From: Trinity, by Robert Morey
The inductive method attempts to move
| Induction moves | Deduction moves |
|---|---|
|
|
The empirical sciences follow the synthetic, a posteriori, inductive method in which they move from human experience to all things including God.
The method is called synthetic because the scientist is combining a number of individual experiences into a single universal “law.” After obtaining the same result from a particular experiment time after time, the scientist, at some point, will feel that he can make a universally true statement which will cover all future experiments. This is what is commonly called a scientific “law.” He is starting from and with his own personal experiences and then making the leap to a universal law.
It is called a posteriori because the conclusion is arrived at after the experiments take place. He is not beginning with the universal law and then testing to see if it is true. The law is developed after experience.
It is inductive in that nothing conclusive can be proven. All he can logically conclude from induction is a certain degree of probability. The so-called “law” or concept has either a low, medium, or high probability of being true.
In logic, if you want a universal in the conclusion, you must have at least one universal in the premise. Thus you cannot logically make the leap to a necessary truth no matter how many particular experiences you pile up. Since the inductive method begins only with particular human experiences, its conclusions are only probably true to a certain degree.
The inductive method has been dominant in much of Christian theology ever since the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas. This is the philosophical basis of much modern evangelical “evidential” apologetics as well as modern science. By making human experience the Origin of truth instead of the God of the Bible, they had unwittingly made man the judge of God instead of God the judge of man. We must face the truth that Christian theology did not come from “below,” i.e., human experience, but from “above,” i.e., special revelation.
The Bible begins with the axiom of God’s existence (Gen 1:1).
The epistemological method followed in this book is analytic because we will begin with the Trinity as the “given” of special revelation and then deduce various theoretical implications from it. What do we mean by the word “given?” The “given” is the “first principle,” “founding principle,” “opening presupposition,” or “starting axiom” which forms the basis of a system and from which the details of the system are deduced.
Obviously, you have to begin somewhere with something. That “something” is what is called in theology the “given.” If the implications or deductions of that “given” are demonstrated to be true, then the “given” must be true as well. Our method is deductive in that the premises and conclusions are so related that, if one is true, then the other is necessarily and conclusively true.
In geometry the “given” concepts are called axioms. Geometry begins with certain concepts which are unproved, but from which the rest of geometry is deduced. Theology also has its axioms or beginning principles. This is why we do not hesitate to begin with the doctrine of the Trinity as our a priori axiom.
We will begin with the doctrine of the Trinity and then deduce from it the kinds of things which “must be” in the Bible. If we find what “must be” in the Bible, this is conclusive proof that we were on the right track to begin with.
One argument that is logically valid is the method which asks the question,
This method begins with what exists. Then it asks: “What must also exist in order for what is to be what it is?”
There is absolutely no logical relationship between the existence or non-existence of God and the arguments which someone
advances to prove or disprove that existence.
If some or all of the theistic arguments presented by one particular author are discovered to be weak or invalid, this cannot logically decide the issue of God's existence.
Not all arguments are created equal. Some of them are good and some of them are bad. Some are weak and others strong. Some are logically valid and others invalid. Some are smart and some are stupid. Down through the years, theists and atheists alike have given some really poor arguments to prove their case. For example, the argument that “Something is true if you believe it” is just as absurd as saying, “Something is false if you disbelieve it.” Reality does not have to conform to what you think it is.
The nature of the God, whose existence you are attempting to demonstrate, determines the nature of that demonstration. If you are trying to prove the existence of a material God, then all you need is a material demonstration. But, if the God in question is an infinite spirit without any material nature, then it would be logically invalid to demand an empirical demonstration. This is why Christian theists have produced so many rational arguments for the existence of God. Belief in the existence of an immaterial God will generate immaterial proofs.
We will now illustrate the analytic a priori deductive methodology which we will be following in this book by applying the question, "What must be in order for what is to be what it is?" to the existence of God. This method begins with what exists. Then it asks, "What must also exist in order for what is to be what it is?" The following examples may help us at this point.
| What is | What must be |
| The temperature outside is 0°C. The temperature inside is 20°C. |
There must be a source of heat inside the house. |
| What “is,” is the given truth of physics that the temperature inside the house would be the same as
the temperature outside the house, unless there is an independent heat source in that house. What “must be” is an
artificial source of heat. Otherwise the house would be zero degrees as well. When I begin to look around the house, I already know that I will eventually find a fire place, a wood stove, steam heat, a gas furnace, or electric heat, etc. Before I find the heat source, I already know that, “given” the laws of physics, it “must” exist because it “must be” in order “for what is to be what it is.” |
|
If we begin with the God of the Bible as our a priori, what kind of universe would we expect to find?
The universe:
Since God exists, then we would expect to find that the form of the universe will reflect the nature of the God who made it. Thus it should manifest intelligence, emotion, will, humor, order, design, purpose, personality, etc.
Beginning with the existence of God as our a priori, we can deduce from this that, since man is created in the image of God, we should find that man:
The existence of the God of the Bible requires that man exists in a certain way. And, when we look at man, he is exactly what we would expect him to be, if he were created in the image of God. But we hasten to add that the same Bible also tells us that his image has been marred by man's fall into sin and guilt (Gen 3:1-15). Thus, we would also expect to find that man reflects a sinful nature as well as the glory of God. And, when we look around us, man is exactly the flawed creature that the Bible describes him to be.
Since God exists and He made man in His own image, then science is exactly what we would expect to find. Why? Science presupposes an intelligible universe. But this is only possible, if it is the product of a higher Intelligence. This is why it is perfectly natural for us to ask:
If the universe were simply the product of chance, plus matter, plus time, then science would have never developed because the universe would be random and without design or purpose. In short, the universe would be unintelligible due to its contingent nature. No one would ask about the purpose of something, if the universe were purposeless. No one would be amazed at the design of things, if the universe were random.
We assume that we can figure things out because everything has a purpose and a manifest design. We assume that things do not "just happen," but that they have a cause and an explanation. Thus, the existence of science is a monument to the existence of the God who created an intelligible universe.
Since God exists, then we would expect to find that man is a moral being who makes moral judgments according to a moral code that exists independent of his approval or disapproval. The non-moral cannot be the Origin of the moral. Without God as the infinite reference point and, thus, the Origin of truth, morality is impossible.
Can chance, plus matter, plus time explain what man is? No. A non-personal, non-rational, non-moral, and non-aesthetic Origin for the personal, rational, moral and aesthetic nature of man is logically and scientifically impossible.
Since God exists and He made man in His own image, then the existence of beauty and art is exactly what we would expect to find. It also explains why man can appreciate and create beauty.
That people naturally strive to find meaning to their existence and the things around them is exactly what we would expect to find if we begin with God.
How is this method applicable to the doctrine of the Trinity? If we begin with the Trinity as an a priori concept, then we must ask ourselves, if the Trinity is true, what kinds of things should we expect to find in the Bible? Then, if we go to the Bible and we do in fact find those very things which "must be" in order for the Trinity "to be what it is," then we have all the proof we need that the Trinity doctrine is true. If we do not find those things then we have evidence that the Trinity is not true.
We must have unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, love in all things.
While you cannot be saved without being orthodox, you can be orthodox and not be saved. (Morey, p. 55)