So chapter 9 was on the subject of faith and reason and how faith is not unreasonable and reason is not opposed to faith. And I really appreciate the apologetic character of this logic textbook, especially here in the opening 9 chapters focusing on how Christianity Well, the secular mindset is not able to give sufficient reason for the laws of logic that the Christian faith can. And then going not only the positive case for Christianity, that's called positive apologetics, when you're stating here's why Christianity makes sense of everything in the world better than these other worldviews. But also the negative apologetics, where you're defending that are often thrown at Christianity, and that, sadly, a lot of Christians are promoting because of a misunderstanding of Christianity, even among those who are Christians. And so I appreciate very much this chapter, and I've given talks on this subject before about epistemology, faith, reason. In fact, let's put this chart up here once again. I know it's in here somewhere. the pyramid of philosophy, that epistemology is one of the foundational branches of philosophy. And epistemology deals with the science of how do you know things? How do you have knowledge? How do you justify knowledge? What is knowledge? Is knowledge possible? All those are the questions that epistemology answers. And so it gets into things like faith and reason. empiricism, being able to see and test and measure physical things, and logic, and all of that is a part of epistemology, how we know things. And epistemology, of course, is built on your metaphysics, and then your epistemology will inform your ethics, your political philosophy, your sense of art, with aesthetics. So you see here, once again, the branches and how important reason is. in these foundational branches of philosophy, and then you're going to continue to use reason throughout the rest of the philosophical, scientific, your pursuit of knowledge, basically. And therefore, to be able to understand the relationship between reason and faith is very important, to recognize that these are not opposed forces, but these are complementary forces, that God has given us multiple ways of knowing things, And I would say faith is one of the best ways of knowing things, especially when it comes to faith in God. And that's what this chapter is about. So, question number one on the worksheet number nine, what is the biblical definition of faith? The chapter talked about how faith is having confidence or proof or good reasons for what you have not experienced It is confident expectation and that which is unseen. Hebrews 11.1 is the key verse there. So, if the answer on your paper has that element of confidence in what you have not personally experienced with your senses, having that ability to know what you haven't seen, then that is a good definition that is the correct answer to number one. Anybody have a question about number one as to whether or not the answer that is there in front of you is correct? Alright, good. Are we grading our own papers or did we exchange? What do you like? Do you like to grade your own or do you like to exchange? Number two, is it logical to have faith in God? Why or why not? Let's have somebody answer that. But your faith in God is not logical. How would you answer? Well, according to the book, God never lies and is never wrong. The Bible, God's book, says so. But it's also God's like a father, and it's perfectly rational for a child to trust in a parent. Yeah, that's the parents have shown themselves to be reasonably trustworthy people. That's normally the case. There are a few rare exceptions out there. And so if a good parent can be trusted, and God is a good father, which would be a definition of God, Now, this brings up a subject that I haven't yet introduced to you, and now might be a good time to do it. There's different kinds of logic. We've talked about inductive reasoning, we've talked about deductive reasoning. Do you remember the difference between induction and deduction? Yes, no, maybe so. Raise your hand if you think you remember the difference between induction and deduction. Maybe about half. is when you are looking at the data, you are looking at everything, you are studying the fish, you are studying the planets, the stars, and then you are coming up with a theory to fit all of the data, that is inductive reasoning, that is how science builds theories, they do the observation and then they say based upon all of my observations then this seems to be the case. but it's based upon the laws of logic. In a deductive argument, if your premises are true, then your conclusion is going to be true if your logic is sound. Let's see if I've got that chart here. You've got your deductive arguments and your inductive arguments. I said sound. If your logic is valid, then you end up with a sound argument. all the premises are true. So, a deductive argument is based upon inference, the laws of logic. An inductive argument is based upon observation. All the swans that I've ever seen are white, therefore all swans are probably white. When the conclusion has a probably in it, then you know that's an inductive argument. However, black swans were discovered in Australia, and so That inductive argument was proven true as people gave new data and new observations in different places and different times. So the inductive argument is strong or weak. It's not valid or invalid if you can have a strong inductive or a weak inductive argument. If you gather enough data that it's probably correct, then it's strong. If you're basing it off of not sufficient data, then you have a weak inductive argument. All right. When you're arguing