In the Nov.-Dec. 1980 issue of The Trinity Review entitled God and Logic, which is available online, Dr. Gordon Clark, translates the first Verse of John 1:1 thus:

“In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.”

Until recently, I did not have the tools with which to evaluate such a bold statement. But now that I have understood the natures of Truth and logic, I can see that Dr. Clark made a grave error in identifying Logic with God.

Dr. Clark bases his definition for Logos by referring loosely to the most authoritative Lexicons, and also noting the similarity of the words Logos and Logic! But his conclusion that Logos means Logic does not hold up under scrutiny. Even though Logos and Logic have three letters in common, they have different meanings. A search of the lexicons by Liddell & Scott,  and Bauer Arndt Gingrich reveals dozens of meanings for the word Logos, but not a single one of the instances used means Logic.

Furthermore, if the Apostle meant Logic, he would have used the Greek word for Logic which existed then and is still in use today: λογικη. (See Rom. 12:1 and 1Pet. 2:2) In addition, according to the Fourth Revised Edition of the Greek New Testament by Kurt Aland et al. there is no manuscript evidence that the word λογικη ever appears in the copies of the manuscripts of the Fourth Gospel.

We must conclude that the word Logos (λογοσ) that is used in the Gospel of John does NOT mean Logic.

What Dr. Clark meant to state and did state elsewhere is that God is a Logical Being. And since He is a logical being, then any of His communication with men would also be logical, comprehensible, etc.

But then the inevitable question arises: Is God a being who needs to Submit to the “laws” of Logic? Would not that make the “laws” of logic superior to God Himself? Did Aristotle have access to God’s mind when he formulated the “laws” of logic? If Logic is God, was Aristotle then able to acquire knowledge of God without resorting to the Scriptures?  Dr. Clark has not answered these questions satisfactorily. But since he did not want to dismiss Logic as unimportant, he goes further into the wrong direction and tries to IDENTIFY Logic with God. But is that a Biblical stance?

We need to analyze the phrase “Logic is God,” to see if such a proposition is Biblically sound.

We know from page 1 that the word IS can have FOUR possible meanings.

1- The IS of Existence

2- The IS of Predication

3- The IS of Class-Inclusion

4- The IS of Identity

1- Existence - Logic IS = Logic Exists

Since we are not arguing about the existence of Logic, the IS of existence is not our concern.

2- Predication - Logic IS God

This would mean that God is an attribute, quality or characteristic of Logic. This proposition makes no sense.

3- Class-Inclusion - Logic IS God

This would mean that Logic belongs to a Class of beings called God. Clearly this is not what Dr. Clark meant.

4- Identity - Logic IS God

Logic and God are Identities. Logic and God are Syntitles; (Not synonyms, since “God” is a Title and NOT a Name.) That is, Logic and God are two Titles referring to the same person.

If Logic and God are Identicates, then we should be able to reverse the proposition and still have a valid biblical concept: God is Logic.

Are Logic and God Identical? Does being logical mean being Godly? Is knowing the laws of logic the same as knowing God? What is Logic? What about Logic is God? Are the laws and God Identical? Is being logical being God? What does “Logic is God” mean?

If we begin with the definition of logic as “the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning,” did Dr. Clark really mean to say that the “principles of valid inference and correct reasoning” are God?

Since knowing Truth is being Indwelt by God, does that mean that being logical means being indwelt by God? Does it mean that one who knows the “laws” of Logic is being indwelt by God?

In trying to maintain that God and his revelation are logical, Dr. Clark has betrayed his poor understanding of the nature of God and the nature of Logic.

By trying to deify Logic, Dr. Clark believed that he had protected the Logical integrity of Scripture. But that is unnecessary. Laws of Logic are needed by ignorant humans. Laws of logic have no bearing on God’s mind or thoughts. Dr. Clark’s serious error is due to the fact that he had not understood the nature of Omniscience.

It is thus surprising to note that the most insightful words on the question of the nature of logic and its relationship to God, has been written by a philosopher of mathematics. His article is here.

* Logic becomes unnecessary when face to face with nothing but Truth in God’s presence.

* Laws of Logic are idealizations which cannot be rigorously applied to our present reality.

1. The law of Identity.

The law of identity states that an object is identical to itself: A ≡ A.

OBJECTION: We cannot point to any object or make a statement  about anything that remains identical to itself even for an instant. For this “law” to be valid, we must be able to state a proposition about something which is immutable, but such objects DO NOT exist. The “law” of Identity Cannot be applied to any part of any experience by anyone living on this earth. To consider anything other than God as Immutable would be to deny plain Biblical teaching, leading to innumerable serious errors.

2. The law of Non-Contradiction.

The law of non-contradiction states that a Proposition cannot be Both True and False at the same time and in the same respect.

3. The law of Excluded Middle

The law of excluded middle is the principle that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true. Thus for two-valued logic, the law is stated that a Proposition can have only One of Two possible Truth values: either TRUE or FALSE.

OBJECTIONS:
1- The definitions of the words True and False are assumed to be known. It is rarely pointed out that philosophers have not come to an agreement about what those words mean! Until they decide, these statements barely rise above the level of utopian aspirations.

2- There are no objects in nature that are wholly other. All created entities have something in common no matter how different they seem to be, and thus cannot be described by propositions that are complete contraries of each other.

3- Several insurmountable objections make it clear that the “law” of Excluded Middle does NOT apply to the reality with which we deal in our daily lives.
See page 37- Neither True Nor False.

* Laws of Logic are not true but useful. The notion that a valid deduction leads to truth is not justified.

* God is not bound by “laws” of logic.

Laws of Logic are similar to the “laws” of science or mathematics: temporarily VALID, Necessary & Useful for pauciscient beings,  but  not eternal.

*****************************

Hans Hahn; Logic, Mathematics and Knowledge of Nature

I hope I have made clear that intuitionism … denounces logic as a source of truth.

L. E. J. Brouwer; Consciousness, Philosophy, and Mathematics; 1940

The laws of logic are purely formal… They are principles of procedure, the parliamentary rules of intelligent thought and speech. … Those who suppose that there is, for example, a logic which everyone would agree to if he understood it and understood himself, are more optimistic than those versed in the history of logical discussion have a right to be. The fact is that there are several logics, markedly different, each self-consistent in its own terms and such that whoever using it, if he avoids false premises, will never reach false conclusions.

C. I. Lewis; (1883-1964); A Pragmatic Conception of the a priori; 1923

… Aristotelian logic yields only the laws of correct or valid thinking; it does not satisfy our demand for truth.

Edgar S. Brightman; An Introduction to Philosophy; p45; 1951

Logic is not a reliable instrument for uncovering truths and can deduce no truths that are not obtainable just as well in some other way.

Morris Kline; Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty; 1981

The power of logic and mathematics to surprise us depends, like their usefulness, on the limitations of our reason. A being whose intellect was infinitely powerful would take no interest in logic and mathematics.

A. J. Ayer; (1883-1964); Language, Truth and Logic; 1946

^^^ RETURN TO TOP ^^^

This page was created in Oct. 2010