Hi Clete. I think this an important discussion. I'd love to see it formally debated by two who are a bit more apt than you and I, and by that I mean I don't think we communicate as well to do it justice that I'd like to see. A one-on-one or Battle Royale would be excellent.
Thanks. A short history: I was on staff at a Christian school that imperialized this approach, so much so they adopted formal academic approaches that I disagreed with because to me, it worshipped man-made logic rather than God's logic. Because of this I disagree informally and in some respects formally, with those like Hawkins here. The gist is, this: I disagree with what most mean by logic. I have said that logic is the 'way' we apprehend truth, but it is also a description of the truth itself as 'logical.' My contention is mostly over 'the way we apprehend' truth rather than truth itself. Why? Specifically because we then prop up what we believe is a truth but that "isn't" logical. How do I know this? Because 1) it disagrees with scripture. 2) It disagrees with me, and while I don't prop up my own logical prowess, I rather believe Christ wants us to 'think' differently than the world. This too, is incredibly important and the main point in my 'logical' contention. Logic, imho, is best called 'life-application mathematics.' Logic apprehension, in simplification, is simply the mechanics of understanding a truth in the same way that mathematical function is used to ascertain numerical realities. Thanks for providing this, I've not debated you here, but I will address a rebuttal to Hawkins from here...
Again, and actually agreeing you you, Clete, and against Hawkins:
Only God is logical (always right, always true).
While we all can do math, we all have missed problems. That means, necessarily, we cannot be the ones who assert what is mathematically correct all the time. As I said, logic is verbal mathematics. It is the way we quantify ideas. When then are 'mathematical' but not the standard of math. I most often find that one isn't comprehending the objection when they write a paper like this. In teaching there is a difference between rote didactic and guided learning. One seeks to have the student led to truth. It is a better way at getting students to right answers because they internalize and value what they are learning rather than being 'told' and memorizing the answer that they may or may not comprehend.
This isn't true, because here Hawkins is talking about 'apprehension' and it can be different from individual to individual.
Example: As a math teacher, I instruct students to use 4 cubes and separate them into two piles. Some students, will make a pile of one and another of three. Some will make two and two. I then ask them to write a mathematical equation for what they are observing.
First of all, the kids who only have one in a pile, I may choose to correct. It is generally not a pile to have one by itself, so any 1-3 combination may be expressed mathematically wrong. Note that they are still being 'mathematical' but mathematics
cannot solve the problem for them. Similarly, not all life answers can be solved logically because the problem is that logic (the process and rules for thinking and apprehending truth) may not contain the necessary information. In this case, revelation isn't logically attainable. While 'helicopters' might be what locusts mean in Revelation, it isn't the by any necessity the answer. In fact, I have this knowledge of locusts and I cannot have this knowledge logically. That is, I have no reasoned way for apprehending what I know. Why then do I say I 'know' it? Because God, who is the actuator of all truth, had John the Apostle write it down. So, I have this knowledge of something and yet, no logical way of attaining this knowledge other than as revelation. It makes no sense to me, but I've no doubt as to it being important, and from God.
That isn't the disagreement, but rather it's place in all things. It is not the only way I know things. As stated earlier, you can be dictated a truth, without grasping why it is true, and you can 'learn' (logically apprehend) a truth. Both are valid forms of grasping what is true. I cannot, however, logically tell you why we will be like Jesus when we see Him face to face (1 John 3:2).
I disagree. "Because I said so" is authority behind believing/apprehending something also. I'm not sure all the ways we apprehend truth, but Logic isn't the only one. Now he may suggest that we yet employ logic, and I agree, but most importantly, it is the way we apprehended that truth. In other words, we interact with truth logically, but may not always apprehend it that way. So, Logic has its limitations on what it can and cannot actuate. I am not against logic, I am simply saying 'my/your way of apprehending' (Logic: pattern for apprehension) an idea may 1) be wrong and 2) apprehend the wrong thing, yet we'd think we were right and the blame would be against what we believed logical.
Craig S. Hawkins said:
First, the primary principles or laws of logic are first principles of epistemology. There is no getting "behind" or "around them." They are axiomatic or self-evident. That is, we cannot not use them (see points 2 and 3 below). Peter Angeles states, among other things, that first principles are "Statements (laws, reasons, rules) that are self-evident and/or fundamental to the explanation of a system and upon which the system depends for consistency and coherence."(5)
And I believe I've shown him incorrect here. He is 'generally' right but the exceptions are important.
