- LOGIC -

Introduction
Biblical Statements
-------

Philosophy
Logic focus on right reasoning and its effective communication. Reason is an expression of Gods unchanging, orderly, truthful character; His character is most clearly expressed in His Word; and so the right exercise of reason ill !e grounded in the principles of that same Word. Language, our means of expressing reason, is a gift of God, and should !e used effectively and ith integrity to communicate and persuade. "ince man is made in the image of God, he is a!le to utili#e the study of logic and rhetoric to !etter order his o n thoughts and to convey them effectively to his fello image-!earers.

The Basic Law of Logic is a Primordial Reality

$here exists a small category of realities termed %primordial.% $hese re&uire no proof of existence outside of themselves. $ime and space are good examples. 'mpty space ould exist even if nothing else did. We don(t have to explain it. We don(t have to prove it. )t simply is. $ime is another example of a primordial reality. )f e define time as the relative rate of change !et een material o!*ects, then it follo s that time could not exist ithout matter. +r, that the existence of matter forces the existence of time. $he t o are insepara!le. )t may !e said that time is intrinsic to matter, or that matter is the instigator of time. Logic is also a primordial reality, and !ares the same relationship to existence as time does to matter. Logic is intrinsic to reality. )t re&uires no *ustification for its existence, !ecause reality itself is the initiator of logic. $he mere fact of the existence of anything at all, automatically puts existence into a relationship ith non-existence. $his relationship is logic. 'xistence versus nonexistence, is the foundation of logic.. $he foundation of logic is the proposition, %a thing is hat it is, and is not hat it is not.% ,ristotle put it formally as %, is not non-, at the same time and in the same relationship%. , tree is a tree and is not a non-tree. )t is not a dog, a fish or a cloud. , tree is a tree. $hat statement is !oth reality and logic at the same time. $his is the !asic la of logic, -no n as the La of .on-/ontradictions. +ccasionally e hear it said that the Gree-s, ,ristotle in particular, invented logic. Was everyone illogical !efore ,ristotle0 Nonsense can therefore !e defined as non-reality. Sense is that hich corresponds to reality. )t is the ver!al or mental conception of the real orld. ,t this point, e must rectify a common misconception. When e tal- a!out logic in this !asic sense of existence-versus-non-existence, e are not referring to an activity of the mind. , star exists hether e perceive it or not. )t !ears a star-versus-non-stars relationship ith other o!*ects regardless of anyone(s perception. 1ost Relativists and .e ,gers ould ta-e exception to this since they thin- there is no o!*ective reality outside their o n minds. $his is refuta!le !y the rhetorical &uestion, %2o any of their o n o!*ections have o!*ective reality, or are these also figments of their o n mind0%

3var3

3apps3conversion3tmp3scratch45367896:58:.doc

;age 5 of 9

- LOGIC -

$he difference !et een reality and mind is the distinction !et een a landscape and a photograph of that landscape. $he photo is not the landscape !ut merely a representation. )n a sense, there is a mental conception in hich the t o are insepara!le, !ut not the same. Has anyone ever ta-en a photo of a landscape that did not exist0 $he mind can create nothing more than representations of realities, not the realities themselves. Li-e ise, ho ould assert that a landscape does not exist merely !ecause no one has photographed it0 "o, the !asic la of logic exists independently of mind for the same reason that a star can exist in the a!sence of a mind to perceive it. We must -eep it constantly clear that it is not mind that produces the !asic la of logic, !ut reality does. <ecause of this connection, logic re&uires no more validation of its existence than does time or space. ,s time and space need no validation, since there is no existence ithout them, so logic needs no validation outside of itself. +ne ould !e foolish to try to disprove the existence of time, !ecause he must ta-e time to do that. .o less of a fool is one ho tries to invalidate logic. +ne must use logic itself to do so. ,ll of the statements !elo no other authority. follo inevita!ly from this lin- !et een logic and reality. $hey re&uire

Logic, Beyond the Basic Law of Existence, Re uires !ind

;eople may get confused a!out the relationship !et een the !asic law of existence and mind, !ecause they tend to thin- of that la as a (proposition(. =, (proposition( in logic means a statement that forms the !asis of an argument.> <ut the !asic la , as stated a!ove, is not a proposition in this sense. )t is simply a reality. $hus, some people =li-e .e ,gers> normally treat the !asic la as nothing !ut an opinion, rather than the inescapa!le reality that it is. Why is it inescapa!le0 $ry thin-ing a single thought ithout logic. $he mere existence of the thought puts it in relationship ith non-thought. $his automatically involves the la of existence. Logic is inescapa!le for another reason. We assume that the conclusion of an argument is true if the premises are true. We do this simply !ecause our minds cannot do other ise. Where then does mind come in0 )t comes in at any point !eyond the !asic la of .on/ontradictions, hen e formulate a proposition. Logic enters !ecause e can(t -eep it out.

