Logic versus Truth

Logic versus Truth

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as ⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And 0
= Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation
--
The Truth of the Proposition

Philosopher Langer writes that in the book, so far, nothing had been mentioned in regard to the truth of a proposition. (188). An implied proposition is true if all the premises are true. (188). The implied proposition could also be defined as the conclusion. If the premises are false, she opines that the proposition may or may not be true. (188). There can be false premises and a true conclusion for a valid argument, but there cannot be true premise (s) and false conclusion with validity. Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33).

Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (FT)
False premises and a false conclusion (FF)
True premises and a true conclusion (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid.

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. A sound argument also has a true conclusion.

Langer explains

Brutus killed Caesar ⊃ Caesar is dead. (188). (⊃ is means the same as).

Since the implied premise is true the proposition is also true (consequent). (188). If Brutus killed Caesar ˜ ⊃ Caesar is dead (my equation using not the same), this would not change the implication that Caesar was dead. (188). Brutus did not kill Caesar; Caesar died in another way.
---

Logic versus Truth

February 13, 2018

Importantly, philosopher Langer explains that there is no guarantee that there is truth in a logical system. (189). Logic does not necessarily promote a fact, rather 'it stands for the conceptual possibility of a system'. (189). Logic documents with the deduction of premises. It stands for 'the consistency of all propositions'. (189). It is standing for logical validity. (189), not factual certainty or truth. (189).

This is standard from philosophy, logic, texts. Certainly not something Langer or I manufactured as original.

In many cases when a person states that a premise or argument is logical, the person means that it is true. But a premise or argument can be logical and false. Therefore, it would be more accurate in many cases to claim that a premise or argument is true and or reasonable.

L ˜ = T

Logic does not equal truth

L ˜ ⊃ T

Logic is not the sane as truth

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Why does God not remove evil? (MPhil Edit)

Thursday evening

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology 

PhD version: November 2011

From the MPhil thesis only degree:

J.S. Feinberg stated:

'God can remove evil if that is all He wants to do in our world. However, I will argue that God cannot remove evil without (1) contradicting other valuable things He has decided to do, (2) casting doubts on or directly contradicting the claim that He has all the attributes predicated of Him in Scripture, and/or (3) performing actions that we would neither desire nor require Him to do, because they would produce a greater evil than we already have in our world.' Feinberg (1994: 126).

I agree with the general idea in Feinberg’s quote. It is very possible that if God were to remove evil from his fallen creation, it would interfere with other valuable things needed for human development. 

Both Feinberg and McGrath indicated this could contradict things stated in Scripture--Feinberg mentioned attributes, and McGrath mentioned promises. As well, greater evils could occur if God ridded the world of certain evils at this point. I think there are certain human developments, a type of human spiritual evolution which experiences certain evils for a set period of time before complete restoration through Christ occurs. So from this idea, I would conclude that God is still omnipotent, but yet he wills the continuation of the problem of evil for the greater good, and he remains holy, without sin.

As Feinberg’s idea points out, there is definitely some logical theological reasoning for evil existing within God’s creation.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

McGRATH, ALISTER (1986) Iustitia Dei, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.

The end does not justify the means

The end does not justify the means

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The book review continues...

Chapter Five: Speak The Truth In Love

Mr. Wallace mentions the importance in defeating Islam in North America in some key areas. (39). These include (paraphrased) in the arena of the Muslim mind, in the arena of the skeptic's mind, and in the arena of the legal system. (39). Mr. Wallace suggests that those within the Christian Church should take a bold, yet loving approach:

'Truth shared with bold compassion is contagious'.  (41).

I will add that listening to Mr. Wallace's 'Fortress of Faith' radio broadcast from time to time, Mr. Wallace does take a loving approach, in boldness to people. He explains that one can have truth, but if it is stated with immoral methods, it loses levels of potency and validity. (41).

I agree when Mr. Wallace states:

'The pragmatist who believes the end justifies the means is often an immoral man.'  (41).

A key is therefore to present the truth and the gospel truth in love. To love one's neighbour as self (Matthew 23, Mark 12, Luke 10). The gospel of John mentions love within the Church as a command:

John 13:34-35

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Further from his epistles

1 John 4:20

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

'Speaking the truth in Love is essential'. (44).

Blackburn describes consequentialism which relates to ideas of the end justifying the means.

The view that the value of an action derives entirely from the value of its consequences. This contrasts both with the view that the value of an action may derive from the value of the kind of character whose action is (courageous, just, temperate, etc.), and with the view that its value may be intrinsic, belonging to to it as simply as truth-telling, promise-keeping, etc. (77).

The former would be virtue ethics and the latter would be deontological ethics. (77).

Consequentialism is not a New Testament ethic.

Deontology based on concepts of human duty, or what is right, or rights. (100). Virtue ethics takes the notion of virtue within ethics as primary. (394). This as opposed to views which look for a pragmatic good (paraphrased). (394).

New Testament Christian ethics and morality have the most in common here with virtue ethics and also to a lesser extent, deontological ethics. The Christian should always seek virtue, and what is right, but human duty and human rights with deontological ethics are not always as important as human virtue. For example, one has the legal right to be an adulterer, but virtue should prohibit it. Deontology may at times be more concerned with 'moral norms' whereas a Christian ethic, equated with some type of virtue ethic, views ethics as eternally being derived from the eternal, infinite God.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

John Calvin on the forge of idols: Problems of evil and suffering

Travel Twitter, Etretat, France

John Calvin on the forge of idols

CALVIN, JOHN (1509-1564), The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), Beveridge, Henry (Translator), R Public Domain.

Cited

1.11.8

'Hence we may infer, that the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols.'

It has also been translated as:

'Man's nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols....' (And like).

In other words, idolatry is a universal human problem and a continual human problem.

From Browning:

In the Hebrew Bible context, idolatry involved the cult of worshipping a statue of a god or goddess. (181).

Exodus 20:4-6

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

4 “You shall not make for yourself [a]an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Footnotes:

Exodus 20:4 Or a graven image

The second commandment.

Browning reasons that in the New Testament context the Apostle Paul reminds readers in 1 Corinthians 10, against idolatry in the form of possible 'civil ceremony.' (181). From 1 Corinthians 8, these idols are false entities, 'so-called gods' (181). Browning then mentions Colossians 3: 5 in the context of idolatry used in a metaphorical context (181) as in evil desires:

Colossians 3:5

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 Therefore [a]consider the members of your earthly body as dead to [b]immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which [c]amounts to idolatry.

Footnotes:

Colossians 3:5 Lit put to death the members which are upon the earth
Colossians 3:5 Lit fornication
Colossians 3:5 Lit is

The Calvin quote is of a metaphorical usage. It is profoundly true.

The metaphorical use is often the critique idolatry receives within the evangelical church. I am in agreement that this critique is often the correct one. I agree with the warnings from the Apostle Paul and John Calvin.

But I would caution that at times problems of evil and suffering are significantly negated when actual human needs, that perhaps God is not meeting at the time, within his holy and good plans, and purposes, are negated by the evangelical presenter. This in order to provide an evangelical Christian apologetic for God, in regard to problems of evil and suffering.

God meets human needs within his plans and purposes. This does not mean for example, that the blind person, does not actually need to have restored vision. Restored vision is more than simply a desire, it is a need based on human, ontological nature.

(Yes, I have had to counter an evangelical in church ministry, that made this type of argument)

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1509-1564), The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), Beveridge, Henry (Translator), R Public Domain.