Monday, July 6, 2015


People like myself warn that gay marriage has opened the doors to incest. Others scoff at this. "Incestuous conceptions can lead to genetic problems, though." True... But there is contraception, prenatal treats, and abortions... So why should that be feared?

Further, why not gay incest? What real, substantial difference is there between a union of two unrelated men and two related men, especially brothers? I for one see no reason to ban marriage between two brothers but not between two male friends. Can anyone answer that question for me?

posted from Bloggeroid

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Chili, marriage, and math

In Texas, chili does not have beans. Any (real) Texan will tell you that real chili doesn't have beans. Other states are just fine having beans in their chili.

Prior to last Friday, many people saw marriage like chili. In Massachusetts, for example, marriage was between any two adults, regardless of sex. In Texas, it was between two people of opposite sexes.

Today, some think the SCOTUS came in and declared that all chili must have beans, so to speak. The analogy, and the perception it represents, is wrong.

What the SCOTUS really tried to do was to say 1+1=2 or 1. Both answers are correct. States must adjust their math curricula and teachers must teach that 1+1=2 or 1.

In other words, marriage is a reality like the laws of math. The law is a law of natural philosophy attested to by countless peoples before is. The SCOTUS has disenfranchised the dead, and our activists have labeled them bigots.

We have now an oligarchy of the living where we freely curse and despise those who have us all that we have and love today. We have abandoned reason for emotion, and thought for sentiment.

Public discourse consists mostly in name calling and mockery and very little dialogue. We are now becoming second Socrateses as well as second Christs.

posted from Bloggeroid

Monday, June 29, 2015


Today I decided to go to daily Mass downtown at noon. So I packed up my one year old and drove 30 minutes, paid for parking, and walked to the church. When I got in, I noticed a dress code posting. That was not new to me. And I believe in dress codes for churches. However, as I was wearing shorts, I did not meet the dress code.

At this point, I could have ignored the sign and rationalized my disobedience. Who are they to say what I can wear? (My spiritual leaders). What if I was poor and had no other clothes? (I'm not, and the rule wouldn't apply, since I would be dressed in my very best). My choice was to obey or disobey. I chose to obey and respect the rules, which I support, even though it was inconvenient for me.

Obedience is a forgotten virtue. It merits us many graces. Legitimate superiors demand obedience and we must give it, provided we are not commanded to do something contrary to God's law (such as wed two men or two women).

posted from Bloggeroid

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Keep thy religion to thyself

I saw that quote from George Carlin on my Facebook feed. So should Christian hospitals only heal Christians? Should Christian food banks turn away non believers? Should Catholic schools and universities have a faith requirement, even for general studies majors? After all, that is still me sharing my religion with you. Preach always, use words when necessary... And such.

posted from Bloggeroid

Friday, June 26, 2015

USCCB speaks

The USCCB has released a statement on the SCOTUS ruling.

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. 

Herein lies the most important point: five justices do not have some magical ability to change the nature of reality. Marriage is still only between a man and a woman. What we have now is, simply put, state-sponsored mass delusion.

Read the rest over there. Do penance!

posted from Bloggeroid

Divorce and today

Could we have had today without divorce first? No! Memes justifying gay marriage on the basis of ”the bible condemns divorce, which Christians take part in all the time” abound.

Yes, it is hypocritical to accept divorce despite the Bibles’ condemnation and oppose gay marriage for that reason. Thankfully, the Catholic church is consistent. Protestantism, however, is not and bears a good portion of the blame.

posted from Bloggeroid


I think few are surprised by the SCOTUS ruling today. The consequences will be seen. I ask everyone to bookmark, print, and otherwise save all doomsday predictions and naysayers' rejoinders to look back in the days, months, and years to come.

Go to confession and pray the Rosary!

posted from Bloggeroid

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Closing the cafeteria

Let's pay heed to Ladato Si.... And Summorum Pontificum....And Humanae Vitae...

Let's have lots of kids, raise them to responsibly respect and care for the environment, and teach them this in a quality CCD class following a traditional High Mass.

That's what I'm doing.

posted from Bloggeroid

Dirty sinks

Reason #1 for Ladato Si: If you leave your sink dirty, you can get roaches. Roaches bring diseases. Likewise, if we fail to care for the planet, humanity will suffer. Ladato Si is not a neo-pagan encyclical calling to canonize "St. Mother Earth." Rather, it recognizes that care for the environment is a human issue. Harming the environment harms people.