Logic is the only !eans for "isco#ering or E#aluating Truth

"ince the entire !asis of logic is the fact of existence, e are compelled to use logic to (prove( things. $his compulsion is not an accident of human nature, nor a mere philosophical choice, nor a product of our culture. We cannot avoid it if e are going to live in reality. When e say (prove( e mean e can sho some things to !e (real( hether they are o!serva!le or not. We are saying that if the premises are (real(, and *oined logically, then the conclusion must also !e (real(. $he su!*ect of the conclusion must really and truly exist some here. /onversely, hen e say that a (truth( is (proven(, e mean e have sho n a correlation !et een the proposition and the reality the proposition represents. We have, in other ords, used logic. $his is o!vious enough. What is not apparent to some is that no other ay could possi!ly exist to prove anything. Regardless of the source of our data, the data must correlate ith reality in some ay or e cannot accept it as (real( nor !elieva!le. Without this correlation, the mind must re*ect the

3var3

3apps3conversion3tmp3scratch45367896:58:.doc

;age 6 of 9

- LOGIC -

data as unreal, that is, untrue. $he mind must have a device for ma-ing this correlation, and that device is logic. 'ven if e assert that other devices exist, such as a supposed 2ivine revelation, then e find ourselves em!arrassed if as-ed, ( hat logic compelled you to assert that(0 ;eople ho claim the existence of other devices for validating truth invaria!le try to use logic to validate that very assertion? "uppose, for example, that the source of the data ere indeed 2ivine revelation. 2oes this change the necessity of logic for validating it0 .ot at all. 'ven if the data is 2ivine, the mind must correlate it ith reality for it to !e understood or !elieved. @urther, the data involved, ho ever 2ivine, is still su!*ect to the !asic principle of existence. )t exists versus not-existing. )ts very existence su!*ects it to the first !asic la of logic. $hus, 2ivine revelation cannot escape this la any more than other data can. $hus, in terms of the need to correlate data via logic, it does not matter that God(s mind is %higher% than ours, nor that our mind is derived from His, nor that He is the @irst /ause. $hese are irrelevancies. 2ata is still data, and must exist versus not existing. "ince no data, not even 2ivine, can escape this !asic la , it follo s that logic is the only possi!le means to prove the (reality( of the data. )t does not matter hat kind of truth is !eing proven, hether 2ivine or other ise. )f any other means of proof existed, then !y definition it ould !e a non-logical, or illogical, means. )t ma-es no sense, therefore, to assert that any other means could possi!ly exist for proving any truth hatsoever, than logic itself.

Logic and Reason are not the Same Thing

,t this point, another common misunderstanding intervenes. Aust !ecause a person thin-s a line of argumentation is logical, does not ma-e it so. $hat ould !e li-e saying that a thing is real if a person imagines it to !e so. 2o flying horses exist !ecause some!ody !elieves they do0 Reason is the relative a!ility to manipulate correctly the la s of logic to arrive at valid conclusions. While the la s of logic are a!solute, our a!ility to use them are not. $his s-ill varies from person to person. We all ma-e logic errors. $his is not the fault of logic. )t is a fault in our a!ilities. "ometimes people point to philosophers ho have come to very strange conclusions via supposed logic. "upposedly such examples demonstrate that logic itself is not a very relia!le means for asserting truth. /hristians, for example, point out atheistic philosophers and their reasoning as examples of ho logic may fail to arrive at truth. $here are t o pro!lems ith this attitude. @irst, it assumes the atheistic lines of reasoning are in fact logical. /loser examination invaria!le sho s them as irrational. "econd, some /hristians forget they themselves are attempting to use a line of logic to prove an argument. $hey are using logic to disparage the value of logic. $here is a term in philosophy to descri!e this. )t is called %cheating%. We all commit logic errors. Boluminous !oo-s have !een ritten on the many ays to commit logic fallacies. $hese fallacies do not prove logic is invalid. $hey only sho logic is not al ays easy. "o hat0 $his is a challenge to handle it carefully.