deductively, you end up with knowledge that is a priori. Here we've got an example of an argument that is deductive. You start off with a premise. God is not a man. Premise number two. Jesus is a man. Conclusion, therefore, Jesus is not God. And so, if your premises are true, and the logic is valid, then you end up with a, if your logic is sound, then you end up with a valid argument, okay? But, when you say God is not a man, you have to ask, well, what do you mean by that? Do you mean God the Father is not a man? Do you mean that God is not a man originally, but he could later become a man, and so you have to ask, what do you mean by God is not a man? But if you don't narrow down your definitions, then you can start to get into some logical fallacies where the logic doesn't follow. Jesus and the Father are not the same. The Father is not a man, Jesus is a man, and Jesus can't be God because of the doctrine of the Trinity. I just wanted to give you an example here of what we're talking about with the inductive and deductive reasoning, with a good theological point of the invalid argument. Now, a priori knowledge is knowledge that is obtained through deductive reasoning. A priori. I have an article Pastels around on this side, pastels around on this side. So a priori knowledge is based upon logic. You don't need to go out and make any observations in order to verify it. So if we were having a debate here today on whether or not cats or dogs make better pets, if you were basing your argument on something that does not have to do with any data that has been gathered about cats and dogs, then you would be making an a priori argument. I can't really think of what an a priori argument for why cats would be better pets than dogs or vice versa would be. But the other type of knowledge is a posteriori. Can you see this in the back row? Can you see that? You have good eyes? You can't sit in the back row unless you have good eyes and you can see what I'm writing on the board. So the a posteriori knowledge is knowledge that is gained by inductive reasoning. So if you go out and survey 10,000 dog owners and 10,000 cat owners and find out who's happier with their pet, then that would be knowledge that is gained a posteriori. That's knowledge that is gained from induction rather than from deduction. So these are terms you'll come across in logic and philosophy and debate and theology and all kinds of places, and nobody really, if I can remember, explained them to me, and I always had a hard time figuring out what is a priori, what is a posteriori. So I wanted to throw this in here for you as we're kind of in a place where we're talking about inductive and deductive reasoning, and it would be easy to connect this with those terms now as you're learning the other terms. So deductive reasoning is a form of reasoning that ends up with knowledge that is a priori. Inductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that ends up with knowledge, if you do it right, that is a posteriori. So just connect those with the deductive and the inductive. And I bring it up here because there is one third option, and that is Right? Is that how you spell a fortiori? So to be fortified is to be strong. A priori means it is according to prior knowledge. A postiori means it is according to latter knowledge. The prior knowledge is the premise that you are building your logic on. The former knowledge is the data. The prior knowledge to former knowledge is the data that you are building is when you are moving from one truth that is stronger to another truth that would then necessarily be also true. The example that is on your handout is, if I can afford to spend $100, I can afford to spend $10. That's a fortiori reasoning, that if I can spend more, then it's logical that I can spend less. See how that works? We can trust an earthly father who is imperfect to be looking out for our best interests and disciplining us for our good. How much more can we trust a heavenly father who is completely perfect and who is perfectly loving to do what is good for us in our lives? That is a fortiori reasoning, reasoning from the stronger to the weaker. If you come across these terms, then you have some idea, and part of your assignment this week is to read the handout that I've just given to you, so that you start to get into your brain these terms as well. I'm adding them to all the terms that you're using, because I wish somebody had added them to my education when I was your age. All right. So, it is logical to have faith in God, because, a fortiori, if we have faith in our human parents, who is perfect. You find these kinds of arguments in scripture, you find these kinds of arguments everywhere, and it's useful terms to have in your tool belt. All right, then, anybody have questions about number two, about whether or not your answer is correct? One way to answer this is God knows everything, and he never lies, so it's logical to trust As Caroline pointed out, the book is written with the assumption, the presupposition, that the Bible is God's Word. Now, to prove that the Bible is God's Word is a different subject. It's a different class than studying logic. And so, he doesn't have a chapter on why the Bible is God's Word in there. Now, if you want to know more about that subject, there are excellent resources that I can to end up with knowledge that is a priori, based upon that true premise that the Bible is God's Word, to be able to make these other conclusions, like, it's perfectly logical to believe in the Bible because the Bible is God's Word, and God, by His character and nature, is a being who knows everything and who never lies, and therefore what could be more logical