Reformed Rush
Puritan Board Freshman
If so, how so, and why so?
Is Logic an absolute (science)?
- Thread starter Reformed Rush
- Start date
- Status
Reformed Rush
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes.
kalawine
Puritan Board Junior
I've been waiting and hoping for one of the experts to come along and answer this question for you so I could read what they have to say. Oh well, here goes.
I believe that logic is one of God's attributes. I don't believe that God created logic. I understand that Greg Bahnsen was not happy with Gordon Clark's definition of the "logos", that is that God IS logic. All I can do there is leave it to the New Testament Greek experts. Defining God as logic makes me nervous (though Clark's text book on logic is written more toward the rules and laws of logic than on his "God is logic" idea). But to believe that logic is an attribute of God doesn't bother me at all.
But to answer your question (as a non-professional mind you) I don't like to say that logic is infallible. I'd rather say that logic cannot be denied (I guess you said it better: absolute). I think that we fallen sinners make a mess sometimes when we think we're being logical. But our infallible God isn't likely to break the law of non-contradiction.
I believe that logic is one of God's attributes. I don't believe that God created logic. I understand that Greg Bahnsen was not happy with Gordon Clark's definition of the "logos", that is that God IS logic. All I can do there is leave it to the New Testament Greek experts. Defining God as logic makes me nervous (though Clark's text book on logic is written more toward the rules and laws of logic than on his "God is logic" idea). But to believe that logic is an attribute of God doesn't bother me at all.
But to answer your question (as a non-professional mind you) I don't like to say that logic is infallible. I'd rather say that logic cannot be denied (I guess you said it better: absolute). I think that we fallen sinners make a mess sometimes when we think we're being logical. But our infallible God isn't likely to break the law of non-contradiction.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Gentlemen,
Here is my
on the question. One needs to make a distinction between the laws of logic that are a reflection of God's thinking, and man's modeling of those laws. If one keeps this in mind, then the answer is rather easy...
(1) The laws of logic that are a reflection of God's thinking are absolute.
(2) The models of logic created by man to reflect God's thinking are fallible.
Brian
Here is my
on the question. One needs to make a distinction between the laws of logic that are a reflection of God's thinking, and man's modeling of those laws. If one keeps this in mind, then the answer is rather easy...(1) The laws of logic that are a reflection of God's thinking are absolute.
(2) The models of logic created by man to reflect God's thinking are fallible.
Brian
kalawine
Puritan Board Junior
Hello Gentlemen,
Here is my
(1) The laws of logic that are a reflection of God's thinking are absolute.
(2) The models of logic created by man to reflect God's thinking are fallible.
Brian
What he said...
Reformed Rush
Puritan Board Freshman
Hello Gentlemen,
Here is my
(1) The laws of logic that are a reflection of God's thinking are absolute.
(2) The models of logic created by man to reflect God's thinking are fallible.
Brian
Can or does "fallible" (human) logic ever prove to be illogical?
If so, how so, and why so?
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Jim,
Here is an example of one problem:
In Traditional Logic, it is considered valid to go from "All A is B" to "Some A is B". However, in Predicate Logic, it is invalid. Now, it is not that either of these logics are inconsistent (they are not), but rather their modeling is different even though they are trying to model the same thing. What this really signifies is that there is a point of disagreement in how those two statements are to be understood. As such, different logical models make different metaphysical assumptions - some of which are arbitrary or convenient. In the end, none of this is serious enough to cause real issues in terms of logical deduction. It just points out that our models are not perfect.
Brian
P.S. The issue I mentioned above is sometimes referred to by the Predicate Logic camp as the existential fallacy. The debate is interesting.
Here is an example of one problem:
In Traditional Logic, it is considered valid to go from "All A is B" to "Some A is B". However, in Predicate Logic, it is invalid. Now, it is not that either of these logics are inconsistent (they are not), but rather their modeling is different even though they are trying to model the same thing. What this really signifies is that there is a point of disagreement in how those two statements are to be understood. As such, different logical models make different metaphysical assumptions - some of which are arbitrary or convenient. In the end, none of this is serious enough to cause real issues in terms of logical deduction. It just points out that our models are not perfect.
Brian
P.S. The issue I mentioned above is sometimes referred to by the Predicate Logic camp as the existential fallacy. The debate is interesting.
