Theoretically, logic and reason is able to explain everything and anything. ie. principle of sufficient reason.
But practically, they cannot.
Inherent in logic and reason are plenty of assumptions to purport their claim of explanation. Given sufficient time and analysis, assumptions and reason can be formulated to explain a phenomenon. However one should really study the nature of logic and what it claims to explain when logic is perhaps, really fundamentally just assuming truth ie. begging the phenomenon.
Truth (from logic) may not objective in the sense that whatever you choose to assume becomes your relative truth. It is only perhaps through arguments and evidence that one can sieve out objective truth. Arguments and evidence involve basing the truth of assumption on what we can see, hear, smell, taste and touch or feel from the goodness of our hearts. Scientific forms of arguments/evidence are based on (easily) repeatable experiments.
Logic and reason can try to offer some sort of support/backing/meaning/common grounds to the subject. But they are really no big deal if you personally cannot find any meaning in them.
I shouldn’t dismiss logic altogether. Reason based on worthy assumptions(aka axioms) like love and righteousness or morality can be very powerful and convincing. I would feel this type of premises is equivalent to the hand and favor of the Lord upon your theory. So the key issue is whether the assumptions or premises that logic is based upon is worthy or not. But what constitute worthiness? Meaning from morality. accountability, righteousness, fairness, love.
We all have some intuition to explain various happenings around us. We have some sense of why things lead to another. ie. the cause and effect of things. Good theories extends from these intuition and serves to lay some proper and common foundation and make arguments more consistent and convincing to explain the issues that we feel.
When you argue with other or are trying to convince them, think less about the use of logic, but more to discern their heart assumptions that they are clinging onto when they reason with you. This is because everyone is able to reason; what makes our conclusions/opinions different is the assumptions we use in the process of thought and reason.
The subject from logic and reason essentially flows from the foundation of postulates and axioms that was laid. If you change the foundation of assumptions, you change all the conclusions that flows from it. In the same way, changing a person happens when you are able to convince him to change the values and beliefs in his heart. As Proverb 4:23 says “for out of the heart, springs the issues of life.” If one had truly based their assumptions and truth from the goodness and love from their heart, logic would have led them to Jesus.
While science, through arguments, have seem to reach upon a commonly accepted theory to explain nature, the area of psychology still offers many plausible theories to explain the mind of the human eg. behaviorism vs constructivism. Arguments are yet to determine which is the better or more objective truth. In the same way, different religions offer different theories to explain the meaning of life. Which theory you choose is based on the kind of assumptions you like to hold in your heart to make the best sense of life. But does that mean that we accept all these theories in psychology or religion as truths relative to one another? Or could there be an objective truth like how science can offer to explain inanimate nature? But since human beings are really so diverse, it is really hard to find an objective theory where all these ‘relative’ theories can converge to.
As uncertain as my life might be, I make my own rules but I only answer to myself. – thatonerule.com