|
|
|
-
Preaching the Living WORD through the Written WORD - 2 Tim 4:2 - |
|
|
|
INTRO TO LOGIC AND THE BIBLE Pastor I.
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC A. Classical, or Aristotelian
logic is primarily concerned with the formal properties of an argument. B. Logic is the instrument (órganon - instrument, i.e
Aristotle’s collection, Organon ) by which we reason and by all sciences
operate. C. God communicates with man
through reason and therefore logic is essential in interpreting the
Scriptures. 1.
The whole counsel of God,
concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and
life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary
consequence may be deduced from Scripture:
unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new
revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. ( 2.
Reason is the instrument
of discovery of all doctrines and duties, whether ‘expressly set down in
Scripture’ or ‘by good and necessary consequence deduced from
Scripture’: but their authority, when
once discovered, is derived from God, who reveals them and prescribes them in
Scripture, either by literal assertion or by necessary implication. (B. B. Warfield on the
Confession) 3.
When we accept the laws of
logic, we are not accepting laws external to God to which he must be subject,
but we are accepting laws of truth which are derived from God’s holy
character.
(James O. Buswell) 4.
The science of reasoning
is of very great service in searching into and unraveling all sorts of
questions that come up in Scripture….The validity of logical sequences is not
a thing devised by men, but it is observed and noted by them that they may be
able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things,
and has its origin with God. (Augustine) 5.
Logic is fixed, universal,
necessary, and irreplaceable…[because] God is a rational being, the
architecture of whose mind is logic. (Gordon Clark) II. DEFINITIONS OF LOGIC A. Logic is the science of
reasoning. B. Logic is thinking clearly
without contradictions or fallacies. C. Logic is the systematic
study of valid inference. D.
Logic is the
rules governing right reasoning; the study of the methods and principles to
distinguish good (valid) reasoning from false (invalid). E.
Logic is the
branch of philosophy that deals with the forms of thinking in general, and
more especially of inference, of scientific method, and the art of reasoning
and that system of rules for convincing or confounding an opponent by
argument. III. INFORMAL FALLACIES Intro to Informal Fallacies: 1.
Definitions of an Argument a)
An argument is offering a set of reasons or evidence in support of a
conclusion. b)
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish
a definite proposition. (Monty Python, Argument Clinic) 2.
Definition of a Fallacy a)
A fallacy is a type of incorrect argument. b)
Informal fallacies in logic are fallacies caused by carelessness and
inattentiveness. They are not technical in nature. c)
A typical fallacy arrives at irrelevant conclusions. In other words,
it is an argument that does not establish what it intends to establish. A. Appeal To Force 1.
It is argument by intimidation, scare tactics, or force. 2.
This line of
"reasoning" is fallacious because coercing people through
intimidation does not constitute evidence for a claim. 3.
Appeal to Fear and
Appeal to Ridicule are similar. 4.
It is seen of wicked
rulers in the Bible (Pr 28:15). 5.
It is used by Satan
to cause believers to falter (1Pe 5:8). 6.
It could be used by
wealthy individuals in the church. 7.
It could be used by
pastors to intimidate and ridicule those who do not agree with him. B. Personal Attack 1.
It is argument by attacking the man (Ad Hominem Abusive). 2.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the
character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have
a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of
the argument being made). 3.
It was used against
Jesus to disregard his teaching (Mat 12:24f). 4.
It is often
associated with “name calling.” 5.
It could be used in
debates regarding religion. C. Appeal To Emotions 1.
It is an argument that appeals to emotion rather than reason. 2.
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions
in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. 3.
This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As
many people have argued, peoples' emotions often carry much more force than
their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult and time consuming and
it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. An appeal to emotions is
very powerful which explains why it is popular and used widely. 4.
While it is not wrong for preachers to stir emotions, their first
task is to appeal to reason through the Scriptures. Emotions do not
necessarily generate sincere belief or correct responses. D. Appeal To Popularity 1.
It is an argument that appeals to popular demand rather than facts
and evidence. 2.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply
because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. 3.
At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is
flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per
hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these
claims turned out to be false. 4.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite
an effective persuasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the
views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a
claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often
use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone
uses and loves their products. 5.
