Logic 1.2

Stances and Propositions

Philosophy can sometimes become laborious because of the many distinctions that are made. In the field of logic one of those hair splitting distinctions is between Sentences and Propositions.

I want to start by looking at what a Proposition is. The definition we will be working with is as follows, A proposition is something that may be asserted or denied. What this definition does is that it sets it apart from questions, commands, and explanations. Non of these can be affirmed of denied. In other words, a question or command can not be said to be true or false. It is only the proposition that asserts that something is or that something is not.

Moreover, it is only propositions that can be given the title truth or falsity. In order for a proposition to be true or false dose not mean that we have to have certainty about it. For example, the proposition that there is life on other planets is a proposition that we can not have certainty about. Yet the fact still remains that there is or there is not, one of theses options state the actual state of affairs. In short and essential feature of a proposition is that they are either true or false. It is at this point that we want to look at the term sentence.

It is customary to distinguish between propositions and the sentences by means of which they are asserted. What I mean is that a sentence asters the same ideas as a proposition with the exception of tenses.

An Improtant Distinction

In the first Chapter of Koukl's book he lays out the first and primary rule of engagement. This rule says, never make a frontal assault on a larger and fortified position. In most apologetic works that I have read teach people how do defensive apologetic. The reason I like koukl is because he understands that it is not enough to always to defensive. It is our job as christians to advance the kingdom of God. In order to accomplish this we need to take the offensive. In Tactics Koukl shows us an effective way to do this.
In this first Chapter he makes a distinction between two very important terms. The first term is Strategy. In the field of Apologetic Strategy has to do with the larger picture. In other words, strategy is the methodology of Apologetics that you hold. Tactics on the other hand deal with the details of each engagement that takes place. It is through the use of the tactics that will be discussed, that we will discover how to maneuver effectively in the midst of disagreement.
It should be made very clear that the tactics that we will look at are not tools for manipulating, or for tricking others into the kingdom. These tactics that will help you engage the Culture that you live in, with greater ease.

Introduction

Every once and a while there come along a book that help to shape the foundation of ones thinking, for me this book was called Tactics by Gregory Koukl. The impact of this book on my thinking has been so great that I have decided to make it a series on this site. As I was reading it I began to try to think about what genre this book fit into. As I thought about it occurred to me that this book is really a Rhetoric book.

In this book there are two major sections of this book. The first section is called the Game Plan. In this section Koukl lays out three major steps in what he calls the Colombo tactic. It is these three steps that I want to focus on first. In Part two which is called Finding the Flaws. Koukl goes through several ways of dealing with the information that you gain through the Colombo tactic. It is when these two parts are combined and used in a conversation that the brilliance of his ideas comes out. It would be my hope that as I discuss this book that it would move you to go and read it your self. If you chose not to buy it I hope that my explanation of this book will revolutionize the way you look at doing apologetics.

As I read and studied this book it dawned on me that this method can be used for any realm of conversation. There are just some conversations that when they are discussed bring more heat then light. Through the Colombo tactic we are given a way to have sensitive conversation in a cool and mild mannered way. I pray that as discuss you will see the major need in our churches for such a method.

Logic 1

Introduction

You have heard it said “think about it logically.” What I have found is that people use the term logical, but few people fully understand what that means. Often times when people say “think about it logically” what they often times mean is to think about subject P the way I think about it. I want to begin a series on logic, in this series will look at how to do formal logic, through the study of syllogisms, fallacies, and dilemmas.

So now the question is why do we need logic? Norman Geisler in his book on logic says, “Without it, there could be no rational discussion of anything; writing would be impossible. How can you put a sentence together without logical order?” Logic in its simplest form is simply putting ones thought in order. One of the biggest reasons why one should study logic is because as Christians we worship a God of order. The very term Theology, is a logos about the theos. In other words, theology is the logic of God. Consider if you will John 1:1, he starts his Gospel out with “In the beginning was the Logos.” The very foundation of logic is based on the simple fact that some things are true and others are false. So why study logic. First is because we worship a God of order. Secondly, the aim of logic according to Irving M. Copi in his Introduction to Logic says,

“The aim of the study of logic is to discover and make available those criteria that can be used to test arguments, and to sort good arguments from bad ones.”

What is Logic?

