Logic & Fallacies

[JM]

If the Bible doesn't square with our idea of a fallacy, then the fallacy needs to be revised.

A Christian is not bound by logical fallacies. Can we appeal to authority [the Bible] without appealing to a fallacy? Yes. Can we use ridicule unbelievers for their unbelief following Christ's example [when He called the Pharisees serpents, snakes, etc.] without this tactic being a fallacy? Yes.

By what authority are logical fallacies established and isn't that in itself an appeal to authority?

Just a thought...

 

[Quath]

Do you believe something can be something and not something at the same time? Or in an equation: a = not a. Or in theology: can God not be God? This is a common fallacy brought against the Bible.

For example, can Jeus be God and God be greater than Jesus? J = G and G > J?

But any belief can overcome logic. But is that something you really want? Imagine you had a friend that was in Heaven's Gate. Would you want that person to answer to logic or to be impervious to it and commit suicice with the rest of them?

Quath

 

[JM]

Do you believe something can be something and not something at the same time? Or in an equation: a = not a. Or in theology: can God not be God? This is a common fallacy brought against the Bible.

For example, can Jeus be God and God be greater than Jesus? J = G and G > J?

But any belief can overcome logic. But is that something you really want? Imagine you had a friend that was in Heaven's Gate. Would you want that person to answer to logic or to be impervious to it and commit suicice with the rest of them?

Quath

What you suggest is simple word play, follow your beliefs to their logical conclusion...

R. L. Dabney: A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true. (Systematic Theology, sect. 1, chap. 6, lect. 8[1]).

Cornelius Van Til likewise wrote: We must point out to [our opponents] that [non-theistic] reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. . . . It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions. (A Survey of Christian Epistemology [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969], p. 204).

The laws of logic are universal, hence the TAG argument for God, you are giving an example that is out of line with the Bible. You added faith and an appeal to emotion [ wink ] which does nothing for your case. Heaven's Gate acted outside of the faith.

On what authority do you speak?

j

 

[Quath]

Heaven's Gate acted outside of the faith.

Are you saying that the people committed suicide out of lack of faith to their own beliefs?

On what authority do you speak?

I guess reason, logic and experience. But that does not seem to be something you think is valuable.

Quath

 

[JM]

I guess reason, logic and experience. But that does not seem to be something you think is valuable.

Which one do you believe gives you an absolute, which one is "your" rule for determining evil and good?

jm

 

[thessalonian]

If the Bible doesn't square with our idea of a fallacy, then the fallacy needs to be revised.

A Christian is not bound by logical fallacies. Can we appeal to authority [the Bible] without appealing to a fallacy? Yes. Can we use ridicule unbelievers for their unbelief following Christ's example [when He called the Pharisees serpents, snakes, etc.] without this tactic being a fallacy? Yes.

By what authority are logical fallacies established and isn't that in itself an appeal to authority?

Just a thought...

You raise an interesting point. Of course we should not ridicule over logic. But in fact logic is a part of God's creation as well and in fact the Bible should match good rules of logic. If someones rules of logic are flawed they should be corrected but lets not through the baby out with the bathwater her. The scriptures should be consistent with all other laws, i.e. nature, logic, etc.

Or maybe the interpretation is wrong. I.e. Peter can't be the Rock because Jesus is. That is what I find most of the time is the problem. Man tends to think either and therefore come to contradictions or force interpretatoins based on a dichotomy but the Bible is does not contain dichotomies. The Bible is both/and in most cases where men see dichotomies. It's not faith or works. It's not freewill or predestination. It's not Jesus or the Apostles as the foundation or Jesus or his followers as the light of the world.

Usually when I speak of logical fallicies what I see is people applying dichotomous thinking and continuing the error with forced theology based on that thinking. It's not that the rules of logic are bad, it's peoples application of those rules.

Generally I see your post as an overemphasis on the Bible as the sole rule of faith that leads to a logical fallacy. :-D

Blessings

 

[Drew]

I am not sure what this thread is really about. However, I will take a crack.

If someone claims both the following statements are true:

1. Every event in the Universe is fully caused by the will of God alone - no other wills brings about any event.

2. Men have free will that can cause events to take place in the world.

then they are engaging in incorrect thinking. They cannot appeal to the authority of the Scriptures and somehow think that solves the problem. Words have meanings and we cannot play fast and loose with these meanings. By the very meanings of the words involved, statements 1 and 2 cannot both be true (at least as written).

