Logic and Truth

C. Matthew McMahon · #1 (**permalink**) 08-04-2005, 01:46 AM

How would you explain, in a sentence or two, the relationship between logic and truth?

JWJ · #2 (**permalink**) 08-04-2005, 08:14 AM

Logic is something Clarkians use to aid in judging truth and something Van Tillian's don't use to obtain paradoxes

.

Jeff_Bartel · #3 (**permalink**) 08-04-2005, 10:28 AM

Christ is called both logic and truth in scripture! :P

C. Matthew McMahon · #4 (**permalink**) 08-04-2005, 03:37 PM

Is truth impossible without logic?

JohnV · #5 (**permalink**) 08-04-2005, 05:15 PM

It seems to me that logic is a test for truth. But we can know truth in various ways, sometimes beyond expression. In each of the faculties, I would think, man can know truth, and sometimes before he knows the logic behind it. But then, it is also true that a more basic logic applies. Namely, before I know God exists through the exercise of reason, I have already known of His existence because of experience (having met Him via the Holy Spirit), which logic is that to know follows from having sensed; it would be illogical to have been in contact with God ( the Holy Spirit ) and to not then know Him. But the reason involved is so basic that we usually do not call that reasoning, as reasoning implies greater mental effort than mere reaction. So its logical, but we are not necessarily exercising it overtly.

Once man has made his reasoning, he then judges of the reasons. But before he reasons he observes the axioms on which reason is built. Here are three categories of the faculty: to observe, to reason, and to use judgment. Truth is intrinsically part of all three.

Jeff_Bartel · #6 (**permalink**) 08-04-2005, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster
Is truth impossible without logic?

I think that truth can exist without logic. I think the more important question is can truth be KNOWN without logic.

Me Died Blue · #7 (**permalink**) 08-04-2005, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster
Is truth impossible without logic?

I think that truth can exist without logic. I think the more important question is can truth be KNOWN without logic.

But in order to be using logic in any sense, would one not have to have an innate knowledge of its truth and what it is? In other words, I would ask, can anyone (infant or other) use the law of non-contradiction in any of their natural thinking patterns without already having a certain knowledge of the existence and truth of that law?

JohnV · #8 (**permalink**) 08-04-2005, 11:07 PM

Chris:

Isn't it the case that children use that law long before they can articulate it? They know it as if by instinct: red is not blue; one is not two; "Dad says no" is not "Dad says yes." But they don't tell me its the first (or second, depends on which order you use) law of thought or rule of logic. They just say that that is the way it is. They know. It's intrinsic to knowing. That's why, it seems to me, they are called interchangeably the Laws of Thought and the Rules of Logic. Though it isn't a deliberate attempt to do logic, yet it is an implicit part of thinking.

Just rambling as the thoughts come.

Puritanhead · #9 (**permalink**) 08-04-2005, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster
Is truth impossible without logic?

No, but logic is possible without truth. These statements are all logically valid irrespective of their truth value.

All Puritans are beer-drinkers.
Matthew is a Puritan.
Therefore, Matthew is a beer-drinker.

Chicago is a city in Indiana.
Indiana is part of the United States.
Therefore, Chicago is a city in the United States.

The sign on on the highway, leading into Denver, Massachusetts says the city's elevation is 5280 feet. It must be the case that Massachusetts has an elevation in excess of one mile.

Puritanhead · #10 (**permalink**) 08-04-2005, 11:50 PM

This statement is logically valid and true.

All Arminians are apostates.
All apostates espouse unsound doctrine.
Therefore, all Arminians espouse unsound doctrine.

:bigsmile:

Puritanhead · #11 (**permalink**) 08-04-2005, 11:51 PM

A deductive argument is said to be sound that is valid and has all true premises. Though, a statement may be logically valid, it may unsound as the true value is not there.

JKLeoPCA · #12 (**permalink**) 08-05-2005, 12:01 AM

Truth is knowing where a path leads.

Logic works out how to get there.

or something like that... :bigsmile:

Puritanhead · #13 (**permalink**) 08-05-2005, 09:38 PM

Logic is a repentant Arminian budding into a five-pointer. Truth is somewhere in between.

Jeff_Bartel · #14 (**permalink**) 08-06-2005, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Logic is a repentant Arminian budding into a five-pointer. Truth is somewhere in between.

Or you could say it is the other way around!

Ivanhoe · #15 (**permalink**) 08-06-2005, 11:46 AM

God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is Blind
----------------------
Ray Charles is God

fredtgreco · #16 (**permalink**) 08-06-2005, 12:36 PM

Lloyd-Jones:

Quote:

Then I come to another characteristic [of true Evangelicalism]. This may very well be a highly controversial one, but in my estimate it is extremely important. It is, and I put it dogmatically and bluntly, that the evangelical distrusts reason and particularly reason in the form of philosophy....

