 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
 The Logic of Logic |
Posted Jan 17, 2007; 2:10 pm |
|
The following is an exchange that developed from 2 articles written in the Herald [“People of the Logic” (Intersection, Oct. 13)] and [“On the other hand” (Intersection, Nov. 3)]. Hopefully it is both enjoyable and enlightening.
James
James’ Reply to the Logic Articles Letters-
I am always thankful for intelligent thoughtful comments and challenges and the following 3 letters each deserve a response. Since there is some overlap I will give my response to all 3 so that the overlapping questions and answers don’t have to be repeated.
Unpacking “logos” is a bigger idea that can be fully explored in a 750 word article- so I expect that there would be a few bundles of questions and extensions to the idea. Finding effective ways to carry on a dialogue is our challenge.
By way of introduction let me first say this-
1. stating that “logos” is the root word of “logic” is not controversial or innovative but because almost all translations have rendered “logos” as “word” when we replace [where appropriate] “word” by “logic” our senilities are jarred. This is a translation problem- it is not a problem for my argument. “logos” means something- “word” does not. My thesis is- that this is unfortunate. We have lost something. A counter argument to my article could be a defense of the use of “word” instead “logic.”
2. I don’t see any difference between the Greek or Biblical understanding of “logos” and our understanding of “logic” unless we chose to restrict our understanding of “logic” to mathematical equations or simplistic syllogisms rather than the principles that underlie these. My Bible dictionary explanation of logos is as follows-
“A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around
600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.”
Wikipedia gives this explanation-
“In ancient philosophy, Logos was used by Heraclitus, one of the most eminent Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, to describe the inherent order in the universe and the knowledge men had of each other in Greek society. Logos in Greek means the underlying order of reality of which ordinary people are only unconsciously aware.”
In my opinion both explanations are good and agree.
3. The hook to my thesis is “Does the Bible encourage God’s people to embrace reason and logic rather than mystery and intuition?” I would say that reason is our endeavor to apply logic. The ultimate definition of logic is not as easy to nail down as it might appear at first- but I have raised a juxtaposition and the challenge to my readers is to examine this Biblically. I had intended this contrast to help clarify my understanding of reason and logic within the article. I intentionally did not contrast reason and logic with faith because I think that would be a false juxtaposition. For the record however I do believe that mystery and intuition [and emotions] have wrongly been linked to faith. As a matter of fact based on reason’s linkage to “logos” I would say that it is also linked to faith in a way that mystery and intuition are not. The linkage between faith and reason however is a huge topic in itself.
The Letters-
Not so logical
Re “People of the Logic” (Intersection, Oct. 13). I have enjoyed James Toews’ insights and contributions to the Herald. But I was surprised when he argued that the word logos would have given support to Christianity embracing reason and logic as the primary guide to religious truth. John the evangelist would have inserted logos in his prologue and received the opposite reaction from those reading the Gospel for the first time.
With the rich philosophical background of logos in Hellenistic and Jewish thinking, who would have thought it logical that the “divine spark” would succumb to flesh, the clothing of earth dwellers? The incarnation would have been an intellectual stretch, illogical, and outright scandalous. Somewhere in this must be a lesson for retelling the gospel to our postmodern culture.
Vic Ratzlaff,
Allanburg, Ont.
Thanks, Vic but I think that what I am saying was understood by the early Christians- but it is we who have lost its meaning. I believe that the matter of the scandal of the gospel that Paul talks about [1Cor 1:23 ‘foolishness’] refers to the specifically Greek separation of the divine and material worlds. How could a God become flesh? This did indeed defy what some Greeks considered “logical” but it only illustrates that not everything we think is logical at a given moment in time is indeed so. It does not undermine the definitions of logos given above. You will note, however that in 1 Cor 1 that the Greek and Jewish world views had different problems with the matter of the incarnation.
