Category of Mistakes -By Abdullah Kunde

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)

Category of Mistakes-By Abdullah Kunde.

What follows is a reflection by our respected brother Abdullah Kunde on James White insistent claim that he (Abdullah Kunde) kept making category errors.  A claim that I too feel holds not much water.

The following is from his blog: http://ideologiaeislam.wordpress.com/page/2/

باسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

A category [mistake] occurs when someone acts [or speaks] as though some object had properties which it does not or cannot have. The reason why it cannot have those properties is because the properties belong to objects in some other category or class. For example:

Colourless green ideas alertly sleep.

The above sentence commits at least two category errors. One is the attribution of the property of colour (green) to something immaterial (ideas). Obviously colour is a property that ‘ideas’ cannot have. Secondly, the attribution of a manner (alertly) to an action (sleep) is also a category mistake. This is because sleep cannot have the attribute of ‘altertness’, as one cannot sleep and remain alert.

The above has been adapted from an about.com article pertaining to category mistakes. In simpler terms, a category mistake is a fundamental error that occurs when things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another.

In a recent blog post regarding our dialogue last Monday, Dr. James White proposed that I made this error in some of my responses to him. Here are his suggestions in their full context. I will just consider the sections that are relevant to this discussion:

This allowed us to get into the equivocation and category errors that, I believe, clearly came to light in Abdullah’s position. Specifically, anything that is not God is not “perfect” in his thinking, and hence, to take on a human nature would require God to become imperfect. But clearly this is in error,for that would mean God could not create anything perfect!Can God create a circle that is perfectly circular? Of course, but, from his viewpoint, if it was truly perfectly circular, it would have to be God! This clear confusion of categories leads to the assertion that a human nature, even if a perfect human nature is still…imperfect, because it is not divine.

The emphasis is mine, so that I can divide this post into it’s component parts.

First, Dr. White correctly identified my statement that  ’Absolutely Perfect’ is something that can only be ascribed to God Almighty. On the night, I gave several points for consideration to differentiate between an ‘Absolute Perfection’ and an imperfection. I focused heavily upon God being without need (which is ‘Perfect’) and human beings having needs (which present an imperfection).

Dr. White then asked me to if there are ‘perfect humans’ or if the creation was made perfect. I pointed out to him that, in my limited understanding, there are two uses of the word ‘perfect’ and that Christians are conflating them. They are:

1) Perfect, in the absolute sense. This can only be applied to God, for the reasons I suggested, primarily His being Self-Subsistent (without need).

2)Perfect with respect to a genus. I said that ‘perfect’ could be applied to created things, but only within their own context. I said that a car may be called perfect if it is considered to be superior to all other cars. I agreed that a human could be called perfect with respect to other humans, however I affirmed that perfect with respect to a genus is not the same as absolutely perfect, because it can only ever be applied within the category it is referring to (not in an absolute or even comparative sense).

Dr. White did not propose his perfect circle ‘problem’ during the debate, however, it astounds me that he has failed to see the category mistake that he has made in presenting this as an objection to my assertion. He has suggested that God can create a perfect circle, which we would entertain as possible, and thinks that this defeats my argument. However, this would only be the case if he affirms that a perfect circle is a more perfect creation that any imperfect human being (which, according to the Christians, would be any human being other than Jesus).

Of course, Muslims would never agree to the above, because firstly it makes the same basic category mistake I accused Dr. White of on the night. During the debate, I suggested that he is comparing one genus (the Divine) to another genus (the creation) and affirming that the mutually exclusive attributes that define these as separate genera may exist within one genus (the Divine) and that this is a category mistake.

In this instance, where he uses a circle as an example, his argument would have to read:

God is perfect therefore God’s creation is perfect therefore God can take on the attributes of His creation.

Muslims would illustrate that the simplification of the above statement would be:

God and His creation are the same.

Which I doubt any Christian would actually suggest (even though the sum of their statements does invariably lead to this conclusion).

So, basically Dr. White has totally misrepresented my position. I did not say God cannot create something that is not perfect respective to its own genus. In fact, I unambiguously outlined the two ways one may use the perfect as an adjective, one of them being perfect in comparison to other things of like nature.

God can certainly create a circle that has perfect mathematical properties. But is it self-subsistent? Did it originate from itself? Will it last forever? Does it have knowledge, will and power independently of everything else? Of course not. Therefore, it is not ‘absolutely perfect’, but rather perfect with respect to other circles.

In fact, the very statement that Dr. White suggests I am restricted to, that, ‘for a perfect circle to exist, it must be God’, is precisely what Christians themselves are saying:

“God is by nature perfect and can take on a perfect human nature and remain in His perfect Divine nature simultaneously”

We say that this is the category mistake, plain and simple.

God is the Necessary Existence, and is; Uniquely One, Dissimilar to the creation, Without Beginning or End, has; Power, Will, Knowledge, Life, Sight, Hearing and Speech and is totally Self-Subsistent.

Lets call this, ‘category A’ or, ‘the category of Divine’.

Any created thing is: limited, dependent, has a beginning and an end, powerless, ignorant, reliant in; speech, sight and hearing.

We shall call this, ‘category B’ or, ‘the category of creation’.

Now could category A form itself from components of category B or vice versa? No. Then this is a category error.

Could category A be a subset of B or vice versa? No. Another reason why this is a category error.

So, I leave Dr. White and his followers with the following options;

1) Demonstrate where I have made a category error in defining the difference between Divine Perfection and something being perfect with respect to its genus and not conflating these terms.

2) Accept that the logical outcome of your proposal is that ‘God and His creation are one’.

3) Agree that I made no category error and that, in fact, it is the Christians that must explain how they are not making this error.

قُلْ إِنِّي عَلَى بَيِّنَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّي وَكَذَّبْتُم بِهِ مَا عِندِي مَا تَسْتَعْجِلُونَ بِهِ إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلاَّ لِلّهِ يَقُصُّ الْحَقَّ وَهُوَ خَيْرُ الْفَاصِلِينَ)

Say: “Behold, I take my stand on a clear evidence from my Sustainer-and [so] it is to Him that you are giving the lie! Not in my power is that which [in your ignorance] you so hastily demand:  judgment rests with none but God. He shall declare the truth, since it is He who is the best judge between truth and falsehood.” (TMQ 6:57)

I look forward to the ongoing discussion, God willing.