Sometimes Christians adopt the popular views of the world (1Co 15:33;
1Jo 2:16) or adopt certain Bible interpretations simply because most
Christians hold to them. E. Appeal To Tradition 1.
It is an argument that appeals to the old way of doing things not
necessarily because it is right. 2.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of
something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer.
On the other hand, new (Appeal To Novelty) is not always better either. 3.
However, if someone successfully argues why something has stood the
test of time, it would be backed by evidence and not be a fallacy. 4.
The Pharisees neglected the correct biblical course because they held
to the traditions of men (Mar 7:8 cp; 5.
While believers must not hold to the traditions of men ( F. Appeal To Authority 1.
It is an argument that bases its appeal on a person who is not an
authority in that field. 2.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a
legitimate authority on the subject. 3.
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim
as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically,
the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the
person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is
reasonable to accept. 4.
Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are,
in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy
is a fairly common one. 5.
Commercials use this all the time when athletes support their
product. 6.
Some individuals in authority believe they are an authority in every
field. G. Appeal To Ignorance
(Burden of Proof) 1.
It is an argument that is based on a lack of evidence. 2.
It is also know as the burden of proof. It becomes a fallacy when the
burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. 3.
For example, in the 4.
It is an erroneous argument for Christians to say, I believe there is
a God because no one ever proved that there is not. 5.
There are biblical and philosophical reasons why God exists and
Christians should know how to use them. H. Poisoning the Well 1.
It is an argument that includes unfavorable information (true or
false) about the opponent not related to the issue. 2.
The person making
such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners
against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he
might make. 3.
However, merely
presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly
counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. 4.
This was the
Pharisees fallacious attempt to thwart Jesus’ teaching (Luk 15:2). But wisdom
and truth is based on facts and evidence (Mat 11:19). 5.
This is akin to the
church member that attempts to taint someone’s reputation in order to get
others to reject his ideas. I.
Straw Man 1.
It is an argument that ignores
a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. 2.
It could also be defined
as skewing an opponent’s argument so that it can be easily defeated. 3.
This sort of
"reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of
a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. 4.
A straw man argument
was used by those who slanderously falsified Paul’s beliefs (Rom 3:8). Also
cp. Act 6:13-14. J.
Red Herring 1.
It is an argument in which an
irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original
issue. 2.
It is also called a “smoke
screen” or “wild goose chase.” Instead of concentrating on all the white
herring, one is distracted by one red herring. 3.
The basic idea is to
"win" an argument by leading attention away from the original issue
to another issue. 4.
This sort of
"reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of
discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. K. Slippery Slope 1.
It is an argument that asserts
that an action will initiate a chain of events
culminating in an undesirable event later. 2.
The argument is
sometimes referred to as the thin end of the wedge or the camel's nose. 3.
In some cases, the
assumption is made that one event immediately leads to an exaggerated or
catastrophic event. 4.
The Pharisees used a
slippery slope argument when stating that if they did not kill Jesus, the
Romans would take away their nation (Joh 11:48). L. Relativistic Fallacy 1.
The relativist
fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is a fallacy committed when
one person claims that something may be true for one person but not true for
someone else. 2.
It is an argument that
rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is
not for him/her. 3.
Regarding fallacies,
relativism is the view that truth is relative to a person, time, culture,
place, etc.). 4.
This is not a fallacy
that deals with preferences, personal tastes, or with subjective experiences
but with objective truth. M. False Dilemma 1.
It is an argument that assumes there are only two alternatives when
in fact there are more than two. 2.
Sometimes there are only two alternatives, but always assuming that
there are only two is fallacious. 3.
Some people insist that if you disagree with them on one issue, then
you must be against everything they stand for. N. Begging the Question
(Circular Argument) 1.
It is an argument that includes the conclusion in one of the
premises. 2.
It is also called Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii. 3.
This sort of
"reasoning" is fallacious because it continuously asserts a claim
but never proves or brings to a satisfactory conclusion. 4.
Some cases of
question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle. O. You Too Fallacy 1.
It is an argument that
asserts that a certain position is wrong because its proponent fails to
consistently act in accordance with that position. 2.
It is an argument that rejects a position because the opponent is
guilty of the same wrongdoing (“you too” - “tu quoque”). 3.