For me, the lesson of the logos to our culture is that the abandonment of “logic” for post-modern alternatives is a terrible mistake. In previous generations “logic” was abandoned for magic or mysticism. In my less generous moments I would characterize post-modernism as abandoning logic for nonsense :)
Bridging science and religion
Re “People of the Logic” (Intersection, Oct. 13). The perception persists that faith and logic, church and science, are incompatible. Upon first reading James Toews’ article, I got a bit excited. At last, here was someone willing to tackle the strain between logic and faith; and by extension, the conflict between science and religion.
Toews concurs with Rodney Stark. However, Stark uses the term “logic” as “reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity,” which stems from the Greeks’ attempt to come to grips with the natural order. Toews uses the term in a faith context. Though a Greek word – and no doubt still carrying some of the Greek meaning – logos in the New Testament is a proclamation of God’s creation, sovereignty, and salvation. Christ is the logos; the gospel is the logos.
If Toews wants to identify with Stark’s conclusion of Christianity’s effect on the history of this world – and I think he should – he must bridge the two perceptions: the Greek understanding of logic as rooted in the natural order, and the biblical, faith-based understanding of logic. In his article, Toews doesn’t achieve this. Is it possible? I believe it has to be. The Bible is God’s Word (logos); science is a description of natural order, God’s creation. The two cannot disagree. If there are disagreements between Christian theologies and scientific theories, they’re rooted in an inadequate understanding of one or the other – most probably both.
Any chance of further discussion bridging the two logics?
Henry Bergen,
Winnipeg, Man.
Thanks, Henry. I just finished reading “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and very thoughtful Christian. I hope to write an article on the question of science and faith- maybe you will get excited again. Read that book- I think it is long overdue. I will have some more thoughts about this.
Just to clarify- the logos part of the argument was not Stark’s. I think his thesis is interesting and it attempts to be historical but it is not theological. However I don’t have a problem with Stark’s definition of logic- even though I didn’t use it- I used the definitions given above.
Just a thought for you to consider though- is the Bible “logos/word” or Scripture? I have an extremely conservative view of Scripture as the very “words” of God- but I think that the conflation of “logos” and “Scripture” is not Biblical. Check it out for yourself by reinserting “logic” whenever “logos” appears in the NT. “logos” as I am sure you know- “logos” is not the only Greek word we have rendered as “word.” I am not a scholar but I think that the linkage between “logos/word” and Scripture comes from the Hebrew where such a linkage is justified [see Ps 119].
Perplexing articles
Re “People of the Logic” (Intersection, Oct. 13), “On the other hand” (Intersection, Nov. 3). I was intrigued and bewildered by James Toews’ two related articles. He concludes that the “In the beginning was the Word” in John 1:1 translates as “In the beginning was logic and reason.” Toews infers that this is cerebral logic and reason, rather than logic and reason superimposed by the gift of faith- to know God beyond the capacity to understand him. He concludes his first article by suggesting that reason is indispensable to faith. This feels like an attempt to own God through understanding.
In the second article, Toews refers to the issue of little children and the gospel message. He doesn’t say that perhaps children can assimilate the gospel because logic and reason don’t yet get in the way of their faith. Toews observes that God’s logic goes far beyond human logic. However, he ends by saying that everyone can receive this logic by obeying the biblical exhortation, “ Whoever has ears, let them hear.” This is perplexing.
Perhaps more clarification is necessary. And perhaps Toews could include biblical examples where reasoning seems to be an obstacle to knowing God, even as far back as the Garden of Eden.
Jake Janzen
Abbotsford, B.C.
Thanks for the letter, Jake. I can see why you might think I said, “In the beginning was logic and reason” but I did not- I implied that John 1:1 reads, “In the beginning was logic . . . ” Stark used the word “reason” in his argument, which I found very interesting. I explored the concept of “logos.” I also would not have used the word “cerebral logic” because that necessarily limits logic to what our tiny brains can process. “logos” goes far beyond this. You are very astute in observing that I did not say that children’s ability to “assimilate the gospel [is] because logic and reason don’t yet get in the way of their faith.”
