of philosophy and theology.

I maintain that not all truth is propositional. "God is Holy" is a proposition, yet to explain what is meant by holiness is more than mere words can describe or comprehend. I maintain that certain aspects of God cannot be fully expressed propositionally.

 

[Christusregnat]

Fundamental question of philosophy and theology.

I maintain that not all truth is propositional. "God is Holy" is a proposition, yet to explain what is meant by holiness is more than mere words can describe or comprehend. I maintain that certain aspects of God cannot be fully expressed propositionally.

Do you grunt or draw pictures? How exactly does one do this?

It is popular with many who have mystic leanings to speak this way, but if the finer things in God's revelation are mystic and symbolic, then why didn't God give us the holy comic book? Why? Because, God is the Logos, the Logic, the Reason, the Discourse, or whatever else you'd like to use to translate logos. God is not the picture, or the symbol, or the grunt.

Cheers,

 

[steven-nemes]

I'm not sure what is meant by "truth is propositional". Do you mean to say that there are things that are true that are not propositions? How? It seems the property of being "true" or "false" belongs to propositions...

 

[Whitefield]

Fundamental question of philosophy and theology.

I maintain that not all truth is propositional. "God is Holy" is a proposition, yet to explain what is meant by holiness is more than mere words can describe or comprehend. I maintain that certain aspects of God cannot be fully expressed propositionally.

Well, lets see you express a truth which is not propositional. And how do you "explain what is meant" without using "mere words"?

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Gents,

Well, lets see you express a truth which is not propositional.

When Jesus says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life...," it seems to me that He is using 'truth' as a predicate nominative. So, Jesus Himself is in some sense truth, and Jesus ain't no proposition. Now, my point here is not to agree with P. F. Pugh, but rather to point out that his question is ill-formed. He needs to define what he means by the terms 'truth' and 'propositional.' I think if he does this, then we are in a better position to determine whether or not the following statement (which expresses a proposition ) is true or false.

P: All truth is propositional.

Brian

 

[Whitefield]

Hello Gents,

Well, lets see you express a truth which is not propositional.

When Jesus says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life...," it seems to me that He is using 'truth' as a predicate nominative. So, Jesus Himself is in some sense truth, and Jesus ain't no proposition. Now, my point here is not to agree with P. F. Pugh, but rather to point out that his question is ill-formed. He needs to define what he means by the terms 'truth' and 'propositional.' I think if he does this, then we are in a better position to determine whether or not the following statement (which expresses a proposition ) is true or false.

P: All truth is propositional.

Brian

And at the same time "I am the truth." is a propositional statement. Either it is true (He is the truth), or it is false (He is not the truth).

 

[rbcbob]

Fundamental question of philosophy and theology.

I maintain that not all truth is propositional. "God is Holy" is a proposition, yet to explain what is meant by holiness is more than mere words can describe or comprehend. I maintain that certain aspects of God cannot be fully expressed propositionally.

A proposition, speaking grammatically and philosophically proposes something which can be either affirmed or denied. Thus not every sentence in the bible is a proposition; some are questions, commands, etc.; nevertheless all of God's Word is TRUTH and all truth can be expressed propositionally.

 

[Philip]

Truth: that which is unshakeable and certain, regardless of whether we are certain of it.

My contention here is that certain truths about God's nature cannot be expressed propositionally because all proposition are finite, whereas God's nature is infinite. Therefore no proposition or set of propositions can be said to fully describe God's nature (which is truth).

Can I explain the trinity propositionally? No, unless I want to start a cult.

P: Not all truth is propositional.

 

[Whitefield]

Can I explain the trinity propositionally? No, unless I want to start a cult.

If you do not use propositions to explain the trinity, what do you use to express anything about the trinity to another person?

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 10:52:30 EST-----

P: Not all truth is propositional.

Can you express that without using a proposition?

 

[rbcbob]

Truth: that which is unshakeable and certain, regardless of whether we are certain of it.

My contention here is that certain truths about God's nature cannot be expressed propositionally because all proposition are finite, whereas God's nature is infinite. Therefore no proposition or set of propositions can be said to fully describe God's nature (which is truth).

Can I explain the trinity propositionally? No, unless I want to start a cult.

P: Not all truth is propositional.

If there were TRUTH that could not be expressed propositionally, then of logical necessity it could be neither affirmed or denied. That we may express the Trinity propositionally and expect from the believer an affirmation does not imply that either the man proposing the proposition or the man affirming the proposition possesses exhaustive knowledge of the Trinity.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Gents,

I think this discussion is best resolved by allowing P.F. Pugh to get very clear and explicit as to what he means. Here is the proposition under discussion - P: All truth is propositional. P.F. Pugh's position is that P is false. However, it is still unclear what he means by the terms 'truth' and 'propositional'. He did define 'truth' as...