Also, the fact that a
person's claims are not consistent with his own actions might indicate that
the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false. P. Bandwagon 1.
It is an argument in
which a threat of rejection by one's peers is substituted for evidence in an
"argument." 2.
It is also known as,
“peer pressure.” 3.
The strength of this
fallacy rests on the fact of that everyone has the need to belong. This
sometimes becomes a strong emotional appeal to conform to the views and
positions of those groups even if wrong. 4.
Keep in mind that
there is a difference between compromising truth and compromising preferences
for the sake of peace. IV. LOGIC IN SCRIPTURE A. God is a rational God (Isa
55:8; Ps 92:5). B. God is a God of truth (Psa
31:5; 117:2; 119:160; Isa 40:8; Joh 14:6). C. God cannot lie or
contradict Himself (Num 23:19; 1Sa 15:29; Tit 1:2; Heb 6:18). D. Man was created in God’s
image (Gen 1:26). E. God appeals to man’s
reason (Isa 1:18). F. The Scriptures give the
components of logic and reason (Jam 3:17). 1.
Pure motives a)
Most Bible versions translate hagnós simply as, “pure” or
“chaste.” Indeed that is a good translation. b)
But along with the idea of chaste behavior (1Pe 3:2) is the idea of
innocent or without intent to do wrong (2Co 7:11; 1Ti 5:22). c)
In the context of Jam 3, where James is speaking of social behavior
(13-18), the meaning lends itself to innocent and without intent to do wrong. d)
Concerning logic or reason, one must be pure in their motives. There
must be no hidden agendas (from which fallacies can spring) but only have the
person’s best interest in mind. There must not be deception or manipulation
but only a desire to get to the truth. This perspective must be first (prṓtos). 2.
Peaceable a)
The Greek word is a derivative of peace (eirếnê) and refers to someone
who is peaceable (eirenikós). b)
This would describe someone who is not given to emotional tirades in
order to argue their position. c)
Rather their even-keel disposition adds to their message because it
does not force the listener to make a decision based on emotion. 3.
Gentle a)
Gentleness (epieikés) had evolved since its classical origins; however,
it had not completely lost all of its original meaning. Such words as kind,
forbearing, and considerate are likely synonyms. b)
But the classical meaning was closer to the root eikós which means what is reasonable. It includes synonyms
such as fitting, suitable, plausible, accommodating, and reasonable. c)
It is the idea that one’s speech and actions are fitting and
suitable, not off the wall. Dealings with others are based on a willing
reasonableness or an accommodating thought out response. d)
It is certainly not a “my way or the highway” attitude. Therefore,
gentleness (such as in the N.T. - Phil 4:5; 1Ti 3:3; 1Pe 2:18) is gentle in
its presentation of the truth. 4.
Reasonable a)
The literal meaning for this word (eupeithếs) means easily (eu) persuaded (peíthō). b)
It does not mean naïve or simple but one who is congenial or open to
reason. c)
This is the only time this word is used in the Bible, though it is
used in the Apocrypha. d)
Perhaps it goes without saying that to the one who desires to be
logical and reasonable, he must willing to listen and listen to reason (Pr
18:13). e)
It is the opposite of being unapproachable, unwilling to listen, and
closed-minded. 5.
Full of Mercy a)
Perhaps this quality might not be seen as a characteristic of logic
and reason. But after all, this is the wisdom that is from above. b)
The ultimate goal of Christian logic and reason is not to win an
argument, but to win a convert. c)
Mercy is showing compassion toward the shortcomings of others, not
exposing them. d)
The one who ridicules the shortcomings of others will never win an
argument nor win the confidence of another. 6.
(Full of) Good Fruits a)
Good fruits coincide with pure intentions. The wisdom from above
seeks the benefit of another (pure intentions) and then carries it out (good
fruits). b)
The goal of Christian logic and reason is not to win an argument but
to produce fruitful lives. 7.
Unwavering a)
Adiákritos means without prejudice or
favoritism. b)
Prejudice and favoritism never find there way in logic and reason. Prejudice
and favoritism based there decisions on bias, not fact, evidence or truth. c)
Prejudice and favoritism are denounced in the Bible (Jam 2:1 cp. Rom
2:11; Eph 6:9). 8.