I hope all my readers got that point. My case is that “logos” is “logic” but that this logic is both comprehensible to children and hidden from the brilliant. I find this thought exhilarating and truly an example of the “up-side-down” Kingdom of God. This teaching of Jesus will always challenge us and beg for clarification- so that’s what we will try to do.
Regarding examples where logic is an obstacle to knowing God- you will have to provide those. I can’t think of any. I only find the opposite especially when Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan’s nonsense rather than God’s logic. What “reasons” did they have for believing an interloper’s rationalization rather than God’s explanation?
I doubt that this is the end of the discussion but hopefully it does move us forward. Thanks for your letters.
Blessings
James
(Edited to add links. --Marshall) |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jan 17, 2007; 2:52 pm |
|
James, I like what you said about the origins of the word "logos". I think it makes a lot of sense in the context of the introduction to John's gospel. As you suggested, finding the right word to translate the meaning is lacking, but I see where you are going with that. In Genesis 1, we have an image of chaos in verse 2 (my understanding is that the peoples back in the days of the writing of Genesis equated "waters" with chaos). Through the 6 day creation period, God is bringing order and functionality to it. I find that the definition of "logos" you sited above seems to fit well with the theme of bringing order to the world, and connects well with the Genesis creation account.
When I read your article, I was thinking of "logic" in terms of reasoning and argumentation. Now I realize that the more appropriate definition is one where you would say "there is a certain logic to ...", which would be a closer fit to the correct definition, and it has an implication of order. I wonder if you might be equivocating the two definitions in your article. Also the logos in John is Christ, a person. What I take from that is that Christ is the one who brings order and purpose to this world. IOW, he brings a certain logic to this world. What I don't take from the passage is that Christians ought to be brighter intellectually, to deeply investigate what we believe and how we think. I do agree those things should be pursued (and is currently inadequate in my opinion), but I'm not sure it is the correct interpretation of the passage.
----
By the way, I also read Francis Collins' book, and I have a deep respect for him, especially his insight into biology and the DNA code. I share his views in evolution, but I wonder sometimes if he uses a "god of the gaps" type of reasoning when it comes to the existence of our moral conscience. Not that I discard his argument entirely, though. He also says a lot of good and logical things about the relationship between science and faith.
Anyway, look forward to reading any upcoming articles. And feel free to pop by too to discuss them. |
|
|
|
| messenger Former Member Joined Jan 9, 2007 366 posts |
| |
Posted Jan 17, 2007; 3:14 pm |
|
| James - I didn't get a chance to catch those articles with regard to the word logic. I'm taking it that you are referring to the first chapter of the gospel of John. It makes sense because Jesus Christ is logic and He became flesh. Since Christianity is a religion that has been instituted by man and it has within its ranks so many variations which are based on that logic. What I mean is that Christianity is subject to the carnal nature of man whereas Christ being logic would not be subject to carnality. So with what I think is being said here that if Christ is "logic" than it is probably better to embrace Him rather than something only based on Him as logic. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
|
|
|
| messenger Former Member Joined Jan 9, 2007 366 posts |
| |
Posted Jan 17, 2007; 9:35 pm |
|
| Thanks Todd. |
|
|
|
| Henry Bergen Member Joined Apr 21, 2007 7 posts |
| Logic - playing with words |
Posted May 2, 2007; 9:06 am |
|
Thanks for your reply, James. Goethe's 'Faust' too had trouble translating John's 'logic'. He settled on 'deed' rather than word. The Theological Dictionary gives a wide range of shadings of meaning. So I'm not realy concerned with the historical nuances of the term. My concern is the relation of science, Science, and Faith. I'm not a scholar either. Some years ago I took a course in History of Science. The lecturer had some considerable problem with church/science relations, blaming the demise of the 'Greek spirit of inquiry' (about 300 BC) on Christianity (not really influential till about 300 AD). The church/Galileo affair got considerable attention too. That raised my gall. But if I was ever going to be able to answer that, I'd have to know a bit about science. So I started reading - read little else for the next ten-plus years. Science fascinates me. But I fear that we have failed in several respects. We have failed to differentiate between science as a description of nature, and Science as a fundamental belief system, a religion. Nature is God's creation as much as the Bible is God's word, and believers have failed to delve into creation deep enough. We have allowed the 'opposition' to controll the discussion agenda because of our lack of knowledge of God's creation. The Creationist and Evolutionist debates, as far as I can see, though they may be important, are symptoms of the underlying religion, not the central issue. We need to become more aware of this problem and not allow it to creep into our faith.
