I have written several posts in the past documenting how I went from an enthusiastic supporter of Charlie Clough’s Bible Framework Series to no longer being able to recommend it to anyone. The reason for this is that I continued to research topics related to Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics that Charlie Clough based the series on. Before I go any further I want to make it clear that what I am about to write should not be construed as doubting the salvation or sincerity of either Cornelius Van Til or Charlie Clough. However I continue to see warning flags in regards to Van Til’s apologetics which I don’t think can be ignored.
For anyone who has listened to Clough’s Bible Framework series the charge that “Aristotelian logic” is wrong should be very familiar. Over time I began to realize that Calvinism (Van Til was a five point Calvinist) has absorbed a lot of “Platonic logic” via Augustine so of course Calvinists hate “Aristotelian logic.” What the Calvinists generally won’t tell you is that the Platonism that is embedded in their system of theology leads to the use of dialectic (see below for an explanation of dialectic). Only “Aristotelians” get hung up about contradictions while “Platonists” wouldn’t know what to do without them. If you have ever wondered why Calvinists aren’t bothered by all of the contradictions, antinomies, and tensions in their theology the answer is: dialectic.
I have recently began to read materials having to do with New Age, occult, and esoteric influences that have been diffusing into the church (please check out the Lighthouse Trails Research Project site or the Lighthouse Trails bookstore for more information on these topics). Many, if not all, of the occult religions and philosophies use dialectic logic. In fact I am reading an e-book on Scribd titled “Hegel: The Man Who Would Be God” by Michael Faust. Michael Faust is a pseudonym for someone who claims to be a member of the Illuminati (not a joke) and the text of the book reads like doctrinaire New Age religion. What caught my eye is that Mr. Faust hates Aristotelian logic as much as Cornelius Van Til did. More and more I consider any belief system that uses dialectic to be compromised (and that includes Calvinism). Now, without further ado, let’s hear from Mr. Faust on the topic of dialectic:
Illumination is based on dialectic thinking, so it’s crucial for those who seek to understand the religion of the Illuminati to first understand the nature of dialectics. Dialectical logic – based on the synthesis of opposites and the highlighting, emphasizing and resolutions of contradictions – is usually contrasted with Aristotelian logic, which is analytical rather than synthetic, and centered on two key concepts: the Principle of Non-contradiction and the Principle of Excluded Middle (see below).
Bertrand Russell asserted that there are three “Laws of Thought”:
- Law of Identity: “Whatever is, is.”
- Law of Non-Contradiction: “Nothing can both be and not be.” (For example, it cannot be both raining and not raining.)
- Law of Excluded Middle: “Everything must either be or not be.” (For example, it is either raining or it is not.)
Simple-minded people are fixated on such laws, but they are the Laws of Being and they are contradicted by the Laws of Becoming. Aristotelian logic, the bedrock of Western thinking, lends itself to reductive, analytical thinking – in breaking everything down, and separating it from everything else. But this is an illusion. The universe, as Eastern thinking has always emphasized, is an interconnected whole. The type of logic that best deals with “becoming” rather than “being” is dialectical logic. Unfortunately Russell couldn’t comprehend Hegel’s dialectical logic, so he had no idea what Hegel was talking about.
The Illuminist Heraclitus is known as the father of dialectical thinking and this type of thinking reached its apex with Hegel. Dialectical thinking is all about synthesis, about unifying opposites. The idea of Hegelian dialectics is that everything contains a fundamental inner, implicit contradiction that will lead to the contradiction eventually being explicitly expressed. Thus when it is raining, the implicit contradiction that it will stop raining is already starting to manifest itself, and, in due course, the rain will indeed stop. There will be a time during the transition between raining and not raining when the distinction between the two states cannot be clearly drawn. Aristotelian logic emphasizes the separate phases of the process, while dialectical logic emphasizes the interconnectedness of the apparent contradictions – they are part of an ongoing process of becoming rather than separate types of being.
So, those people who are obsessed with “contradiction”, those who think they’re clever when they identify contradictions and try to use them as weapons in some sort of logical battle, merely demonstrate that they are locked into one type of reductive thinking and fail to understand the big picture. People who can’t see beyond Aristotelian logic will never understand Illuminism. In the world of dialectics – of becoming – none of Russell’s three laws of thought truly apply. They are black and white limits whereas “becoming” is concerned with shades of grey.
There is a famous problem of logic known as the Heap Paradox. It concerns removing grains of sand from a heap. The issue is at what point will the heap no longer be a heap. How will Aristotelian logic help you solve that?
“Fuzzy logic” abandons the binary opposition of true and false and instead introduces new categories such as “very true”, “fairly true”, “reasonably false”, “completely false” etc. It is far more nuanced, introducing shades of grey where only black and white existed before.
Quantum logic introduces a new form of logic based on quantum mechanics where a “superposition of states” applies. Quantum particles can be in two or more places at once; they can be in two or more states, no matter how contradictory. So much for Aristotelian logic.
If you want to understand life, you have to be able to use different types of logic in different contexts; whatever is most appropriate to the situation. If “contradiction” is the only tool in your box, you will get nowhere. So, please, to all those people who comb our work looking for contradictions, why don’t you do yourself a favor and try to tune into the higher logic of becoming, the logic of dialectics?
A final aspect of dialectical thinking must be appreciated is that it should lead to higher and higher states of synthesis where the contradictions (revealed in the contrast between thesis and synthesis) present in each dialectical cycle are progressively refined and resolved until, eventually, a complete synthesis is achieved and contradiction is, finally, abolished. This represents the apex, the Absolute, the Omega Point of dialectical process.
Hegel: The Man Who Would Be God
by Michael Faust