Logic is a
thoroughly and exclusively Christian concept. Logic, in and of itself, does not furnish us with “meaning” or “definitions”. Logic, in and of itself, is simply the way to communicate meaningful or truthful propositions (sentences) if one wishes to be meaningful (make sense, instead of non-sense). Logic, strictly speaking, is the science or study of how to evaluate
arguments and reasoning, separating truth from falsehood. Logic is the science of “necessary inference.” That is it. Nothing more, nothing less.
When we plug in things (meanings) to the terms (forms) of sentences, we do so on the basis that make sense (do not contradict ourselves). Follow so far?
So, with animals talking—what is, with the above definition of logic, illogical about an animal talking? Where does logic say, “Animals cannot talk”? On what basis? Clearly, none. What many confuse for “illogical” is really something we do not encounter on a regular basis, like talking animals. It is not “logical” or “illogical” if animals talk. It may be something we do not encounter, but that does not make it illogical. If the Bible said, “Animals can never talk”, and then we have a story of an animal talking, then we would have a logical problem (a contradiction). See what I mean?
So, God made the animals. We have witnessed the serpent talking. Balaam's ass talked and saw the angel. These are miraculous events, not often repeated. But, they are not illogical events. They do not contradict anything in the Scriptures. Now, if one said, “Knowledge is based on empirical observations, and according to all my observations, I have never seen an animal talk. Therefore, animals do not talk!”, then we would have a logical contradiction. But, upon what basis does one discount biblical miracles? See what I mean? Hope that helps. We honour God's Word by systematically understanding it so that it squares with the image of God we are made in so that we can communicate together, God and man, reasoning together, understanding each other together, and also, from reverence, understanding that we are always the creature, and He is the Creator. His attributes will always be higher than ours, but this does not mean that we cannot postulate logical statements concerning what He has revealed. It is honouring to God and honouring to His Word. I deem settling for paradox to be dishonouring both to God and to man.
Here are some examples of logic at work:
The study of fallacies is an important branch of logic. Within my blog entry Limited Atonement vs. Universalism, you will have seen logic used extensively. The problem is, most people do not study logic any more. They make illogical and silly statements without giving an ounce of intelligent thought to what they are saying. Within my blog entries on Exegeting Homosexuality, I answered some linguistic, etymological, and exegetical fallacies raised by homosexuals and homosexual advocates. From my experience, the three most often used fallacies are the Red Herring Fallacy (the introduction of irrelevant information into an argument, avoiding the question), the Straw Man Fallacy (changing or exaggerating an opponent's position in order to make it easier to refute), and the Ad Hominem Attack Fallacy (attacking an opponent's character or his motives for believing something instead of disproving his argument).
There is also something called the Genetic Fallacy, which is another personal attack fallacy. It is called "genetic" because it addresses the genesis—or beginning—of something. It attacks and condemns an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who began it (e.g., "Ew! Did you know flip-flops were invented by hippies?"). If an argument was made up by a bad person or came out of a bad historical event, it does not mean the argument is bad itself. This fallacy is often used by well-meaning Christians. However, a doctrine or theology is not false because of where it began, how it began, or who began it. A doctrine or theology is false based upon its own internal evidence. If it is self-contradicting or just a bunch of nonsense, then based on its own testimony in contrast to what the Bible teaches, it is false.
If you would like to learn more about the different kinds of logical fallacies, I suggest picking up a book called The Fallacy Detective by Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn. It will serve you well.
When we plug in things (meanings) to the terms (forms) of sentences, we do so on the basis that make sense (do not contradict ourselves). Follow so far?
So, with animals talking—what is, with the above definition of logic, illogical about an animal talking? Where does logic say, “Animals cannot talk”? On what basis? Clearly, none. What many confuse for “illogical” is really something we do not encounter on a regular basis, like talking animals. It is not “logical” or “illogical” if animals talk. It may be something we do not encounter, but that does not make it illogical. If the Bible said, “Animals can never talk”, and then we have a story of an animal talking, then we would have a logical problem (a contradiction). See what I mean?
So, God made the animals. We have witnessed the serpent talking. Balaam's ass talked and saw the angel. These are miraculous events, not often repeated. But, they are not illogical events. They do not contradict anything in the Scriptures. Now, if one said, “Knowledge is based on empirical observations, and according to all my observations, I have never seen an animal talk. Therefore, animals do not talk!”, then we would have a logical contradiction. But, upon what basis does one discount biblical miracles? See what I mean? Hope that helps. We honour God's Word by systematically understanding it so that it squares with the image of God we are made in so that we can communicate together, God and man, reasoning together, understanding each other together, and also, from reverence, understanding that we are always the creature, and He is the Creator. His attributes will always be higher than ours, but this does not mean that we cannot postulate logical statements concerning what He has revealed. It is honouring to God and honouring to His Word. I deem settling for paradox to be dishonouring both to God and to man.
Here are some examples of logic at work:
- When a person tells you, “You are judgmental”, remind them that they are judging you for being judgmental.
- When someone says, “You are intolerant”, inform them that they are not tolerating your intolerance.
- When the activist asks, “Don’t you want them to be happy?”, ask them if they want murderers or rapists to be happy murdering and raping.
- When the progressive demands, “They should just be allowed to marry whomever they love”, ask them if that is true for pedophiles.
- When the atheist huffs, “You use your Bible to prove your position”, remind them that they use reason and logic to prove reason and logic.
The study of fallacies is an important branch of logic. Within my blog entry Limited Atonement vs. Universalism, you will have seen logic used extensively. The problem is, most people do not study logic any more. They make illogical and silly statements without giving an ounce of intelligent thought to what they are saying. Within my blog entries on Exegeting Homosexuality, I answered some linguistic, etymological, and exegetical fallacies raised by homosexuals and homosexual advocates. From my experience, the three most often used fallacies are the Red Herring Fallacy (the introduction of irrelevant information into an argument, avoiding the question), the Straw Man Fallacy (changing or exaggerating an opponent's position in order to make it easier to refute), and the Ad Hominem Attack Fallacy (attacking an opponent's character or his motives for believing something instead of disproving his argument).
There is also something called the Genetic Fallacy, which is another personal attack fallacy. It is called "genetic" because it addresses the genesis—or beginning—of something. It attacks and condemns an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who began it (e.g., "Ew! Did you know flip-flops were invented by hippies?"). If an argument was made up by a bad person or came out of a bad historical event, it does not mean the argument is bad itself. This fallacy is often used by well-meaning Christians. However, a doctrine or theology is not false because of where it began, how it began, or who began it. A doctrine or theology is false based upon its own internal evidence. If it is self-contradicting or just a bunch of nonsense, then based on its own testimony in contrast to what the Bible teaches, it is false.
If you would like to learn more about the different kinds of logical fallacies, I suggest picking up a book called The Fallacy Detective by Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn. It will serve you well.