Truth and $alidity are not the Same Thing

3var3

3apps3conversion3tmp3scratch45367896:58:.doc

;age C of 9

- LOGIC -

We started out !y defining logic as Dthe science of right thin-ingE. We said logic as one of three divisions of philosophy, the others !eing theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy. We said there are t o main !ranches of logic, one called formal or minor logic, the other material or major logic. 1aterial logic is concerned ith the content of argumentation. @ormal logic is interested in the form or structure of reasoning. We said that, !roadly spea-ing, there are t o -inds of formal logicF deductive logic and inductive logic. $he conclusion of a deductive argument, e said, asserts no more than is contained =explicitly or implicitly> in its premises, hile the conclusion of an inductive argument asserts more than is contained in its premises. $herefore, e concluded, hile the conclusion of a deductive argument is conclusive, the conclusion of an inductive argument is only probable. )f the premises of a line of argument are *oined consistently, and the conclusion follo s accurately, then the conclusion is said to !e (valid(. What if the premises are, in fact, not true0 2oes this affect the (validity( of the argument0 .ot at all. Logicians distinguish !et een validity and truth. When e say that an argument is valid, e mean that its form is correct. $his statement a!out validity is not an endorsement of its premises. 'xampleF ,ll men have ten fingers. Aohn is a man. $herefore, Aohn has ten fingers. "uppose e meet Aohn and discover that he has only nine. 2oes this invalidate the argument0 .o, !ecause the form is correct. )s the conclusion true0 ,gain, the ans er is no, !ecause the first premise is not true. =.ot all men have ten fingers. "ome may !e lost in accidents>. $hus, it is possi!le for an argument to !e valid, !ut untrue. )t is also possi!le for the conclusion of an invalid argument to !e perfectly true as ell. ;eople often come to perfectly true conclusions from a du!ious line of logic. $his is accidental of course, !ut it does not change the truth of the conclusion. Aohn may indeed have ten fingers, although it is false that all men do. @ailure to distinguish !et een truth and validity gets people into trou!le. We may imagine ourselves to !e logical !ecause e come to a truth via logic, hen in fact our logic may contain fallacies. +r, e may come to firm conclusions, totally untrue, !ased on impecca!le logic, !ecause e have accepted untrue premises. $he form of an argument is found in its argumentative structure; the matter of an argument is found in the statements. "tatements of fact, for example, cannot !e called logical or illogical, since these la!els refer to form; they can only !e properly called true or false, la!els hich refer to matter. Li-e ise, an argument cannot !e called true or false, only valid or invalid. +nly arguments are valid or invalid, and only statements are true or false. Balidity is the term e use hen e mean to say that an argument is logical. $he term soundness, ho ever, is a term that refers !oth to the form and the content of an argument. )t is applied to an argument to say something a!out !oth its truth and its validity. Truth means the correspondence of a statement to reality. ,n argument is valid hen its conclusion follo s logically from its premises. $he term soundness is used to indicate that all the premises in an argument are true and that the argument is valid. ,n argument can contain true premises and still !e invalid. Li-e ise, it can !e perfectly valid =or logical, if you prefer> and contain false premises. <ut if an argument is sound, its premises must !e true and it must !e valid.

3var3

3apps3conversion3tmp3scratch45367896:58:.doc

;age 8 of 9

- LOGIC -

We defined truth as correspondence ith reality. We said an argument is valid hen its conclusion follo s logically from its premises. ,nd e said that soundness indicates that all the premises in an argument are true and that the argument is valid. We said also that all arguments must contain t o premises and a conclusion. ,nd e said, finally, that there are three mental acts that ma-e up the logical processF simple apprehension, judgement and deductive inference. $hese three mental acts correspond to three ver!al expressionsF term, proposition and syllogism.

%od&s Logic is not "ifferent from 'urs in Its Essential (ature

God Himself -no s that He can(t exist and not exist at the same time. $his is *ust as much a manifestation of the !asic la of existence as any other data. He exists versus not existing. "ince this is the essential nature of reality, and if e say that God is the ground of reality as the @irst /ause, then it follo s the nature of God(s logic cannot !e essentially different from ours. .ote that ) said, different in %nature%. ) did not say different in %content,% nor (different in precision.( $o reason at all re&uires data. $he more data e have, the more !asis for logical conclusions. $he a!ility to correlate the data determines the accuracy of the conclusion, =the a!sence of fallacies>. )f then God -no s all things, =possesses all the data> and is all po erful =has infinite a!ility>, then He never ma-es the logic errors that e do. <ut these issues of content and precision, though concomitant to logic, are nevertheless different from the &uestion of the essential nature of logic itself.