Thus, as the Holy Father states in the introduction, we are the stewards of the Earth, not its master and lord. That right is reserved to the Lord God Himself. Dominion does not mean license to take and pillage the land as we please, but to responsibly care for it.

posted from Bloggeroid

An ineffective solution

Fr. Longenecker has proposed a
solution to gay marriage that I proposed a decade ago, but then peoplestill felt that gay marriage would never be accepted and wouldn't be the law of the land (can you imagine what a man waking up from a ten or twenty year comma must think?)

In short: get the Church out of the civil wedding business. Make the religious and civil process separate, as it is in countries like Russia, that way priests aren't "ministers of the state" subject to state laws and won't be forced to do gay weddings. However, I don't feel gay activists will be content at stopping here. They will sue for the state to intervene in private religious affairs, and, judging by how things are going, they will likely win (pray the Rosary daily, by the way!)

This will be unprecedented, as far as I know. Would a neo-druid and an atheist who wanted to get married in a Catholic church for aesthetic reasons seek to force the Church? Probably not. Would they win? Probably not. It's the same principle, but homosexuals are the favored victim class today. I could see them winning, indeed.

Go to confession and pray the Rosary!

posted from Bloggeroid

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

One last HP post: backbiting

Earlier I posted about the sin of backbiting, and I also commented on poor morals of Harry Potter. These two go well together, as the example Harry sets for kids is one of backbiting. He and his friends often denigrate Snape, Malfoy, and Filch among others. They're often wrong, especially about Snape, yet they never learn (and this the reader never taught) the lesson of not backbiting. How unfortunate.

posted from Bloggeroid

Rebels contra Americam

The Confederate flag is in the news a lot lately. Regardless of whether or not you think it's a racist symbol, undeniably it is a symbol of rebellion against these US of A. By definition. So it's never made much sense to me to see the Southern Cross flown at July Fourth parties, as if it is a patriotic symbol.

Really, though, does it matter? The fight over the flag is a diversion. In the absence of a real enemy, or when we are afraid to face the real enemy, we must create phantom enemies. For both sides of the debate, the opposition are nothing more than such a phantom enemy.

posted from Bloggeroid

Post script: calling names

J. K. Rowling may not believe in the power of names, but she does believe in the power of calling names. "Mudbloods" is the magic world's n-word and is highly offensive.

posted from Bloggeroid

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Names matter

I've been rereading the Harry Potter books this week. A lot of the excitement over the books had died down, but they're still very popular. At my local libraries, there's always a waiting list of at least 4 to 5 people. The elementary school students at my school still love to read them. The books are not going away.

The controversy surrounding then largely has, so it seems. I've always been a little ambivalent about them. I've read all the books at least twice, and they're fun and exciting. But they definitely reflect a modernist and at times, neopagan, world view. Good children's literature should have positive morals; it doesn't. Hogwarts is unfair. Harry gets away with things he shouldn't. The people who do discipline home are horrible tyrants (eg Snape, the Dursleys).

Furthermore, Dumbledore is an awful headmaster who makes poor hiring decisions. He knows Trelawney isn't a seer (with the single exception), not to mention Quirrell and Lockhart.

One thing that stuck out to me this time is how Dumbledore tells Harry not to fear the name of Voldemort. Seemingly, names only have the power we let them have. Compare this to philosopher Peter Kreeft's commentary on The Lord of the Rings. When the name of Mordor is invoked, all the power of Mordor is present there. Gandalf somewhere says that it is rightly to be feared. Kreeft says that we must learn that we fear evil too little rather than too much. In Tolkien's Catholic world, the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are regularly invoked, causing demons to flee at the power in the name.

It is ironic that in a book where words literally have power that the importance and power of a name should be so explicitly diminished. In my opinion, this is a major flaw, both literarily and philosophically, of the Harry Potter novels.

posted from Bloggeroid

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Who are you to judge?

