How Logical is Logic?

There is a great amount of misconception on what logic is, what its strengths are, what its weaknesses are, and, most importantly, the boundaries of its domain. Many people have a simple belief that if something is logical this means it is true. Of course, that is not correct. Logic is a skill and practice by which you can determine the consequences of given premises. Initial premises always lie outside of the dominion of logical analysis. Logic is a useful tool, but it must not be understood as being self-sufficient, nor should it be seen as infallible: one can logically prove things which are not true, and some things which are true can never be derived from logic. It must be understood as a human construct, created within the limited perspective of our human intellectual capabilities. To believe the rules of logic are the only sound guide and judge we should follow gives too much credit to the human judgment which created those rules.

This helps explain the exchange I recently had over questions of the virgin birth. It was asked where we get this knowledge: are we to just trust Matthew and Luke? And if so, how and where do they get their knowledge of an event they were not at?

I tried to offer a rather helpful, but simple, explanation.

According to the earliest Church histories, Luke was a personal friend of Mary, and learned from her many historical details which were not found in other Gospels. We can also recognize the fact that there was much which was said and done in the oral proclamation of the Gospel. It is not Jesus and Mary alone, but also the family of Jesus, who could have provided knowledge of the virgin birth to the early Church. Thus, Jesus’ stepbrothers and sisters probably were a source by which the Gospel writers learned about Jesus’ early life. Clearly James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, would have said what he knew about the early life of Jesus from his own family experience, and while it might not have been written down, it does not invalidate the value of oral tradition in establishing historical sources. Finally, as Catholics we believe the testimony of Scripture is more than just a mere human testimony: it was written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This means Scripture should not be seen for us as any mere historical report, but as revelation. Of course this could provide many questions which have not been answered, yet if one comes to the question in and through faith, then we have to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit, who "guides us in truth," helped in the development of the Church's proclamation.

From this, the questioner changed tactic, and moved away from asking “how did the Gospel writers know about this,” to asking why we should believe what they say? Could they not be lying, or could they not have been told lies and just wrote down what they were told? Moreover, it was said that my argument based upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit was not logical because it was be founded upon faith. In other words, the questioner moved away from the direction of the believer to that of the unbeliever, and what I said just did not prove that Jesus was born of a virgin. Moreover, the questioner wanted more witnesses to give credibility to the testimony to the Gospel writers.

It was clear that the discussion was moving away from how and why a Christian believes in the virgin birth to how a Christian could prove it to a non-Christian. Moreover, it was clear that the questioner thought the only way this could be done was through logic. Hence there was even made the claim that “in the claim of a supernatural event, the burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove it.”

Yet, from all this glorification of logic, it was clear the questioner did not appreciate or understand the limits of logic. They want logical answers to everything, even though not everything can be shown through logic. Thus, I provided what I hope is a good, and final, response to this exchange:

If you are coming to the question from faith, then it is logical to make arguments based upon that faith, to follow through and explain what comes about form that faith. Logic can never validate premises: all premises are ultimately based upon faith. Of course one can make a logical argument based upon a conclusion from a former logical analysis, but even then it is tied to the reliability one places upon the initial premises: upon faith. Logic cannot prove itself: logic itself is a human-made construct and therefore, its truth and verifiability transcends the domain of logic. One who comes to the question with faith and believes that Jesus is the messiah will read things one way; their answer, if they follow the rules of logic, would be logical. Logic only tells us that if we start with a set of given statements, that its conclusion follows. It requires one to find something to have faith in to establish any given -- faith is a necessary prerequisite for all logic, and as such, when saying “that’s an issue of faith and not logical,” one would be correct so far as they realize faith is not something inferior to logic but something which falls outside of the domains of logic and indeed is the source by which logical analysis can ever occur. For example: verification of the senses cannot be verified; we have faith in what we experience through them. Empirical science clearly has faith in them when a scientist uses their observation to deduce scientific principles. Yet one must remember that this is all based upon the evidence of the senses, a trust and faith which cannot be logically deduced and yet allows for logical analysis.

But we must be careful here. Logic is a human construct created by humans. Because our intellectual capabilities are limited, we must even put trust upon the rules of logic we create. Moreover, if we want truth, we must be open to revelation which transcends our abilities: truth is still truth even if we cannot explain it. We need a transcendent anchor to provide credibility to our human enterprise. Of course one can ask how one finds that anchor, and suggest one source or another for it – but that concern requires much more study and exploration. For now, if the question comes from one who holds faith, then as a Christian who holds faith in Jesus as messiah, I suggest that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is sufficient, for the Christian is one who believes the Holy Spirit is acting to guide the Church in her search for understanding.

Now if you really are looking for a way to prove the truth of the virgin birth to the non-believer, one will run into many difficulties and they might find the suppositions of the unbeliever makes such proof impossible. If, for example, one such supposition is "it can never happen, miracles are impossible,” you will never prove a miracle to them. Their logical foundation removes such a possibility, and so they will go about finding a logical answer according to their premises. Thus, most often, they will suggest any claims of miracles will come from ignorance or fraud. No matter how many witnesses are around to provide testimony to the miracle, they will find a way to discredit their testimony. When we bring this back into the question of history, this comes out even more, because it is easier to discredit people who no longer can answer back. Yet the science of history requires us to acknowledge testimonies from sources who were not primary witnesses because that is the source for much of history. We don't have eyewitness accounts for most historically believed events. For the historian, while they understand the possible doubts this could provide, they still know that history cannot be done except on this basis. Thus for the Christian, the method by which historians establish other events can be the only secular method by which we establish historical miracles. Of course again, one has to accept or deny the trustworthiness of any such accounts – but to this one can ask, why would one of the Evangelists die for their lie? Would they not recant and would not such a recantation been made known by their opponents? While this gives some credibility to their testimony, it clearly doesn’t prove it – but the same is true for all of history. And one must acknowledge that for one who does not want to believe, they can always find a possible excuse to justify their unbelief.

This is why the best thing one should do is not question the periphery but look to Jesus and discern who he actually is. If you find in him the Lord of Heaven and Earth, if you find him to be the messiah, then the other answers start to come in -- this is not because one has rejected logic – rather, it is because one has made a humble acknowledgment that logic is not self-sufficient and can never prove anything.

Clearly this line of reasoning will not suffice for everyone. Yet I think people need to appreciate more than they do that logic is a human construct and tool, and thus limited by human ingenuity and understanding. Then they will realize both its utility but also why it can never be a sufficient tool to discern truth.