# Logic By Gordon H. Clark



## sola_gratia (Aug 7, 2005)

Logic By Gordon H. Clark

Someone gave me this book to read. They said he was somewhat of an extreme rationalist, but that it was a good read. Any opinions on it or advice to take when reading it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Laura (Aug 7, 2005)

Aghhh! If I hear Clark called a rationalist one more time...

*composes herself*

 Sorry. You will be in no danger whatsoever of falling into rationalism or any other heresy if you read and study this book. I've not read it myself (not being proficient enough in formal logic to attempt to do so), but many a friend has recommended it heartily. Go to it.

(edit)
To make that first part a bit more helpful: a basic definition of Rationalism is "a branch of philosophy where truth is determined by reason." More specifically, it is a philosophy that seeks to deduce truth about God, man, and the universe in general apart from revelation (all such attempts have failed miserably, by the way). On the other hand, Clark's life motto - his first principle, as it were - was, "The Bible is the Word of God." From _there_ he deduced his worldview, as any Christian does - _not_ by Rationalism or claiming to be able to deduce Christianity from the laws of logic or anything absurd like that. Okay? 


[Edited on 8-7-2005 by Laura]

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 7, 2005)

Clark actually preached AGAINST rationalism (which is ironic). His logic is impeccable and I have learned a great deal from him.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 7, 2005)

Clark is considered very good for some things and not for others. Logic is a strong suite, blowing up unbelieving thought is another strong suite. Constructing a Biblical worldview is a very weak point.

Edit: Well let me clarify a bit on the Biblical worldview comment. It is more like, "That's good, thats good, then O my goodness what in the world?"

His commitment to the scriptures is very admirable.

CT

[Edited on 8-7-2005 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Clark is considered very good for some things and not for others. Logic is a strong suite, blowing up unbelieving thought is another strong suite. Constructing a Biblical worldview is a very weak point.
> 
> Edit: Well let me clarify a bit on the Biblical worldview comment. It is more like, "That's good, thats good, then O my goodness what in the world?"
> ...


Granted that, I don't think the Vantillian camp has ever said that ALL of the Clarkian school is wrong (in fact, I have always admired the work of Carl F H Henry; his passionate desire to give Pietism its long awaited and overdue death is admirable). 

While my dislike of his work and irritation with John Robbins et al is well known, I have listened to some of his lectures on logic and economics, and given his premises (which I don't always grant), and, well, the logic is there.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## sola_gratia (Aug 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Granted that, I don't think the Vantillian camp has ever said that ALL of the Clarkian school is wrong (in fact, I have always admired the work of Carl F H Henry; his passionate desire to give Pietism its long awaited and overdue death is admirable).
> 
> While my dislike of his work and irritation with John Robbins et al is well known, I have listened to some of his lectures on logic and economics, and given his premises (which I don't always grant), and, well, the logic is there.




I've heard good things about Van Til. Should I look into his work?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sola_gratia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



You should. However you should probably look at Bahnsen first. He has an intro apologetics book called "Always Ready". He also has a nice on Van Til called "Van Til's Apologetic". If they are read 1 - 2, I think you would be better prepared to read Van Til directly.

CT


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sola_gratia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Van Til applied Calvin's Institutes to apologetcs. Van Til can be hard to read, but if you can get a grip on him your apologetic will be: 1) biblically faithful, 2) and will put unbelievers to the flight. 

However, he is hard to read. That is why God gave the church its most underappreciated gem--Greg L Bahnsen. Bahnsen is the most powerful weapon we have.

Here is Bahnsen's lectures on CD.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 7, 2005)

I am not a Clarkian, but liked that book. It was a good read for "intro" to logic.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Laura_
> a basic definition of Rationalism is "a branch of philosophy where truth is determined by reason." More specifically, it is a philosophy that seeks to deduce truth about God, man, and the universe in general apart from revelation (all such attempts have failed miserably, by the way).



Just look at the shallow _logic_ of rationalists like Descartes... he was a theist, but what it is wrong with his underlying philosophy and reasoning behind theism? Anybody?

I got tired of hearing about him from philosophy students esteeming him-- like they found the _prince of philsophers_.