Do you ever get the "who am I to judge?" comment thrown back at you?  Bookmark this article below:

In the end, the pope issued a ringing affirmation of traditional marriage and the importance of children having both a mother and a father. In the current context, this is rather a rather shocking statement and worthy of coverage, even though it is basic, orthodox, 2,000 year-old Christian doctrine.
This is the kind of statement, in other words, that was granted a 250-word, bare-bones news report by the Religion News Service. Yes, imagine an RNS story that short about a topic linked to LGBT rights.
Of course there won't be much mention of this. It doesn't fit the image of the Pope the media wants to project.

posted from Bloggeroid

Friday, June 19, 2015

Didn't you know the Catholic Church is anti-science?

Fr. Lamaitre and some other famous scientist guy.
Oh look! Another article enlightening the world to how backwards and anti-science the Catholic Church is!  This article should be especially shocking to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as well as famous historical Catholic scientists like Fr . Georges Lamaitre. It was posted on 18 June 2015, of the Gregorian Calendar, named for Pope Gregory XIII, whose astronomers realized problems with the Julian calendar, particularly with respect to the dating of Easter.  I wonder what Fr. Robert Barron would have to say!

The Blood Stained/less Stars and Bars

So the SCOTUS said that Texas can choose not to have the Confederate Flag on license plates, and that it's not unfairly discriminatory to deny the Sons of Confederate Veterans the "speech."  The question is not whether or not someone should have the right to place the flag on their car.  They can.  The question is not whether or not someone should have the right to yearn for the South to rise again.  They do.  The question is whether or not the State can have the right discretion to refuse to be mixed up with the symbol of the Confederate flag.  It should, and it does.

First Confederate Flag: The Stars and Bars
Second Confederate Flag: The Stainless Banner

Third Confederate Flag: The Blood-Stained Banner

 Those who wave the Confederate flag say that it represents, "Heritage, not hate."  I believe them, or at least their sentiments.  To them, it is not a hate symbol.  It is a way of honoring their ancestors who fought (and often died) during the Civil War, but for "the other side."  Besides, around Texas and other places in the south there are monuments honoring Civil War soldiers.  There are cities, counties, and even mountain ranges honoring Jefferson Davis and others.  The Civil War was not about slavery, but about the right of states' (and the people's) self-determination.  It was no different from the American Revolution, except that the rebels lost.

Yet, historical revisionists notwithstanding, the Confederate flag represents one thing: slavery, namely, white slavery of blacks.  So, despite many white people believing that contemporary racism of whites against blacks is non-existence, many people on the receiving end of that racism don't feel that way. "Heritage, not hate" and "racism is dead" are hard arguments to make against the SCOTUS when this article is juxtaposed in newspapers with the news of a white man killing members of a black church in a southern state in order to start a race war.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Oh, media

I saw this headline online.  The Houston Chronicle apparently wants to turn the pope's encyclical into something political.  Surprise, surprise!  Will it have political implications?  Yes.  The Church is in the world (though not of the world) and so will be involved in politics, but she is a Church, not a Super PAC, and so her sole purpose is glorifying God.  Everything she does is to that end.

Backbiting the bishops

I believe many Catholics, on both ends of the liberal/traditional spectrum, can rightly be accused of backbiting against the pope and bishops.  I know I can.

For me, this often comes in the form of questioning motives.  "The Pope said that because..." or "Cardinal so-and-so said that because he secretly hates the church."  That's imparting an impious motive.  The better response is to assume a pious motive, unless given good and substantial evidence to the contrary, and simply say, "I disagree with him because..." or "He is wrong because..."

Earlier this week, after the leak of Laudato Si, one traditional writer I read criticized the Holy Father (before having admittedly read it, and admitting that the document was unofficial) and said something along the lines of that he doesn't understand what it means to be pope or write an encyclical.

It is acceptable, at times, to criticize even popes and bishops.  It is not OK to insult them, and when we insult them privately, that is known as backbiting.  In America we often think public officials are fair game, and indeed, political ads and talk shows are full of backbiting.  But God's word tell us otherwise.  Solomon writes, "Detract not the king, no not in thy thought; and speak not evil of the rich man in thy private chamber: because even the birds of the air will carry thy voice, and he that hath wings will tell what thou hast said." (Ecclesiastes 10:20)


I recently read this wonderful book, available on Amazon for $0.99, about the sin of the tongue known as backbiting.  This is a sin I've barely given any thought to in my life, but I realized that I have frequently been guilty of this sin.  It is a good thing to read a book like this that spurs me onto confession.  How often do we read books just so we can say, "I agree with that! Amen!"