Now let us tern to the what? As stated before logic in its simplest form is merely the putting of ones ideas in order. We all use logic, for example when you decide to take a shower after you work out instead of before. Yes, you do not put these types of thought in any type of formal structure, but you use logic nonetheless. The type of Logic that we use in our thinking is called Aristotelian logic. This means that our logic is based of the Greek Philosopher Aristotle who gave us what we call the first Principles. Logic in a formal since can be defined this way “Logic is a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking”

The Faith of Dawkins

I want to expand a little more on the what I talked about in the last post, and that is the subject of Dawkins faith. One of the major claims against faith is the accusation that faith is a lack of evidence. Dawkins makes it very clear that holding a belief with out evidence (or proof) is irrational. On this point I would agree with him. Yet this accusation does not apply to the Christianity of the Bible. If one would take the time to examine the bible on this issue, one would find that the bible demands evidence. What type of evidence can we offer that would cause them to consider God's exisitance? I am afraid that the new Atheist consider all Christian evidence as unacceptable. One of the major problems of the new Athiest is that it is simply not falsifiable. Christianity on the other hand can be shown to be false. The way to do it is to show that the resurrection never happened. Moreover, since it is the Darwinian generalisation Dawkins relies upon to prove that design ‘cannot underlie the universe.’ Moreover, since it is the Darwinian generalisation Dawkins relies upon to prove that design ‘cannot underlie the universe’ his admission that the Darwinian generalisation is something he believes even though he cannot prove it, shows that Dawkins’ belief that design does not underlie the universe is something he believes even though he cannot prove it. This is as much as to say that metaphysical naturalism is something Dawkins believes even though he cannot prove it.
This is very interesting considering that he as saids that a person can not believe in God because there is no evidence. Yet as stated above, he shows that his own materialism can not be proved, to put it another way, he has no evidence.
So the faith of Dawkins is very clear. My word to Christians is do not let the pseudo- Intellectuals fool you, they are more guilty then we are.

What is Reasonable Faith?

This question is often asked by the atheist, because for them all faith really is what one uses when he or she dose not have evidence. Others have called the faith of a Christian blind faith. Well, as to the charge of blind faith, I would hope that the above exposition of faith would discredit such a charge. Now as to a reasonable faith, I would give a two part answer. I would say first that there are two foundational principles that guide Christian faith. The first principle is the understanding of what truth is. The second is to understand what it is to Know.
I want to discuss in this post the first principle and that is truth. Let us start with a Question, Why do you and I say that Christianity is true? Some in recent years have tried to say the reason is because we wish it to be true. Or that it is a crutch that helps us deal with the harsh realities of the world. I would not contest the fact that Christianity helps us deal with the harshness of the world. It is important to see that Christianity is true because it provides the best explanation for the way the world is, truth as a concept alone can be defined as that which corresponds to reality.
The best way to look at this is through the question of How we know? So the over the next several posts I will be explaining to you the some foundational elements of Epistemology. This is the field of Philosophy that studies how we know things.
Until next time, my the Prince of Peace bless you.

Growing and Knowing Faith

The first kind of faith I want to talk about is growing faith. Paul promtes this type of faith in Colossians 1. Of course it needs to be understood that this type of faith has no implication as far as salvation. It rather is an effect of the conversion experience. This type of faith belongs in the category of living the Christian life. John talks about this in 1 John chapter 2:12-14. If this faith is to even be possible then one mufst also have knowing faith.
For the Christian knowing faith is the most important. For most believers in today’s culture the only thing they need to know is the essentials. Often time in the N.T knowing faith is connoted as “belief”, the reason being seem to be that in order to believe a certain proposition you have to first accept that certain proposition are true. So faith in the word of Winfried Corduan in his book Know Doubt About it says,“ faith refers to the way in which we may come to accept certain intellectual truths without which a trusting faith would be in possible.” So with this definition of faith you can see that the other types of faith that I have talked about are based on this knowing faith. If this is not a reality in your life I must ask the question, how do you expect to fulfill Peters charge in 1 Peter 3:15? It seems rather hard that if you are not engaged with your faith you can not give a reason response to it.
Having looked at the issue of faith at surface level, we now need to enter into a the greater discussion of the relationship between faith and reason. This next discussion is vital to the Christian witness, for there are those who say that we only use faith because we have no evidence. As I hope to show this is terrible thinking. It is vital to understand that you should never believe something with out evidence. So with that said we are ready to discuss this important relationship.

Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation

1. Ad hominim - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
1. Example: You are so stupid you argument couldn't possibly be true.
2. Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.
2. Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
1. Example: If you don't want to get beat up, you will agree with what I say.
2. Example: Convert or die.
3. Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
1. Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
2. Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.
4. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
1. Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
2. Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?
5. Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
1. Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
2. Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.
6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
1. Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
2. Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple. I will vouch for him.
7. Cause and Effect - assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
1. Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
2. Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.
8. Circular Argument - see Begging the Question
9. Division - assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
1. Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.
2. Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.
10. Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
1. Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
2. Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.
11. False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
1. Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
2. Example: Do you still beat your wife?
12. Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim
1. Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not by a VW Beetle because of who started it.
2. Example: Frank's just got out of jail last year and since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him.
13. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.
1. Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad.
2. Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.
14. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
1. Example: We know why it rained today, because I washed my car.
2. Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.
15. Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
1. Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
2. Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.
16. Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand.
1. Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems.
2. Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.
17. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.
1. Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
2. Example: Those rules don't apply to me since since I am older than you.
18. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.
1. Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor.
2. Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.
19. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property.
1. Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
2. Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn't.