Logical Consternation
How many times have you heard a debate. One speaker sounds so good, it can’t be helped but to think he must be right, until his opponent stands up...and now it’s not such a sure thing, he also sounds so good. The first had such great arguments, until his opponent stood up and blew them away. But then what if there was a third speaker? Is it the last one to speak that wins a debate?
Logic class in college taught me a lot of helpful things. It taught me better ways to think. Studying it taught me how to dissect an argument. How to spot logical fallacies and how to formulate arguments myself. It taught me what to look for, and how to spot illogical arguments:
A slippery slope fallacy is when the argument is made allowing ‘x’ will inevitably lead to ‘y’ when there is no necessary connection between ‘x’ happening and ‘y’ following. A straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent a persons arguments then discredit the argument you just misrepresented. To have the conclusion be the same as the evidence for the conclusion is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove something just by saying it is true, that is begging the question. An ad hominem is when you attack the person rather than the argument. It discredits the person while discrediting the person has nothing to do with the person’s argument.
But logic didn’t just teach me about arguments and bad arguments, It also taught me about language. For as Michael Bauman says, “Sloppy language makes sloppy thought possible.” I have had some fun with this. A amphibole is a poorly worded statement that can be understood in two different ways. For instance, “What do you lack that He has not given to you?” “I need a hand to fix this clock.” “I broke the window with my sister.” A laugh can be made in saying some of these, but in honest conversation it can make a fool out of the one who writes it.
Learning about logic has made me smarter than the boy I was, and has brought a smile to my face, but it has also taught me something that makes me cringe. Subtlety. Fancy language that sounds great, but is a double-standard. This subtlety has been found at the heart of many of that which brings me to tempered anger and frustration.
They are arguments that on the outside sound profound and acceptable, but when they are looked at closely end in a contradiction.
There is an element in logic that says if you have a proposition that claims a certain conclusion, it must not end in a contradiction. It is called ‘reductio ad absurdum’, reduction to absurdity. You cannot have something be both proposition “A” and not proposition “A” at the same time, that is absurd.
I wish I could count how many times I have heard the mantra “There is no absolute truth.” It is a part of today’s culture it seems. Though, in honesty, not many really put a lot of stock in it, at the same time they cannot argue against it. It seems like a simple contradiction in terms but it is so prevalent many people are afraid to stand up to it.
The argument can go many ways, when you hear attempts to claim there is no absolute truth. It may go that not everyone agrees, so who are we to decide who is right and who is wrong. Or it may go that we can never be certain of the truth, so truth cannot be helpful to us, we must make of it what we want. Or perhaps that truth is a construct of the mind, an illusion in a senseless, naturalistic world.
These sound so philosophical, deep problematic statements about truth. Can they be right? I am going to ask a different question. Can it be logical? Is it or is it not a contradiction?
The very statement “There is no absolute truth” is an absolute statement. If the statement is false, then it is false. If it is true, then it is false. I wish to emphasize this: If there is no absolute truth - if that statement is true - then there must by necessity be at least one absolute, that there are no absolutes. There cannot be one and none at the same time. If it is false, then it is false. If it is true, then it is false. There is a contradiction.
It strikes me that when a proponent says there is no absolute truth, if he truly believes that, then his belief undermines everything he has to say because none of what he says could be true. Or in the least his belief makes his statement futile since if he is right in his belief then truth is what you make of it and if I make my truth to be absolute, he has no logical ground to argue against my truth. It is backwards and illogical to say that there is no absolute truth.
Please do not allow fancy talkers to come and confuse you into believing a contradiction, shift through every argument and statement, mine included. Test it, look at the presuppositions, look deeper, study it, come to an agreement with it or discard it like yesterdays trash.
Keep it with an open hand and an open mind, but also keep in mind what G. K. Chesterton once said, “Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth is to shut it again on something solid.” Truth is absolute. What you believe is the truth may not be. We must all choose wisely.
Jared Williams
Logic class in college taught me a lot of helpful things. It taught me better ways to think. Studying it taught me how to dissect an argument. How to spot logical fallacies and how to formulate arguments myself. It taught me what to look for, and how to spot illogical arguments:
A slippery slope fallacy is when the argument is made allowing ‘x’ will inevitably lead to ‘y’ when there is no necessary connection between ‘x’ happening and ‘y’ following. A straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent a persons arguments then discredit the argument you just misrepresented. To have the conclusion be the same as the evidence for the conclusion is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove something just by saying it is true, that is begging the question. An ad hominem is when you attack the person rather than the argument. It discredits the person while discrediting the person has nothing to do with the person’s argument.
But logic didn’t just teach me about arguments and bad arguments, It also taught me about language. For as Michael Bauman says, “Sloppy language makes sloppy thought possible.” I have had some fun with this. A amphibole is a poorly worded statement that can be understood in two different ways. For instance, “What do you lack that He has not given to you?” “I need a hand to fix this clock.” “I broke the window with my sister.” A laugh can be made in saying some of these, but in honest conversation it can make a fool out of the one who writes it.
Learning about logic has made me smarter than the boy I was, and has brought a smile to my face, but it has also taught me something that makes me cringe. Subtlety. Fancy language that sounds great, but is a double-standard. This subtlety has been found at the heart of many of that which brings me to tempered anger and frustration.
They are arguments that on the outside sound profound and acceptable, but when they are looked at closely end in a contradiction.
There is an element in logic that says if you have a proposition that claims a certain conclusion, it must not end in a contradiction. It is called ‘reductio ad absurdum’, reduction to absurdity. You cannot have something be both proposition “A” and not proposition “A” at the same time, that is absurd.
I wish I could count how many times I have heard the mantra “There is no absolute truth.” It is a part of today’s culture it seems. Though, in honesty, not many really put a lot of stock in it, at the same time they cannot argue against it. It seems like a simple contradiction in terms but it is so prevalent many people are afraid to stand up to it.
The argument can go many ways, when you hear attempts to claim there is no absolute truth. It may go that not everyone agrees, so who are we to decide who is right and who is wrong. Or it may go that we can never be certain of the truth, so truth cannot be helpful to us, we must make of it what we want. Or perhaps that truth is a construct of the mind, an illusion in a senseless, naturalistic world.
These sound so philosophical, deep problematic statements about truth. Can they be right? I am going to ask a different question. Can it be logical? Is it or is it not a contradiction?
The very statement “There is no absolute truth” is an absolute statement. If the statement is false, then it is false. If it is true, then it is false. I wish to emphasize this: If there is no absolute truth - if that statement is true - then there must by necessity be at least one absolute, that there are no absolutes. There cannot be one and none at the same time. If it is false, then it is false. If it is true, then it is false. There is a contradiction.
It strikes me that when a proponent says there is no absolute truth, if he truly believes that, then his belief undermines everything he has to say because none of what he says could be true. Or in the least his belief makes his statement futile since if he is right in his belief then truth is what you make of it and if I make my truth to be absolute, he has no logical ground to argue against my truth. It is backwards and illogical to say that there is no absolute truth.
Please do not allow fancy talkers to come and confuse you into believing a contradiction, shift through every argument and statement, mine included. Test it, look at the presuppositions, look deeper, study it, come to an agreement with it or discard it like yesterdays trash.
Keep it with an open hand and an open mind, but also keep in mind what G. K. Chesterton once said, “Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth is to shut it again on something solid.” Truth is absolute. What you believe is the truth may not be. We must all choose wisely.
Jared Williams