What is backbiting?  It is the "denigration of a neighbor's reputation by means of secret words."  Specifically, there are 8 ways someone can backbite:

  1. When a person "imputes things against his neighbor that never happened, or when he adds tot he truth imaginary circumstances that constitutions either a lie or detraction."
  2. "When he brings a hidden or unknown fault to light."
  3. "When he exaggerates a crime, be it true, or false."
  4. When he insinuates an impious or evil motive.
  5. By spreading or creating rumors.
  6. By means of a simple gesture such as raising an eyebrow or shaking the head.
  7. By saying, "nothing about the integrity or morals of his neighbor, especially when he is questioned about them or when his neighbor is accused of some crime."
  8. By being publicly blamed for something he is guilty of, but calling his accuser a liar.
Furthermore, we are guilty of backbiting if we listen to the backbiters and allow them to carry on with their backbiting.  We should not give other's a forum for their poison.  

"The passion of this evil has so infested the world that people who have totally renounced other vices still fall into this one.  One might say it is the last trap the devil sets for them." - St. Jerome

Monday, June 15, 2015

It cleans not your soul

My favorite bit of "fine print" I've ever seen was in a commercial several years ago for Orbit gum that involved Snoop Dogg going to Hell.  After cleaning his mouth with Orbit, he went to Heaven.  The fine print said,

Dramatization.  Orbit gum will not get you into Heaven.
Clearly, someone at the advertising agency either had a sense of humor, was very pious, or was superstitious.  I can imagine some designer saying, "I don't want to be responsible before God for that one person who thought Orbit was his ticket to Heaven!"

Most fine print is designed to limit legal liability.  There is no legal liability here, unless someone was afraid of King Hamlet's ghost suing for vengeance.

I suppose it would be too much to ask for the fine print to say, "Dramatization.  Only Jesus Christ will get you into Heaven."  At least we know that Orbit gum is not the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Ad hominem

The phrase "ad hominem" means, "to the man." In logic it refers to an informal fallacy where the person giving the argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. It is designed to deflect attention away from the weakness of the attacker's position or the strength of the defender's. This is common in politics, and is not always without merit.

If an environmentalist candidate flies exclusively in private jets, it is right to point out this hypocrisy, but hypocrisy doesn't affect the truth or falsity of his positions on global warming or other issues. Further, too often in politics and religion ad hominem attacks are used in lieu of valid reasoning skills.

For can you trust a draft-dodger's views on foreign policy? .... How can you believe in that religion with so many bad people leading it? ... That politician sleeps around and he wants to tell me what to do with my body? ... that man opposes gay marriage just because he's a homophobe...that person supports that bill because she's racist...

And so on. All of the above statements attack the person and not the idea. They may help us feel better but not think better.
posted from Bloggeroid

Categories again

Blogs are a good examples of how we use logic and categories.  Some blogging platforms have "Categories" and "Tags."  Others, like Blogger, have "Labels."  Bloggers who have the two use "Categories" to represent something broad like "fallacies," and "tags" to represent specifics such as "ad hominem" and "denying the antecedent."  Tags can be used any time a specific fallacy is mentioned, but categories keeps it general enough to avoid microprecision and clutter.

I use "Labels" like "Categories." I don't want to mention every fallacy every time, because there may be some I mention only once, and others I mention multiple times.  It's easier to stay broad and add more labels if I need to.

The point of this is that Blogging is a good example of the value of logic.

Denying the Antecedent

A logical condition has two parts: the antecedent and the consequent.  The antecedent (with the prefix ante-, meaning coming before, like anteroom or antebellum), indicates the first part of the condition.  If I say, "If P then Q" or "If it is raining, then the ground is wet" the antecedent is "P" or "it is raining."  The consequent is the other part of the condition, the Q, "the ground is wet."

There are two common fallacies: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.  If I affirm the consequent, I am saying that the ground is wet, so therefore it's raining, ignoring the possibility of the ground being wet for other reasons, such as a busted fire hydrant.  If I deny the antecedent, I say that since it is not raining, the ground cannot be wet, also ignoring the possibility of the ground being wet for other reasons.  Just because it is not raining does not mean the ground is dry.


