by
Roger Smalling,
D.Min
Logic is the application of the Law of Non-Contradictions
to two or more propositions.
It is the premise that a thing is what it is and is not
what it is not. A tree, for example, is a tree and is not a non-tree. A table
is a table, and is not a non-table.
This principle has been stated in a well-known
formula: A is not non-A. The letter ŇAÓ can stand for any statement
whatsoever. If a statement represented by the letter ŇAÓ is true, then the same
statement cannot be false under the same circumstances.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle was the first to state the
Law of Non-Contradictions in a formula. Other people before him thought about
logic but since he was the first formulate it, we refer to it as Aristotelian Logic. This does not mean,
however, that the Greeks invented logic. They merely formulated its laws in comprehendible
terms. After all, people were capable of logic before the Greeks.
No other kind of logic exists. This is provable by the
following considerations:
It is impossible to think about anything at all without
starting with the Law of Non-Contradiction. Any attempt to do so leads to insanity.
No other kind exists because reality exists. If we deny
that reality exists, we are already insane. The affirmation that reality is not
unreality, is simply the Law of Non-Contradictions as it relates to existence itself. Thus, the Law of Non-Contradictions is not something we apply to reality. It is something taken from reality itself. Therefore any attempt to escape the Law of Non-Contradictions is trying to escape reality. That is insanity.
All endeavors to invalidate Aristotelian logic must start
with Aristotelian logic. This is argues in circles. Those who attempt this,
ironically end up validating Aristotelian logic.
Any attempt to prove a superior logic, falls into the same
dilemma. A person must start with the Law of Non-Contradictions to think about anything at all, including logic
itself. By doing so, they default
to the absolute validity and sufficiency of the Law of Non-Contradictions to establish what is true. If the original logic is
absolutely valid and sufficient, why would there be a need for a new one?
The only way to escape Aristotelian logic is to affirm that
contradictions are acceptable. If we try to prove this, we contradict
ourselves. We only make fools of ourselves.
God knows He cannot both exist and not exist at the same
time. By His own declaration, I am God
and there is none else, He uses the Law of Non-Contradictions. Essentially this means God is not non-God. If the Law of Non-Contradictions is invalid at any point, how can we say the above
statement about God is absolutely true?
It must be kept in mind that logic is linked to existence
itself. By saying something is true, we are simply affirming it exists.
Likewise, saying something is not true is asserting that it does not exist. God
cannot escape the logic of His own existence any more than we can.
No. It proves only that the Law of Non-Contradictions is intrinsic to existence itself. Logic is a part of God
just because He exists.
Even if we were to propose that God might have some other
form of logic, we are still locked into the one we have, for the reasons stated
above. It is a mute question whether God thinks differently. He has created us
in this way, with this reality. We cannot think any other way and remain sane.
We must conclude He does not want us to think about Him
using any other logic than the Law of Non-Contradictions. For the same reason, it is not valid to consider the
truths He has revealed, using in any other form of logic.
To answer, letŐs distinguish between logic and reason.
Logic is an absolute, and refers to the consistent application of the Law of Non-Contradictions. Reason, in turn, refers to the relative ability to
manipulate the Law of Non-Contradictions. Some people are better at reasoning than
others. They make fewer mistakes in logic. When we talk about logic, we are referring to the
consistency of arguments. When we refer to reason,
we are talking about a personŐs ability to arrange arguments consistently.
The answer to the above question, therefore, is two-fold.
If we are talking about logic, then GodŐs logic is not superior to manŐs,
because logic is intrinsic to reality itself. But if we are talking about reason, then the answer is different.
GodŐs ability to reason is obviously superior to manŐs because He makes no
mistakes. He knows everything, and therefore does not think on the grounds of
false presuppositions.
A paradox is two propositions that appear to be
contradictory but on further examination is found to be compatible. Thus,
paradoxes are not contradictions.
No. A mystery is nothing more than a lack of information.
An antinomy is two propositions which are mutually
exclusive, but which someone holds as both being true at the same time.
Antinomies differ from paradoxes in that the latter only
appear to be contradictions, but are not. An antinomy is a real contradiction.
Antinomies do not prove that the Law of Non-Contradictions is invalid simply because they do not exist. If they did exist, we would conclude that
nothing is knowable with certainty. No argument could ever be declared false,
no one could ever be caught in a lie, anything whatsoever may be affirmed, no
false answers on exams. The terms reason
and logic would lose all meaning.
Claiming antinomies truly exist, leads down the same road to insanity as any
other kind of contradiction. All contradictions lead there.
From a purely emotional standpoint, it would be convenient
to access a fantasyland where contradictions are acceptable whenever our
arguments are found to be invalid. No such place exists.
Smalling's
articles and essays are available at www.smallings.com