-
The_Savior_from_Spiritual_Error_and_50_Principles, page : 62
2. LOGIC. Nothing in logic is relevant to religion by way of denial or
affirmation. Logic is the study of the methods of demonstration and of forming
syllogisms, of the conditions for the premises of proofs, of the manner of
combining the premises, of the conditions for sound definition and the manner
of ordering it. Knowledge comprises (a) the concept (tasawwur), which is
apprehended by definition, and (b) the assertion or judgment (tasdiq), which is
apprehended by proof. There is nothing here which requires to be denied.
Matters of this kind are actually mentioned by the theologians and speculative
thinkers in connection with the topic of demonstrations. The philosophers
differ from these only in the expressions and technical terms they employ and
in their greater elaboration of the explanations and classifications. An example
of this is their proposition, `If it is true that all A is B, then it follows that some
B is A‟, that is, `If it is true that all men are animals, then it follows that some
animals are men‟. They express this by saying that `the universal affirmative
proposition has as its converse a particular affirmative proposition‟. What
connection has this with the essentials of religion, that it should be denied or
rejected? If such a denial is made, the only effect upon the logicians is to
affirmation. Logic is the study of the methods of demonstration and of forming
syllogisms, of the conditions for the premises of proofs, of the manner of
combining the premises, of the conditions for sound definition and the manner
of ordering it. Knowledge comprises (a) the concept (tasawwur), which is
apprehended by definition, and (b) the assertion or judgment (tasdiq), which is
apprehended by proof. There is nothing here which requires to be denied.
Matters of this kind are actually mentioned by the theologians and speculative
thinkers in connection with the topic of demonstrations. The philosophers
differ from these only in the expressions and technical terms they employ and
in their greater elaboration of the explanations and classifications. An example
of this is their proposition, `If it is true that all A is B, then it follows that some
B is A‟, that is, `If it is true that all men are animals, then it follows that some
animals are men‟. They express this by saying that `the universal affirmative
proposition has as its converse a particular affirmative proposition‟. What
connection has this with the essentials of religion, that it should be denied or
rejected? If such a denial is made, the only effect upon the logicians is to