We need to think carefully about the very nature of thinking itself. When we say "X is true", we commit to the assertion that the nature of things is such that "X" is indeed true. If we then say "X is false", we engage in a fundamental contradiction that totally undermines and sabotages the potential for us to build a sensible picture of the world.

Many claim that "X" and "not X" can mysteriously both be true. I think this is an entirely unworkable position for the very reason that knowledge is not "real" unless it can make some impact in the real world. And you can get nowhere claiming that "X" and "not X" are both true.

 

[JM]

Drew, what is your rule for determining evil and good?

jm

 

[Drew]

Drew, what is your rule for determining evil and good?

jm

I probably cannot give a "simple" answer to this question. In short, I would say that I determine good and evil through the following sources: the Scriptures, my personal experience (as informed through the influence of God on my thoughts - the reality of His intervention in my thoughts being a matter of faith), and the experience of others.

I will say the following about the nature of the "authority" that I accord to the Scriptures: I accord authority to the Scriptures in respect to establishing good and evil partly because its dictates seem to be supported by the "data of life". In other words, I read "thou shalt not do X" and my knowledge of life, combined with a little intuition that I believe comes from God, causes to me say "that sounds correct".

Now to the extent that certain Scritpural teachings (call them set "A") have this "ring of truth", I accord authority to other Scriptural teachings (set "B") on the basis of "established authority" - the perceived truthfulness of A causes me to accord authority to B even if I have no intuition / experience about B.

In short, and with particular reference to Jesus: If I know (from life experience and my God-informed intuition) that one thing Jesus says is true, I am likely to accord Jesus authority in respect to this other thing, even if I have no experience / intuition about it.

I do not believe it is correct to believe the moral teachings of the Scriptures simply because someone else says they are authoritive or without examining the Scriptural teaching against the "data of life" if any is there.

I believe that moral absolutes do exist but their existence arises as a "system property". I reject as overly simplistic the notion that "God's character defines what is good and what is evil.

Much more could be said. I will await any feedback / questions.

 

[JM]

Do you believe you can have knowledge through empirical observation? If so, how do you observe empirically that you can have knowledge through empirical observation?

 

[Drew]

Do you believe you can have knowledge through empirical observation?

Of course I do. If anyone tries to argue that one does not gain knowledge through empirical observation, they would be denying a manifestly obvious fact about the world. This does not mean that some mental faculty does not act on raw data from the world and organize it to enable the attainment of knowledge.

If so, how do you observe empirically that you can have knowledge through empirical observation?

Simple - through the mere living of life. Example: Caveman observes that sticking his hand in the fire causes pain. This is clearly an empirical observation. Next day the cavemen observes that eating uncooked meat makes him sick. The next day he observes that sabre-tooth tigers run faster than humans. And so on. Obviously, over course of months and years (if not sooner), he will realize that knowledge is gained through empirical observation. I am not sure what the issue is here...

 

[JM]

You have given examples of what you believe but haven't proven anything using the empirical method, you simply posted what you presupposed and that's the problem. The senses are not infallible. "How can experience be the source of truth when it is so chaotic, confused, and arbitrary? How can we make a statement from a small number of observations? What about concepts such as "fragile" or "length"? Even if observables confirm an hypothesis, where does the hypothesis come from?" How do you know Drew, that your not presupposing something upon the evidence you are collecting and drawing conclusions on?

 

[lovely]

JM wrote:

If the Bible doesn't square with our idea of a fallacy, then the fallacy needs to be revised.

A Christian is not bound by logical fallacies. Can we appeal to authority [the Bible] without appealing to a fallacy? Yes. Can we use ridicule unbelievers for their unbelief following Christ's example [when He called the Pharisees serpents, snakes, etc.] without this tactic being a fallacy? Yes.

By what authority are logical fallacies established and isn't that in itself an appeal to authority?

Just a thought...

I agree with this. Anyway, I heard Ravi Zacharias reading the atheist's creed not long ago on the radio, and one of the lines stuck out in my mind....paraphrasing from memory here....

Wait, I will look it up.

excerpt from atheist's creed written by Steve Turner:

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

link for full creed: http://members.aol.com/OrthoVox/creed.html

The Lord bless all of you.

 

[Imagican]

Aparently, from ALL the 'different' denominations of religions that exist, this is MOSTLY true of ALL of them as well. Create WHATEVER belief system you choose and 'sell' it hard enough, and eventually it WILL be considered TRUTH to all that 'buy into it'.

Amazing how that works huh?

