HQ

Jason Lisle argues that we have a moral obligation to be logical : "Thinking rightly is not optional... It is something God requires of us." His argument is as follows: To think logically is to think – in a sense – like God thinks. And, by definition, to be logical is to reason correctly. This makes sense when we consider that God always thinks correctly. God is the ultimate standard of correctness. So if you want to think about a particular topic correctly, you must think about it in the same basic way that God does. The argument depends on what it means to think about something 'in the same basic way that God does'. Presumably, this does not mean that we think about some topic in exactly the same way. After all, God does not arrive at conclusions. He does not infer to the best explanation. His knowledge is comprehensive. Thus, he already knows the conclusion and  the explanation. So, what does 'basic way' mean? It is temping to think tha...

Having 'moral status' equates to being the kind of thing it is wrong to kill. According to Elizabeth Harman, if a woman decides to have an abortion, then the fetus does not have moral status. If the mother decides not to have an abortion, then, due to the future life of that fetus, the fetus has moral status. I have moral status. If my mother had decided to abort me, then I would not have had moral status. When I was a fetus, my mother decided not to abort me and, in virtue of that fact, I had a future life. Consequently, I had, and still have, moral status. This is a terrible and silly argument. First, moral status of the kind in question is not something one has accidentally. One does not have it in virtue of any fact apart from the existence of the kinds of things that have it. For any x, if x has moral status, then x has moral status at any time at which x exists. Human persons have moral status at any time at which they exist. Second, if this is not the case,...

As I argued the other day, there are some people who think reality is underwritten by various norms . I call them normativists.  For example, a normativist will think that there are ethical principles that are objective, universally binding, and immutable. As I suggested, normativists will also think this about the rules of grammar - they are objective rules to be discovered not conventions to be created. Today I came across an article that suggests that the normativist is wrong about when it comes to logic : ...logic has developed over a long time, and it is likely to continue developing. Currently, non-classical logic is working to fix some of the things that are wrong with classical logic and the normative status of logic is being disputed... So, although we like to think some things have always been the same and will never change - perhaps logic isn’t one of them. The field hasn’t always been what it is today - so why do we expect it to stay the same? The autho...

Consider Fred. Fred hates cars. But Fred hates cars in 1946. We don't know why he hates cars and perhaps he might like modern cars. We can speculate all we like, but we can't say for sure that Fred would like modern cars. We can't say, "Well, when Fred hated cars in 1946, cars were very different. Fred didn't even know about modern cars. Therefore, Fred would not hate cars in 2017." The reason we can't make the conclusion is because no kind of car was specified as the subject of Fred's scorn. Indeed, it is highly likely that Fred hated all species of cars not because he hated every car he had encountered, but because he hated cars per se.  The above mind-reading is problematic reasoning, but it is used all the time especially in moral reasoning. The essential feature of this reasoning is some assumption about what a speaker (or writer) 'has in mind' when he or she says (or writes) something. For example, imagine you are back at school. ...

I teach formal logic to middle schoolers. This comes as a surprise to many people since formal logic is usually first encountered at college (if it is encountered at all). However, t he more I teach logic, the more convinced I am that we should be teaching formal logic to our children especially during the middle school years. Not everyone agrees with me. Some suggest that formal logic is much too advanced for children of this age. Others suggest that logic is only important for certain subjects and not necessary for everyone to learn. Let's start with the latter objection: why should everyone learn formal logic? Surely logic is useful for philosophers, lawyers, and perhaps computer programmers, but surely an engineer or an English teacher has no need to learn formal logic. This is a good point, one that is often made about liberal arts education in general - what is the point of learning something one is never going to use? But is education only for learning skills th...

Marrten Boudry claims that there are far fewer fallacies out there than we think . His reason involves a 'fallacy fork.' The fallacy fork is a dilemma the conclusion of which is supposed to show us that fallacies are not usually fallacies. Here is the fork : Either the fallacy is hardly ever used, or it is hardly ever fallacious. For a fallacy to count, it must imply some deductive form. Since, we hardly ever make deductive arguments that are candidates for fallacies, we should prefer the second fork. So, are what we call fallacies not really fallacies after all? Consider, the ad hominem fallacy. A candidate for office claims that policy x will make everyone safer. Her claim is rejected on the grounds that she has known terrorists as personal friends. On the face of it, the claim could not be decided merely on the grounds of the friendships of the one who makes the claim. The assumption one has to make is something like, "anyone with terrorists as friends shoul...

Today I came across two examples of disturbing reasoning . I am distinguishing disturbing from merely fallacious . Disturbing reasoning  deserves its own box, brand, and--ever hopefully-- banishment . To reason disturbingly is to make an argument that implicitly accepts a disturbing assumption. A disturbing assumption is some belief that is almost universally rejected or should be rejected as immoral. Here is an example from Penn Jilette: The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you....

