Science and Logic

[Calminian]

Can someone tell me, what they believe the difference is between science and logic?

God works within the confines of logic, therefore we can strive to understand Him theo-logically.

But there's also a push, especially in the last couple hundred years, to understand Him scientifically.

Does God work within the confines of science?

If not, is it wise to strive to understand Him theo-scientifically?

Is it wise to try to understand His actions, such as His miracles and creation, scientifically?

 

[gluadys]

Can someone tell me, what they believe the difference is between science and logic?

God works within the confines of logic, therefore we can strive to understand Him theo-logically.

But there's also a push, especially in the last couple hundred years, to understand Him scientifically.

Does God work within the confines of science?

If not, is it wise to strive to understand Him theo-scientifically?

Is it wise to try to understand His actions, such as His miracles and creation, scientifically?

Logic is a way of reasoning that can be used in many areas of thought in addition to science. Logic was used in philosophy for centuries before scientific method was devised. One can even use logic using imaginary concepts and get a valid argument i.e. an argument whose conclusion must be true if the premises are true. (Of course, since the concepts are imaginary, they are not true.)

I am not sure why you say God works within the confines of logic. I would not set that limit on God. Does God sometimes work within the confines of logic? Sure. But there is nothing truly logical about the love of God that redeems us through the blood of Christ. The way of salvation is far above the ways of logic.

The same with science. Does God work within the confines of science? Lots of times. After all, science is the study of the world God made and how God made it to work. But it would also be incorrect to limit God to working within the confines of science.

It is not so much God that we can study scientifically, as the world that God made.

God transcends science as he does logic and is not susceptible to validation or invalidation by either logic or science.

 

[Calminian]

But there is nothing truly logical about the love of God that redeems us through the blood of Christ. The way of salvation is far above the ways of logic.

How is salvation illogical? You may argue it's not fair, but illogical? You could even argue God is above understanding, but do you realize the implications if you say He is illogical? The gospel is one of the most logical messages I've ever heard. Can you create a syllogism showing it violating any formal logical principals?

The same with science. Does God work within the confines of science? Lots of times. After all, science is the study of the world God made and how God made it to work.

The first part is true, but how does science show how God made it? Surely it is the study of how its laws work, but not of how they came to be. How can studying current natural laws tell us how they were created? In fact there is a logical fallacy there, because it's illogical that a thing might create itself.

But it would also be incorrect to limit God to working within the confines of science.

Very true. Basic theism is the idea that God not only created the world and its laws but transcends them.

It is not so much God that we can study scientifically, as the world that God made.

Yes. Science is the study of natural repeatable processes that we observe in the present.

God transcends science as he does logic and is not susceptible to validation or invalidation by either logic or science.

I still would like to see you make a formal argument for this. Here's an argument against it. If God can violate logic, than He can lie. Yet scripture says He can't. Which is true?

 

[juvenissun]

Can someone tell me, what they believe the difference is between science and logic?

God works within the confines of logic, therefore we can strive to understand Him theo-logically.

But there's also a push, especially in the last couple hundred years, to understand Him scientifically.

Does God work within the confines of science?

If not, is it wise to strive to understand Him theo-scientifically?

Is it wise to try to understand His actions, such as His miracles and creation, scientifically?

Logic is a gift to human by God.

Science is a consequence of logic (and observations).

I think the domains and relationships are defined pretty clearly.

 

[Calminian]

Science is a consequence of logic (and observations).

Actually logic and observation where going on a long time before the scientific age came about. These alone would actually be insufficient causes. Something else was necessary to bring about science.

 

[gluadys]

How is salvation illogical? You may argue it's not fair, but illogical? You could even argue God is above understanding, but do you realize the implications if you say He is illogical? The gospel is one of the most logical messages I've ever heard. Can you create a syllogism showing it violating any formal logical principals?

How is it logical? Is grace logical? Show me the valid syllogism of the gospel. Show me the valid syllogism of election?

The first part is true, but how does science show how God made it?

You misquoted me. Go back and see what word you left out.

Very true. Basic theism is the idea that God not only created the world and its laws but transcends them.

I suggest that includes the laws of logic as well as of nature.

Yes. Science is the study of natural repeatable processes that we observe in the present.

Don't forget forensic science. In fact the processes we observe in the present leave evidence for the future. The same processes in the past left evidence for today. Because of this we can both predict when eclipses will occur in the future and determine when eclipses occurred in the past (even if there is no written record of them.)