...that which is unshakeable and certain, regardless of whether we are certain of it.

This seems to fall short. For instance, if Jesus was in some sense the truth, then according to P.F Pugh's definition Jesus was unshakeable. However, it seems likely he was shaken while hanging on the cross when "the earth shook and the rocks split." Now, I realize this is silly and I am sure P.F. Pugh means something different than this, but he has not made it clear as to precisely what he does mean. Everybody is getting hijacked by P.F.'s claim when he has yet to adequately express what he means. My advice is to see if P.F. can adequately define his terms, and if he is able to only then see if you agree or disagree.

Brian

 

[rbcbob]

Hello Gents,

I think this discussion is best resolved by allowing P.F. Pugh to get very clear and explicit as to what he means. Here is the proposition under discussion - P: All truth is propositional. P.F. Pugh's position is that P is false. However, it is still unclear what he means by the terms 'truth' and 'propositional'. He did define 'truth' as...

...that which is unshakeable and certain, regardless of whether we are certain of it.

This seems to fall short. For instance, if Jesus was in some sense the truth, then according to P.F Pugh's definition Jesus was unshakeable. However, it seems likely he was shaken while hanging on the cross when "the earth shook and the rocks split." Now, I realize this is silly and I am sure P.F. Pugh means something different than this, but he has not made it clear as to precisely what he does mean. Everybody is getting hijacked by P.F.'s claim when he has yet to adequately express what he means. My advice is to see if P.F. can adequately define his terms, and if he is able to only then see if you agree or disagree.

Brian

Quite so. I have defined proposition and if P.F. Pugh wishes to use the word differently then that will take us down another road.

 

[Philip]

This seems to fall short. For instance, if Jesus was in some sense the truth, then according to P.F Pugh's definition Jesus was unshakeable.

And in His divinity, Jesus is unshakeable and certain. I would affirm that Jesus is talking of truth in this sense when He says "I am the truth."

A proposition is an absolute statement that can be either affirmed or denied.

My goal here is to avoid the common Reformed error of reducing the Christian faith to a series of propositions and leaving aside aspects of theology such as God's love, which is non-rational (as opposed to irrational).

Can you express that without using a proposition?

Of course not--I'm finite. Propositions are a concession to our finitude.

 

[CatechumenPatrick]

Harder question: What are propositions?

 

[CDM]

Hello Gents,

I think this discussion is best resolved by allowing P.F. Pugh to get very clear and explicit as to what he means. Here is the proposition under discussion - P: All truth is propositional. P.F. Pugh's position is that P is false. However, it is still unclear what he means by the terms 'truth' and 'propositional'. He did define 'truth' as...

...that which is unshakeable and certain, regardless of whether we are certain of it.

This seems to fall short. For instance, if Jesus was in some sense the truth, then according to P.F Pugh's definition Jesus was unshakeable. However, it seems likely he was shaken while hanging on the cross when "the earth shook and the rocks split." Now, I realize this is silly and I am sure P.F. Pugh means something different than this, but he has not made it clear as to precisely what he does mean. Everybody is getting hijacked by P.F.'s claim when he has yet to adequately express what he means. My advice is to see if P.F. can adequately define his terms, and if he is able to only then see if you agree or disagree.

Brian

This conversation will go nowhere if terms are not clearly defined. Also, assertions need not apply.

This seems to fall short. For instance, if Jesus was in some sense the truth, then according to P.F Pugh's definition Jesus was unshakeable.

And in His divinity, Jesus is unshakeable and certain. I would affirm that Jesus is talking of truth in this sense when He says "I am the truth."

A proposition is an absolute statement that can be either affirmed or denied.

My goal here is to avoid the common Reformed error of reducing the Christian faith to a series of propositions and leaving aside aspects of theology such as God's love, which is non-rational (as opposed to irrational).

Can you express that without using a proposition?

Of course not--I'm finite. Propositions are a concession to our finitude.

Thank you for your definition of proposition.

The bolded portion of your comment is compounding the problem. You must explain what is meant by your proposition that "God's love...is non-rational". I simply do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Philip]

What I mean by saying that God's love (in particular) is non-rational is that there is no logical reason why a just God should love sinners. Also, God created us as emotional beings in His own image. Emotions are non-rational.

 

[rbcbob]

This seems to fall short. For instance, if Jesus was in some sense the truth, then according to P.F Pugh's definition Jesus was unshakeable.

And in His divinity, Jesus is unshakeable and certain. I would affirm that Jesus is talking of truth in this sense when He says "I am the truth."

