Every discussion we have on whatever topic will involve our using terms that are concrete or abstract. Most of us do not use those two words, but we do use the concepts in our speech whether we consciously acknowledge them or not. It is critical important to know the difference and how we use evidence or proof to support our arguments. This article will define these terms and illustrate how we use different methods of proving what we say depending if we are discussing the concrete or the abstract.
Candidly many of the arguments against Christianity, which seem sound and irrefutable, are a mingling of the concrete and the abstract. The field of argumentation should be the same for Christian and non-Christian. If you wish to discuss and defend Christianity in today’s culture, then you must know this distinction. Let’s explore the differences.
The concrete is that which is perceived by the senses or by instruments that magnify our senses. The concrete may be an object (a pan of water) and/or a process (a pan of water that is boiling). The abstract is that which cannot be perceived by the senses or instruments. An abstract may sound like a concrete object (say, a unicorn), but, it is an abstract; and, until perceived by the senses, it will be treated as an abstract.
The concrete may readily be defined and described. Additionally, when objects are brought before a subject, the subject can typically categorize them immediately, assuming the object is not unknown. A very, very young child can with little repetition distinguish a toy puppy from a toy kitty. Moreover, the child can very quickly distinguish all live cats from live dogs. Even if a 3 year old is asked to describe a kitty, he will give some sort of consistent description.
Moving from the child to an adult then the descriptions can become very precise because there are agreed upon objective standards for the description and properties of an object. For instance, think of a pair of pants; both of us will have similar ideas in mind. The pants don’t have to be a particular color, just have the property of a color. If the two of us look at the pants of a passerby, I daresay that most of the time we will have nearly identical descriptions of it.
If we differ on the description, we have means that are universally agreed upon to determine our differences. If I say the color was a gray or a shade of tan, you might respond, “No way. Those pants were green.” Perhaps the pants were neither of our colors because of the lighting and shading. (By the way, I am red-green color deficient.) But, we do have the means to precisely determine the color of the pants. We could use a chromoscope (or similar instruments if available) to settle the matter. If the two of us differed how far away Chicago is via Interstate 65 (the weakness of memory), there are means by which we could determine the distance that would be agreed upon.
When we ask for “proof” concerning any of these objects/processes of the concrete, we are referring to universal, objective standards. Though I may have an opinion how heavy you are, my opinion disappears before the evidence of a scales.
The abstract is totally different. An abstract can only be defined and described as to what it is like.
Consider an abstract like “love.” Without question this abstract resonates for theists and atheists alike; yet, it cannot be directly perceived, only interpreted from events. Take a group of people. Make the group to be comprised of uneducated, highly educated, or a mix. Ask this group to define love. Do you think the definition will differ … and some radically? Absolutely. Look up definitions of abstracts, such as love, in any dictionary and see how the word is widely used.
Take this same group of people to a movie. Their task during the movie is to write down incidents that illustrate love and incidents that are the opposite of love. I cannot prove how the results of this thought experiment would turn out, but based on 35+ years in teaching in a world of abstracts (God, morality, love, justice, hate, forgiveness, bitterness, truth, mercy, etc) I’ve learned this: there is no agreed upon standard by which to measure an abstract object/process.
I have been to a restaurant several times over the years with someone else who has remarked, “That waitress is so rude.” She didn’t strike me as rude in the least. I couldn’t figure out where that even came from. The reason for the statement is that there are no agreed upon standards of determining (interpreting) if an event truly is cruel, kind, loving, rude, etc, etc. There is absolutely none.
I would like to suggest the reason for this lack of agreed upon proof.
When truth statements are made, they are usually determined to be true or false by one of two tests of truth.[1] There is the correspondence test (or theory) of truth, and there is the coherence test. They are quite different, though the common feature between them is comparison.
First and foremost is that the tests of truth are applicable to statements, not questions, not commands, and certainly not things. An object (a cat, a person, a tree) is simply there to be observed. If I say, “That cat is black,” what makes the statement true or false is whether the cat is, indeed, black. If the cat were dark gray, then my statement would be false. If we disagree, we have a means to measure. So, when I say “is” and whatever actually exists or when I say “is not” and whatever actually is not, then the statement is true. As Josiah Royce humorously put it, “A liar is a person who has willfully misplaced his ontological predicates.”
The coherence test is quite different. Essentially a statement is true if it matches a “body” of truth. For instance, parents leave a 10 year old at home for an hour. When they return, there is milk on the floor. It wasn’t there when they left. When they ask the boy if he did it or if someone had come over, his reply is “No.” So, since spilt milk requires an agent, the options now are poltergeists or an intruder into the house or something. The child’s answer doesn’t cohere. The statement per se makes sense, but it doesn’t make sense with the whole. Most children are caught in lies because of the lack of coherence.