than to trust There are times when we as people, you yourself, trust the word of someone else, not God, but another human being, for something that you haven't seen with your own eyes. When do you trust someone? Give me an example of when in life people trust someone for something that they haven't seen themselves. Yep? You trust the weather. Okay. Like, what do you mean? Like what the weatherman says is going to be the weather? Yeah. Yeah, with a limited degree of trust, because they get a lot of things wrong, but you hope you can trust the weatherman, yeah. And we'll trust what the scientists say about space. Sure, yeah. You know, we haven't been out in space, but NASA sends us their pictures, and the astronauts talk about their experience, and we trust that they're telling us their true experiences about something we ourselves haven't seen, yeah. People say that other people go over Niagara Falls with girls. That they what? That they go over Niagara Falls. Ah, yeah, and you haven't seen them. but you trust it because it's written down in what you consider to be reliable accounts, a historical account. Anytime you're writing down something that's already happened, you're writing a historical account. And so history is largely based upon faith, that the records that have been left, the verbal records and the written records, that they are true, that they are telling you what actually happened. So history is a huge field that is based upon faith, in the documents, the word of men. What else? Where else do we trust the word of men in order to have knowledge about things we can't see ourselves? I don't think anybody here has seen someone fall from 1,000 feet and die. We hear that, and we're like, OK, if you fall from 1,000 feet, you'll die, but we've never seen it. Yeah, that's true. I mean, we could reason that I have fallen from 10 feet, and it hurts, so I don't want to fall from 1,000 feet. You're doing some a fortiori type of reasoning, right? But also you can take somebody's word for it, that other people have fallen and that they have died. So even scientific matters, like gravity, you are often depending upon the word of others and you don't want to test it out on yourself or test it out on your friend. Let's have a little science experiment and see what happens. Yeah, so there's a lot of things where you want to trust what other people have said. And so you really have to be careful about who you trust and what you trust them for. One expert might be really good in one area and is very reliable when he talks about that, but then he tries to talk about something that he's not an expert in, he tries to borrow the prestige that he has for his expertise like in astrophysics in order to talk about metaphysics and philosophy, and he doesn't know what he's talking about. And so you have to be careful, who do I trust for what type of thing, and of course this is really to Bible books, books that have been written about the Bible, teachers who teach about the Bible, who do you trust when it comes to people who are telling you different things, and do you have good reason to trust that person, or are you arbitrarily choosing or emotionally choosing who you listen to and who you trust on these things? So, we want to check and see if we have good reason for those that we are listening to. Now, when it comes to God, as we've just said, He's the most trustworthy. Who was there at the beginning of the world who created all things? God. So when God tells us how He created all things and how it all came about, well, who's the best person to trust about that? Well, God would be the best person to trust about that. So, very many practical ways that this comes into our lives. Is it logical to have faith in God? Alright, then question number three. Is it logical to rely on emotions as a basis for truth? You can't just have a yes or no answer. You've got to have an explanation, a reason for your belief, for your answer. Is it logical to rely on emotions as a basis for truth? The answer is what? Yes or no? No. And the reason? Emotions are unreliable and do not determine what is true. Emotions are also subjective. Good. So, emotions can tell you something. something, and you should pay attention to your emotions for that, but what your emotions will not tell you as to whether or not your response is appropriate, whether or not your response is justified, and that's where you have to check your emotions and say, with your reason, this is how I am emotionally responding to the situation, let me use my reason to find out whether or not that is justified. See, the fool trusts in his own heart, and he says, however I feel about it must be right, because I'm always right! And the fool trusts in himself, and therefore he trusts his emotions, that they are justified. As the wise man knows that I'm kind of immature, I've got a lot of learning and growing left to do, and so I can't just trust my emotions that I'm responding in a way that is right and justified, And so, I have to check my emotions with God's Word, God's truth, and see what is right in the situation. And so, if God commands me to be patient, to put on a heart of compassion, but I just feel angry and frustrated, then I've got to stop and say, well, maybe my feelings of frustration and anger are not justified. mental work, and that's why people don't want to do that. Laziness is just going with how you feel, but it takes actual work to check yourself and to improve yourself and to do what is right according to truth. So, not logical to rely on emotions as a basis for truth because you are not reliable. God's Word is reliable, but we are not reliable. That's what it means to be a Besides the