I'm rather computer illiterate. This is my fourth try to get through - hope this makes it. The previous efforts are lost somwhere in cyberspace. I'm looking forward to seeing more of you in print. Henry |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted May 2, 2007; 9:48 am |
|
Hi Henry,
Probably the more technical term for what you call "Science" (in contrast to "science") is Philosophical Naturalism, which suggests that nature is all there is. Methodological Naturalism (similar to what you call "science") doesn't make the assumption that nature is all there is, but our observations under methodological naturalism are assumed to be natural.
I think science is built on the assumption of methodological naturalism as we can't really put God in a test tube for empirical observation. Some scientists are shifting from methodological naturalism to philosphical naturalism, but I believe in doing so, they aren't speaking in a scientific capacity, as I don't think philosophical naturalism is a scientific concept, and is more analogous to a religious concept (they don't like the suggestion that they are religious, so I won't say so directly).
I think science ought to be done under the premise of methodological naturalism. There are other Christians who disagree with me, that science shouldn't make naturalistic assumptions, but I believe it to be an appropriate middle ground. I don't think science and faith should be completely separated, but I would prefer to see a relationship between science and faith, where science informs our faith, and faith informs how we think about scientific discovery.
Todd |
|
|
|
| Larry E Member Joined Feb 8, 2006 61 posts Location: Medicine Hat |
| Logic |
Posted May 4, 2007; 8:19 am |
|
| Quote: | The Creationist and Evolutionist debates, as far as I can see, though they may be important, are symptoms of the underlying religion, not the central issue. We need to become more aware of this problem and not allow it to creep into our faith.
|
Henry, you made the above statement, and I for one would be interested to hear more about "this problem", from your perspective. |
|
|
|
| Henry Bergen Member Joined Apr 21, 2007 7 posts |
| Science (capital S) vs science |
Posted May 4, 2007; 11:41 am |
|
Hello, Tod,
Yes and No. Yes, you are right, Science (S) does not really cover what I want to say. No, philosophical and methodological naturalism do not either. Let me try an explanation - and answer Larry's question too. Science (S) is a belief sustem that oparates with its own distinct theology. Now, theology again is not the right term. Its central tenet is the existance of a god, God. The central tenet of Science as religion is man. So let me call tha 'anthrotheology'. Though not formalized, anthrotheology permeates science and influences much of our thinking. Take the slogan from philosophy: Man is the measure of all things. This is very much true in Science. In theology we accept revelation as a source of knowledge from outside ourselves; in anthrotheology man is the source. One basic concept is the 'observer based reality'; what the obsrver sees that is real. We begin in primary school to teach our children that what can be established by experiment is true, everything else, e.g., faith in God, is suspect. Closely related to that is relativity: all things are relative. It is as obvious as one car passing another that relativity is true. However, that perception is not differentiated from moral relativity. Because science (s), together with technology - mostly not differentiated - has been so fantastically successful, anything call 'science' goes. This leads to a faith that science can/will solve all problems; we don't need a God. It also leads to the 'faith' that Science will find the answers to the ultimate questions of our origin and existance. Not least of these beliefs is the idea that "the laws of mathematics . . . cannot be broken." (Nicky Gumble) Such concepts lead physisists like Leonard Susskind to say: "What physisists . . . mean by the term exist is that the object in question can exist theoreticlly." And theoreticlly means mathematically. Logic, the basis of mathematics, is a product of man's mind. So man is the observer, and reality is referenced to himself.