I still would like to see you make a formal argument for this. Here's an argument against it. If God can violate logic, than He can lie. Yet scripture says He can't. Which is true?

Hmmm, have you just demonstrated that God transcends logic?

Or that your first premise is invalid?

 

[Calminian]

How is it logical? Is grace logical? Show me the valid syllogism of the gospel. Show me the valid syllogism of election?

Sure the gospel is logical. If it wasn't no one would believe it. Perhaps you're are equating logic with understanding. Thus if you can't understand something, it must be illogical. But this certainly isn't the case. I don't understand advanced calculus, but does that make it illogical.

God loves man
love covers sin
Therefore, God's love covers man's sin.

I think that's valid.

You can certainly say God's is unfathomable, unknowable, etc.. But illogical? I fail to see in any way how that would be possible, let alone taught in scripture. If God is illogical, all theology becomes meaningless.

I suggest that includes the laws of logic as well as of nature.

But there are no laws of logic. Logic doesn't occur in patterns that are observed. There's no way to test that 2 + 2 is 4. There's nothing to observe. It's simply objective truth.

Don't forget forensic science. In fact the processes we observe in the present leave evidence for the future. The same processes in the past left evidence for today. Because of this we can both predict when eclipses will occur in the future and determine when eclipses occurred in the past (even if there is no written record of them.)

Forensic science is actually science plus philosophical reasoning. It is based on the idea that laws worked in the past just as they do today. Forensic science works, only if past laws were not different or violated in the past in any way, be it by God or any other freewilled being. In terms of the recent past, this philosophical assumption can be supported by historical testimonial evidence. The prehistoric past, unfortunately, has no such support.... except the Bible which actually challenges scientific presuppositions.

Hmmm, have you just demonstrated that God transcends logic?

Or that your first premise is invalid?

I still fail to see why you believe God violates logic.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually logic and observation where going on a long time before the scientific age came about. These alone would actually be insufficient causes. Something else was necessary to bring about science.

Then you need to define science. This is the first step in logic.

 

[Calminian]

Then you need to define science. This is the first step in logic.

I'm referring to science in the stricter sense of using the scientific method to discover material causes for particular events.

But, for this thread, I'd like to discuss the philosophical presuppositions necessary for science, many of which are actually based in theology (theology being, logical deductions from revelation about God). One such presuppositions would be the idea that God created an organized world. Another would be that the world follows repeating patterns that can be tested (without this idea, miracles would have no meaning). Then there's the accuracy of the senses, etc.. It's no mystery to me that modern science has flourished in christian environments.

These would be the other ingredients necessary to science. But I think they also reveal limitations to science, ones that I believe christians need to be more mindful of.

 

[billwald]

>Can someone tell me, what they believe the difference is between science and logic?

Logic is a topic under mathematics. Much of mathematics is theoretical stuff that doesn't have a counterpart that we know in the physical universe. Science is a systematic observation of the physical world - stuff that can be measured and counted.


>God works within the confines of logic, therefore we can strive to understand Him theo-logically.

God works outside of human understandable logic thus "God's ways . . . ."

>But there's also a push, especially in the last couple hundred years, to understand Him scientifically.

There has? Metaphysically? Or are you referring to this "intelligent design" nonsense?

>Does God work within the confines of science?

I personally think that a miracle is God applying knowledge or power that is unknown to us but theoretically could be known.

People who don't understand or intentionally misrepresent statistics and probability confus "miracle with a statistically improbable event.
It is important to remember that Statistics ONLY applies to historical events and probability ONLY applies to future events even though the same sort of calculations are used in both subjects. If an event occurred then the probability of that specific event happening is 100% even if the probability of that same event happening a second time is very small.

Also, cause and effect is assumed where there is none. For example, statements about the probability of Jesus being crucified and Jesus being born in Bethlehem and Jesus (whatever).

>If not, is it wise to strive to understand Him theo-scientifically?

Not wise unless you have run out of more important activities.

>Is it wise to try to understand His actions, such as His miracles and creation, scientifically?

Well, this generation seems to be trying to combine physics and metaphysics in sort of a Hindu fashon. Topics like ESP, NDEs and OBEs. Science is reverting to alchemy.

