Smoky Mountain Bible Institute
(Est. 2009) Lesson #69
Philosophy: what is it, and why does it matter? More
importantly, as this is a Bible institute, why does it or even should it matter
to a Christian? We looked at specialized
branches last time, and now we come to my favorite category: logic. Logic is
the study of the principles of correct reasoning. Without getting too deep into
a bunch of logic jargon and defining every kind and category of logic, we will
address two main methods of drawing conclusions, each with an example. We will
then jump into my favorite type of logic and that is, its use as a rhetorical
tool in order to logically explain and present the basis for ones conclusions,
along with a fun list of logical fallacies that most people use to their own
logical demise.
Arguments use reasoning that is
either deductive or inductive. First let’s look at deductive
reasoning. Deductive reasoning consists of a list of premises that lead to a deduction
based on those premises; for example: 1. all people have hands. 2. You are a
person. 3. Therefore, you have hands. Notice that while this is a logical
statement made using deductive reasoning, it is not necessarily true in all
cases. The first statement is not absolutely true; some people do not have
hands for any number of reasons, so, while logic is served, truth may not be. The
other type of reasoning is inductive
reasoning. This one deals more in the realm of probability, making predictive
statements based on what is known. For example: 1. every life form we know of
requires water to live, 2. therefore every future life form we discover will
probably need water to live, that would be a logical induction.
I will probably spend the rest of
this year addressing logical fallacies, because we run into them every day, and
depending on whose list you use and how you categorize them, there are probably
about 20 or so main logical fallacies, while some list over a hundred different
types. I would like to address a few oddballs this month that fit in this
category.
First, there is a debate among
philosophical scholars regarding whether this particular example is a method of
reasoning or a logical fallacy. As a reasoning method it is called abductive
reasoning and as a logical fallacy it is called “pros hoc ergo propter hoc”. I
gave an example of this a few years back when comparing the lives of Lincoln
and Kennedy. The two men’s lives, while separated by 100 years had many
similarities, but we know that even though they were very similar, they were
two real men who lived different lives. But this (reasoning method / logical
fallacy) could be used to argue that Lincoln was either the cause of Kennedy,
or Kennedy is a fabrication based on Lincoln. This of course seems ridiculous
to assert, but liberal biblical scholars use this method regularly in higher
criticism to dismiss biblical truths they disagree with. For example Noah’s
flood they claim is a compilation of other ancient flood accounts.
“A priori” is reasoning or knowledge that proceeds
from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience. This is
falsely cited as evidence for preconceived notions like: the Resurrection
cannot happen, or the evolutionists who explain how simple things over time can
become more complex, like genetic information appearing out of a bubbling
primordial ooze, (Which has never been observed), to assert that miracles
cannot happen. These are all A priori assertions not scientific conclusions.
The other little thing I wanted to
address this month is the self-defeating statement. This is a thought or an
idea that by its very expression defeats or cancels itself. For example “this
statement is false”. The only way for that statement to be false is for it to
be true. This basically is a logical collapse, but in a postmodern world where
everybody gets to “choose for themselves” what is true, self-defeating and
contradictory statements abound. One of my favorites is “There is no such thing
as absolute truth”. (Except of course that absolutely true statement??) That
makes about as much logical sense as asserting “I make no absolute statements”
(…except of course that one). J
For the next few months here at
the Bible Institute we will discuss logical fallacies, hopefully giving you a
nice bag of rhetorical defense tactics to protect you from any ad hominem, strawman or red herring
attacks you may suffer.
In
Christ,
Pastor
Portier