Correspondence works marvelously with the concrete. As the name infers, the assertion in the statement (e.g., I weigh 180lbs) and simply be compared with a standard that is agreed up, a scales, a tape measure, and the thousands of more precise tools and instruments that are available.
Sometimes correspondence is not enough for a concrete item. Coherency is called into play for the concrete when uncertainty in correspondence occurs. Coherency is not needed to determine if an object is 218 cm from top to bottom. Coherency would come into play if different results were recorded or different from a standard. Let’s say I measure an object to be 218 cm, and you measure the same object to be 371 cm. There’s no way one tool of measurement could have such a difference. It does not cohere. If it is an electronic instrument, perhaps it needs to be calibrated. Perhaps one of us read it incorrectly.
Also, if a measurement is out of the standard, it is coherency that alerts us to this. If some measured the distance of the sun from the earth and said that is was 300,000 km, it would immediately be suspect because it does not cohere to the body of accepted truth.
With the abstract, the only test that works is coherence. There is nothing objectively to measure the abstract against. All that can be done is to define the abstract, illustrate it, and go to it … with the guarantee there will be differences as to what incidents fit and those that don’t. “Was the waitress truly rude or not?”
Without question the existence of an abstract is based upon its definition. Of course, someone might say, “That’s a standard that is being used.” No, not really. A dictionary does not state what a definition should be; it states how the word is used, and usage determines the most popular definition of an abstract.[2] When abstracts are discussed, then it is necessary to insure that those involved agree on a definition; otherwise, a “conversation” may be held, but totally different meaning is understood.[3]
Quite often a challenge is made, “Where’s the proof? Show me the proof!” If a concrete is being discussed, then concrete proof may be given. If an abstract is being discussed, there is NEVER concrete proof, only illustrations and “evidences” than seem to fit the definition of the abstract (assuming the people having the discussion have agreed upon a definition, which is rare). I’ll leave this to the reader to illustrate or demonstrate otherwise. Give an illustration of any abstract that can be unequivocally proven by a universally, agreed upon standard.[4]
Besides the lack of a common objective test for abstracts, there is the language problem. Because abstracts cannot be perceived, invariably, the language used will employ words as if the abstract could be perceived or use words that personify the abstract with the properties of mind.
Theist are commonly criticized for anthropomorphing[5] God by ascribing to him attributes of which they have no proof. “Prove to me that God is omniscient. Show me the proof that God is loving.” The problem with this, of course, is that it is nearly impossible to discuss any abstract without personifying it[6]. The only time personification or attributes are not ascribed is when other abstracts are used. For instance, a dictionary will define an abstract word with other abstract words. This sounds literal, but it is not concrete. I’ll use an abstract that scientists are quite familiar with, evolution.
The theory of evolution exists only in the mind. Evolution per se cannot be perceived. Objects and events are perceived and then interpreted. Notice now how anthropomorphism is applied to Evolution. It is very common to read comments like this: “Evolution decides … selects … chooses … guides.” Perhaps the reader of this truly believes there is some sort of entity, called Evolution, that has the properties of a conscious mind; but I doubt it. These are figures of speech, ways of expressing the process. Evolution, frankly, has been personified. A personified shape has not been given to Evolution, but the process has been given, figuratively, a personality, a mind.
Getting down to the dust and bones of the issue, Evolution is no more than a description of what has happened. Mutations simply occurred. They were not “chosen” or “selected” any more than two atoms of hydrogen “choose” one atom of oxygen in order to make water. Some entity called Evolution or Natural Selection did not willfully, purposely, and deliberately “weed out” certain ones. This process of genetic mutation and genetic drift and environmental change simply happened. There was no personality called Evolution with a mind pushing and prodding the genes so they would change.
This personification does not make Evolution or Natural Selection true or false. It is no more than a juiced up way of making listening and reading more interesting. There is no relationship to real or unreal, true or false, or significant or insignificant because of ascribing properties of the mind (personification) to Evolution or Natural Selection (or God). When someone asks, “How does Evolution work,” the response that “Natural Selection is the mechanism that guides the process” is, once again, no more than using personification to make a chemical, uncaring, cold process come “alive” in the imagination of the reader or listener.
Personifying the process is not an attempt to be disingenuous. It is not an attempt to mislead. It is just about the only way to discuss an abstract. Consider these: “Justice brings meaning and hope … Love unites a couple … Joy is a thing of beauty forever.” I like all these statements, but let’s not kid ourselves. None of these statement are literal, not any of them. They are abstracts that occur in the mind.
A slave owner could easily have said, “Finally, those runaways are back on the farm. Justice brings meaning and hope.” A Nazi could easily have said, “Getting those parasitic Jews out of our town was the right thing to do. It really is true. Justice brings meaning and hope.” I suspect most readers of this will be horrified by the two examples; yet, what is our objective standard for the abstract of justice? Justice is only determined in the mind.
