Fai clic su di un'immagine per andare a Google Ricerca Libri.
Sto caricando le informazioni... Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought (edizione 2013)di Vern S. Poythress (Autore)
Informazioni sull'operaLogic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought di Vern S. Poythress
Nessuno Sto caricando le informazioni...
Iscriviti per consentire a LibraryThing di scoprire se ti piacerà questo libro. Attualmente non vi sono conversazioni su questo libro. Not a logic textbook as much as Poythress' argument for where the discipline sits within the scheme of things. Repetitive, dull and rote stuff. Not recommended. Big face-palm moment in the introductory chapters when after claiming that the only people who can really "get" logic are Christians he proceeds to make some major blunders in explaining the differences between truth, validity and soundness (pp. 48-49). Uh, yeah. Let's tone it down a bit there dude. Copi's Logic beats this attempt at profundity, hands down. nessuna recensione | aggiungi una recensione
For the well-rounded Christian looking to improve their critical thinking skills, here is an accessible introduction to the study of logic (parts 1 & 2) as well as an in-depth treatment of the discipline (parts 3 & 4) from a professor with 6 academic degrees and over 30 years experience teaching. Questions for further reflection are included at the end of each chapter as well as helpful diagrams and charts that are appropriate for use in high school, home school, college, and graduate-level classrooms. Overall, Vern Poythress has undertaken a radical recasting of the study of logic in this revolutionary work from a Christian worldview. Non sono state trovate descrizioni di biblioteche |
Discussioni correntiNessuno
Google Books — Sto caricando le informazioni... VotoMedia:
Sei tu?Diventa un autore di LibraryThing. |
This reflection bridges the Creator-creature distinction. However, when he sets up this reflection between FOL= and “God’s logic” he assumes that FOL= is not just another example of man’s desire for autonomy from God. This is where he makes a mistake.
To see why this characterization of FOL= is problematic, consider that Poythress would not want to describe the Tower of Babel as a reflection of “God’s tower”. Because the Tower of Babel is an example of man’s desire for autonomy from God, it should not reflect anything from God.
Poythress knows that almost no one, Christian and non-Christian alike, thinks FOL= is personal in any way. To counter this anticipated objection, he accuses those who might reject his argument as being “massively guilty” of “idolatry”. For example, consider this comment about guilt and idolatry on page 84:
"Christians too have become massively guilty by being captive to the idolatry in which logic is regarded as impersonal. Within this captivity we take for granted the benefits and beauties of rationality for which we should be filled with gratitude and praise to God."
By committing to FOL= Poythress blinds himself to seeing it as another attempt by man to gain autonomy from God. Given that commitment, perhaps better described as compromise, he now has to defend FOL= even when it attacks the Trinity. ( )