I love teaching logic. I could spend hours and hours getting into the details of it all. At the very base of all logic, indeed at the base of all rational thought and discourse, lies three foundational and immutable laws.1 The first of these three laws is called the law of identity, the second law is called the law of the excluded middle, and the third is the law of non-contradiction. In this post I will primarily focus on the first law but I will follow up this post, eventually, with others on the second and third laws.
The law of identity states: “All things are identical to themselves.”
In symbolic fashion this may be stated “p is p” or “if p then p”2 which is what we call a “tautology”. To give further examples in plain English we might say, “Apples are apples” and “cats are cats.” Now this probably hasn’t been much of a revelation to you so far (hopefully you agree). So if that is all the law states then we can just roll the credits, right?
But wait! There is an after credits scene!
On the one hand the law of identity is the most basic truth of thinking and should be completely uncontroversial. On the other hand we live in 2023 and basic truths are hard. The statement “Boys are boys and girls are girls” should be completely uncontroversial but, as it turns out, this is about the most controversial thing we can say right now. Nevertheless, despite the cultural insanity of our day, we cannot function at all without affirming the law of identity (even if we really, really want to). In fact, all who deny the law of identity also affirm it, necessarily, in the process of their attempt to deny it.
Without the law of identity distinctions become impossible, but even the most progressive of agendas in our own day still have to make use of distinctions (even in their attempt to destroy all distinctions). They will say, “What it means to be a man or a woman is merely a social construction and without meaning.” They will also say, “A man can become a woman!” Well, if it’s true that a man can become a woman then the concept of “man” must have a set identity and the concept of “woman” must also have a set identity. Were it not so the transformation from one to the other could not take place. To “transition” one must cease being one thing and become the other and this requires the former to be distinct from the latter and vice-versa. Behold the sticky trap the ungodly always fall into! They must borrow capital from the Christian world of order and distinction (with all of its nasty hierarchies and beliefs in real men and real women) in order to try to make their claims.3 It’s inescapable, they must affirm what they wish to deny in their attempt to deny it. For either it means nothing to be a man or a woman (and therefore there is no need to transition) or it means something to be a man or a woman (and therefore there is no way to transition). The very tools they need to argue their case have defeated them.
Enough about all that depressing nonsense. The roaring lion of truth will indeed devour all of that foolishness in the end. Let’s say some more positive and exciting things about the law of identity!
Another way of thinking about this law is to say, “It is the differences that matter.” It doesn’t matter how many similarities one can find between two entities, even one legitimate difference between them denotes the existence of separate identities. In the realm of Christian theology and apologetics this is very important to understand.
“Do you believe in Jesus?”
“Why yes, I believe in Jesus!”
“Do you believe in Jesus who was born of Mary and crucified under Pontus Pilate?”
“Yes, I sure do.”
“Do you believe in Jesus who walked on water, healed the lame, the blind, and raised Lazarus from the dead?”
“Absolutely!”
“Do you believe in Jesus who died by Roman crucifixion and rose bodily from the dead on the third day?”
“Of course!”
“Do you believe in Jesus who is both God and Man, co-equal in substance, power, and glory from all eternity alongside the persons of the Father and the Spirit? Who had no beginning and will have no end?”
“Oh, well, no I believe God the Father and Jesus are two different gods, the Holy Spirit is just an impersonal force that emanates from God, and that the Father was himself once a man who worshipped another God.”
Oops. Turns out these two gentlemen are having a nice exchange about two very similar sounding people (up to a point) but who turn out to be completely different people. One is the Jesus of history (as recorded in the Bible) and one is the reinvented Jesus of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In point of fact, I could have listed hundreds of additional statements about a person named Jesus, which both men would have been able to affirm, while still not actually referring to the same person. The law of identity makes it clear that there are two different people (or at least two different conceptions) being discussed.
This is why philosophers and logicians are all about definitions, they are trying to state clearly the matter to be discussed. Without being clear on the nature of the subject under consideration people are liable to talk past one another without even understanding what the problem is. They may think they are having a conversation about the same person, or idea, but they are not.
It is for this same reason that we can confidently assert that Islam and Christianity are not talking about the same Jesus either. Islam does not believe that Jesus is God, nor the Son of God, nor that he died on a cross and rose bodily on the third day (all of which are affirmed by historic Christianity). Their Islamic Jesus (Isa) is not the same as the Christian Jesus. Despite the fact that Muslims acknowledge a number of things Christians do believe about Jesus, such as his virgin birth and his ministry as a miracle worker, the differences are what matter.
Now, to be fair, there is another way of looking at this which can account for two people truly talking about the same person (or subject) while running into inconsistencies stated by the various parties. Namely, two people could actually have the same object in mind but one, or both parties, may be misinformed as to the truth of the matter. After all, if I mistakenly think my mother’s birthday is September 12 (it is not), it does not stand to reason that my misinformation or faulty understanding about my mother’s birthday means that I am never actually talking about my mother at all. This is perhaps the case in the above discussion about the identity of Jesus as understood by historic Christianity versus Mormonism and Islam.
Those speaking about Jesus may mean to really discuss the same real historical person, but some have misinformation about him. In other words, Jesus either is or is not God. If Jesus is God incarnate then the Christians are speaking accurately about Jesus whereas the Muslims and Mormons are not. This does not mean that the latter are not talking about the same person, just that they are speaking incorrectly about him. Their understanding needs to come into harmony with the truth (the way things really are).
As it pertains to the law of identity what is important to understand is that when inconsistent statements are made about a person named Jesus (such as in the cases of the Christian understanding of Jesus, the Mormon understanding of Jesus, and the Muslim understanding of Jesus) if those statements are all found to be true then they can by no means be about the same person but, rather, they would be about three different persons with the same name and some similarities. Their differences would demand the actual existence of multiple entities (no matter how similar they are to one another in various ways). The law of identity teaches us that when two claims about the same subject are inconsistent (cannot be true at the same time or in the same way) then one or both of the competing claims must be false. If it turns out that both of the inconsistent claims are actually true then, of necessity, the claims turn out to be about two different subjects and not one.
It is for this same reason that there are no alternate versions of you and me in the multiverse and why you’ll never meet yourself while time traveling. The law of identity would automatically rule out that that other person is really you. It would just be someone a lot like you. I took this hard, myself, when I first came to grips with this truth. I really wanted to believe that somewhere… out there… I am Batman.
These laws are immutable (unchanging) because they are reflections of the unchanging mind of the eternal God. We are reasoning creatures because we are made in the image of God who is perfection, order, and truth.
You’ll have to excuse logicians, we love our P’s and Q’s and we mind them very much.
This is what Francis Schaeffer called “leaping to the upper story”. If you haven’t read “The God Who is There” you should get on that.
Great reading 👏👏👏