“A logical unity,” wrote Bertrand Russell, “is at once a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because it insures that whoever accepts one stage of the argument must accept all later stages. It is a weakness because whoever rejects any of the later stages must also reject some, at least, of the earlier stages.”
For my part, I reject the earlier stages of what’s written in the Old Testament, and I therefore cannot accept the later stages of what's written in the New Testament. It is as simple as that. Poch Suzara
1 comment:
An argument is logically valid if the conclusion follows from the premisses. The following is a valid argument:
* If a bank heist is in progress then Superman will come to foil it.
* The Central Bank is being looted (from the inside).
* Therefore, Superman will appear and put an end to it.
The argument is in the form known as modus ponens. Any argument of that form is valid.
Of course, whether the argument is sound is another matter altogether. For it be sound, all the premisses of the arguments must be true. Obviously, in our example above the first premiss is facetious and fictional. Therefore, while the argument is logically valid, it is not a sound one. Given an unsound argument the conclusion cannot be known to be true even if the logic is impeccable.
Therefore, theologians can have perfect logical arguments, but whatever their conclusions about their Superman may be, they are not warranted in declaring such inferences as true. Notwithstanding, these apologists will not cease to delude themselves.
Post a Comment