 

[birdan]

Forensic science is actually science plus philosophical reasoning. It is based on the idea that laws worked in the past just as they do today. Forensic science works, only if past laws were not different or violated in the past in any way, be it by God or any other freewilled being. In terms of the recent past, this philosophical assumption can be supported by historical testimonial evidence. The prehistoric past, unfortunately, has no such support.... except the Bible which actually challenges scientific presuppositions.

I'm providing a link to a short (4 page) paper that does a very good job discussing the similarities and differences between experimental and historical science:

historical science

This may help with some of your questions.

 

[shernren]

Forensic science is actually science plus philosophical reasoning. It is based on the idea that laws worked in the past just as they do today. Forensic science works, only if past laws were not different or violated in the past in any way, be it by God or any other freewilled being. In terms of the recent past, this philosophical assumption can be supported by historical testimonial evidence. The prehistoric past, unfortunately, has no such support.... except the Bible which actually challenges scientific presuppositions.

Why shouldn't physical evidence from the prehistoric past be any less valid than testimonial evidence from the historic past to demonstrate that past laws were not substantially different in the prehistoric past?

 

[crawfish]

Can someone tell me, what they believe the difference is between science and logic?

Science is an extension of logic, deriving it into fields of study of the natural world.

God works within the confines of logic, therefore we can strive to understand Him theo-logically.

God works within His OWN logic, which is very different from our logic. He can seem illogical - as the various challenges and answers to the age-old theodacy question show - but we have to assume that our perspective is just not large enough to comprehend His purposes.

Like gluadys said, confining God to any limits of human logic is to confine Him in an artificial way. We must try and derive His logic from His word and His works; we should NOT try to fit Him in our own limited systems.

But there's also a push, especially in the last couple hundred years, to understand Him scientifically.

The attempt is not to understand God scientifically, but to understand His creation. God is beyond discovery.

Does God work within the confines of science?

God does most of His work through the natural laws He enacted. He is also quite capable of accomplishing things outside said law. In other words, God is not limited by science.

If not, is it wise to strive to understand Him theo-scientifically?

No, explained above.

Is it wise to try to understand His actions, such as His miracles and creation, scientifically?

We must have a sense of what is knowable and what is not. Science, or natural law, is not a "law" to itself, but a description of what we see in the natural world. In those areas we can describe we are given leave by God to explore; those areas that we cannot, we take on faith as miracles, knowing God is absolutely capable of both.

The only reason "special creation" is questioned as a one-time miracle accomplished in exactly the way set out by scripture is that we have too much evidence to the contrary. As a result, we revisit the scriptures to find that it is obvious the account was NOT describing a one-time miracle, but giving an overview of what God accomplished and what our place is in it.

 

[gluadys]

God loves man
love covers sin
Therefore, God's love covers man's sin.

I think that's valid.

No, it is not. First, you are equivocating between "love" as a verb and "love" as a noun. Second, you have not established any logical connection between man and sin.
You actually have two disconnected statements as premises and they cannot entail a conclusion.
Besides, logic does not prevent coming to a false conclusion.

Here is an example of a valid syllogism.

All mammals are creatures that bear live young.
No creatures that bear live young lay eggs.
Therefore no mammals lay eggs.

This is a valid syllogism because given the first and second statements, the conclusion necessarily follows.

It is valid, but it is not true. A logical conclusion is only true if the argument is valid (which this is) and if both of the premises are true. In this case premise one is not true. Not all mammals bear live young. A very few species of mammal lay eggs. So to make this syllogism both valid and true one would have to restate the first premise as : Most mammals are creatures that bear live young. Then the conclusion would change to: Most mammals do not lay eggs.

Then you have a logical deduction that is both valid and true.

But there are no laws of logic. Logic doesn't occur in patterns that are observed.

There most certainly are, and the patterns have been observed for centuries and the rules for valid argumentation detailed.

Here are a few:

The middle term must be distributed in at least one premise. (Because your syllogism had disconnected premises, it did not even have a middle term.)
No term can be distributed in the conclusion unless it is distributed in at least one premise.
At least one premise must be affirmative.
If the conclusion is negative, at least one premise must be negative. If one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.

There's no way to test that 2 + 2 is 4. There's nothing to observe.

There is everything to observe. Hold up two fingers on one hand, and two fingers on the other hand. Count all the fingers.

Do the same with marbles, pennies, paper clips, whatever. You will always find that two sets of two total four.