MEC

 

[JM]

Aparently, from ALL the 'different' denominations of religions that exist, this is MOSTLY true of ALL of them as well. Create WHATEVER belief system you choose and 'sell' it hard enough, and eventually it WILL be considered TRUTH to all that 'buy into it'.

Amazing how that works huh?

MEC

A great example is the so called scientific community. :

 

[Drew]

Aparently, from ALL the 'different' denominations of religions that exist, this is MOSTLY true of ALL of them as well. Create WHATEVER belief system you choose and 'sell' it hard enough, and eventually it WILL be considered TRUTH to all that 'buy into it'.

Amazing how that works huh?

MEC

A great example is the so called scientific community. :

Science as a system of gaining knowledge about the world works and works very well. There exists a thread of suspicion about the scientific method that pervades certain "Christian cultural niches". Some of the silliest and most embarassing (to the faith) claims that I have read in these forums have to do with the "Christian" take on science. We have people making the most bizarre and muddle-headed posts one could possibly imagine - for example, talk of how science says that an ape one day gave birth to a human being. Or perhaps the notion that because scientific models evolve and change, that this is a sign of weakness of the scientific method.

The scientific method should be embraced by Christians - not as a substitute for Biblical and experiential faith, but as a complement to it. It is true that misunderstanding of the scientific method can lead some to think that "only that which is scientifically demonstrable is true". But if we were to judge a system of thought by the ideas of those who do not represent it fairly, then, judging by many of the posts in these forums, the Christian faith would also stand in ill repute.

 

[lovely]

Hi Drew,


Drew wrote:

The scientific method should be embraced by Christians - not as a substitute for Biblical and experiential faith, but as a complement to it.

I actually agree with this motive, but unfortunately the scientific method...another man-made framework...excludes christians as it is currently written, and it is an intentional ploy being put in place by the deceiver himself, imo.

Drew wrote:

But if we were to judge a system of thought by the ideas of those who do not represent it fairly, then, judging by many of the posts in these forums, the Christian faith would also stand in ill repute.

I think that a system of thought that is based on absolute perfect truth (like Christ's) will still be fallible in an outworking because of what you pointed out here. We are human and fallible. I think it is important that we do NOT do that to other systems, but understand them from the inside as much as possible, and reject them based on our own plumb line, but never because of the error of humans...keep it about the system.

The problem with the scientific community is that they have forgotten the meaning of theory, and continue to build on something that they haven't proven yet, and is not absolute truth because it is based on interpretation of men, not of one perfect man. It's a shakey structure. I'd say that it is the system of thought, even the scientific method itself, that we can discredit...we need not discredit the scientists who may be mistaken in this particular area, because they are human like we are. They could be right on some things. The flaws, as you pointed out above, Drew, reside in the interpretation of information, because the interpretors are flawed. I think for that reason, we should only trust the Spirit, believers that is, to teach us...even in the matter of Science...on every matter, God is not silent on anything.

I think the sad thing is that because the church of our past has made mistakes in science, it is completely thrown out...even though our foundations in this area were discovered, and proved, by many religious men. Yet, evolutionist would never allow that logical fallacy to be applied to evolution...which many christians try to do, btw. The church errors are highlighted...even by christians who believe in evolution... and those errors have gotten all the publicity, and are used to poison the well, an ad hominem that encourages people to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The church thought the world was flat, so therefore creation is false. Not logical.

This is why evolution has taken such a hold on our society, because we have put it up as an idol, and it is a most difficult thing to tear down the idols from the "high places" as Josiah did. The high places in scripture being the mountains, the high places to day being the schools, the universities, the government, etc. God is the only High One. Evolution has taken over to the point that no other theory can even be presented, and you are belittled if you question it. Sounds familiar to me, much like those in the church who feared to question the church's teachings. God's truth can withstand questions because He really does know the answer, even if we don't. We are not given a spirit of fear, and we should study to show ourselves approved. The Holy Spirit is our instructor.

Believers need to be wise. We have, all too quickly, jumped on the evolution train, and have unwisely failed to keep in the forefront of our minds that evolution is a man-made theory, and that it is not absolute truth, and quite fallible. We also have to keep in mind that it is used as a means, by many, to reject God, and a deception of the tempter to keep some from seeing God, but not all. We should rise above all of this, or try to, and observe the world, consider theory, consider evidence, consider the Word, and trust only the Spirit of God to teach us to how to discern it all. We should always question that which is not absolute Truth...whether the church is teaching it, or the top university in the world.