I suggest to you that nothing is more important in our present situation than just this one particular point. Philosophy has always been the cause of the church going astray, for philosophy means, ultimately, a trusting to human reason and human understanding. The philosopher wants to encompass all truth; he wants to categorize and explain everything, and that is why there are no more important passages in the Scripture for us at the present time than the First Epistle to the Corinthians, starting in chapter I, at verse 17, and going right the way through to the end of chapter 4, with especial reference to chapter 2. The apostle's whole contention in those chapters is that things were going wrong in Corinth because they were beginning to bring back faith in human wisdom, philosophy; and his point is to show that this is diametrically opposed to the preaching of the gospel. He says he has become a fool for Christ's sake: `If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise' (I Cor. 3:18). Here `a fool' means that you do not trust to philosophy and to human wisdom. This is really a most important matter.

Martin Luther used to refer to `that old witch, Lady Reason', and those of you who are familiar with his writings know how he constantly emphasized this point, that reason is an old witch. He was concerned about this, of course, because it was of the essence of his argument against Rome. It is true still that the trouble with Roman Catholicism is that they say that they believe the Bible. Let us grant that they do, and that they are quite sincere in saying that, but what, then, is the trouble? The trouble is that they have added Aristotelian philosophy on to their belief in the Bible, and that ultimately they are interpreting the Bible in terms of Aristotelian philosophy. That is the great characteristic of the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, and it was as the result of this that the evangel, the true gospel, had become entirely hidden. So it is not surprising that Luther should have contended so strongly against this very matter, and this is not, by any means, confined to Luther either.

I mentioned just now the Puritans in England, and they are a very good illustration of this same point. The great controversy between the Puritans and the Church of England was very largely an argument over the place of reason. There was a man called Richard Hooker, who, in many ways, determined what is called Anglicanism. Hooker introduced the term `natural reason', and natural reason can determine how you govern your church and do many other things. This was the very essence of the argument between the Puritans, who were the true evangelicals, and these others in the Church of England, who, although they were Protestant, were not evangelical. It concerned this very matter of the place of reason.

We have got to be clear about what we mean by this because my statements can very easily be misunderÂ¬stood. I base it all, as I said, on the teaching of I Corinthians 2 where Paul says: `Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God . . . But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (verses 12, 14). These are things which are revealed to us and which the Spirit alone can enable us to receive. `He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man' (verse 15). I am also thinking of the words of our Lord as quoted in Matthew 11:25-26: `I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.'

Such is the basis for the evangelical's distrust of human reason, and, as I say, trace the history of the church and you will find that a failure to recognize danger in this area has been the problem all along. You see, when the apostles died, the whole question of authority arose in the church. Not only that, the church was being persecuted, and in the second century there arose a number of men in the church called apologists, some of whom had been trained as Greek philosophers. They were concerned to show that there was no contradiction between the gospel and Greek philosophy. Their motive no doubt was a very good one, but I suggest to you that in doing this they compromised the gospel, they turned it into a philosophy, and they lost something vital in the realm of the Spirit. The church eventually became inÂ¬stitutionalized and this led to the Roman Catholicism of the Middle Ages, the period prior to the Protestant Reformation.

This tendency has kept on recurring, and that is why I think it is so important for us, because I believe it is happening again now. Let me state it still more bluntly by putting it to you like this, that the true evangelical is not only distrustful of reason, but he is also distrustful of scholarship. Here we are, belonging to IFES, students and members of universities, and I am saying that the evangelical is distrustful of scholarship, and I maintain that! What do I mean? Let me try to make it plain. The evangelical starts from the Scriptures. He also reads the history of the church, and there he finds that the history proves what has been emphasized in the Scripture, that when men trust to reason and to understanding they go astray. He also finds that the men whom God has had to raise up and to use to call back people to the faith have often been very simple men. Not always, of course - I mentioned Luther and others, and I could have mentioned Calvin - but so often this has happened, that the revival in the church and the calling back of the people to the true faith has been done through the medium of someone quite unknown.

The sum of all I am saying is that the evangelical distrusts scholarship and is watchful of it. That does not mean that he is anti-intellectual; it does not mean that he becomes obscurantist; but it does mean that he keeps reason and scholarship in their place. They are servants and not masters.

Jeff_Bartel · #17 (**permalink**) 08-06-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draught Horse
God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is Blind
----------------------
Ray Charles is God

Equivocation!

Ivanhoe · #18 (**permalink**) 08-06-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Quote:

Originally posted by Draught Horse
God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is Blind
----------------------
Ray Charles is God

Equivocation!

JohnV · #19 (**permalink**) 08-06-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

The sum of all I am saying is that the evangelical distrusts scholarship and is watchful of it. That does not mean that he is anti-intellectual; it does not mean that he becomes obscurantist; but it does mean that he keeps reason and scholarship in their place. They are servants and not masters.