It's simply objective truth.

It is truth because of the way we name the mathematical sets. The particular content of the set does not matter, so we can abstract from the things in the set and give the set a name. Then we can play around with the named sets without considering a physical content. Perhaps this is what you mean by "nothing" to observe. However, you first have to have the idea of a set and give each set a name. This does come from observation.

Forensic science is actually science plus philosophical reasoning. It is based on the idea that laws worked in the past just as they do today.

Idea and evidence. If natural laws (like 2+2=4) did not work in the past as they do today, we would not be able to understand the past as the rules would be constantly changing. Because science does produce a coherent picture of the past, even when using independent lines of evidence, we have assurance that nature did work as it does work. The present is a logical outworking of the past.

Theologically, of course, this was also promised by God. He did not make creation to be incoherent. Further it accords with the anthropic principle which notes that if the laws of nature were even slightly different, the universe would not be habitable. Since God made the universe to be habitable, God guarantees that the laws of nature will remain within the narrow parameters that allow for a habitable universe.

The prehistoric past, unfortunately, has no such support.... except the Bible which actually challenges scientific presuppositions.

I do not know that the Bible challenges any scientific presupposition.

I do know that certain human hermeneutical principles force an interpretation of the bible that makes it appear to contradict the reality of God's creation. Obviously, an interpretation of scripture that is at odds with God's own handiwork is a suspect interpretation.

I still fail to see why you believe God violates logic.

Logic is too rigid. I would not place God in such a small box. And, as noted, logic is not a guarantee of truth anyway. Truth includes logic, but it surpasses logic.

The language of love is not logical. But it is true.

 

[crawfish]

Forensic science is actually science plus philosophical reasoning. It is based on the idea that laws worked in the past just as they do today. Forensic science works, only if past laws were not different or violated in the past in any way, be it by God or any other freewilled being. In terms of the recent past, this philosophical assumption can be supported by historical testimonial evidence. The prehistoric past, unfortunately, has no such support.... except the Bible which actually challenges scientific presuppositions.

This is untrue. Forensic science can be proven by its ability to predict. For instance, if science says "based on the fossil record, we would expect to see a fossil that has <whatever> attributes". If we find fossils that have those attributes, we have strengthened the theory. Evolution, for instance, has had INCREDIBLE predictive power. If it was false it could not withstand the constant barrage of new discoveries. Sure, some of the incremental steps have changed over time as we've discovered more data, but the overall picture has not changed in over 100 years.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think we are confusing that which is beyond our understanding as being illogical.

It may be beyond our understanding as to why God loves us. I think it quite a different thing to conclude that it is illogical. To conclude it is illogical is to presume some knowledge about God that has not necessarily been revealed.

I would never say God can make a rock too large for him to move. It is illogical. Some answer this question by specifying that the question itself is meaningless.

I would suggest that if we could contain infinite knowledge that we could form premises and conclusions that would show that God's love is logical. As it is with our finite minds, we accept such things on faith.

 

[Mallon]

Yes. Science is the study of natural repeatable processes that we observe in the present.

The recent push to exlude studying the past from science sounds like a sour grapes story if I've ever heard one. Evolution and Big Bang cosmology have done wonders at making sense of what we observe today, but now the YECs want to redefine science so as to cut those out entirely, rather than having to deal with them head-on. Institutions like AiG are always sure to make the point that "we accept all science, except what it has to say about evolution". It's becoming increasingly obvious that this isn't true, though, and I suspect YECs are forced to reject so much science because evolution is supported by so many different fields of study.

(Also, for my EC friends, I just stumbled across the following link while researching for this post:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/creationists-deny-laws-of-nature
It says:

The laws of nature are uniform. They do not change arbitrarily, and they apply throughout the whole cosmos. The laws of nature apply in the future just as they have applied in the past—this is one of the most basic assumptions in all of science. Without this assumption, science would be impossible. If the laws of nature suddenly and arbitrarily changed tomorrow, then past experimental results would tell us nothing about the future. Why is it that we can depend on the laws of nature to apply consistently throughout time? The secular scientist cannot justify this important assumption. But the Christian can; the Bible gives us the answer. God is Lord over all creation and sustains the universe in a consistent and logical way. God does not change, and so He upholds the universe in a consistent, uniform way throughout time (Jeremiah 33:25).

I should think the significance of this admission is obvious.)