Too many people today seem to have trouble dividing ideas and distinguishing things into categories.  A solid background in logic helps us to do this.  Logic has several mundane, practical applications such as helping people make lists, categories things and ideas, and organize their stuff and their plans.
Children learn logic primarily through games, such as sorting games and matching games.  There they learn how to create categories and systematically solve problems.  If a childhood is lacking in these games, the adult child will be lacking in logic skills.  We are by nature rational creatures, but neither our ideas nor our modes of thinking are wholly innate.  They must be learned.

Friday, January 2, 2015

Modus Tollens

The companion to modus ponens is modus tollens, the way of denying.

If I say something like, "if P is true, Q is true," and add, "however, Q is not true," I can conclude that P is not true, either.  In short: "If P, then Q. Q is not true, so neither is P."  I know this is so because if P were true, Q would be true.  But Q isn't true, so P can't be.

Here is an example: If it is raining outside, then there are clouds in the sky.  There are no clouds in the sky, so it is not raining.  The first sentence says there must be clouds for it to rain.  The second sentence tells me that there are no clouds, so how could it be raining?  It couldn't be raining, and it isn't raining!

Another example: In order for me to have stabbed the man, I must have been next to him.  However, I wasn't even in the same room.  Therefore, it couldn't have been me!  This example deviates from the grammatical syntax of the other, but follows the same logical form: If P (I stabbed the man), then Q (I was next to him).  Q isn't true (I wasn't in the room) therefore P isn't true (I didn't stab him).

Modus ponens & Affirming the Consequent

One of the most basic rules of validity is known as modus ponens, "the affirming way."  In short, it says that if I have a conditional statement and the first part of the statement is true, the second part must also be true.  This is often written as "If P, then Q.  P is true, so Q must be true."

Here are a few examples:

If it is raining, the ground is wet.  It is raining, so the ground is wet.

If you are human, you are also a mammal.  You are a human, therefore you're a mammal.

If you get 3 strikes, you're out.  You have three strikes, so you're out.

Each example follows the same logical structure.  If (something happens), then (something else will happen).  Since (the first thing happened), I know that (the second thing happens).  I know that the ground is wet because it is raining.  I know that I am a mammal because I am human.  I know that I'm out because I got 3 strikes.

Keep in mind that this does not work in reverse. I do not know that it is is raining just because the ground is wet (someone could be washing their car).  I do not know that I am human because I'm a mammal (I could be a horse).  I do not know that I got 3 strikes because I'm out (I could have hit a pop fly).  If I were to make an argument this way, I would commit the formal fallacy known as affirming the consequent.

The consequent is the Q part of "If P, then Q."  This fallacy effectively says, "If P, then Q.  I know that Q is true, so P must be true."  As shown in the examples above, this isn't true.  There could be other reasons Q is true without P being true.


When we construct an argument, our terms must be unambiguous.  Their meanings must be clear and known to all involved.  Politicians and sophists of various stripes love to exploit ambiguity.  This is a fallacy known as equivocation.

Consider the following bit of dialogue:

Are you aware that Jim is gay?
Really?  He doesn't seem that happy to me.

The ambiguous term gay here is exploited by the meanings homosexual and happy, carefree.

Another example in the form of a syllogism:

God is love.
Love is blind.
Therefore God is blind.

This argument is valid, but is not sound because the terms love and blind are ambiguous.  Their meaning changes throughout the syllogism, and the multiple meanings of the words are exploited.  The first love refers to love of a self-sacrificing the nature, the second to erotic love or sacrificial love, depending on whom you're talking to.  The first blind is metaphorical, whereas the second is literal.  Arguments like this are sound and fury signifying nothing.

Thursday, January 1, 2015


Logic need not be complicated.  It is not merely for the pseudo-vulcans of the academy.  Children must be taught logic if we are to have an educated citizenry of the future.  Children who are taught logic will read better, write better, understand the concepts of math, science, and social studies better.  Children who are taught logic will become more virtuous adults.

The foundation of logic is common sense.  Let us learn how to think again.