physical organ, what does heart generally mean when used in scripture? Not just the heart that's beating in your chest, but when it's used metaphorically in the Bible, what does the Bible mean when it talks about your heart? Good. But not just the seat of man's intellect. That's part of it. your mind, your inner core. I think our English word mind really captures it a lot because when we're talking about our mind, we're talking about our thinking, we're talking about our emotions, we're talking about everything that's going on inside of us. And so the way this has been broken down by theologians is you have intellect, will, and emotion. Maybe philosophers as well. Intellect, will, and emotion. And so your will is your choosing part of yourself, your intellect is your thinking part of yourself, and your emotion is your feeling part of yourself, and that's all part of your heart. That's all going on in your heart. Your choosing is part of your heart, your thinking is part of your heart, your feelings is part of your heart. So heart is a rather large and inclusive term, whereas because of our poetic tradition, heart in our vernacular sometimes connotes just our feelings. I love you with all my heart. And we're talking about our feelings. But that's where we want to make a differentiation and recognize that the metaphors that biblical writers use come from a different culture, a different time. They're not going to line up exactly with our culture and our time. And so we want to understand the Bible in its own context, not in our context. Very important, very important truth there. All right, any questions about number three or number four as to whether or not your answer is correct? 121 tells us that God uses the foolishness of preaching to save people. Do these verses contradict? Why or why not? Here is a great example of what we were talking about in the previous chapter, about how there is a difference between reasoning and intuition. This is an example using human intuition, what seems right to mankind, to talk about wisdom and foolishness. And it's very clear in the context of 1 Corinthians when you, again, study the Bible in its context, its historical context, its linguistic context, and its own context, the context of the book itself, the near context of the sentences that are written there. And it's very easy to take the Bible out of context. And so, be careful about Bible teachers who will take a verse out of context and then set Scripture against Scripture in order to try to confuse Christians about what the Bible says. But you instead understand the Scripture in its own context and show how it comports with the other Scripture, and that's what real Bible teachers do. So, what seems like 5 and 7. It's not intuitive to fall in humanity to trust in God. That doesn't seem wise to them, to trust in the Bible. But it is the wise thing to do, and though it seems foolish to the world, it is wise. So that's the essence of what he's getting at here with question number 5. Anything that's in that ballpark is good. Any questions about number 5? Alright, number 6. If genuine wisdom always only comes from God, as it says in Colossians 2 and James 3, then are unbelievers able to have any wisdom at all? If so, how? The answer is yes. Unbelievers can have a measure of wisdom. However, when the Bible says that the world is foolish and lacks wisdom, it's talking about in the context of their relationship with God. that in the most important area of life, that's where their foolishness is shown. So, somebody can be very wise when it comes to how to construct a building. Somebody can be very wise when it comes to how birds are able to fly, their bone structure and their feathers and all of that. They can have all kinds of knowledge and understanding and wisdom about certain things. But when it comes to the soul's relationship with God, that's the context where the Bible says the world is foolish. and that that wisdom only can come through faith in God's Word. Now, the wisdom that people have about building great buildings or studying the flight of birds, that also comes from God, because man's created in God's image, God's the one who's given man the ability to reason, the ability to have understanding. So when it comes to those areas that are not directly about theology, then people can have that measure of wisdom. But when it comes to Our relationship with God, that's where folly reigns in the heart of man. So that is how you want to answer question number six. Any questions about your answer on number six? You guys are too easy on yourself. You're supposed to have some questions. You can't just be like, oh yeah, that's good. Number seven. What are the requirements for being rational? Raise your hand. Who wants to answer this one? Maybe somebody you haven't called on yet? with guys over here. Number seven, what are the requirements for being rational? Two of them. Nobody? Aiden, what are the requirements for being rational? You must have good self-consistency and reason for... Can't read your own writing? Yeah. Well, you got it. You got to have reasons for what you believe and they have to be self-consistent reasons. So, the arbitrariness that is pointed out as a negative in the next chapter and the inconsistency. So, if you don't want to be arbitrary, you don't want to be inconsistent. So, this question is anticipated in the next chapter. There's two requirements to being rational, okay? It's a great question. It's very important to think about these things. Hopefully, it's something that sinks in, something that will stay with you, and it will be something that guides your life. beliefs cohere, or do my beliefs contradict one