P A U L   R E S P O N D S :  

One of my fondest memories at Baylor is Elmer Duncan lisping his way through the example. "I might say, 'All the apples in this bag are Red Delicious apples.' And you might look in the bag and say, 'But there are no apples in the bag!' And I would respond, 'Ah, but type A propositions have no existential import!' "

I have in the back of my Bible a set of 3 syllogisms that I wrote out during a sermon of Buckner's, in response to something that he had said about suffering. What he said wasn't a valid argument, so I tried to find variations on his theme that would be valid. He had said something along the line that if you are suffering, that you can be said to be living in God's will, since God's people suffer. Hmm...

Some people who suffer live in God's will;

I am a person who suffers;

Therefore, I am a person who lives in God's will.

Invalid, since the term "suffer" is undistributed in both the major and minor premises, by using the word "some." This takes the form of some A is B, all C is A, therefore all C is B.

All people who live in God's will suffer;

I am a person who suffers;

Therefore, I am a person who lives in God's will.

Again, invalid: the term "suffer" is undistributed in both the major and minor premises. This is the example that Buckner used. This is the old "Ducks fly south for the winter; my grandmother flies south every winter; therefore, my grandmother is a duck." All A is B, all C is B, therefore all C is A. The most commonly used invalid argument.

All people who live in God's will suffer;

I am a person who does not suffer;

Therefore, I am a person who does not live in God's will.

Valid! All A is B, no C is B, therefore no C is A. (Remember, if one of the premises is negative, the conclusion must also be negative.) And, some interesting implications for Christians, if both propositions are true!

Jim's assumption was probably that people involved in church grow spiritually. Let's see...

Many people who are involved in church grow spiritually;

I am not involved in church;

Therefore, I am not growing spiritually.

Oops — INVALID! This is some A is B, C is not A, therefore C is not B.

How about...

All spiritual growth happens with church involvement;

I am not a person who has church involvement;

Therefore, I am not a person who has spiritual growth.

Ah, validity. All of A resides in B; I do not reside in B, therefore, I can't have a part of A.

Of course, the principle of syllogisms has to remain: IF both premises are true, then the conclusion can't be false. "All spiritual growth happens with church involvement" is a questionable truth, and is the point that your friend should be arguing. For someone actually looking for ways to grow spiritually, Jim would have to say, "Well, remember, type A propositions have no existential import — in other words, I'm not really commenting on the existence of spiritual growth in the church."!! Great — not a very convincing argument for church attendance! Dry those tears!

Paul

::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::

  B A R R Y   R E P L I E S :  

Heh! Excellent analysis! But of course, Jim wasn't even making an A proposition: He said, "If you're not involved in a church, you're probably not growing spiritually." That is to say, based on his experiences and observation, people who aren't plugged in to a church may claim that they see God in the trees and praise him on the ski boat, but in reality there's no challenge or growth as part of a spiritual community.

Nonetheless, having the ability to analyze as you just did is not only rare but also extremely valuable. Just think of how it would have improved the recent year and a half of campaigning! Ah, to live in a society of logic.