Jon · #20 (**permalink**) 01-26-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
How would you explain, in a sentence or two, the relationship between logic and truth?

1) Logic is the science of necessary inference.
2) Necessary inference is truth.
C) Therefore, logic is the science of truth.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Jon · #21 (**permalink**) 01-26-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon
1) Logic is the science of necessary inference.
2) Necessary inference is truth.
C) Therefore, logic is the science of truth.

Oops. I believe I have equivocated. Allow me to reformulate.

1) Logic is the science of necessary inference.
2) The science of necessary inference is truth-inferential.
C) Therefore, logic is truth-inferential.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Civbert · #22 (**permalink**) 01-26-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Lloyd-Jones:

Then I come to another characteristic [of true Evangelicalism]. This may very well be a highly controversial one, but in my estimate it is extremely important. It is, and I put it dogmatically and bluntly, that the evangelical distrusts reason and particularly reason in the form of philosophy....

This tendency has kept on recurring, and that is why I think it is so important for us, because I believe it is happening again now. Let me state it still more bluntly by putting it to you like this, that the true evangelical is not only distrustful of reason, but he is also distrustful of scholarship. ...

The sum of all I am saying is that the evangelical distrusts scholarship and is watchful of it. That does not mean that he is anti-intellectual; it does not mean that he becomes obscurantist; but it does mean that he keeps reason and scholarship in their place. They are servants and not masters.

I'm not sure what Lloyd-Jones meant by reason, but if he meant the application of correct thinking, logic, or sound arguments, he shooting himself in the foot. All of his statements depend on the validity of laws of logic and rules of inference. To say that reason is secondary to faith can lead one to say that faith is irrational. No matter what his final paragraph said, it does not resolve the issues of irrationalism he brings to the rest of his "arguments".

Aristotle did not formulate a new philosophy, he simply described in a clear manner the forms or patterns of correct thinking. This does not lead to errors any more than Eulid's geometry does. They are the same forms of reason used by Paul and Christ and little children when they are thinking correctly. To reject logic and reason is to reject any possibility of validating knowledge -or objective truth.

Lloyd-Jones seems to make "scholarship", "human wisdom" and "reason" to mean the same thing. I think this confusion is damaging to Christian thinking. God is a God of knowledge. Reason wasn't the cause of the failures of the Church of Rome, it was placing "tradition" above the rational truths of Scripture.

[Edited on 1-26-2006 by Civbert]

JohnV · #23 (**permalink**) 01-27-2006, 09:57 AM

I don't know this, but likely Lloyd-Jones was referring to Psalm 146:3 "Put not your trust in princes, Nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."

Jehoshaphat sent his princes to teach the people ( 2 Chron. 17:7 ) It seems logical that princes were the best educated men in the land, since they would generally be prepared for rulership through education. They would not only be military leaders or judges but also able teachers. I'm just speculating, though. But even so, men are still a vain hope whether princes or not. The only thing we can really trust is God's wisdom, since our own is contingent, even from the best and most godly of scholars.

So he's not denigrating sound reason. He's just not willing to trust men with it, not even himself I would think. If he owes even a small part of truth to his own reasonings, speculations, or assumptions, then it is not trustworthy. Error-free and universal-encompassing logic, though, is beyond man's capabilities. So, we go only by what the Word says, and the things that must follow from what the Word says. At least that's what I take from this quote.

Puritanhead · #24 (**permalink**) 01-27-2006, 10:46 AM

Logic isn't necessary inference as it pertains to inductive reasoning, which frankly is the category of most reasoning, that is probabilistic reasoning-- which means the conclusion probably follows the premises. Induction is used even in science based on fixed laws, as well, when there is limited observation of recurring phenomenal patterns. Likewise, there are probabilistic syllogisms in logic.

Puritanhead · #25 (**permalink**) 01-27-2006, 10:56 AM

One thing that always irks me incidental to logic, is that some well-meaning Christians say God is above logic though fewer cite the even worst conclusion emanating from such a terrible premise-- namely that God's ways are illogical.

In reality, God is the author of a logic. He operates within the parameters of his nature. God doesn't create rocks too big for him to pick up, and likewise God is perfectly holy and just.

When we read John 14:6, we see the qualifiers... "the way... the truth... the life..." not "a way... [/i]a truth[/i]... and a life..." Imagine, the faulty exegesis that ensues when premise our epistemological methodology on the illogic of God. The clear and plain meaning of Scriptural truths like John 14:6 are up to question.

Civbert · #26 (**permalink**) 01-27-2006, 11:15 AM

Logic defined as "science necessary inference" is a better definition. Inductive reason, while very useful for processing some types of information (multiple observations), is still formally fallacious. The consequences of this is the truth of inductive conclusions is always uncertain - and should be used only as a basis for opinion, and not knowledge.

Even inductive reasoning must start with deduct