Unwavering Logic

Logic is the study of reasoning. This reasoning deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. In other words, it deals with the evidence and arguments that we use to support our statements. We encounter logic on a daily basis and sometimes find ourselves agreeing with parts of logical arguments counter to our own beliefs.

To paraphrase Donald Miller, you can argue the existence of God either way and both arguments are equally well supported. However, people on the extreme ends of an opposing argument are unlikely to even consider that the other has logical points and do not spend much time attempting to refute them with logic. Rather they support them with emotionally laden words that shift the attention away from logic and down an entirely different avenue of thought. To illustrate this, consider these two arguments based on logic:

What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.
Even one-celled creatures are alive.
What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature

A woman can choose what to do with her body.
A fetus is part of her body.
A woman can choose what to do with the fetus that is part of her body.

The two arguments are based on very simple logic, one pro-choice and one pro-life. I am not extremely well versed in the traditional rules of logical arguments, but I do know that a syllogism is one of the oldest forms of logical proof. These forms of logic are simple at best, but I have heard arguments both ways debated on evidence that have significantly less validity.


These two arguments follow logical reasoning at a very basic level, and I am sure that both logical arguments can be surpassed in value than the ones stated here. Also, I am more than positive, that if I asked pro-choice supporters and pro-life supporters which statement they agreed with and which one they disagreed with they would be able to readily choose. Not only would they be able to quickly make this distinction, but they would be able to follow each statement with logically sound arguments for and against a woman’s right to choose.


Two opposing arguments, argued with seemingly unwavering logic. What is the difference here? Which one is right? Which one is wrong? Are these the wrong questions to ask? The right question to ask would be “why?” Why does someone identify with one logical argument more than the other? The answer here exemplifies one of the true limits of logic.
The limits of logic are vast. However, I believe that these limitations have their source in the nature of logic itself. It is a mental construct that relays information about our personal reality in an organized fashion. Logic is the limited reality that attempts to describe and have qualities of the ideal. This is similar to a quote by Theodore Parker, a Transcendentalist who promoted a form of firebrand Abolitionism during the American Civil War: “As Jesus is to the Bible (the ideal to the limited reality), so is the Declaration to the Constitution.”


Although the Bible attempts to describe and portray the message of Jesus, it will never get close to the meaning of the man himself. The bible has been formed out of these mental constructs that both help us understand things, yet leave us to search for Truth on our own. Similarly, the Constitution attempted to encapsulate the beauty of equality and liberty that is retained in the Declaration of Independence, but failed to provide the rights that are guaranteed within. Just as we can get caught up in what interpretation of the Bible is best or what the forefathers meant when they wrote the Constitution, logic leaves us with only part of the Truth. This part of the Truth can only be expanded by looking to Jesus, the rights guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, or to Truth itself.


I am not advocating for the complete disregard of intellectual argument, I am just stating that at times we attribute a sense of strength to logic that it does not have. In other words, we promote the idea that logic is synonymous with truth, when in reality it is only a supporting factor of truth; not the entire package. There is nothing wrong with using our mental resources and creating arguments that make sense and follow logical arguments. However, we are treading on treacherous ground when we base our entire arguments on logic and neglect the Truth that is unwavering it itself.


To be clear, when I say Truth, I am discussing the actual True explanations about the meaning of life, rather than truth that deals with facts that differ depending on which worldview or lens that you use. That being said, Truth is the whole picture that we will never truly see until we are no longer included in the frame. So rather than argue from logic, it is often better to trust your inner resources that are propelled forward and supported by the search for Truth itself. By recognizing the distinction between Truth and the logic that can be used to support it, we may be able to quell some of the heated arguments that arise.


Within this blog, though my writings may follow a logical framework, logic is not the driving force. These writings document my search for Truth in this world. I am searching for a sense of certainty; something to cling to when all other meaning falls away. This is why I write and I hope that this is why you read.


Love and Peace