Logic and the Way of Jesus: Thinking Critically and Christianly

by Travis Dickinson

In  Logic and the Way of Jesus , philosophy professor Travis Dickinson recaptures the need for a Christian view of reality, highlighting the use of reason and evidence to develop and defend Christian beliefs.
He demonstrates how Jesus employed logic in his teachings, surveys the basic concepts of logic, and marries those concepts with practical application.
While Dickinson contends that Christians have failed to engage the culture deeply because they have failed to emphasize and value a Christian intellect, he offers encouragement that embracing the life of the Christian mind can impact the world for the cause and kingdom of Christ.

Visit the for more inspirational products.
 

Genres: Christian, Philosophy, Theology, Logic, Christian Living, Christianity

384 pages, Paperback

Published February 15, 2022

Reviews

[Travis Stockton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short Summary: Travis Dickinson does an excellent job of giving a Christian introduction to Logic and the various reasons why and how to think more intentionally. Covering everything from the differences between deductive and nondeductive logic to how to sort through truth tables, logical fallacies, and categorical logic. In addition to a variety of topics that help an individual think better, the book also provides exercises that help apply the principles in the book.

Key Takeaways:
Pg. 12 - Would your life change if you were to pretend to be an atheist for a week? Following Christ is a whole life commitment. He calls you to come and die. Quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Pg 64 - "Even as a young child, he makes use of a logical principle called the principle of noncontradiction. This principle says that it can't be the case that a claim and its opposite (i.e., the negation of the claim) are both true at the same time and in the same sense."


Pg. 67 Nash sees here three tests or criteria for evaluating a worldview. There is the test of reason, the test of experience, and the test of practice. The first, the test of reason, evaluates the internal logical consistency of the worldview. …The second, the test of experience, is where we evaluate a worldview in terms of how well it explains the facts of reality. …The third test, the test of practice, is an evaluation of its livability."

Pg. 71 - Sire gives eight questions each worldview should answer.
1. What is prime reality-the really real?
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
3. What is a human being?
4. What happens to a person at death?
5. Why is it possible to know anything at all?
6. How do we know what is right and wrong?
7. What is the meaning of human history?
8. Is it livable?

Pg. 85 - 86 - "With all this in mind, we can see how logical principles seem to be not of this world. They are eternal, absolute, unchanging, necessary, and normative. Nothing in the natural universe has these properties."

Pg. 89 - "C. S. Lewis Put it this way: One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [naturalism]; … The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears…[U]nless Reason is an absolute-all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to beleive this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.

"The Second option for an atheistic worldview is to say that logical principles do in fact exist as eternal, necessary, and normative. On this view, the world is more than only natural, physical, material objects and processes (i.e., naturalism is false) even though there is no God or gods (i.e., atheism is true). We'll call this view atheistic Platonism (Platonism, for short), styled after the view of Plato."

Pg. 104 - "More precisely, logic is a set of principles that provide standards for evaluating the relationships between statements."
"The basic building blocks for rational arguments are statements1. We will define a 'statement' as a descriptive claim about the world that is either true or false2. A statement describes some aspect of the way the world is that is either accurate (true) or inaccurate (false)."
Pg. 105 - "If a string of words does not have a truth value (i.e., it is neither true nor false, then it is not a statement."

"Leibniz's Law: For any x and any y, if x is identical to y, then any property had by x is also had by y."

Syllogism - Simplified argument consisting of three numbered statements. The first two are the premises and the third being the conclusion.

An unstated premise is called an "enthymeme".

Strategy for identifying an argument.
1. Find the conclusion. What is the person ultimately trying to say in it's simplest form?
2. Find the premises. Which statements support the conclusion?
3. Eliminate the extraneous statements and state any enthymemes.

Logical relevance - when the truth of one statement bears on he truth of another statement. This is an asymmetrical relationship.

Deductive Validity - If a premise (or premises) entails its conclusion, then the argument is "deductively valid" (or "valid," for short). An argument is deductively valid when it is setup so that the premises, if true, guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

If an argument is not valid (that is, if the premises do not entail the conclusion), then we say that it is "invalid".

A deductively sound argument is one that is both valid and has true premises.

A test for validity:
1. Assume that the premises of the argument are true.
2. Ask, on the assumption of true premises, if the conclusion could be false. Here we are asking if there's any way, however weird or outlandish, for the premises to be true and yet the conclusion to be false.
3. If it is possible that the premises are true and the conclusion is false, then it is an invalid argument. If not (i.e. the conclusion is always true whenever the premises are true), then it is valid.