%od is not Limited by the Law of (on)contradictions

$o suggest that the La of .on-/ontradictions limits God, e ould need to demonstrate first that the La itself is limited. "ince the La of .on-/ontradictions is a reflection of existence itself, then the &uestion of any limitations !ecomes a!surd. We ould have to associate it ith something finite to ma-e it limited. ,fter all, existence is not non-existence at the same time and in the same respect. Ho can that statement possess a limitation0 $he only other ay to (limit( the La of .on-/ontradictions ould !e mathematically. )f the num!er of possi!ilities is finite, e ould conclude God is not (limited( !y it, since He is infinite. Ho ever, no one has sho n a mathematical limitation on the La of .on-/ontradictions. $hus, the &uestion, %)s God limited !y the La of .on-/ontradictions0%, simply has no meaning.

The Basic Law of Logic would Exist if *nything at *ll Exists

)f ,.G$H).G exists, even if the (anything( is God alone, then logic exists !y the nature of the case. $he existence of God then !ears a relationship to the idea of the non-existence of God....and that incurs logic. 2oes this ma-e logic (superior( to God0 "ince God is the grounds of all reality, it ould !e a!surd to state that logic is superior to Him. $his is true, even though logic is a primordial reality, li-e infinite space.

Logic is the 'nly $alid Starting Point in 'ur +nderstanding of *nything, Including %od

3var3

3apps3conversion3tmp3scratch45367896:58:.doc

;age H of 9

- LOGIC -

"ome !ranches of /hristendom ould consider this statement to !e sacrilegious. @aith is supposed to !e the !eginning point of everything having to do ith God. $his may sound correct !ut it contains a pro!lem. Which organ of our anatomy decides that faith comes first0 +!viously the mind ma-es this decision and operates !y logic. $herefore faith is chronologically secondary to understanding anything, including God. .evertheless, chronological priority does not infer supremacy. Logic is first, !ut is not superior to God. $rue -no ledge of any -ind, including the -no ledge of God, starts therefore ith logic. )t cannot start any here else. )t is therefore the ultimate a!surdity to assert that no true -no ledge is availa!le ithout first assuming the existence of God. )t ould !e more accurate to say no true -no ledge is possi!le !y such an assumption. )t denies the priority of logic and therefore of reality itself. Where then does faith come in0 Logic may point a person to ard faith. <ut it can go no further. $rust then !ecomes a &uestion of ill. $hat is another su!*ect !eyond the scope of this essay.

Is the "ialectic a ,orm of Logic.o. $he 2ialectic is a form of illogic. $he German philosopher Hegel, =5::7-59C5>, invented a supposedly superior form of reasoning hich ould revolutioni#e philosophy. )t(s impact has truly !een revolutionary. )t forms the philosophical !asis for 2ialectical 1aterialism, more commonly -no n as /ommunism. Li!eral ;rotestantism uses it to deduce its various theories. $heologian ;aul $illich called it, %$he ;rotestant 1ethod.% )n philosophy, the 2ialectic is the foundation for relativism and all of the postmodern thought forms stemming from it. $he 2ialectic follo s a triangular patternF $hesis ,nti-$hesis "ynthesis $he $hesis refers to any proposition affirming a truth. =%White is a good color.%> $he ,nti-thesis is the opposite of the thesis. =%<lac- is a !ad color.%> $he "ynthesis is a !lend of the t o. =%Gray is !etter than !oth.%> $he synthesis then !ecomes a ne $hesis, hich produces a ne ,nti thesis, ad infinitum. , more concrete exampleF $hesis I /hristianity has some good elements in it. ,nti-thesis I /ommunism has some good elements also, though opposed to /hristianity. Let(s ta-e the good elements out of each and come up ith something superior to !oth. Result0 "ynthesis I $he "ocial Gospel of Rauschen!usch. +r the Li!eration $heology of Gutierre#. $hese men arrived at their so-called theology in exactly this fashion, and said so in their ritings. +n the surface, the 2ialectic seems a reasona!le process. Ho illogic0 then can e say it is a form of

3var3

3apps3conversion3tmp3scratch45367896:58:.doc

;age J of 9

- LOGIC -

.o external standard exists to decide hat is good or !ad in the propositions. Who decides hat good is0 Where did this standard originate and hat is the authority for it0 .othing ithin the 2ialectic gives clues. What methodology should e use to validate the 2ialectic0 $he La of .on-/ontradictions0 +f course? What else is there0 We could not use the 2ialectic itself !ecause this ould incur circular reasoning. ,t this point, the 2ialectician invaria!ly replies, %$he individual decides.% Why an individual Why not t o individuals, or ten thousand or none at all0 Why not a roulette heel0 $he pro!lem ith the 2ialectic is that it cannot validate itself in the same ay the La of .on/ontradictions can. 2ialecticians invaria!le use the La of .on-/ontradictions for this purpose, thus contradicting themselves. $he La of .on-/ontradictions is self-validating in a ay in hich the 2ialectic can never !e. )t is consistent to use the La of .on /ontradictions to validate itself !ecause of its intrinsic connection to reality.