Reformed Rush
Puritan Board Freshman
Indeed, it is interesting.
So logic as a science is not an absolute, in that the "metaphysical assumptions" of premise can differ, even though the mechanical formulas of deduction are settled.
Right?
Brian Withnell
Puritan Board Junior
First, I would say that logic is a set of rules that start with undefined terms, axioms, and defined terms and then allows for theorems to be built from them. There are several "laws" of logic, and in general it is reasonable to follow those laws. The WCF finds use for logic ... logic and "reason" are used synonymously in several places. But our logic, our reason is not infallible ... we get answers wrong on logic tests, and we get conclusions wrong in studying scripture.
There are two things I would change in what I call logic. First, logic is not science, it is mathematics. Science strives to be logical ... but logic is a branch of mathematics. Second, like all mathematics, it is not "infallible" but it is exacting. What I mean by that is that if the rules are followed, then any two individuals ought to come to the same conclusions with the same undefined terms, axioms, and defined terms.
Grymir
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes.
God spoke to Adam in the garden. Plus we have the word of God (The Bible). That has and presupposes many things. First of all, that words have meanings. That is beyond what society gives them (There goes Wittgenstein out the window). God spoke and was able to convey ideas.
That leads to the Laws of Logic -
1. Law of identity. Everything is what it is. A is A or A is Identical with A.
2. Law of Contradiction. A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
3. Law of Excluded Middle. A is either A or not A
You cannot deny these. Ever. So the answer is yes.
God spoke to Adam in the garden. Plus we have the word of God (The Bible). That has and presupposes many things. First of all, that words have meanings. That is beyond what society gives them (There goes Wittgenstein out the window). God spoke and was able to convey ideas.
That leads to the Laws of Logic -
1. Law of identity. Everything is what it is. A is A or A is Identical with A.
2. Law of Contradiction. A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
3. Law of Excluded Middle. A is either A or not A
You cannot deny these. Ever. So the answer is yes.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
There is the fundamental logic in God's nature that reflects his commitment to truth. Logic is revealed to Man through Christ, the Logos.
Logicians try to find a closer approximation to the rules that reflect this. Whether they are believers or unbelievers all men have an innate knowledge of God and logic through the Logos.
It's probably wrong to say God is logic. God embodies and is the foundation for logic but can't be reduced to logic.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (John 1:9, KJV). Without the knowledge of the Logos and His light, and therefore logic, unbelievers would have no understanding whatsoever.
God cannot do what is morally wrong (deny His moral character) or do what is illogical (deny His commitment to truth), because these things would violate His nature. He cannot make a square circle.
God can "violate" His laws of science by doing miracles, because miracles are just God acting in an unusual way - from our perspective - for a morally and logically valid purpose. Appropriate miracles do not violate God's character. Logic and morality are absolutes in a way in which even the laws of science aren't.
Greg Bahnsen's debate with atheist Gordon Stein, which I believe is online somewhere, shows how direct appeal to the laws of logic can be used to defend Christian Theism.
Logicians try to find a closer approximation to the rules that reflect this. Whether they are believers or unbelievers all men have an innate knowledge of God and logic through the Logos.
It's probably wrong to say God is logic. God embodies and is the foundation for logic but can't be reduced to logic.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (John 1:9, KJV). Without the knowledge of the Logos and His light, and therefore logic, unbelievers would have no understanding whatsoever.
God cannot do what is morally wrong (deny His moral character) or do what is illogical (deny His commitment to truth), because these things would violate His nature. He cannot make a square circle.
God can "violate" His laws of science by doing miracles, because miracles are just God acting in an unusual way - from our perspective - for a morally and logically valid purpose. Appropriate miracles do not violate God's character. Logic and morality are absolutes in a way in which even the laws of science aren't.
Greg Bahnsen's debate with atheist Gordon Stein, which I believe is online somewhere, shows how direct appeal to the laws of logic can be used to defend Christian Theism.
Last edited:
Repre5entYHWH
Puritan Board Freshman
...........
ReformedChapin
Puritan Board Freshman
[video=youtube;u6iEUanJbsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6iEUanJbsw&feature=PlayList&p=52FADB6871DBB604&index=16[/video]
Look at the Playlist at the right to see the rest of the debate in the youtube page.
- Status