another, and to be willing to look and examine, and to really want to have a worldview that is true, with good reasons for it, and no contradictions, and that if somebody points out a contradiction, that you really take the time to analyze it and find out whether or not your beliefs are truly justified. All right. Number eight, what is a biblical reason to believe that our sensory organs are basically reliable? Basically the answer is God made them. So God made them to be reliable, and so they're basically reliable. We're fallen, we're sinful, so some people are blind, some people don't have hearing, and so not always reliable, but in general we trust the data that we get from our sensory organs because God gave Number nine, what is a biblical reason to believe that the universe has order, consistency, and repeating cycles? Well, the repeating cycles are mentioned in Genesis 8.22, so if you've got that written down, that's great. The fact that there is order reflects God's nature, that God is a God of order, as it says in 1 Corinthians 14.33, and the consistencies that God upholds The order, consistency, and repeating cycles reflect God's character and God's ordination for his universe, for his world. So any answer along those lines is good. Alright, so then write the number correct out of nine on the other side. Every once in a while I'll give you a half credit for an answer that's close but not quite there. that you have to correct there at the top of the worksheet. Make sure your name is on your worksheet so that I know which grade to write down for who. And then go ahead and hand them towards the center. And Lori, if you wouldn't mind picking those up for me also. All right, what is a priori knowledge? Knowledge that is gained from what kind of reasoning? Inductive. Say it all. Inductive. All those priori knowledge is knowledge that is gained from what kind of reasoning? Inductive. Yes. And a fortiori is a kind of a priori knowledge where you're basing it on an inference. All right, so, I've got up here for you one of my favorite quotes to remind you. Michael Faraday, great example for us in pursuing knowledge and understanding. He said, it is his strong belief that the point of self-education, which consists in teaching the mind to resist its desire and inclinations until they are proved, proved to be right, is the most important of all. Not only in things of natural philosophy, which is the old word for what? Science. But in every department of daily life. You've got to not just go with what you want to be true, what you feel to be true, what your intuition tells you is true, but you have to resist that desire until you can prove that your beliefs are right and true. That's the most important of all, and I love that quote, and it's a good life motto, life verse for me. I hope you might also take it as a guide for your life as well. So, that ties in perfectly with chapter 10 on arbitrariness and inconsistency. Some people have their beliefs and they are arbitrary. They have not proven them, they have not undertaken to prove them to be right, they've just pick them because their friends have them, their family has them, it makes them comfortable, it's easy, they're lazy, it's just what they've been told, they've never self-examined, they've never cross-examined their beliefs. That's an arbitrary selection of beliefs based upon just your own personality. And that is to be avoided because it can lead to great disaster, not only in time, but especially in eternity, the most important aspect of consequences. And then, also, the inconsistency. So you don't want to choose your beliefs arbitrarily, and you don't want to choose beliefs that are mutually contradictory. Whenever you come across a contradiction in your beliefs, then you have to figure out which one of them is false, because they can't both be true. Of course, you have to examine, is this a real contradiction, or does it just seem like a contradiction? And that's where using great reasoning, great inferences, laws of logic, making clear on your definitions, carefully looking and examining, is there a real contradiction here? And if so, then which one of my beliefs is false. That's something you want to engage in as a person created in the image and likeness of God, created to know and pursue truth, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, all those great things. All right, so chapter 10, we're getting close to the section on fallacy. specific fallacies, but here, Jason Lau wants us to understand the two fundamental errors that lead to all the other fallacies, and that is arbitrariness and inconsistency. And notice what he says there in the chapter review there in the first paragraph on the handout. One could argue that the entire point of education is to slay these two enemies of reasoning. The entire point of education. is to teach the mind to resist its desire for explanations until they are proved to be right. Another way of saying that is what Jason Lyle just said. That the entire point of education is to slay arbitrariness and inconsistency in your reasoning. Students should learn to have good, self-consistent reasons for their beliefs and to relinquish beliefs that fail to have good, self-consistent reasons. All right, so that is a great, great connection, great tie-in. I just saw it as we were talking about this and looking at this. Neat how God ties the education and the instruction from different centuries together for us here in this classroom to drive the point home. So let's look at the short answer questions, number one. Chapter 10, verse 10, what are the two primary intellectual sins of all fallacious reasoning? And of course, arbitrariness and