Sir:
For several years I have subscribed to and have read The Southern
Presbyterian Journal. I think you are doing
a great work and doing it very well. If I should make a criticism, it would be with
constructive intent, for I am anxious that you may be able to save the Southern
Presbyterian Church for the gospel, or at least bring into being a vigorous continuing
Presbyterian church.
The opposed forces are alert to take advantage of any mistake
the faithful may make and in order to reduce these, may I speak of your article
in the issue of October 18, entitled "Poison In The Stream." I assure
you that my criticism is made in all kindness and with a genuine desire toward the
same ends you desire. But there is one specific point and one more general point,
I would like to bring to your attention.
On page 8, column 2, you refer to a professor of logic who taught
you that a false premise will inevitably lead to a false conclusion. If the professor
indeed taught this, I am bold to say that he was incompetent in logic. A false premise
may validly lead to a true conclusion. For example; All the heroes of Homer's Illiad
died young (false); Alexander was a hero of the Illiad (false); therefore,
(validly) it follows that Alexander died young. The accepted logical doctrine, accepted
for two thousand years is that a false premise validly implies anything. Therefore,
it can imply true as well as false conclusions. In modern symbolic logic this is
expressed as "zero implies one."
There is a more general comment I would like to make — not with
the same dispatch and emphasis, yet with a hope that it may be of help. I not only
teach logic, but I teach the philosophy of religion. And I use books as poisonous
as Enslin's. But the effect on students does not come so much from books as from
the instructor in using them. I can use these books and show their prejudice, their
lack of evidence and their fallacies. Someone else might produce a totally different
effect. It seems to me therefore that you will never make much progress attacking
colleges or seminaries on the ground that they use such books. The standard
answer in such cases is too obviously true, viz., that the students need to know
what is being said in the professorial world. I am distressed that I cannot indicate
a better approach. My little wisdom is limited to the opinion that an attack on
text books is the wrong approach. The basic factor is to insure the orthodoxy of
the faculty and when this weakens I do not know how to go about correcting it. A
new president is probably needed, or a new board of directors. And on such matters
I am sure you are wiser than I.
Let me assure you again that I write in the spirit of co-operation;
and if any phrases here appear harsh or summary, or in any way displease you, I
must humbly apologize.
Gordon H. Clark,
Indianapolis, Ind.
No comments:
Post a Comment