A paradigm shift that took hold at the end of the 19th Century in academia effectively "shifted" the perception of the Bible from "the inspired word of God" to "the verbal creations of various humans." Logically, based upon this shift in perception and the resultant presumption of "human error" (with which, in all candor, the author does not agree), the book follows a logical progression, throughout successive chapters--so that readers of the book will be prepared to meet the skeptical audience on its own turf. Aristotle ...
Read More
A paradigm shift that took hold at the end of the 19th Century in academia effectively "shifted" the perception of the Bible from "the inspired word of God" to "the verbal creations of various humans." Logically, based upon this shift in perception and the resultant presumption of "human error" (with which, in all candor, the author does not agree), the book follows a logical progression, throughout successive chapters--so that readers of the book will be prepared to meet the skeptical audience on its own turf. Aristotle called this logical progression approach a "syllogistic chain" or a "chain of syllogisms." The 20th Century rhetorical giant, Kenneth Burke, called such a syllogistic chain: "syllogistic progressive form." What both geniuses are suggesting with these terminologies is that one must build arguments one upon another. This approach has certainly been used by philosophers, throughout the centuries and millennia. Such an approach was used by the father of Modernism, Rene DesCartes. Faith is a continuum. It runs all the way from the tiniest, faintest possibility that something is true to the almost certain probability that something is true. If we were convinced that there was no possibility that something were true, we would have NO faith in it. If we were fully 100% certain that something were true, we would cease to have "faith" in that proposition. What we "know for certain" is no longer faith. "Faith," as Aristotle explains it, must admit at least two possibilities. In his book, On Rhetoric, Aristotle teaches how rhetorical logic works. In rhetoric (as opposed to dialectic), the aim is not to provide absolute truth, but only possible or probable truth. It applies only to matters of which we cannot be 100% certain. Nevertheless, although certainty is impossible, we can logically conclude that something is "probably" or "possibly" true. Aristotle says that the goal of this type of logic is to achieve "faith." If there is no possibility, there is no faith. If there is only one possibility, we call it truth. There is still no faith, because it is absolute truth. The logic of Christianity is a faith-based logic. Interestingly, the Bible says: "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). Dr. Lindsay is Teaching Professor of Argumentation, Rhetoric, and Communication at Florida State University. He holds the Master's in Hebrew from Indiana University and the Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Purdue University. He is the author of 13 books, in addition to The Logic of Christianity. Some of his other titles are: ArguMentor, Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke's Extension of Aristotle's Concept of "Entelechy," Revelation: The Human Drama, Psychotic Entelechy: The Dangers of "Spiritual Gifts" Theology, The Expanded Kenneth Burke Concordance, Disneology: Religious Rhetoric at Walt Disney World, and The Essence of Rhetoric in Disney Music. Other forthcoming books are: Angels and Demons: The Personification of Communication and Hidden Mickeyisms: The Implicit Rhetoric of Disney Films. Dr. Lindsay has also published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international professional conferences of the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Academy of Religion, the Kenneth Burke Society, the National Communication Association, and the Rhetoric Society of America.
Read Less