Without Hypocrisy a)
It is one thing to discuss truth, logic, and reason but it is another
to live up to the truth we know. b)
Hypocrisy is saying one thing but doing another. c)
Many philosophers who postulated their views never lived up to their
own philosophies (Rousseau, Marx, etc.). d)
To be without hypocrisy means to be sincere, so sincere that one
lives the truth they promote. V. LAWS OF CONTRADICTION A. Aristotle’s famous quote
on contradiction becomes a basis for the Laws of Non-Contradiction. 1.
It is impossible for the
same thing at the same time to belong and not belong to the same thing at the
same time and in the same respect. (Metaphysics). 2.
Or simplified, A cannot be A
and non-A at the same time and same respect. B. Laws of Non-Contradiction 1.
The Law of Contradiction (A cannot be both A and not A) a)
It is a contradiction to assert that A and non A are the same. b)
A contradiction is two opposing statements. c)
A paradox (classical definition) is something which appears to be a
contradiction but is not. d)
It is possible for A to be A and non A in different respects (ex.
Trinity). e)
Cp. 1Jo 2:21, cp. Joh 8:44;
1Jo 1:5; Num 23:19 2.
The Law of Identity (A is A) a)
A cannot be anything but A. b)
This emphasizes the importance of defining your terms. c)
Cp. 1Co 14:8 3.
The Law of The Excluded Middle (A must be either A or not A) a)
There is no middle A b)
Cp. Mat 5:37; 1Jo 1:5; Jam 1:17 C. 1.
(A) The universal affirmative - All S is P. 2.
(E) The universal negative – No S is P. 3.
(I) The particular affirmative - Some S is P. 4.
(O) The particular negative - Some S is not P.
5.
Universal Affirmatives in Scripture a)
All who are in Christ possess all spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3). b)
All who are in Christ receive no condemnation (Rom 8:1) c)
All who call on Christ are saved (Rom 10:13). d)
All who believe have eternal life (Joh 3:16). e)
All people are people who have sinned (Rom 3:23). f)
All who do not believe do not have eternal life (Joh 3:36). g)
All things are things that work together for good (Rom 8:28). VI. LAWS OF DEDUCTION A. Syllogisms 1.
A syllogism, in logic, is a mode of deductive reasoning that
consisting of a sequence of three propositions; two premises and one
conclusion. 2.
Aristotle’s formulations of syllogistic logic held sway in the
Western world for over 2,000 years. 3.
Since the 19th Cent., Aristotelian logic has been
supplanted by symbolic logic, which replaces ordinary language with
mathematical symbols. However, linguistic syllogisms (categorical) remain a
verifiable means of valid inference. 4.
The classic example of a syllogism is: All men are mortal (Premise #1). Socrates is a man (Premise #2). Therefore, Socrates is mortal (Conclusion). 5.
Syllogisms can also be test by using a Venn Diagram or Euler Circles.
6.
Not all syllogisms are valid. Specific rules apply to discover the
validity of syllogistic arguments, leaving only 24 valid types out of 256
possibilities. This stresses the fact that there is a greater possibility for
invalid arguments than valid. All dogs are mammals (Premise #1). All cats are mammals (Premise #2). Therefore, all cats are dogs (Conclusion).
7.
Syllogisms in the Bible and Theology a)
We must realize that the Bible was not written in categorical syllogisms,
it is didactic, narrative, and poetry. b)
However, even those genres must be written logically or no one would
understand them. Furthermore, most everything that is said can be broken down
into syllogisms of one kind or another. c)
Therefore, it is very useful to be able to think in syllogisms. d)
The following are examples of syllogisms derived from the Bible and
Theology. (Paul’s exhortation in Col 3:1 can be broken down
into a syllogism) Those raised with Christ are to seek the things
above (Premise #1). The Colossians are raised with Christ (Premise
#2). Therefore, the Colossians are to seek the things
above (Conclusion). (The Lord’s words in Rev 3:19 can be broken down
into a syllogism) Those whom the Lord loves He reproves (Premise
#1). The Laodicieans are loved by the Lord (Premise
#2). Therefore, the Laodicieans are to be
zealous and repent (Conclusion). (or they will be disciplined) (Paul’s thorn in the flesh in 2Co 12:9 can be
understood in a syllogism) Paul’s circumstance was his weaknesses (Premise
#1) God’s grace is sufficient for all circumstances
(Premise #2) Therefore, God’s grace is sufficient for Paul’s
weaknesses (Conclusion) (Ryrie gives a syllogism to prove inspiration) God is true (Rom. 3:4) (Premise #1). The Scriptures were breathed out by God (2 Tim.