inconsistency. Those are the only answers that will be accepted. If you don't have those two, it's either half wrong or all wrong. You've got one of them, not the other. That's half. You've got both wrong, and it's all wrong, minus one point. So he's really driving home that point there. He wants you to write it out, even though it's an easy question, arbitrary, inconsistent, Those are the answers. All right, number two. What does it mean to be arbitrary? Raise your hand. What does it mean to be arbitrary? Yeah. You should not have a reason. Good. To not have a reason. I don't know. I just picked it. I just chose it. Arbitrarily. Now, most beliefs aren't chosen entirely arbitrarily, but they're chosen based upon reasons that are not sufficient, that are not good. Well, this is what my family believes, this is what my culture believes, this is what my friends believe, this is what gives me the most position and power and influence in society. Those are not good reasons, and therefore it seems rather arbitrary that people are picking their beliefs based upon those foolish reasons, but technically it's not arbitrary, they have a reason, it's just not a good reason, and so Complete arbitrariness is not having a reason at all, and partial arbitrariness is not having a good reason, not having a sufficient reason. So, interesting to think about. Number three. Are all forms of arbitrariness sinful? If not, provide an example. If so, why? So raise your hand if you think that all forms of arbitrariness are sinful. There are arbitrary decisions that are not sinful. I arbitrarily chose to wear this polo this morning. Not completely arbitrary, but between this and another one. There were certain ones I could eliminate because I wore that one too recently or whatever, but there were still several options and you just pick one. So that kind of arbitrary decision. I like the one he had in the book about when you start walking, do you start with your left foot or your right foot first? Pretty arbitrary, and I don't have to have a good reason why I started with my left foot when I started walking. That would be kind of silly to try to come up with a good reason for something that is that arbitrary by nature. So there are arbitrary decisions. There's nothing wrong with doing some things with no reason as opposed to the opposite. However, there are things where it is wrong to arbitrarily choose. A sinful arbitrary reason. Let's go around the room and here are the examples. Not having a reason for why you think murder is wrong. Okay, yeah. So if you arbitrarily choose that murder is wrong or not wrong, then that would be sinful to be arbitrary in that reasoning. Lying without a reason. Okay. Well, lying is always wrong, but yeah. Lying without a reason would certainly be wrong. Decided to disobey the law because you don't feel like it. Decided to disobey the law because you don't feel like it. I like social media and make an association too. So it's kind of arbitrary. I like it, so you should too. And then it would be sinful if you said, well, our friendship is dependent upon whether or not you like the social media that I like, or setting that up as a standard by which you're judging other people would kind of be the sinful part of it, right? Lucy? Stating there is no God with no arguments or reasons. OK, yeah, if you arbitrarily decide, no, no God. I just don't feel like worshipping God I also have mine with no reason. If you what? I also have mine with no reason. Okay, yeah. Wow, you've got some brain bells going on here. I don't give a damn care that God loves us or not. Okay, good. So, there's lots of possible answers on this one. You know, he gave some examples. I think all religions are true. I like the one here where he says, I just bought a lottery ticket, and I think I'm going to win this time. And so you're like, well, what reason do you have for thinking that you're going to win this time? I want to. I'm like, well, that's kind of arbitrary. And so you see here that people will often make arbitrary statements, propositions, because it's not completely arbitrary, but it's something that they want for a reason. That's something they want to believe for a reason that is not justified. And so here, once again, you see there's kind of a spectrum of arbitrariness, of complete arbitrariness versus just believing something based upon insufficient reasons. It'd be nice if I won the lottery, so that's why I think I'm going to win. Pretty arbitrary. Not a good reason for believing this. And that would be sinful to think that way, because it's What are some types of inconsistency? Contradictions, when it's an inconsistency. It is the case that all dogs are black. It is not the case that all dogs are black. That would be a contradiction. And then behavioral inconsistency, where I say it's wrong to steal. But then I go to work, and I take food that's not mine, and I eat it. So those are the two types that he has here, actual contradictions and hypocrisy, which is behavioral inconsistency. And if you don't have those big general categories, you can also just have specifics, if you have just some specific examples. That's a valid way of reading the question as well. All right, let's move on to number six. Why is inconsistency to be avoided in rational reasoning? And he's got a long answer in the book, so we'll give you some idea of whether or not your answer fits in with what we're looking for. Inconsistency is to be avoided because, oh, I'm looking for the wrong one. There we go, that's why, I'm looking for the wrong section. because of the law of non-contradiction. So a claim which contains two contradictory claims is false, thus inconsistent reasoning