Apriorism

Google+

Google+

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The facts should be allowed to test principles. (44) (of truth my add).

To start with the principles from the first (a priori) and to use them for the basis for accepting or rejecting facts is the 'wrong way around'. (44).

The fallacy of apriorism. (44).

The author explains that too much primacy is given to principles so that they might not be modified by what is observed. (44).

Is other words, principles are not allowed to be modified by observable evidence and facts.

Unwarranted presumptions are rejecting relevant evidence and facts. (44).

The author cites 'My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts.' (45).

Not only could many religious persons be accused of holding such an approach but many non-religious persons as well....

Pirie wisely writes that this fallacy is 'unproductive' (45). Facts and truth being dismissed.

Vancouver

Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595).

Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666).

Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21). Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).

Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595).

Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘A priori/A posteriori’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 21-22. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Antiquitam, argumentum ad

Switzerland: Google+

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Antiquitam, argumentum ad

It is the fallacy of assuming something is good or right simply because it is old. (42).

A possible objection to Christian orthodoxy and Biblical orthodoxy arises; that is the assumption that this type of fallacious reasoning is used in preserving these doctrines over progressive alternatives.

I will not write (speak) for others but antiquity is not primary in my reasoning in holding to Biblical, Christian doctrines.

Those doctrines are primarily held to because Scripture is supported by thousands of manuscript copies in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Certain scribes and writers within these religious communities were inspired by God to write supernaturally revealed, consistent, reasonable, theological messages from Genesis to Revelation, from creation and the fall to the atonement and resurrection work of Christ to the last things.

The Scripture is reasonable and sound religious history that leads to sound theology and is parallelled by sound philosophy of religion in support.

The antiquity in itself is not sufficient reason by itself alone, for Christian faith and philosophy. It can lend support, but when reasonable through argument.

Yes, every worldview has its difficulties. Theodicy and the problem of evil, which I dealt with for twelve years academically (I believe successfully, although I do not have infinite knowledge) being a primarily Christian worldview example, but I also examined other worldviews and find the Christian worldview least problematic.

Back to Pirie:

He comments that there is 'nothing in the age of belief or an assertion which alone makes it right.' (42).

I would agree, because the soundness of arguments, the quality of premises and conclusions is far more important than antiquity.

In this realm we have several old religions, of say more that one hundred years old, that contradict each other on several major points.

Contrary to what many state, these religions cannot all be essentially true in regard to the nature of God and salvation due to contradictions. For example, Biblical Christianity claiming the exclusivity of Christ for salvation in relation to the Father (John 8, 10, 14, 1 John). The deity of Christ, as God the Son within the Trinity, and his atonement and resurrection work for salvation alone by grace through faith, notably contrasting Christianity with Islam, for example, which denies these.

Pirie states that this fallacy economizes thought and eliminates difficult decision making. (42).

He writes that to hold to the old way of doing things does not make it right and does not make it wrong, even if this reasoning has taken place for thousands of years. (43).

It is fallacious to place too much emphasis on antiquity in deciding whether or not the old way is right or if it is wrong.

Anecdote

Google+

Back to the Pirie text:

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The author explains an anecdote is a particular story. (41). In contrast, a general assertion explains what occurs in general. (41). An anecdote does not prove or demonstrate the general assertion wrong, but only that something happened in a particular case. (41). The counter-example does indeed prove or demonstrate the general assertion is not universal. (41). The anecdote does not disprove the general assertion. The anecdote does not disprove what generally happens. (41).

'To counter an argument of principle with a few contrary cases is to enter the fallacy of anecdotal reasoning'. (42)

Anecdotal fallacy has similarities to accident fallacy, also in Pirie's text and discussed on this site in two articles. Both involve general and specific cases and arguments. The philosophical red flag that comes to mind is the danger of making what is specific, general and what is general, specific.

Cited

Internet Encycolpedia of Philosophy

'Anecdotal Evidence

This is fallacious generalizing on the basis of a some story that provides an inadequate sample. If you discount evidence arrived at by systematic search or by testing in favor of a few firsthand stories, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of overemphasizing anecdotal evidence.