Another concern: The world is God's creation as much as the Bible is God's revelation. And science (s) is a description of that creation, nature. We need to be aware of the two aspects of science, S and s. Sadly, Christianity has not studied God's creation as diligently as His revelation. Hence Science has dominated the agenda of the debate between science and faith. We need to rectify that.
Henry |
|
|
|
| Henry Bergen Member Joined Apr 21, 2007 7 posts |
| |
Posted May 15, 2007; 8:36 am |
|
Hi, Larry
I've been looking for a response to my last contribution. Have I scared people off? Were those ideas too condensed or are you writing me off as a 'crackpot' philosopher of science?
That term I used, 'anthrotheology', would feel better on the tongue as 'homotheology'. It probably would also be closer to our understanding of 'homo' as tied to humanity. The 'fall' in Eden, and the experience of Babel speak of the same problem. In modern science they speak of the 'anthropic principle', especially the strong form. That gives purpose, man's existance, for the 'fine tuning' found in nature that makes our presence in the world possible. Henry |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted May 15, 2007; 10:08 am |
|
Hi Henry,
I've been away, and was unable to respond.
1)"faith in God is suspect" - I don't remember learning this in primary school. I'm having trouble believing this is true as a generalization.
2)"all things are relative...that perception is not differentiated from moral relativity." I know very very few people (actually noone) who believe in moral relativity. Such things need more nuance. There are people who believe that certain choices are morally subjective. Very few people believe that killing arbitrariliy is morally relative. I also have never heard anyone suggest moral relativity as a conclusion of science.
3)I'm missing your point in regards to the strong anthropic principle as giving purpose. To me it is the opposite. However, I do think I understand the connection between SAP and your "anthrotheology". |
|
|
|
| Henry Bergen Member Joined Apr 21, 2007 7 posts |
| The logic |
Posted May 19, 2007; 8:32 pm |
|
Hi Todd,
Welcome back. I guess we don't have the same friends nor read the same books. And as F. C. Peters used to say: We don't have the same apperceptive mass. With reference to your last posting:
1) Science demands proof - any concept not subject to proof is suspect. Belief in God - faith - is not subject to proof - hence suspect.
2) Being "morally sujective" is maral relativity. On being asked what she considered to be true, my grade nine niece replied, "What I belive it to be." In other words, truth is relative to her own whims and perceptions. That is taught in schools. It may not be a conclusion of science, but it comes straight from relativity in physics. You suggest that "Very few people believe that killing people arbitrarily is morally realtive." You are taking an extreme example. There are an awfull lot of questions of morality/immorality aside from killing. Besides, except for your use of the term "arbitrarily", the morality of killing is very relative. Some would consider all killing immoral; others think some killing to be a holy duty. You cannot cover all questions of morality by selecting a very extreme example.
3) The strong anthropic principle has various interpretations. Some scientists believe that the fantastic fine tuning of some of the constants of nature cannot arise randomly. This fin tuning exists for the express purpose of allowing life - and man - to evolve in the universe as a whole, and on earth in particular. This fine tuning, acording to them, requires a universal intelligence - but not God. |
|
|
|
| Henry Bergen Member Joined Apr 21, 2007 7 posts |
| the Logi |
Posted May 19, 2007; 8:41 pm |
|
P.S. to my last post
Two postings back I used the term 'anthrotheology'. Now I'd prefer the term 'homotheology'. It's easier on the tongue, and generally closer to our thinking about man. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: The logic |
Posted May 19, 2007; 10:13 pm |
|
| Henry Bergen wrote: | Hi Todd,
Welcome back. I guess we don't have the same friends nor read the same books. And as F. C. Peters used to say: We don't have the same apperceptive mass. |
I think our lack of consistent perceptions is likely to make this a short discussion. | Quote: | With reference to your last posting:
1) Science demands proof - any concept not subject to proof is suspect. Belief in God - faith - is not subject to proof - hence suspect. |
My perception is somewhat different.
