more Mainstream Apologetics ...
Claim ID: PHY-IS02
Claim: Law of Non-Contradiction
Summary: The Law of Non-Contradiction states that a given object cannot be in two contradictory or opposing states at the same time.
Description: On what basis do we draw sound conclusions? How do we compare good from bad, best from worst, and right from wrong as we navigate the challenges of life? Without a sense of truth, we lose our ability to weigh options when making sound decisions.
Western philosophy generally regards the Law of Non-Contradiction as a principal way of thinking. The notion of either/or logic makes sense. Westerners believe in an objective system of truth that is logically coherent.
Eastern philosophy, however, generally regards the Law of Non-Contradiction as non-sense. The notion of both/and logic makes better sense. Easterners believe in a subjective system of truth.
Many regard the Law of Non-Contradiction as merely a social convention or personal preference. While others such as post-modernists believe that we cannot trust our senses and language to fully understand truth and reality. Truth, if it does exist, is elusive.
Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction states that a given object cannot be in two contradictory or opposing states at the same time. Aristotle characterized non-contradiction as "one cannot say of something that is and that is not in the same respect and at the same time." For example, a car cannot be white and black at the same time. Either it is white or black at any given time.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is formally based on either/or logic. Either/or logic acknowledges the existence of contradictory and opposing states. Either an object is in state (S), or it is not (not-S).
This system of thought acknowledges that reality can be known through our human senses and articulated using language. We can know with some degree of confidence that an object is in one state or another by means of simple observation or testing. Statements identifying an object's state are either true or false.
Finally, this system of thought allows for both absolute and relative truths. Absolute truth is defined as an external, objective, and universal truth. Whereas relative truth is defined as an internal, subjective, and individual truth.
In summary, either/or logic acknowledges that truth is both exclusive and knowable.
The Law of Non-Contradiction has been challenged throughout the ages. One of the most influential objectors was German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel in the mid-19th century [REF-DIA01]. He regarded the notion of truth based on either/or logic as fallacious.
Hegel created a system of thinking based on both/and logic known as dialectic logic. This system of thinking states that multiple conflicting truths could coexist in space and time. Therefore, an object can be in a state (S) and its opposing state (not-S) at the same time.
For Hegel and other proponents of both/and logic, there is no such thing as absolute truth. Hegel's system of logic is based on human perspective where truth is in the mind of the beholder.
Post-modernist John Caputo also claims that there is no such thing as absolute truth,
"The truth is that there is no objective truth about reality."
While Caputo's use of the word truth makes for an amusing rhetorical device, his statement is utterly self-refuting. How can Caputo claim for certain that there is no absolute truth when Post-modernists do not believe in a certain truth! When it comes to knowing truth, Post-modernists believe that the human senses, science, and mathematics cannot be trusted.
Post-modernists have systematically deconstructed the word truth so that it has been stripped of its intended meaning. It has come to mean perception or belief. This is what Stephen Colbert calls truthiness - the quality of seeming to be true but not necessarily or actually true according to known facts.
In summary, both/and logic acknowledges that truth is both non-exclusive and elusive.
The irrationality of both/and logic is best illustrated by Ravi Zacharias. Regarding the Law of Non-Contradiction and dialectic logic, Zacharias shares his encounter with an Eastern professor.
As the professor waxed eloquent and expounded on the law of non-contradiction, he eventually drew his conclusion: "This either/or logic is a Western way of looking at reality. The real problem is that you are seeing contradictions as a Westerner when you should be approaching it as an Easterner. The both/and is the Eastern way of viewing reality."
After he belabored these two ideas on either/or and both/and for some time, I finally asked if I could interrupt his unpunctuated train of thought and raise one question. I said, "Sir, are you telling me that when I am studying Hinduism I either use the both/and system of logic or nothing else?"
There was pin-drop silence for what seemed an eternity. I repeated my question: "Are you telling me that when I am studying Hinduism I either use the both/and logic or nothing else? Have I got that right?"
He threw his head back and said, "The either/or does seem to emerge, doesn’t it?"
"Indeed, it does emerge,"
I said. "And as a matter of fact, even in India we look both ways before we cross the street.
It is either the bus or me, not both of us."
The Law of Non-contradiction vs. The Dialectical System, [REF-ZAC02] [REF-ZAC03]
Because this Eastern professor disagreed with Zacharias, he really did believe in the Law of Non-Contradiction. He believed emphatically that the both/and system of thinking was the only valid way of thinking.
Jesus illustrated the consequences of both/and thinking when he made the following profound claim,
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." (John 14:6).
This claim clearly states that Jesus is the only way to the true God and that all other paths do not lead to God. If this claim is false, then Jesus was mistaken and there are other equally valid paths to God. However, if Jesus' claim is true, then all other religious systems of the world are false.
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction and either/or logic, both interpretations of Jesus' claim cannot be true at the same time. The consequence of misinterpreting Jesus' claim about himself would lead to eternal separation from God. The ultimate question is whether Jesus was claiming an exclusive truth or not [BIB-IS14].
If it were not for the existence of absolute truth and the Law of Non-Contradiction, we would not be able to reason about anything. If all things are true, anarchy would ensue, and we would not survive as a human race.
Resources:
Copyright@2025 Mainstream Apologetics