Example:

Yeah, I've read the health warnings on those cigarette packs and I know about all that health research, but my brother smokes, and he says he's never been sick a day in his life, so I know smoking can't really hurt you.'

End Citation

Overruling general knowledge and argumentation via specific anecdotal argument.

Yes, I know cigarettes supposedly according to medical science cause lung and other cancers, but both my Grandpa's smoked like fireplaces and each lived to 90 years old plus and so I smoke everyday.

Brief On Matthew 7: 21-23: Theology Always Matters

Vancouver

Brief On Matthew 7: 21-23: Theology Always Matters

Preface

December 12 2015 article revised for an entry on academia.edu, October 9, 2023

Matthew 7:21-23: Introduction

Ellison writes that preaching and even miracles are not necessarily indication of seeking and serving the true God. Ellison (1986: 1129). Works performed need to be considered in light of the character of those that perform them. (1129).

France explains that superficial discipleship is ultimately rejected by God and Christ. France (1985: 148). It is not indicated as necessarily insincere discipleship, but it does not meet the divine standards. (148).

Good works do not qualify a disciple that does not meet God and Christ's criteria for entrance into the Kingdom of God. The New Testament teaches that those in Jesus Christ are saved, justified, sanctified through the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, being applied to them through regeneration (John 3, in particular Titus 3, 1 Peter 1).

Regeneration

3824. paliggenesia: Bible Hub παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ 

Cited

'Strong's Concordance 

paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal 

Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: paliggenesia

Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah)

Definition: regeneration, renewal 

Usage: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.'

'Titus 3:5 

N-GFS GRK: διὰ λουτροῦ παλινγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως 

NAS: by the washing of regeneration and renewing 

KJV: the washing of regeneration, and INT: through [the] washing of regeneration and renewing'

Matthew 7: 21-23: Lord, Lord

English Standard Version (ESV)

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’

23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ 

New American Standard Version (NASB)

21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22 Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

This passage from Matthew 7 was preached on by the pastor at church in 2015:

He opined that the persons under judgement knew God, but God did not know them. They had accepted Christ, but God and Christ did not have Lordship over them. Those under judgement were relying on works righteousness as opposed to trusting in God and Christ as Lord and Saviour. The pastor then stated that the theology of the persons under judgement was not a key issue as in they had proper theology because they knew of the Biblical God and Jesus Christ.

However, I reason that theology is always in a sense a key issue. Theology always matters.

The judged persons had a knowledge of the Biblical God and Jesus Christ; enough that they could in this supernatural realm of judgement described, recognize Jesus Christ as Lord, which is technically correct. They called him Lord, but Jesus Christ denied he was their Lord.

These false disciples appeal to works righteousness.

The pastor correctly pointed out that in the judging presence of God any kind of works righteousness approach by humanity to God is error. But, I would add that is it also clearly theologically in error.

Romans 1-9, describes the universal sinfulness of humankind, by nature and choice and that only the atoning and resurrection work of Christ for sin, applied to believers as justification (righteousness) will save any one for the Kingdom of God.

Galatians (2) states that man is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ.

In other words, faith in his atoning and resurrection work applied to persons in Christ.

Ephesians 1-2

New American Standard Bible

Ephesians 1 explains that those in Christ are chosen by God; therefore God knows who he has chosen.

4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [d]Him. In love

5 [e]He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the [f]kind intention of His will,

6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Ephesians 2: 1-10

Ephesians 2 explains that those in Christ are saved by grace through faith unto good works, and not by works or works righteousness.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [ag]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

December 6, 2015: Prior to attending 007 film with several video outages
and the end of the film being without audio (wind storm).
Good public relations from Cineplex Odeon  providing two free movie tickets.

----

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press. 

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing.

NUTE, ALAN G. (1986) in 'Titus', The International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering. 

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company. 

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.