 

[Calminian]

Logic is a topic under mathematics. Much of mathematics is theoretical stuff that doesn't have a counterpart that we know in the physical universe.

Correct, although I think it would be better to say mathematics is under the category of logic, but its debatable.

Science is a systematic observation of the physical world - stuff that can be measured and counted.

Exactly. Science is observing, and recognizing repeatable patterns. Science notices (for lack of a better word) material cause effect relationships, though testing. It's limited to this as well.

God works outside of human understandable logic thus "God's ways . . . ."

If God always works outside of human logic, than nothing could ever be known about God and His revelation to us could not be understood on any level. All biblical hermeneutics and theology become meaningless.

There has? Metaphysically? Or are you referring to this "intelligent design" nonsense?

Yes, intelligent design is part of it, as is theistic evolution (theistic naturalism). And theistic naturalism goes way beyond origins. There are attempts by good intentioned christians to find natural (i.e. scientific) explanations for all of God's miracles. There's been very diligent efforts to find a natural explanation for the parting of the Red Sea, for instance. There are theories about volcanos causing it, or normal strong winds parting the "sea of reeds" (a shallow marshy area), etc.. All of these miss the point that God is not confined to work within natural law.

All the while, these brilliant scientist are not understanding (at least on some level) the basic unproven presuppositions necessary to the scientific method. The primary one is material determinism.

I personally think that a miracle is God applying knowledge or power that is unknown to us but theoretically could be known.

Think about it this way. Scripture reveals Him to be Creator of these scientific laws. Certainly He didn't use them to create them as that would necessitate them existing prior to themselves (logical fallacy). And if He created them, He certainly transcends them and need not work within them. We can certainly conclude that the creation of the world, which included its natural processes and patterns, was not the product of Him using natural law.

Also, cause and effect is assumed where there is none.

Well, cause effect is assumed in science, but it is not necessarily the case in philosophy/theology. For instance, we can all agree that God's being was not caused. But science must assume even more than that. It must assume, a priori, material causes. This casts quite a bit of light on the narrowness of science. Basic Theism is the idea that God not only created the world but (unlike Deism) edits it from time to time. This enters into the equation an unknown number of physical effects from nonmaterial nonrepeating causes. These effects in question, therefore, could not be linked to their actual causes through a method that assumes the absence of their causes. So there are some potential problems with basic theism and basic scientific presuppositions. They are only potential problems, though, as the thinking theist should be able to discern when and when not to apply science. The thinking atheist/naturalist has no such freedom.

Well, this generation seems to be trying to combine physics and metaphysics in sort of a Hindu fashon. Topics like ESP, NDEs and OBEs. Science is reverting to alchemy.

Actually I don't think so. They are trying to find natural explanations for such phenomenon. They're looking for repeatable patterns so they can point to material causes—at least they should be if they’re claiming to be scientists. Personally I don't know if ESP has a natural explanation, but if it does, I'm sure science will find it, so long as it has enough time. If it doesn't—if it is a product of supernatural intervention such as spirits or demons, then they will search in vain as science must dismiss, a priori, all such conclusions. In order to conclude a supernatural cause, one must move from science to a broader epistemological system that includes such causes. But this is a very frowned on tactic in today's society.

 

[Calminian]

I think we are confusing that which is beyond our understanding as being illogical.

It may be beyond our understanding as to why God loves us. I think it quite a different thing to conclude that it is illogical. To conclude it is illogical is to presume some knowledge about God that has not necessarily been revealed.

I would never say God can make a rock too large for him to move. It is illogical. Some answer this question by specifying that the question itself is meaningless.

I would suggest that if we could contain infinite knowledge that we could form premises and conclusions that would show that God's love is logical. As it is with our finite minds, we accept such things on faith.

Very well said.

 

[Calminian]

No, it is not. First, you are equivocating between "love" as a verb and "love" as a noun.

Actually it is valid. Love as a verb and love as a noun are not necessarily equivocal. In this case they are not. You could arrange the syllogism this way to make them all nouns, but its meaning is identical.

God applies His love to man
The love of God covers the sins if the subjects it is applied to.
Therefore, God's applied love covers man's sin.

Compare to:

God loves man
love covers sin
Therefore, God's love covers man's sin.

There's no fourth term in either of the above. The gospel is logical!

Now you may not understand the premises, but this doesn't mean they are illogical as another poster already pointed out.