We can often find it difficult to decide whether the premises are true of an argument and subsequently must settle for plausibly true or reason to believe it is true.

But if you accept the premises of a valid argument as true, to be logically consistent you must accept the conclusion. This is what we'll call the power of a deductively valid argument: if one accepts the premises of a valid argument, then one must accept the conclusion. To deny the conclusion, you must deny one of the premises.

Symbolizing an Argument
1. Only symbolize simple statements.
2. You can only use the same letter for the exact same statement, but you can repeat the letter.
3. Even if two statements are the same and reference different times, they cannot use the same letter.
A simple statement says only one thing and cannot be reduced.

Conjunction - When two simple statements are combined together with words like "and".
Conjuncts - Each simple statement in a conjunction.
In a conjunction, if one conjuct is false, the conjunction is then false.
Disjunction - Simple statements combined to indicate one or the other is true.
Disjunct - Each of the simple statements of a disjunction.
Exclusive Disjunction - An exclusive -or; it is one or the other.
Inclusive Disjunction - when either of the disjuncts are true or both true.
Negation- A negation asserts the opposite of the statement. It is not a simple statement because it is negating the positive statement.
Conditional - If P, then Q. Statement that follows the "if" statement is called the "antecedent" and the statement that follows the "then" statement is the "consequent".
BiConditional - P iff Q (P if and only if Q) - (If P, then Q) and (if Q, then P).

Categorical Claims - Broad Statements that encompass an entire category (i.e. "All pizza is delicious.").

Particular Categorical Statements - Smaller portions of a broader category being singled out in a statement (i.e. Some people are vegetarians".

Contradictories - Statements that cannot both be true and they both cannot be false.
Contrary - One statement that could be true but both could be false.
Sub-Contraries -
Some "S" are "P"
Some "S" are not "P".
Both can be true but they both cannot be false.

Subalterns - All "S" are "P" and some "S" are "P". The sub-statement of "Some" either is affirmed by the "ALL" statement or negates it.

Common NonDeductive Argument Forms
1. Enumerative Induction
2. Statistical Reasoning
3. Argument from Expert Testimony
4. Argument from Analogy
5. Abductive Reasoning

Rather, we will outline five of the main theoretical virtues to give a good sense of what a theoretical virtue is and how it is used to arrive at the most likely explanation.
1. Internal consistency - the ideas asserted in an explanation, if it is to be good, must all be logically consistent.
2. Explanatory power - when a theory explains all the relevant facts.
3. Simplicity - if two theories are otherwise equal in explanatory power, the simpler theory is more likely to be true.
4. Conservatism - a theory is more likely true when it fits with what we already know about the world.
5. Independent verification - when other reasons beyond an explanation's explanatory power make it likely to be true.

Clifford's Principle - W.K. Clifford says, "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."


A priori truths (and our knowledge of them called a priori knowledge) because we do not depend on (and it, in a way, precedes) observation or sense experience to know these facts. Knowledge that comes on the basis of sense experience is called a posteriori or empirical knowledge.

Three tips for being persuasive
1. Be authentic.
2. Avoid zingers.
3. Ask good questions.
1. Validates the person and creates a conversation.
2. Pushes person to support their position.

Application Points:
1. Evaluating arguments can be quite in-depth. An argument can be deductive or non-deductive. It can be evaluated on is validity or soundness if it's a deductive argument or it's strength and cogency if it's a non-deductive argument. The validity can be evaluated using truth tables but it's soundness and/or strength/cogency is a combination of evaluating the argument thoughtfully and it's truthfulness.
2. The laws of logic are threefold. The first principle, the principle of non-contradiction, requires that a statement and it's negation cannot both be true at the same time. The principle of the excluded middle (bivalence) requires any statement to have one of two truth values, true or false. The principle of identity, the third and last principle, states that each thing is identical to itself.
3. Atheistic (naturalistic viewpoints) typically have two stances on logic. Either logical principles don't exist (negating itself with the law of noncontradiction, because the statement that they do not exist could also imply that they exist unless the law of non-contradiction is a real principle). Or, logical principles do exist and exist simply because they exist (a brute force argument that's very ad-hoc).

