Copan, Paul. True for You, But Not for Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009.
Alan Watts (1915–1973) was an Anglican clergyman who later became a Zen Buddhist. After protracted attempts to reconcile Christianity and Buddhism, he determined Christianity to be “incorrigibly theistic” and “invincibly self-righteous,” and that it couldn’t be harmonized with his Eastern philosophical beliefs. To justify his choice, Watts proposed that logic cannot “bind” or govern reality. True knowledge, which can’t be explained or described, is nonrational. Similarly, religious pluralist Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1916–2000) claimed that “in all ultimate matters, truth lies not in an either-or but in a both-and.”
You’ve probably seen the yin-yang symbol of Taoism, which illustrates Watts’ and Smith’s point: Two opposing, complementary fishlike figures (white within black and vice versa) swirl about (indicating change and flux) yet are unified by a circle.
This image is understood to portray the all-encompassing both/and dynamism of Eastern thought, in opposition to the static, constricting, either/or Western perspective.
Watts dismissed the “rationality of Christianity” as useless “Western logic.” One problem: To reject Christianity, Watts used the very logic he repudiated. He knew Christianity and Buddhism are incompatible, and he assumed he had a yardstick by which to measure Christianity as being wrong. So he chose “Eastern logic” over against “Western logic,” and in doing so, he appropriated the unavoidable “either/or” method in his selection; he had to use “Western logic” in order to reject it.
The notion that something is “true for you, but not for me” often is applied in a broader context to suggest that no thought system is superior to another: “Your logic may suit you, but don’t think mine is illegitimate.”
The rejection of basic logical laws, however, results in one huge philosophical train wreck. Logic wasn’t invented by Aristotle (or anyone else). Logic is discovered. It is fundamental to human thinking; we need logic in place even to get an everyday conversation off the ground.
One logical essential is the law of non-contradiction (“A is not non-A”): a statement and its opposite can’t both be true in the same manner or relationship. So if something is self-contradictory—such as relativism—it can’t be true. “There is no truth” (A) stands opposed to “It’s true that there is no truth” (non-A). Or if a person insists that beliefs be scientifically provable, we can ask: “Is that scientific standard itself scientifically provable?” At first, we’re told (A) “Science alone!” But on closer inspection, we likewise have its opposite (non-A): “Not science alone!”
There is also the law of excluded middle (“either something is A or non-A”). Watts’ rejection of Christianity demonstrates this law: Christianity and Buddhism can’t both be true. There is no blended middle ground on the matter, no third way (tertium quid). So he rejected one.
In our religious pluralism section, we’ll see that religious claims radically conflict; they can’t all be true. The divinity of Jesus is blasphemous to the Muslim, seen to be ascribing a partner to Allah. Christianity is fundamentally false if Jesus’ body rotted in the grave; the Hindu, though, stresses that Jesus’ teachings are true whether or not he rose from the dead.
These conflicting “A vs. non-A” religious scenarios abound. Logically speaking, while the Hindu, the Muslim, and the Christian may all be wrong, they can’t all be right. If, as relativism maintains, both A and its opposite (non-A) are true, then what is false? If truth is truth, it must exclude something—namely, falsehood or error. Let’s apply this to several scenarios.
(1) “Double-Truth”
Certain Hindus or Buddhists who deny laws of logic will operate with a “two truth-levels” view: the lower, illusory (maya) level of ignorance (avidya), and the higher level of the Ultimate Reality/Truth. If the Ultimate (“Brahman” or the like) is beyond logic or illogic, how will these people persuade us to accept their view? Using logic to allege that logic doesn’t apply to Ultimate Reality is incoherent; so there’s no reason to accept any of their propositions. What’s more, the two-tiered view itself distinguishes between higher and lower levels! In this case, silence—not argument—can be the only course to choose.
(2) Language and Logic
Some raise the chicken-and-egg question about language and logic—which comes first? For one thing, logical laws or 2+2=4 would hold even if no language existed; no language can function unless it assumes logical laws. For another, language, as a tool of thought, is subordinate to reason; all languages depend on logic (as indeed does grammar itself). Language doesn’t shape logic, since we need basic logical laws to think clearly and communicate coherently. For instance, language assumes logical distinctions between words in a sentence: “The car is blue” requires distinctions between “car” and “blue.” The basic fact is we can’t function as language users and communicators without accepting some underlying logic to make distinctions.
(3) Skepticism
Even skeptics must assume two things: (1) their minds are working well, and (2) logical laws are inescapable and undeniable. They use fixed laws of logic to expose their opponents’ errors and contradictions; so, for all their huffing and puffing, skeptics do hold to something universally firm and fixed and true. As we noted earlier, the belief that people make mistakes presupposes truth’s existence. After all, skepticism arises because of the prevalence of human error, and, as philosopher Josiah Royce (1855–1913) argued, the recognition of error assumes that an idea doesn’t conform to objective truth. Just as disorder presupposes order, blindness presupposes sight, and evil presupposes a standard of goodness, so the notion of error presupposes truth’s existence. When the skeptic points out falsehoods, he presumes to speak and know the truth—even if he works from the negative to the positive.
Summary
The “logic” of Eastern thought, using the “both/and” distinction-denying view requires inescapable either/or distinctions.
You have to use “either/or” logic in order to deny its validity.
Language—with its grammar and word distinctions—presupposes an underlying, fundamental logic.
The two-tiered view of truth itself distinguishes between two levels of reality.
When skeptics point out errors in logic, they assume their minds are working fine and that logical laws universally apply.
Truth excludes falsehood. Detecting error presupposes knowledge of the truth.
Further Reading
Nagel, Thomas. The Last Word. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.