3:16) (Premise #2). Therefore, the Scriptures are true (Conclusion). (Geisler gives a syllogism to prove inspiration) God cannot err (Premise #1). The Bible is the Word of God (Premise #2). Therefore, the Bible cannot err (Conclusion). (A syllogism to prove assurance of salvation) Those who put their faith in Jesus Christ will be
saved (Premise #1). You have put your faith in Him (Premise #2). Therefore, you are saved (Conclusion). (Satan deception to Eve in Gen 3:1-6 can be broken
down in a syllogism.) Restrictions are not good (Premise #1). God’s plan is restrictive(Premise #2). Therefore, God’s plan is not good (Conclusion). B. Sorites 1.
A sorites (“heap”) is a chain of three or more categorical syllogisms
which formulate a conclusion. All bloodhounds are dogs (Premise #1) All dogs are mammals (Premise #2) No fish are mammals (Premise #3) Therefore, no fish are bloodhounds (Conclusion) 2.
One of the greatest sorites in Scripture, found in Rom 8:29-30, is
also called the “Golden Chain.” (Cp. Rom 5:3-5) All who love God (believers)
are foreknown. All who are foreknown are
predestined. All who are predestined are
called. All who are called are
justified All who are justified are glorified Therefore, all who love God
(believers) are glorified. C. Modus Ponens (“mode of
affirming”) 1.
Modus Ponens is a type of syllogism that infers a conclusion. The 2nd
term (consequent) is affirmed by affirming the 1st term
(antecedent). 2.
It is easily expressed by the following equation: If p the q. p. Therefore, q. If the Patriots go undefeated, they will win the
Super Bowl, The Patriots go undefeated. Therefore, they won the Super Bowl. If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then he is God’s
Son. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Therefore, he is God’s Son. If you love Christ, you
will keep Christ’s commandments (Joh 14:15). You love Christ. Therefore, you
will keep Christ’s commandments. If Christ goes and prepares
a place for you, Christ will come again and receive you to Himself, (Joh
14:3) Christ went and
prepared a place for us, Therefore, Christ will come
again and receive you to Himself. If we confess our
sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us
from all unrighteousness (1Jo 1:9). We confess our
sins, Therefore, He is
faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness. If Christ has not
been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins (1Co 15:17). Christ has been
raised from the dead (1Co 15:20). Therefore, your
faith is not worthless; you are not still in your sins. D. Modus Tollens (“mode of
denying”) 1.
Modus Tollens also is a type of syllogism that infers a conclusion.
The 1st term (antecedent) is denied by denying the 2nd
term (consequent). 2.
It is easily expressed by the following equation: If p then q. Not q Therefore, not p. If the Patriots go undefeated, they will win the
Super Bowl, The Patriots did not win the Super Bowl. Therefore, they did not go undefeated. If anyone is born of God, then he loves his
brothers. Adolph does not love his brothers. Therefore, Adolph is not born of God. If we are born of God, we do not practice sin (1Jo
3:9). We practice sin. Therefore, we are not born of God. If we walk in the Light, we have fellowship with
God (1Jo 1:7). We do not have fellowship with God. Therefore, we are not walking in the light. If we say that we have not sinned, His Word is not
in us (1Jo 1:10). His Word is in us (His Word is not not in
us). Therefore, we say that we sinned (we do not
say we have not sinned). E. Conditional Clauses 1.
The logic used in conditional clauses found in the Scriptures are
akin to the Modus Pollens and Modus tollens. 2.
In fact, there are four different types of conditional clauses in
Koine Greek: 1st Class Condition - simple condition
of fact. 2nd Class Condition - contrary to fact. 3rd Class Condition - more probable
fact. 4th Class Condition - less probable
fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