| Quote: | | 2) Being "morally sujective" is maral relativity. On being asked what she considered to be true, my grade nine niece replied, "What I belive it to be." In other words, truth is relative to her own whims and perceptions. That is taught in schools. It may not be a conclusion of science, but it comes straight from relativity in physics. You suggest that "Very few people believe that killing people arbitrarily is morally realtive." You are taking an extreme example. There are an awfull lot of questions of morality/immorality aside from killing. Besides, except for your use of the term "arbitrarily", the morality of killing is very relative. Some would consider all killing immoral; others think some killing to be a holy duty. You cannot cover all questions of morality by selecting a very extreme example. |
I'm only using an extreme example to illustrate that people don't really take moral relativity to its logical conclusion. "What's true for you may not be true for me" is confusing rhetoric, because a person is not meaning what he is saying. Underlying such a statement is the sense that we should be less judging of others and tolerant of there ways of doing things. But there are limitations to being non-judgmental and tolerant. To be fully non-judgmental and fully tolerant is very much an extreme that I think no sane person truly believes. Also the above statement isn't really talking about truth at all. Now, I might agree with you that people claim that truth is relative, but I don't think anyone (or very few people) really believe it.
Now regarding your niece's comment, if she is saying that truth is relative to each person's perspective, I think she probably is repeating something she's heard (as you suggest) but I don't think she really means what she is saying.
But maybe my exposure is different than others. I think if anyone from my actuarial profession were to suggest morals were relative, they'd be given "the look" by the other members.
| Quote: | | 3) The strong anthropic principle has various interpretations. Some scientists believe that the fantastic fine tuning of some of the constants of nature cannot arise randomly. This fin tuning exists for the express purpose of allowing life - and man - to evolve in the universe as a whole, and on earth in particular. This fine tuning, acording to them, requires a universal intelligence - but not God. |
Generally, most non-theistic scientists would give an explanation other than a universal intelligence to the perception of fine-tuning. Most theistic scientists would suggest that the fine-tuning points towards God's existence. Perhaps Einstein would fit your model as he was somewhat pantheistic leaning, but I don't think such a point of view is common amongst scientists today. Many of them are atheists who don't believe in any intelligent connection relating to origins of the universe. Some have multiverse explanations. Others believe in a perpetual expansion and contraction of this universe (I think this view is dying). Some thing there is some theory of everything that would explain why the constants must be as they are. |
|
|
|
| Larry E Member Joined Feb 8, 2006 61 posts Location: Medicine Hat |
| Logic |
Posted May 20, 2007; 3:11 pm |
|
Sorry Henry I have not logged on for a while. Yes I agree with you that at least in the past we have tried to make science a religion. I have not seen the designation Science vs science to differentiate between a form of investigation and a religious belief system before, but I can work with that. I also think homo-theology is a good word to describe such self absorbed idol worship. Non-theistic scientists to me is a harder concept to grasp as everyone that I know, scientist or not, believe in "something". To try elevate science to be your god so it becomes Science is a good example of this substitute belief system. These two quotes from your posts, Henry and Todd, are examples of how we try to manufacture concepts to replace God so we do not need to acknowledge Him.
| Quote: | | Some thing there is some theory of everything that would explain why the constants must be as they are. |
| Quote: | | This fine tuning, acording to them, requires a universal intelligence - but not God. |
"Some theory of everything"? A "universal intellegence - but not God", who are they trying to kid? As a Christian I find this approach toward a quest for Truth, no matter what else you care to call it, illogical.
I really appreciated recently reading the book by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator and also read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe which was a reference in Lee Stobel's above mentioned book. The biochemical micro-machines outlined in these books, are in my opinion quite strong evidence for God. The scientists who do not believe in God, at best, are responding with: "We don't know"! Some as you mention Todd have proposed a multiuniverse theory but where is the evidence for that? I think these scientists, if they are not willing to acknowledge God, would be better off sticking with, "I don't know". |
|
|
|
|
|
