I enjoyed reading “Dear Socrates” in the latest edition of Philosophy Now, where “Socrates” warns against transfering the certainty of logic itself to a particular argument, pointing out that this itself is a logical error. Why? Because “it conflates validity with soundness”. A good or sound argument is not merely logical but has true premises.
This all brought back memories for me. I was 19 years of age. I was an atheist, scornful of Christianity. I argued with Christians I met in the YMCA where I lived while studying at the nearby university. It was my search for more ammunition which, if you’ll excuse the pun, backfired on me. I picked up a book from the university library concerning logical proofs for and against the existence of God. ”This should do it,” I thought. But it was precisely the point made by ”Socrates” which was the beginning of my undoing. As I read I realised quite abruptly that I was unable to test the truth or falsity of the premises on which all of these logical arguments were based. I could see the arguments were logical but what I couldn’t assess was whether they were sound or good arguments. That’s when I quite suddenly became an agnostic rather than an atheist and, speaking now as a Christian, I have no doubt that God used all this as part of his way of bringing me to a knowledge of himself.
To illustrate the problem “Socrates” helpfully provides the following logical argument: “All trees have wings, and all wings are orange, so all trees are orange.” This is a perfectly valid or logical argument, though in this case it is patently obvious that it is a lousy argument because the premises are palpably false. As “Socrates” points out,
The moral of [the] story is that the truly rational person has to be concerned with more than just logic.
Further, while logic is essential to the proper functioning of reason:
the proper meaning and function of logic must be understood within the larger context of reasoning.
So Socrates concludes:
But because we are sunk in a vat of unknowing and uncertainty about the facts (premises) - including analyses (or ‘meta-facts’) about which facts are relevant - it would be irrational indeed to be fully confident in the conclusions of our reasoning. Nevertheless, I know of no better way to live than rationally. I’d be willing to wager that you don’t either.
Clearly, while the Christian has no legitimate choice but to live rationally, the experience of knowing God, the assurance of our salvation and the certainty of our hope, while all compatible with reason, cannot possibly be the fruits of our reason, but the products of God-initiated grace. It is he and he alone who makes it possible for me to know which premises are true or false in the arguments concerning his existence. Obviously, for those who are trapped by their reason, unable to apprehend truth and ultimate reality because all they have is their reason, what I have just said sounds like a lot of poppycock. But, as Paul said,
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe (1 Corinthians 1:21).
Glory to God!
Posted June 20, 2008
Upon clicking 'Buy now' you will be redirected to paypal.com where you can securely and quickly complete your purchase with a few clicks.
Immediately after payment at PayPal you will be redirected to a download page which
provides you instant access to your purchase.