----------



## sola_gratia (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> You should. However you should probably look at Bahnsen first. He has an intro apologetics book called "Always Ready". He also has a nice on Van Til called "Van Til's Apologetic". If they are read 1 - 2, I think you would be better prepared to read Van Til directly.
> 
> CT




I will look into buying those. Thanks.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I guess if you want to miss out on probability, statistical and inductive arguments, which every other logic book deals with, then it would be a okay book. But don't go try talking logic with anyone else except fellow Clarkians.
> 
> Also, if I remember, he holds to aristotles view of universal affirmative statements. I think that current trends reject this view following Frege, arguing that it messes up your square of oposition if some A statements are not taken to have existential import. So, you might be behind a bit, also.



I'm kind of new to this subject...any books you would suggest?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



Copi and Cohen did a great job on existential imports. They ended up showing (and this is greatly simplifying the argument) that granted the traditional square of opposition (I hope I am getting this right), one could prove that unicorns exist!

I would go with their intro to logic. It is quite expensive, but also one of the best.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



This thread might help.


----------



## Civbert (May 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> yes, if one takes a contradiction as: if one is false then the other is true (i.e., a *true* contradiction) then if "O" (Some Unicorns do not exist) is false then "A" (All Unicorns exist) would have to be true.
> 
> Now, a Clarkian would probably argue that Unicorns do exist (albeit as, say, a *thought*). But this is sidestepped by including words which imply their actual existence.
> ...



How do you know that the propositions "Some unicorns are non-existing" is false? What do you mean by existing. 

Clark showed how the existential import issues were absurd in his book Logic. Most modern logic is based on pagan metaphysical issues that are not an issue for the Christian. To adopt modern logic is to adopt the modern existential views of reality. Ironically, modern logic has made it impossible for the average Christian to say they are logical by making "accepted" logic too complex for the average Christian. 

Not only is Aristotelian logic correct, but it's not overly complex. The average high-school student can understand it. Modern logic though is much more complex, and rejects "traditional" logic by adopting some presuppositions they thought were needed to deal with existential issues because of problems with "the one and the many".


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> to where the Clark boat takes us - "The Land of Ignorance."



Isn't Clark's boat a yellow submarine?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 30, 2006)

Guys,
We're going downhill, with the last two posts. Let's not flush an entire thread, _again._ Please.

Critique of GHC (as well as anyone else) is fine, but as soon as the mocking/belittling starts, I just won't let it degenerate any further.

Just like we have to police when people question the salvation or moral character some basically orthodox theologian or apologist. This is "baiting", gentlemen, and I'd rather the PB was above that...

Pax

[Edited on 5-31-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 31, 2006)

Anyone looking for a good intro to Logic book, I found this book to be very helpful: A Concise Introduction to Logic by Patrick J. Hurley


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Anyone looking for a good intro to Logic book, I found this book to be very helpful: A Concise Introduction to Logic by Patrick J. Hurley



 That was the textbook used in my first course in formal logic this past semester. It was very helpful, indeed - however, one weakness is that Hurley has a tendency to take shortcuts and as such can sometimes be less precise than traditional logic in the definitions of the various rules of inference.


----------



## Civbert (May 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I've got Hurley and software (The Logic Coach). I'm a sucker for a textbook with a CD too. The software is not bad, the book is not bad either. I think Copii is a little more thorough. 

Clark's "Logic", while a smaller book, that covers less in scope, gives you things you won't find in the popular textbooks, and covers the traditional Aristotelian logic more completely. It's more concise, and he makes you do more thinking for yourself - so don't let let the size fool you. He doesn't take you by the hand the whole time, and he doesn't assume that you are going to believe everything you read. He expects you to think critically. 

The more popular logic texts tend to presume the student is a gullible as...well...your average college student.  Clark's audience is more critical of anything that seems "worldly" - a student who's rejected the typical career, but is studying philosophy and theology. So Clark never expects you to simply take his word for it.

If you get a good grasp of Clark's Logic, you'll quickly see the error's found in other logic texts (often just sloppy logic). I do recommend reading other popular logic texts so that you're more familiar with the popular logic notation they use, and the assumptions they make (like existential import). But Clark will make you a little more precise, and think a little more carefully and correctly.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------