Gregory of Nazianzus, to Sophronius, for his son:

Gold is changed and transformed into various forms at various times, being fashioned into many ornaments, and used by art for many purposes; yet it remains what it is— gold; and it is not the substance but the form which admits of change. So also, believing that your kindness will remain unchanged for your friends, although you are ever climbing higher, I have ventured to send you this request, because I do not more reverence your high rank than I trust your kind disposition. I entreat you to be favourable to my most respectable son Nicobulus, who is in all respects allied with me, both by kindred and by intimacy, and, which is more important, by disposition. In what matters, and to what extent? In whatever he may ask your aid, and as far as may seem to you to befit your Magnanimity. I on my part will repay you the best I have. I have the power of speech, and of proclaiming your goodness, if not nearly according to its worth, at any rate to the best of my ability.


Given that everything that is, is, something cannot both be true and false at the same time under the same circumstances.  Either A or not A.  Either I am married or I am unmarried.  Either I am alive, or dead.

This idea forms the second and third laws of thought: noncontradiction and the excluded middle.

Identity says that everything is itself; whatever is, is.  Noncontradiction says that it is itself and not something else; whatever is, cannot not be.  The law of the excluded middle says that no third way is possible; everything either is or is not.

The rules include things that are mutually exclusive of one another, but not do not include either/or statements that admit other possibilities.

For example, I have a glass of something to drink.  It is either water or something else.  Water or not water.  I can say that about any liquid: this liquid, or not this liquid.  But under the LNC, I cannot say "it is water or milk."  I may be able to make that assertion if someone poured a drink for me and the only drinkable liquids in my house are water and milk.  In that case, I have eliminated all other possibilities.   However, it does not follow from the LNC that my drink is either water or milk.  Water and milk do not logically contradict.

To attempt to say logically that my drink is either milk or water is to commit the fallacy of the excluded middle, i.e. to say that there is no third way when there actually is.


There are either absolutes or there are not absolutes.  If I assert that there are no absolutes, my assertion is itself an absolute; therefore, there are absolutes.

One such absolute is that everything that is, is.  Everything is itself.  Desiring, wishing, willing, or positive thinking alone will not change something from one thing to another.

This is sometimes phrased as "A is A."  In math we use the word "equals."  Everything is the same as itself.  A word always rhymes with itself.  A number is always equivalent to itself.

This principle is known as the Law of Identity and is the most fundamental law of thought.


"Your argument is invalid!" Perhaps you've heard this phrase before.  Perhaps you've used it yourself.

To most people, invalid is synonymous with wrong (i.e. false, not true) and it is wrong because I said so.  However, an invalid argument is not necessarily a false one.  By that I mean that the conclusion may be true even if the argument is invalid.  Likewise, an argument may be valid but have a false conclusion.

Consider an example of the first possibility:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Churchill is mortal.
3. Therefore, Churchill is a man.

Every one of these statements are true.  But the argument is not valid.  There is nothing about the first two statements that leads me to believe the third.

Consider an example of the second possibility:

1. All men are immortal.
2. Churchill is man.
3. Therefore, Churchill is immortal.

Since the first premise is not true, but the argument is valid, my conclusion is false as a result.  If all men were immortal, Churchill, being a man, would be immortal.  But not all men are immortal, and in fact, all men are mortal.

What is a valid argument?  A valid argument is one where if the premises are true and the terms unambiguous, the conclusion must be true.  Your choice is to believe the conclusion or be illogical.  Validity has to do with the form of an argument.  The structure of some arguments force you to believe the conclusion, just as the structure of some buildings force you to enter and leave a particular way (such as through a door rather than a window). We need valid arguments in order to think, debate, and reason clearly.  Otherwise, we are blindly stumbling looking for truth.

In the first example above, we see that all men are mortal and that Churchill is mortal.  But I do not know anything else about Churchill.  I can't conclude anything about him.  Churchill may be the name of my pet British bulldog, and hence not a man, rather than the British leader nicknamed the British Bulldog.  In the second, my knowledge of the first two statements leads me to my knowledge of the third.  I know that Churchill is mortal because he is a man and all men are mortal.

Consider a third possibility where an argument is valid and the conclusion true:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Churchill is man.
3. Therefore, Churchill is mortal.

When the structure, or form, of an argument is valid; the terms are unambiguous, for example, we know what mortal and men mean; and the premises are true; we must believe the conclusion.  We call this a sound argument.  It is impossible to disbelieve a sound argument and remain a rational thinker.