Logical thinking is crucial and we in the West could do with some more of it. So, I teach it to 5th-8th graders at Commission Leadership Academy in Raleigh, NC. It is hard work and I have to get creative especially with 5th graders. Some of the concepts lie just beyond reach of the younger mind and I have to rein them in through stories and illustrations. For example, here is a kind of statement: If A, then C. The statement is called a hypothetical statement and it has two parts joined together by "if...,then..." In the statement above, A is called the Antecedent and C is called the Consequent . We use these kinds of statements all the time: "If I don't get a move on, I'm going to be late," "if there's milk in the fridge, then you can have it." The antecedent is sometimes called the sufficient condition and the consequent is sometimes called the necessary condition. So, how does this kind of statement work in arguments and how can we u...

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding  How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?  Therefore, you can't have any pudding 

The core of apologetic studies is the consideration of arguments. I don’t mean fights, the kind that break out over lunch between siblings. I mean sets of statements one of which is the conclusion or main point. The other statements somehow support or lead to the conclusion. We use arguments all the time. We even use them when we don’t mean to. They are the warp and woof of human discourse. The crucial thing to notice about arguments is that they can be good or bad. Here is a good argument: (1) If you listened carefully to Ben, then you understand apologetics (2) You don’t understand apologetics (3) Therefore, you did not listen carefully to Ben There are three statements that make up this argument. The first two are premises and the last one is the conclusion. The premises lead to the conclusion. The argument is good because (hopefully) the premises are true, and if they are true, then the conclusion follows. For contrast, here is a bad argument: (1) If you listen...

Some positions are best opposed by trying to show what would follow from their view. Modus Tollens is particularly helpful in this way and takes the following form: if A, then B. Not B. Therefore, not A. They have the useful feature of providing the user with a tool for showing horrible consequences that can force someone to reject the antecedent. For example, a favored argument against abortion is to suggest that if abortion is morally justifiable, then infanticide is justifiable. The anti-abortionist relies on the consequent being plainly intolerable and should lead to the rejection of the antecedent. Those who are consistent are forced either to accept the consequent (amazingly there are such people ) or to give up their defense of abortion. As someone who thinks abortion is an abhorrent evil I am often on the look out for good arguments of that form. Recently, I was perusing through some articles and low and behold I found a good 'n. The first premise was as follows: ...

Anne:  "I oppose X" George:  "You only oppose X because you are a Y" A:  "No, I oppose X because of reasons A, B, and C." G:  "You only think A, B, and C because you are a Y." A:  "No, I really think A, B, and C are true." G:  "You wouldn't oppose X if you were a Z" A:  "Maybe, but A, B, and C would still be true if I was a Z and so I  ought  to oppose X even if I didn't" G:  "But if you were a Z how would you know about A, B, and C?" A:  "Someone would have to tell me about A, B, and C. This is what I am trying to tell you now."  G:  "But I am a Z. Therefore, I support X." A:  "But being a Z isn't a good  reason to support X" G:  "But all the Z's I know support X. If I didn't support X, the Z's would be annoyed." A:  "Well, you have choice to make don't you?" G:  "Well, you would say th...

Conservative Christians keep losing at culture wars. So argues Johnathan Merritt . Merritt thinks he knows why. They are obsessed with arguing about worldview. Consequently, Conservative Christians are failing to persuade people: They focus on ideology while ignoring people: When Christians talk about [x], they often frame it as a clash of worldviews or ideologies...Those who have a more progressive view... use concrete language and share specific stories. They talk about real... people with real struggles who experience real oppression. Narrative framing usually wins in public debates because it touches listeners’ hearts. Whether or not Merritt is right about convincing people is hard to tell. What I would like to quibble with is the suggestion that to argue about worldviews is to ignore people. Worldviews matter and are worth arguing about because worldviews are about people . Every personal story assumes a worldview, every way we interpret the world assumes a worldview, ...

According to William Hasker, the existential problem of evil occurs when “theism is questioned and/or rejected on the basis of moral protest, indignation, and outrage at the evils of this world.” Hasker claims that if I am glad that I exist, then I cannot (reasonably) protest against God. The simple version of his argument is: (1) I am glad that I exist. (2) If I am glad that I exist, then I am glad that the history of the world is the way it is. (3) If I am glad that the history of the world is what it is, then I cannot reproach God for the general character or the major events of the world’s past history. (4) Therefore, I cannot reproach God for the general character or the major events of the world’s past history. (1) is based on an assumption. Hasker asks us to think for a moment. On the whole, do you prefer that you exist rather than not? If so, then proceed. (2) is based on a thesis about human identity. Hasker argues that you being you is conting...

Here is an old puzzle: Imagine a heap of sand. Now imagine taking one grain of sand off the top. It’s still a heap, right? Now keep going. At each removal of a grain the heap remains a heap until you get to one grain. One grain isn’t a heap so something changed. It’s just not clear when it changed. That’s vague. Here’s another puzzle I wrote about the other day (I got it from Peter van Inwagen's book, Material Beings ). Imagine yourself as a freshly fertilized egg. Call it A. The single cell then becomes two cells, A and B. Now imagine that B fails to make it and A goes on to divide making A and C and so on. After grieving the loss of B it is reasonable to assume that A is you. But what if rather than A surviving, B survives instead? It would be equally reasonable to think that B was you. But now suppose that both A and B survive but that they become detached and go on to be identical twins. It appears that you would be both A and B. But that is absurd. Why is it weird? Sur...