Personal AHAs!:
1. Tu Quoque - To argue that Christianity is not a valid form of faith because Christians are hypocrites is a Tu Quoque fallacy. The reality is that Christianity claims that Christians along with everyone else are sinners and fall short of what God intended for them so the intellectual argument for Christianity is strengthened by this honesty and forthrightness while the call to be a follower of Christ (not other Chrisians) is all the more reason why Christianity should be considered.
2. The logic of an argument and the spirit of an argument are not always one and the same. A person does not always respond with logically coherent arguments on the fly all the time. To constantly do the required logical analysis of every statement would cause cognitive overload. So when a statement is made outside of an academic or professional context, we must evaluate both the logic and the spirit of the statement. A teenager may say, "I hate you!" to their parent. From a purely logical standpoint, this argument would require that the relationship of the teenager to their parent is one that lacks any love, appreciation, and in fact holds some ambivalence. But the spirit of the argument may be, "I'm very angry at you right now," with the reality that the relationship may still be one of love, appreciation, and hold some value to both the teenager and the parent. To avoid being misunderstood, we should seek to always be as accurate with our speech as possible, but must understand that in a fallen world, this is not likely to be the case for all of our speech.

[Mark Nichols · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent primer for logic - and that's why the four stars. I was hoping for some further analysis of Jesus as logician, and more about how his teaching often went well beyond binary positions and simplistic responses into profound wisdom. Instead, the central chapters as a presentation of logic. Worth the read, though, and a good reminder to followers of Jesus that logic must still be central to our thinking and growth.

[Chico Collie · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I continued on my journey to find books on logic and critical thinking that are readily available to the general populace, I came across Logic and the Way of Jesus: Thinking Critically and Christianly. Here, Dr. Travis Dickinson advocates for an ‘intellectual faith’ which he conceptualizes as one that harbors intellectual curiosity for the glory of God, modeling the mind of Christ.

“Jesus should be, for us, the primary thought leader for all areas of life – including our disciplines, careers, and hobbies. If he is not, then Jesus is no Lord of our whole lives.”

I love that the idea of thinking both critically and Christianly is presented as complementary and not contradictory. The book had similarities to 'Logic for Christians' by Zack Lee but takes the conversation a step further by introducing truth tables, categorical logic, and abductive reasoning, as well as the theoretical and intellectual virtues, constituting something closer to a true introduction to the field of logic. Additionally, the practice problems in the appendix are a plus!

Unfortunately, the portrayal of ‘Jesus the logician’ was less convincing than anticipated (though my expectation may have been unfairly high) and, though a bit more technical than ‘Logic for Christians’, the content overall is probably still best categorized as a pre-introduction. Nevertheless, this entry should be a consideration for all Christians with no prior exposure to formal logic looking for an introductory primer to the field.

Note. Original review published at maygp.org/reviews

[Matthew Burge · Rating 3 out of 5]

In his book, Dickinson tries to introduce both apologetics and formal logic to Christians. The logic discussions were strong, thanks to clear, accessible language and clever examples. The practice problems likewise do a great job cementing core logical principles in the students' minds.

The apologetics sections were weak, thanks to their exclusive address of atheism as a rival worldview (one of the least popular alternatives to Christianity globally and historically) and to their failure to represent and address the best atheist arguments. In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis could get away with not citing sources for atheist arguments because he had known and believed the best arguments for years before converting. Not being in that position, Dickinson would have greatly benefited from a wider range of cited sources, especially to represent his opponents.

The 4/5 logic discussions and 2/5 apologetics discussions balance in my mind to 3/5 for the book overall.

[Jesse · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is just ok. The chapters that bookend the logic portion are probably the best. The logic section itself would do the job, if you're completely new to the field. The problem is that he's so idiosyncratic with things. This is especially a problem if someone wants to read more logic texts or encounters someone who was trained under the more classic methods (Hurley, Copi, etc.). Either of those instances will create confusion and more translating than should be necessary.

[David Bruyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A sound and yet accessible look at logic for the Christian thinker. Recommended for both students of logic and also those wanting a broad overview.

[Mason Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great read, I'd put it in the hands of anyone exploring the study of logic for the first time. The truth tables chapter is difficult, but that's just cause truth tables suck. Otherwise, very accessible and compelling book

I also got to meet Travis recently and talk about academia and philosophy and he was extraordinarily helpful. Glad to have read this book