According to the Bible, all non-Christians are morons – they are extremely stupid people...
Since I interact almost exclusively with the works of professionals, in my writings I have already provided a number of examples on how even the most educated of non-Christians never rise above the stupidest of humanity in the substance of their arguments. ...
"We will use David Zarefsky as an example. Among his numerous credentials and achievements, Zarefsky is Professor of Argumentation and Debate and Professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University. Therefore, as with Sinnott-Armstrong, let no one say that I have deliberately chosen an inferior specimen as an example of non-Christian foolishness.
In his syllabus for a course on argumentation,[10] he refers to deduction and induction, and he expresses his view on logical validity in these terms, so it would be helpful to define them and review their differences.
Deduction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is inferred from the premises by logical necessity. On the other hand, induction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is not inferred from the premises by logical necessity. In deduction, the conclusion includes only information that is already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises. But in induction, the conclusion includes new information that is not already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises.[11]
An inductive argument yields a conclusion that is supposedly but not necessarily implied by the premises. For this reason, induction is always a formal fallacy; that is, the conclusion is never certain, and never rationally established. In fact, since the conclusion is not necessarily implied by the premises, there is no way to logically show that there is any necessary relationship between the conclusion and the premises.
With the above in mind, Zarefsky writes, “Formal reasoning is not seen as the prototype of argumentation in recent scholarship.”[12] By “formal reasoning,” he is referring to deduction, when “one actually reason[s] in syllogistic form.”[13] In his view, “Most argumentation is not represented by a form in which the conclusion contains no new information.”[14] But he does not conclude, as I would, “Therefore, most argumentation is fallacious.” Instead, he says that argumentation “involves enabling an audience to move from what is already known and believed to some new position,” and “This movement involves a leap of faith that the arguer seeks to justify.”[15]
He goes on to say, “Judgment is needed because absolute proof is not possible, yet decisions must be made.”[16] Subjectivity is introduced into the process because of pragmatic concerns, that is, because “decisions must be made.” He continues, “Judgment is sought by giving sufficient reason that a critical listener would feel justified in accepting the claim.”[17] Instead of objectively and logically demonstrated, the claim is “accepted” if the listener “feel” that it is justified. Thus for Zarefsky, “Adherence of the critical listener becomes the substitute for absolute proof.”
In other words, non-Christian philosophers realize that deduction is unrealistic and impossible for them, and so they have chosen to abandon deduction or deductive arguments, and instead they have decided to depend on subjective judgments based on induction or inductive arguments.
And this means that their arguments are logically invalid. Zarefsky admits, “Applying the concept of validity beyond formal logic is tricky.”[18] Why? “Because the claim does not follow from the evidence with certainty, we cannot say that if the evidence is true, the claim must be true.”[19] We may ask, “If it does not follow with certainty, then does it follow at all?” In any case, what does he do? Does he write, “Therefore, we must concede that our arguments are invalid, and we must be honest and admit that our conclusions are mere subjective, non-rational, or even irrational opinions and speculations”?
No way! Instead of admitting that all their everyday arguments are invalid he says, in effect, “Let us redefine validity! Let us agree that even our leaps of faith are logically valid!”[20] You might say, “But we still must have a ‘check on the process of reasoning,’[21] don’t we?” “Of course,” Zarefsky replies, “This function is achieved by focusing on experience rather than form.”[22] That is, rather than thinking of validity as a matter of necessary inference, he proposes that “A general tendency develops over time for certain reasoning patterns to produce good or bad results.”[23] Like Sinnott-Armstrong, he makes reasoning a pragmatic endeavor instead of a logical or rational one. It is also suggestive that his course is entitled, “Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning,” whereas if I were to teach a course on argumentation, I would instead entitle it, “Argumentation: The Study of Necessary Inference.”
Non-Christians have abandoned rationality, because they cannot live up to the demands of logic or reason. Still, they want to go through the motions of reasoning, and they want to consider themselves rational. So they have redefined rationality as a matter of agreement rather than logical necessity. They cannot get from “here” to “there,” but they still want to get “there,” so they decide to take a leap of faith. If this sounds irrational and invalid, then they will just agree to define it as rational and valid.
Their strategy is that, “If you cannot get from here to there, then cheat. And if everybody cheats, then we will all look fine to one another. Although our conclusions are reached by leaps of faith, we would still like to think of ourselves as rational, so let us just agree that we are rational no matter what.” It is “rationality” by agreement and by pure fantasy, and not by logical necessity or necessary inference.
You exclaim, “What?! Are they stupid?” Yes, they are stupid, and these are the same morons who attack your faith and call you irrational. They are desperate and dishonest. They find it impossible to remain rational apart from reliance on God’s revelation, but they refuse to admit it. The pragmatic approach stems from the realization that they cannot arrive at the conclusions that they wish to prove by deduction, because given their non-Christian epistemologies, it is impossible for them to begin with self-authenticating premises from which they can deduce true conclusions by logical necessity. And even though there are still some non-Christians who try to live up to the standard of deduction, they cannot do it on the basis of their non-Christian epistemologies and first principles. Therefore, whether they try or not, we win."
This above quote is from,
Vincent Cheung.
Professional Morons.
From the book, "Captive To Reason." chp 27.
LINK to Book. https://www.vincentcheung.com/books/Captive%20to%20Reason.pdf
LINK to Essay from same website. https://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/03/20/professional-morons/
Oshea,
I bring in this quote to highlight the recent trend I see in people in general. They do not seem to understand the different between deductive and inductive logic. They do not even understand that to be rational by definition is to be deductive and irrational is to be inductive, so that by definition science is irrational. But it is not just lay people, but even the professionals are stupid. Do they not know that Math is made possible by the laws of logic? If induction is made to be deductive, then if I say to my bank, "here are ten 100 dollar bills, therefore please deposit 1200 dollars in my account," then it is truth right? If 1 + 1 = 2.5 can be inductive, so that this induction is deductive truth, then where are my levi jeans that have 2.5 legs?
Logic is not sensed, or observed. One must have it before they use it. If the mind were to be born blank--without the Law of Contradiction--then how would the mind know what is contradictory or not? A blank mind cannot get knowledge from sensory input for a blank mind without logic cannot understand the first independent thing, for a first thing or identity or unit presupposes the use of the laws of logic. In fact, a blank mind that is not structured with logic is not a mind in the first place, for it would not think. A better description of this would be a blank sheet of paper. But a blank sheet of paper cannot think and pull out the universal laws of logic from a finite, transitie moments.
Christianity removes all these insurmountable issues because, Jesus is the Logos and has created and revealed Himself to man.
