Sam Hedin's Soggy Logic

The Day Of Their Return, 4.

I am reluctant to let go of Sam Hedin just as I was to let go of Chunderban Desai. Everyone tries to think consistently, i.e., logically, but that does not prevent them from:

reasoning from absurd premises;

making some very loose connections between their premises and their conclusions.

As Hegel argued, if everyone begins reasoning from arbitrarily chosen premises, then reasons according to rules chosen by themselves and then concludes their argument wherever it suits them, then it is no wonder that there is no agreement - or even mutual comprehension!

A logical argument is of the form: "If -, then -":

If p, then p;

If p, then not not-p;

If p, then either p or q;

If ((if p, then q) and p), then q.

And also:

either p or not-p;

not (p and not-p).

Sam reasons from a mixture of religious and empirical premises. We are familiar with people who argue consistently from absurd religious premises, e.g., If Evangelical Christianity is true, then everyone who is not an Evangelical is damned even if they sincerely believe in some other form of Christianity. (Why God should run a universe on that basis is beyond me.)

How do Sam's arguments hold up?

"'If God is makin' ready for His next revelation, why not through chosen race...?" (p. 108)

Big "If.." there, Sam. The church he attended probably told him that God's revelation was already complete. Here we see Sam accepting but then reinterpreting a received idea. He continues:

"'And if that's true, shouldn't prophet come first, who prepares us to be saved?'" (ibid.)

If that's true... But he made no attempt to establish that that was true. And it does not automatically follow that a new prophet should come first. God, assuming His existence of course, might do it a different way this time.

A straight line drawn from an unwarranted assumption to a preconceived conclusion.

(I have just attended a funeral so ultimate questions are on my mind.)