I think when debating any thing, it is best to try and avoid logical fallacies because they discredit us, and they disrespect our opponent, but I think all of us must appeal to an authority...at least in terms of belief system. I believe you are correct about that, Jason. I trust that the Spirit will teach me on all matters, and so I do not need to poison the well, or appeal to an authority...outside of God that is...or use straw men to deduce the truth. My deductions, if truly correct, will always align with God because He is the author of logic.

Jason,

As far as your first post, I wanted to clarify, I do agree with you in principal about an appeal to authority, but I do not believe in calling others fool, etc, as a proper method for the church. I don't want to be controversial with my brothers, and sisters, deliberately, but I just don't believe the Spirit leads us to that. There was a time when I did, because Jesus did it. I think Jesus was able to accurately identify a fool, because He new their hearts. He new the finality of their lack of faith, he was able to call them a brood of vipers by divine right. I think God can be sarcastic, call people out, etc....because He knows the heart, and is perfect. I do not have the right to be arrogant in any way, because I have been given so much mercy, and but for the grace of God there go I. I am trying to think of a time when one of the disciples did what Jesus did, perhaps you can show me one. I am reminded of when Paul was in prison, and because of his, and Silas', singing they were released...they didn't leave, the jailer didn't kill himself, and an entire family came to know God. They were in the right, but they were loving, and someone was saved. I know we can rebuke a false teaching, and sin, we are called to defend the Gospel and expose satan, but I think God must be the one to reveal the hearts of men. I trust that He will do that by their words, and actions, not mine. The Lord bless you.

 

[JM]

Drew, how is it you sit in judgement on those who deny the fruit [abotion, evolution, etc.] of science? You have no basis for it, you deny the Scriptures, the power found there in. Besides, no one is throwing the baby out with the bath water, I'm not claiming all science is bunk, just some of the presuppositions that go hand in hand with science that liberal Christians like yourself embrase. False teachings like open theism and forms of science end up over ruling the faith, the Gospel, the Scriptures, reason and logic, etc.

_________

lovely, we are to contend for the faith. We are to attack the presuppositions of our enemies, these enemies are enemies of God and the Gospel. We have a sword and should use it, it wasn't only Christ that mocked unbelievers. If you truly believe what you claim to believe, it must be worth contending for, or maybe you don't truly believe it? This is rhetorical, not directed at you, just posted to make you think about it.

jm

 

[lovely]

Hi Jason,


lovely wrote:

lovely, we are to contend for the faith. We are to attack the presuppositions of our enemies, these enemies are enemies of God and the Gospel. We have a sword and should use it, it wasn't only Christ that mocked unbelievers. If you truly believe what you claim to believe, it must be worth contending for, or maybe you don't truly believe it

I agree that we should contend for the faith.

I think Jude says this directly to us...

Jude 1:3-4
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

These are not your common unbelievers...of whom may still become believers by the light. These men, are IN the church, and they are ordained before old to condemnation...ungodly men distorting the Word. (I believe this is how we recognize them), and that we use the Scripture to call them out when the Holy Spirit leads. These are not atheists, or unbelievers, who can still be converted with the illumination of the Truth by the work of the Spirit. Christ could identify these hypocrites, and John, and Jude, have given us a way to do it, but I am not sure that it means mocking them, but rebuking, and refuting, them with the Word...that is the sword. So, please, do not misunderstand, I believe in contending.

2 Timothy 2:23-25

23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

This is also speaking of those who teach falsely in the church, but it says to be meek, and patient...so that even they may come out of the snare they are in.

We are called to love our enemies, pray for them as Christ did, ("Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.") We are called to assist them...(The good Samaritan) We are called to overcome them with kindness...1 Samuel 26:21 As David did with Saul. Proverbs 24:17 17 Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:

I guess I could come up with more, but I can not know the hearts of men, as God does. Jesus was given knowledge of such things by the Holy Spirit, and was able to expose them. He can save a soul, consider the thief on the cross, but I can not. I can only love them, and shine Love and Truth upon them, both are very strong weapons in contending, and the only tools for converting. I will be at peace that we disagree, Jason. The Lord bless you, brother.

 

[Drew]

You have no basis for it, you deny the Scriptures, the power found there in.

I have done no such thing and I challenge you publically to show where I have "denied the Scriptures". It is time to call you to account for such claims - please show exactly where and how I have denied the Scriptures. And I would suggest that the reader will not necessarily equate "disagreeing with JM" as being the same as "denying the Scriptures".

False teachings like open theism....

I invite interested readers to scan the archives and judge for themselves whether your arguments against open theism were superior to mine that were in favour of it. One cannot simply declare a doctrine to be false - you have to actually make a case.