To recap, the concrete is determined objectively and has agreed upon methods of measuring and identifying. Proof for the concrete is by the correspondence theory of truth. The abstract is conceived only by the mind, and there is no agreed upon method of identifying or measuring when an abstract “occurs.” The language for the abstract is heavily interlaced with metaphor and personification (ascribing properties of the mind). A coherence theory of truth is used to determine the truth of an abstract; however, the “body of truth” to which the statement is being compared … has no universally agreed upon standard.
Frankly, when people says, “You have your truth, and I have mine,” what they are referring to is the coherence theory of truth when used with abstracts, for the body of truth for coherence exists in each person’s mind, with no two bodies of truth the same. For someone to say “You have your truth, and I have mine” in referencing objective science, then they are simply foolish. Truth may be subjective with abstracts, but truth is 100% objective with the concrete.[7]
So, when challenged with “Show me the proof that God loves,” keep in mind that the person is asking for a concrete proof, a proof by correspondence; but there is NEVER a proof for an abstract by correspondence, i.e., in the sense of an agreed upon standard in which a perceived object can be measured. The proof for ANY abstract is by coherence and the proof chosen is subjective, subject to interpretation.
You can ask in return, “Show me the proof that Evolution selects and chooses.” Prove to me that an entity called Evolution exists and has a mind. It can’t be done anymore than proving that God selects. Advocates of both views will give proof how Evolution or God must exist in order for the whole to make sense, the coherence proof of truth.
Note, the issue here is not whether the argument for Evolution or for God is actually true or false, real or unreal. The emphasis of this entire article has been that the method of proof should be the same for all abstracts, not selected ones.
When non-theists scoff at believers for “attributing” characteristics to God, they must realize that they are doing the same thing with their pet abstracts. Such arguments by non-theists are no more than the pot calling the kettle black.
[1] There are others, e.g., pragmatic test of truth. But pragmatic is a sub-type of one of two that will be explained. The other “tests” will easily fit within the same two.
[2] The numbers next to words in the dictionary typically give the order of popular usage. The exception to this is when there is a bracketed word: [obsolete], [archaic], [poetic]. Otherwise, (1) is the most popular usage, (2) is the second, etc.
[3] Years ago I met a person for lunch. He wanted to meet somewhere else after lunch, which was about three miles away in a city. I said, “I’ll meet you there. I’ll ride my bike.” “Are you sure,” he replied. It’s a ways. We went back and like this for about a minute. Something was wrong. He even asked, “Do you want to put your bike in my van?” I was referring to a motorcycle, whereas the other person thought I mean a bicycle. In this case, the object was concrete. It would have been easy to determine the meaning of bike; yet, the abstract is far more elusive.
[4] Mathematics is an exception … in a way. Every expression in mathematics is abstract; so abstract proves abstract. However, mathematics is an imposed language determined solely by definition and is, frankly, a system of logic using tautologies. Obvious all tautologies are “true.” To prove a person is a bachelor is no more than to illustrate that the person does not meet the definitional criteria. Yet, even in proving such, what if the person is secretly married? Believing the evidence becomes the issue. We have to find documentation or testimony (birth certificate, newspaper birth announcements) and then we have to believe those. What if our bachelor produced a marriage certificate and introduced his wife. Does that 100% prove he is not a bachelor? There is no objective test to prove bachelorhood as there is to prove that a man is 5’9” tall. Objective proof cannot be fooled or disguised. (Of course, someone could cheat.) A bachelor is a simple either-or with no gradation in it, and we still cannot know for certain; we have to believe. Consider many other abstracts: love, truth, beauty, justice. The gradations can be incalculable especially when determining if this or that particular meets the definition.
[5] Anthropomorphic is giving human characteristics to a non-human. For instance, Mother Nature loves her children. Nature is simply nature. It is there. Only something with a mind can “love.” Anthropopathic is similar. It is attributing emotion, e.g., Nature hates a vacuum. Again, nature does not have feelings.
[6] The word “God” is an abstract. Remember, abstract means it cannot be perceived with the senses or instruments. That doesn’t mean “God” is real or unreal, only that He cannot be perceived by our senses.
[7] Obvious error can occur. If I suddenly look up and see someone being mugged, I might get a detail wrong. The issue here is surprise and the increase in emotions. Five people will, no doubt, give different details … though none of them will say, “There was no mugging.” In contrast, take those same five people and say, “That person walking toward us will be mugged in five seconds. They are actors. Watch carefully. When it is over, write down what happened.” I daresay the reports will be nearly identical (allowing for poor eyesight, color blindness in males, lighting, angle of view, etc). Dawkins in Unweaving the Rainbow spent a lot of time discrediting eyewitnesses. There is nothing wrong with eyewitness per se. Surprise and emotion are the problem. The more time to think about an event before it occurs, the more likely details will be amazingly accurate. It’s quite common for couples to remember all kinds of details of their wedding fifty and more years afterwards. If a mugger would tell the truth, the details would be 100% correct.