A proposition is an absolute statement that can be either affirmed or denied.

My goal here is to avoid the common Reformed error of reducing the Christian faith to a series of propositions and leaving aside aspects of theology such as God's love, which is non-rational (as opposed to irrational).

Can you express that without using a proposition?

Of course not--I'm finite. Propositions are a concession to our finitude.

I believe that you are setting up a false dichotomy between knowledge and love which is carrying over into your (in my opinion) still clouded grasp of propositional truth.

God's knowledge and His love are each infinite attributes of His character. They are not conflicted.

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.

Our knowledge of and assent to the propositions of His Word are likewise bound up in one another.

God commands us to love Him with both heart and mind.

Mark 12:30 'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment.

He commands us thus because we are to reflect His character:

WLC 95 Of what use is the moral law to all men ? A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God

 

[CDM]

What I mean by saying that God's love (in particular) is non-rational is that there is no logical reason why a just God should love sinners. Also, God created us as emotional beings in His own image. Emotions are non-rational.

I deny "there is no logical reason why a just God should love sinners" the answer is manifestly Jesus Christ. A just God loves sinners in Jesus Christ. Perfectly logical--just like God.

I do not mean to steer the OP down a rabbit trail so I will back away if and until we get to the heart of the OP.

Grace and peace,

 

[chbrooking]

Philip,
I'm concerned that you may not be appreciating the simplicity of God or the nature of rationality. Our rationality is a shadowy reflection of God's thought. You mustn't think that there are these abstract rules of rational thought to which even God must submit. Rather, God is who he is, and it is because of that that WE have rules of thought. God does not think inferentially. We do. God's thought is one seamless whole. And logic does not stand independent of God. It is wholly dependent upon him.

As to the simplicity element, you must understand that God is what he has. His being cannot be divided up, so that one attribute (love) can be distinguished and even set over against another (reason). You need to understand that our idea of love and our idea of reason are shadows that have their true essence in God. We partake of these things by way of image-bearing. We may be able to abstract God's love for heuristic reasons, or so that we, who have finite minds, can discuss it. But that does not mean that God's love is really distinct from his reason. We HAVE to think that way. We HAVE to talk that way. But we KNOW that God's love and reason cannot be truly distinguished that way. The doctrine of divine simplicity prohibits it.

So, you might say that human love is non-rational. But you cannot say that divine love is non-rational, anymore than you could say that divine reason is unloving.

As for truth being non-propositional ... Okay. Once we realize that God is truth, we cannot regard truth itself as a proposition, but a person (or three). But I'm not sure what mileage you seek to get out of that fact. What are you driving at? Our minds do work by inference. Our thought is discursive. Once you speak of truth in human conception, you're probably bound to move into propositions. You need to clarify whether you are talking about truth itself (which is incomprehensible), or our conception of truth, which is dependent upon God and his revelation.

 

[Whitefield]

Truth: that which is unshakeable and certain, regardless of whether we are certain of it.

My contention here is that certain truths about God's nature cannot be expressed propositionally because all proposition are finite, whereas God's nature is infinite. Therefore no proposition or set of propositions can be said to fully describe God's nature (which is truth).

Can I explain the trinity propositionally? No, unless I want to start a cult.

P: Not all truth is propositional.

I'm sure God can explain the trinity propositionally. We are not the measure of things and just because we can't explain the trinity propositionally does not mean it cannot be done by God. We may not be able to express all truth propositionally because of limitedness and lack of knowledge, but the same cannot be said for God.

 

[Christusregnat]

Truth: that which is unshakeable and certain, regardless of whether we are certain of it.

My contention here is that certain truths about God's nature cannot be expressed propositionally because all proposition are finite, whereas God's nature is infinite. Therefore no proposition or set of propositions can be said to fully describe God's nature (which is truth).

Can I explain the trinity propositionally? No, unless I want to start a cult.

P: Not all truth is propositional.

If you can't explain the trinity propositionally, the word is not "cult", the word is "heretic". The doctrine of the Trinity is itself a set of propositions.

Cheers,

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 11:26:57 EST-----

What I mean by saying that God's love (in particular) is non-rational is that there is no logical reason why a just God should love sinners. Also, God created us as emotional beings in His own image. Emotions are non-rational.

God does not have emotions. Emotions are when a person is moved by external fources to an involuntary response. God has never had, nor will He ever have emotions.

Nice try though.

Cheers,

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Gents,

The proposition under discussion is - P: All truth is propositional. Philip believes P to be false. He is trying to define what he means by the terms ‘propositional’ and ‘truth.’ His latest definition for ‘propositional’ is…

A proposition is an absolute statement that can be either affirmed or denied.