will lead you to false or unreliable conclusions. Also, you could say, as another answer to this question, inconsistency is a type of lying and is not right morally. Or you could say that God is consistent, therefore we should be consistent like God. Any of those three answers is acceptable for number six. How can repeating arbitrariness with arbitrariness be useful in a debate? Alright, so let's get two of you debating. as to whether or not it's right to lie. So, let's see, Clarissa, you had lying, and was it Ian? No, Isaac. No. Ian. Ian, you had lying also. So, pretend Ian and Clarissa are arguing about whether or not it's right to lie, and Ian says, well, I think it's okay to lie in some circumstances just because. I have no reason, I'm just arbitrarily asserting it's okay to lie in certain circumstances. And Clarissa, therefore, wants to arbitrarily refute his arbitrariness, and so what would you say in response to Clarissa? Clarissa would say something like, oh, I understand what you're saying, You're saying that it's always wrong to lie, and my reason for that is I don't need a reason. And so when he was saying I don't need a reason for what I'm stating, you just go and say the opposite and say for no reason, and therefore you've shown the foolishness of asserting something with no reason. That's what he means by answering arbitrariness with arbitrariness. So if somebody arbitrarily asserts something, you can arbitrarily assert whatever you want and show that that's pretty simple to do that type of thing, okay? And then number eight, same question, but now with inconsistency. How can refuting inconsistency with inconsistency be useful in a debate? And so let's see, we had Arianna and Naomi, you both have the answer of murder is wrong. And so if you say, Murder is wrong, or let me put myself here, because I don't want to make you say something so stupid. I say murder is wrong, but it's okay to abort babies. And so I've done something inconsistent, and so how could you answer inconsistency with inconsistency? Can you think of an example? That makes sense. You think that murder is right. That totally makes sense. What I understand is that you're saying that murder is right. That's what they gave in the book. But you have to give me an example of inconsistency. So you're going to answer my inconsistency with some of your own inconsistency. OK. So my belief is that you can kill dogs, but it's wrong for you to kill puppies. OK, good. Yeah, or switch around to be more emotionally effective. It's OK to kill puppies, but you can't kill dogs. Or torture. People will be more emotionally revolted by the concept of torturing puppies. And so they'd be like, well, no, you can't torture puppies. And say, well, in the same way, it doesn't matter how old the human child is. You can't kill a human being whether they're a few months since they were conceived, or 10 years after they were conceived. So, yeah, answer the inconsistency with an inconsistency to show them that that's not good logic, that's not good reasoning. So, let's see, that was number 8. So, refuting inconsistency with inconsistency reveals the absurdity of inconsistent reasoning. Your opponent won't be able to refute your claim without admitting that their reasoning was faulty. Alright, then number nine. Do we have a moral obligation to be consistent in our thinking? The answer here is yes. God is consistent in His thinking and He commands us to be like Him. So we need to be consistent. We need to not be self-contradictory in our thinking. Therefore, it is a moral obligation to be consistent in our thinking. Number 10, aside from the ones given in the chapter, give an example of behavioral inconsistency. So let's continue on with the examples here. So we got past this third row, let's go back to the guys here in the fourth row. An example of behavioral inconsistency. If I logically say it is not logical to think logically. Okay, yeah, it's not logical to think logically. It's definitely inconsistent. saying I eat pizza every Sunday for lunch and then only eating pizza on Sunday for lunch every other Sunday. Uh-huh. Good. I never do math when I'm doing math. That's definitely illogical. That's kind of a nonsense statement there. Yeah. Someone says, never yell at your children, but then they go home directly. Yeah, that's a good example. So definitely, you can get a lot of preaching in the pulpit that is not perfectly lived out and alive. And so there's a behavioral inconsistency with what I say I believe and what is right and good versus what I am able to do in my life. So there's not a preacher on the planet who does not have behavioral inconsistencies with what he teaches from God's Word. But we're all trying to become more like Someone told us you should be quiet and you're not quiet, so. Yeah, yeah. You're like in the library and they yell at you, we're in a library, can't you be quiet? I just didn't like getting inconsistent schedule after you said you were involved. Yeah, yeah. You said I'm going to exercise every morning at 7 and you don't. That's behavioral inconsistency. Yeah. Aiden? I don't like people, but you beat up your family members. I like brown books over blue books, but blue books are more awesome than brown books. I like brown books over blue books, but blue books are more awesome. That's more of a contradiction in, well, no, I mean if you're acting that out. I was just thinking of a statement. these books more by getting more of them or purchasing that one when you have the option. But yeah, I see that as behavioral. It's OK for me to eat junk food, but you can't because it's unhealthy. OK, yeah, so definitely what's good for you versus what's good