Sitting in class today, Dr. Ervin was taking us through a discussion of proper methodology when approaching the scriptures. This discussion included an example of syllogistic reasoning. For those not familiar, I will copy here the rather famous example (at least, in "logic" circles):
"All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal." (Roger W. Holmes)
And my thought was...can we really say Socrates was mortal because he was a man? It seems to me that we are convinced of his mortality not because we are convinced of his humanity, but rather, because we know he drank the hemlock and died. Cause -> effect -> conclusion.
But that's just me.
4 comments:
Or, to put it in a way logical gurus do it: All men are mortal; Jesus Christ is a man; therefore Jesus Christ is mortal --> false, as he lives eternally and was not conquered by death. This is the problem with deductive logic. Your premise must be correct under all circumstances, and no premise can ever be correct in all circumstances since no one, except God, can foresee all circumstances. Your way works better.
And then you find a way around my postulation as well, for Jesus died just as Socrates died. Death, we have stated, is evidence of mortality. But resurrection is evidence of immortality. So the fact that one is mortal does not imply the impossibility of immortality...which why we have reason to hope as well.
Yes, we do have hope. All Christians must be both mortal and immortal as we are destined to die, but will live forever in God's kingdom. Don't you love logic?
I think the question becomes, not one of logic or even humanity, but one of mortality. Is mortality itself provable? It's rather like asking if a soul is provable. Logic is limited, like physics -- while both of them go far towards describing how we perceive life, neither approaches the truth of what life is.
Aren't you glad I'm taking doctoral seminar classes? :)
Post a Comment