Technically, this is not a definition for ‘propositional’ but rather ‘proposition’. Let’s assume from the definition given he means the following…

Propositional (def.): ‘X’ is propositional if and only if ‘X’ is an absolute statement that can be affirmed or denied.

It is unclear what Philip means by ‘absolute’ in ‘absolute statement’. Nevertheless, let’s apply this to P.

P’: All truth is an absolute statement that can be affirmed or denied.

If this is what Philip is saying, then on the basis that “Jesus is the truth,” I would agree that P’ is false. Jesus is not an absolute statement that can be affirmed or denied. He is a person. Taken in this sense, my guess is that everyone else on the board would agree as well. Case Closed?

Now, based on what has been said in this thread by Philip and others, the above does not feel quite right to me. To say that P’ is false on the basis that “Jesus is the truth” uses the term ‘truth’ in a rather broad sense – a sense that Philip may or may not have originally intended. He has yet to define clearly what he means by the term ‘truth’. (He did attempt an earlier definition, but it was insufficiently clear.) Philip, when you use the term 'truth' what do you mean? Also, just to keep things moving, what does 'absolute' mean in 'absolute statement'?

Brian

 

[chbrooking]

Yes, I was wondering about that 'absolute' element in his definition as well. I seem to remember him using the same term in another thread to means something quite different. Thanks for highlighting it for discussion, Brian.

 

[Vytautas]

If this is what Philip is saying, then on the basis that “Jesus is the truth,” I would agree that P’ is false. Jesus is not an absolute statement that can be affirmed or denied. He is a person. Taken in this sense, my guess is that everyone else on the board would agree as well. Case Closed?

When Jesus said that he was the truth, he was using a metaphor much like when he said he was the door. So the term truth in, I am the truth, and, all truth is propositional, is being used in different senses. Jesus was not claiming he was truth qua truth, but rather what he says is true.

 

[chbrooking]

When Jesus said that he was the truth, he was using a metaphor much like when he said he was the door. ..Jesus was not claiming he was truth qua truth, but rather what he says is true.

I could not disagree more.

 

[Confessor]

When Jesus said that he was the truth, he was using a metaphor much like when he said he was the door. ..Jesus was not claiming he was truth qua truth, but rather what he says is true.

I could not disagree more.

Then you must show how Jesus' statements to be the truth and a door are different in that respect.

As for my answer: as far as humans can conceive of and apprehend truth, yes, it's all propositional. But God does not think in terms of propositions.

 

[chbrooking]

I don't think that burden falls on me. I simply stated that I disagreed.

But there are numerous differences. For one thing, a door is concrete; truth is abstract. For another, a door is created; truth is not. For yet another, while I suppose there is a standard of sorts, a template, if you will -- the unifying category "door" in the mind of God, God is the definition of truth. The latter distinction isn't a hill I'd die on, but once we connect it with the second distinction, it has more force. Truth is coterminus and correlative with God because God's character is truth. It would be far more difficult to say the same of "doorness".

One thing that we should bear in mind, though, when we consider metaphoric language, is that God is the source. A rock is hard because God is steadfast. The reason the metaphor works is because the creation reflects his character.

 

[CharlieJ]

I don't have it on me right now, but Vos published an article entitled something like "True and truth in John's Gospel," and it's included in that collection edited by Gaffin. I'm pretty sure that the article is relevant to answering the question. Perhaps I'll get a chance later to re-read it.

 

[Confessor]

I still don't think John 14:6 can establish that God Himself is truth. His word is truth (John 17:17).

If we start saying that God is truth, then we must say also that according to our human understanding truth can be non-propositional. And I'm pretty sure that is impossible to demonstrate.

 

[Philip]

Ok, real quick, I'll define an absolute as something that must be either rejected or accepted as whole (ie: you can't accept one part and not another).

Truth, as I stated before, is that which is certain and ultimately indubitable (we, as humans and sinners, of course, will doubt the truth, so in one sense truth is dubitable).

I'm not setting God's love against rationality here, but in a complementary position, much like free will is not set against God's divine decrees.

Part of what I'm trying to get at here is that there are parts of divine revelation that are not propositional in nature. I would consider an experience of God's presence to be a revelation here. I may be able to say "I felt God's presence", but I will not be able to express exactly why or how.

The elephant in the room here is a term that I have used before that I will define--numinous: the experience of feeling the presence of something wholly other. I realize that the term is popular among liberals, the neo-orthodox, and Anglo-Catholics, but I think it needs to be considered in Reformed circles as well.

I would argue that for every Christian, there is, at times, this feeling of the numinous that signals God's presence in a unique way and leaves no room for doubt.