for me and having that double standard. Very good, that behavioral inconsistency that is there. All right, so go ahead and put the correct number out of 10 at the top of the first page, close to your name. And then hand those in, so I can get written down your grades. Have we recorded the grades from the previous one, or should I just do that and hand them back to you? I think James is more going to hand the back. Great. Yeah, if you can get them recorded and handed back, that would be great. All right, in the five minutes that we have left, I'd like to review a little bit. I want to review the three basic laws of thought. So get out your notepaper and get a blank piece of paper in front of you. And I want you to write out the three laws of thought. And then I want you to try to write them in logical notation. OK, so write out the words. And then, next to the name of the law, see if you can write it out in a logical notation. Remember, we've shown you some of the notation for logic. Like this. You've got the A, the not A, the A and B, the A or B, and the A implies B. So see if you can write out the laws of logic using these symbols. The three basic laws of logic. Alright, we got the three laws written down there. We got them in notation, the symbol form of the laws. I don't expect you to necessarily know how to write them in symbolic form, although I have done that for you here in previous weeks. That's why we review them. So, here we've got T is biconditional, or equivalent, P is bi-conditional with P. Which law of thought is that? Raise your hand. Elise. The law of identity. If P, then P. If P, then P. It goes both ways. P implies P. This P implies that P. So this is the law of identity. The law of equivalence, you could also say. A thing is itself. Alright, let's do another one. Here we've got not, the negation, see the negation sign up there? P, proposition, and not P. So not P and not P, which law of thought is that? The law of non-contradiction. So you can't have a proposition and its negation both be true. Therefore, it's false. It's not. Not means false. And so it is false that you have P and not P. So this is a tautology. If you're doing mathematical formulas, you can always use this when you're doing formal logic, because this is always true. P and not P is negated. That's the law of non-contradiction. All right, last one. P or not P. Which law of thought is represented by the proposition, the assertion, and its negation with the disjunction of or. P or not P. Which law of thought is that one? Yeah. The law of the excluded middle. Good. The law of the excluded middle. So it's either P or it's not P. And this is a true statement. It's either P or it's not P. Now here's where I want to introduce a new concept for you, one that you might find interesting. That as we come into postmodern times, and people have tried to move away from absolute truth and tried to make things grey and fuzzy as much as possible, there's a concept called fuzzy logic. Very technical title there. Latin term, fuzzy. So fuzzy logic is a field of logic that deals with how people make decisions, how people come to understand truth when there is partial truth or the Statements are ambiguous. If the statement is ambiguous, let us go back to Saul. God told Saul, go kill all the Amalekites, destroy all of their stuff, and do not bring anything back. Is there anything ambiguous in that command? No. He did not say, go strike the Amalekites and And you might have some wiggle room to say, well, we did destroy them, but we didn't destroy the king. And it's still kind of iffy. But you could maybe have some wiggle room where you weren't completely clear on what the proposition was. So this fuzzy logic is an area where they try to deal with, well, what about when the propositions aren't clear? And what about if you're dealing with propositions that are mostly true, or kind of true, or things like that. So this is an area of studying logic that seems a little postmodern to me. It seems like you're trying to get away from the concept of true and false and absolute truth and finding that gray area that everyone wants to live in in the postmodern world where they don't have to feel bad about doing what's wrong because it's kind of right. So, just wanted to introduce that concept to you. There are other forms of postmodern logic that are probably more egregious. There's a kind of postmodern logic called dilatheism. which means there's two truths. And so, in dilatheism, you can have, in this logic, which is probably not good reasoning, you can have true contradictions, that there are some contradictions that are actually true. And so dilatheism does away with the basic law of thought, the law of non-contradiction, and says, well, there are some contradictions that are true. And so then there's books and theories people trying to go, what does logic look like when there's some contradictions that are true? That's called dialetheism. And so there are forms of logic that are suspect and that are kind of postmodern in not seeking after truth. truth and falsehood, but trying to kind of blend them together in some ways. So be aware, not everybody who is studying logic is going to be affirming a classical worldview that would be consistent with the ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle and the holy scriptures Instead, there is fuzzy logic, and dilatheism, and intuitionistic logic, and we've talked about intuition. So if you're intuitionist logic, you should have a red flag go up. You'd be like, hmm, that sounds suspect. Intuitionist logic. So, just wanted to introduce some of those concepts, but we're done. Time is up. You can say hello to one another.