Integrated Learning
What is the relationship !et een faith and rationality0 )s faith in God rational0 $he ans ers for that &uestion are varyF )t is science that tells us hat the orld is li-e, he maintained; since science can explain everything ithout God, !elief in God is irrational. He proclaimed li!eration from the shac-les of traditional religion. ,nother ans er common in the university orld is that faith as ell as ethics has nothing to do ith rationality, !ut is merely a personal choice. "ome female argues, %)t is each omans right to find her o n humanity and create her o n truth ithout the intrusion and o!struction of KothersL.% )t is up each one to create their o n ethics and religion; if you ant to !elieve in God, fine; !ut dont impose your !eliefs on me. $o suggest that there may !e a God ith hom e all have to deal is to intrude on others freedom. @aith is a matter of personal taste, li-e en*oying theater or playing golf. )s there some sense in hich !elief in God is rational0 ;hilosopher ,lvin ;lantinga of the Mniversity of .otre 2ame gives us much help in this area. )n the issue of !ooks and "ulture of 1ay3Aune 5NNJ, he outlines his approach. ;lantinga as-s hat ays of -no ing there are. He suggests that in science, there are threeF ;erception 1emory Rational intuition =!y hich

e -no

logical and mathematical truths>.

$hat is, scientific -no ledge is !ased on logic and mathematics, on o!servation of the orld physical orld around us, and on memory. He goes on to suggest that there are other ays of -no ing, such as the sense of the divine that all people seem to have. $hat is, religious experience is a valid source of knowledge.

3var3

3apps3conversion3tmp3scratch45367896:58:.doc

;age : of 9

- LOGIC -

;lantinga points us in the right direction here. When people sense a transcendent ;resence in a reflective moment late at night or on seeing a sunset, the o!vious explanation is that they really are encountering the living God. <ut then ;lantinga gives too much a ay. He grants the name %reason% to the three ays of -no ing in science outlined a!ove. $he pro!lem ith this is that it puts !elievers on the defensiveF they must argue that there are ays of -no ing outside of reason. $his is precisely the move used so effectively !y atheistsF !y narro ing the meaning of the ord %reason% to the realm of science, religious !elief is relegated to non-reason. $he heart of our rationality is our a!ility to ma-e sense of our experience, hether that experience is physical, spiritual, or ethical. 1ost often this interpretation of experience is immediate, as hen e loo- outside and see that the sun is shining; sometimes it is reflective, as hen e struggle to understand a friends !ehavior or a mass of data from an experiment. +ur science-dominated culture has ruled out religious experience as a clue to reality; !ut on hat grounds0 "cience in the 5J77s as so successful in understanding the physical dimension of reality that people in the 5:77s !egan to thin- that the physical may !e the only dimension of reality. <ut success in one area of in&uiry does not invalidate other areas. The burden of proof is on those who would exclude a particular kind of experience from being a source of knowledge. <eside religious experience, Gods existence explains other things, such as the existence of the physical universe ith its onders, and the sense of significance e have as persons. $his is the -ind of unifying explanation that scientists loo- for. ,ny scientific theory that explains many things !y a single hypothesis gains immediate credi!ility. )n *ust this ay, Gods existence pulls many disparate threads together.

%eneral %oals
$he student ill understand reason to !e an expression of Gods character, and language to !e a gift He has given for our good and for His glory. $he formal study of the principles of rationality =statements, their relationships to each other, etc.> is to !e preferred over the spontaneous use of them. $he student ill ground his o n exercise of reason and language in principles dra n from Gods Word. Rationality, li-e any other created thing, does not exist apart from God. Reason is not autonomous, existing Da!oveE or D!eyondE God. $he order, rationality, and patterns of communication that exist ithin the godhead are given to man =shared attri!ute> so that man can fulfill Gods command to imitate Him. $he "criptures themselves are rooted in Gods attri!ute of rationality. $he Word of God is clear, non-contradictory, and meaningful, and yet full of difficult =for us> statements and concepts, hich re&uire clear reasoning. $hus, e study the science and art of reasoning O Logic. Reason is an expression of Gods unchanging, orderly, truthful character; His character is expressed most clearly in His Word; and so the right exercise of reason ill !e grounded in the principles of that same Word. Language, our means of expressing reason, is a gift of God, and should !e used effectively and ith integrity to communicate and persuade. "ince man is made in the image of God, he is a!le to utili#e the study of logic and rhetoric to !etter order his o n thoughts and to convey them effectively to his fello image-!earers.

3var3

3apps3conversion3tmp3scratch45367896:58:.doc

;age 9 of 9