Quotes About Logic

We keep our eyes out of the sun, not because we are weak; but because we want to apply reason over madness.

You are not poor only in the lack of possessions, but also in your way of reasoning.

Logic cannot comprehend love; so much the worse for logic. That

if creation was a work of love, it must have involved the creation of something other than God. That same love then allows creation to be itself, sustaining it in providence and wisdom but not overpowering it. Logic cannot comprehend love; so much the worse for logic.

This makes the rather obvious logical mistake analogous to that of a soldier who, receiving orders through the mail, concludes that the letter carrier is his commanding officer. Those who transmit, collect and distribute the message are not in the same league as those who write it in the first place.

I am, of course, aware that for over two hundred years scholars have laboured to keep history and theology, or history and faith, at arm's length from one another. There is a good intention behind this move: each of these disciplines has its own proper shape and logic, and cannot simply be turned into a branch of the other.

Logic cannot comprehend love; so much the worse for logic.

Reason without emotion is often a mask for cruelty; emotion without reason can allow people to excuse all sorts of excesses.

The most practical thing in the world is common sense and common humanity.

All of science is largely formalized common sense.

a mind capable of forming an argument against God's existence constitutes evidence for his existence. That is, a conscious being with the ability to reason, weigh evidence, and argue logically must come from a source that has at least the same level of cognitive ability.

to define what is rational solely by whether it fits the tenets of your own worldview is an invalid move because it rules out all other truth claims by definition. You do not even have to investigate the evidence. A serious search for truth does not start by stacking the deck.

An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity—which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself.

a self-creating universe is a contradiction in terms.

The ordered patterns in nature are not logically necessary. They are contingent on God's will.

It is the height of illogic to think that humans originated from anything with lower functionality than themselves—from a something instead of a Someone.

Outside the ivory tower, ordinary people are not interested in a worldview that spins out a logically coherent system, and yet contradicts human experience. They are looking for a worldview that makes sense of the world we actually inhabit. They want one that explains the undeniable facts of human experience, not one that suppresses those facts for the sake of its own internal logical consistency.

a mind capable of forming an argument against God's existence constitutes evidence for his existence.

A reductionistic worldview leads to a lower view of humanity—and thus of the human mind. It reduces human reason to something less than reason. Yet the only way any worldview can argue its own case is by using reason. By discrediting reason, it undermines its own case. It is self-defeating.

A belief in invisible cats cannot be logically disproved," although it does "tell us a good deal about those who hold it."19

The writer C. S. Lewis once characterized this style of argument: "The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden."18 Such arguments are effectively impossible to refute, as Lewis noted. "A belief in invisible cats cannot be logically disproved," although it does "tell us a good deal about those who hold it."19 The

There is no place in a fanatic's head where reason can enter.

If there is something in nature you don't understand, odds are it makes sense in a deeper way that is beyond your understanding. So there is a logic to natural things that is much superior to our own. Just as there is a dichotomy in law: 'innocent until proven guilty' as opposed to 'guilty until proven innocent', let me express my rule as follows: what Mother Nature does is rigorous until proven otherwise; what humans and science do is flawed until proven otherwise.

the great statistician Frederick Mosteller had a point when he said, "It is easy to lie with statistics, but it is easier to lie without them." Nevertheless, there are some steps you can take to, as Huff put it, "talk back to a statistic." Among the biggies recommended by many scientists is to ask a simple question: Does the figure, finding, or correlation make sense, that is, accord with what you know of objective reality?