Exactly why truth is relative in this day and age. God necessarily is truth without our finite ability grasp Him in logic. He is beyond the realms of this universe, so beyond math and beyond the way we grasp what is logical. How else could God NOT think like we think, as He says? It wouldn't be 'logically' possible (and it isn't, thus expresses the limitation of math and logic).
Again, logic allows us to ascertain a lot of truth, just not all of it. We aren't arguing against math or against logic in and of itself, we are arguing regarding its parameters and apprehension. For instance, tell a computer to extrapolate exponentially for a thousand years an equation that doubles as it progresses and it 'cannot' tell you what the number will be today, nor could it or we comprehend it (it is too large). Now we may say the answer is logical, but we say we
cannot logically apprehend it or express it.
This expresses, however, our use of logic having parameters/limitations, not that the issues themselves don't have answers. For instance: Noah's ark couldn't possibly - logically - numerically; have contained all the animals (law of noncontradiction right?). No numerical or logical answer can explain an impossibility. I logically/numerically cannot tell you why I believe Noah's ark existed. My faith is logical/rational, but my answer to this question is based on other truths for my accepting it. I cannot logically tell you why Noah's ark is possible, just logically why it exists. Logic, therefore, has limitations of what it can express. I am not anti-logic. I am just against saying it is the only we apprehend truth.
Not true. I can value something simply because God values it, without apprehending logically, what is inherent to its value.
Again, we aren't denying the use of logic regarding any particular truth, we are denying that logic is the only employ for apprehending the truth in the first place OR that it can give a sufficient answer why a thing is true. "It is true because God said it is true" does not allow for the logical apprehension of said truth.
We are not denying logic as an employment. We are arguing that it is the sole means for apprehension or discussion. I'm going to quit interjecting as much here, because I think one can use my objections and examples to make sense of both agreements and disagreements wit the rest of Hawkins' paper.
Quick comment: Not for my schizophrenic uncle. Question: Does he have to be 'cogent' (logical) to be saved????
Perspective is important, however. For instance: You have two apples in one hand, and two in the other. How many do you have?
I will accept both "4" and "None" for correct answers. Logically, both can exist beside the other. Necessarily, I don't think Hawkins is being entirely logical, depending on the parameters of the truth he is trying to express. Sometimes, simply saying 'logic' conveys only a strict sense of apprehension rules where both or either "4" or "none" are the better answer. Logic, in this case, doesn't give the only answer and only direction rather than logic, can give the right answer. IOW, the redirection is the cause of the correct answer this time. This is why I see God as the only actuator of truth and reality. We may come up with laws that help us apprehend what we are seeing, and do so consistently, but we have to be careful that we aren't imperializing our system over God, especially where our system isn't capable of giving reason for a direction from God.
Uh oh :think: "Not used?" I think he's just hurt his whole paper!
A long article to be sure. I generally think when we are arguing about what is logical, it is rather against another's employment.
My first analogy was about separating 4 cubes and writing a mathematical expression. The ensuing class project will have 2 or 4 as the answer. The kids could argue which is the right answer and both are being logical. Both answers are 100% Correct and are graded that way in guided math. The problem, again, is that logic doesn't give the definitive answer when both 2 and 4 are the correct answers. We'd say that logic couldn't be contradictory. In a way, that's correct, but Hawkins' grasp and appreciation for logic says that if it is contradictory, both can't be true. It is, however. It isn't the 'answer' that math is apprehending rightly here. It is the values of 2, 2, and 4 (or with variations of 1).
Sometimes we can logically figure out the difference between correct answers but as in the case of Revelation, we know there is a multi-headed dragon. We do not apprehend it logically, however. We can employ logic to hold on to the concept, but we've no way to figure it out and I don't believe God gave it to us for that specific reason. One who is thinking logical may insist it is a symbol for governments, or spiritual principalities, or... I don't think that's a logical given. I do agree my saying that is logical but Hawkins doesn't seem to get the limitation of logic in this discussion. It doesn't apply to the subject matter but indirectly.
