The Resurrection and Cultural Rebranding (PhD Edit)

trekearth.com

March 2016 

Happy Easter

A recent online employment posting from an American Lutheran college did not mention Jesus Christ. Neither did the ‘About’ page on the college website. I used the Google Chrome ‘Find’ application to scan both the posting and the ‘About’ page on the site and the Lutheran denomination was mentioned a few times, but Jesus and Christ was not.

There is also not an emphasis on the atonement and resurrection.

The college site focus instead was the Lutheran denomination and mentioned faith and God. These terms of course can be reinterpreted outside of Biblical theology.

This sort of cultural institutional rebranding has been found often in my employment searches. I reason that regardless of one’s view on the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ, this is an example of cultural accommodation and could be termed as cultural rebranding. Others may call it evolution or progress, but it is still cultural accommodation of traditional, Biblical Christian faith and philosophy to make it more palatable in today’s academic market.

I earned my terminal degrees at secular Universities where this type of accommodation/rebranding, evolution began many decades ago and I am therefore not stating these institutions lack significant academic merit or that a Biblical Christian should never attend or seek academic employment at these institutions.

I am thankful to have completed my first two course work degrees in Canadian Christian institutions and my last two thesis research degrees in British, secular Universities. The Christian education providing the Biblical foundation and the British education emphasizing the need for robust theological and philosophical research and analysis.

This is an imperfect and fallen realm and the greater good, in Christ, needs to be prayerfully measured in a life.

I reason the Christian academic should be aware of the institutional context and also have academic freedom to express Biblical Christian views. This of course was an issue for me in the United Kingdom as a began my Doctorate at one institution and due to lack of academic freedom completed my projects at University of Wales, sites. All of these Universities being secular.

The Resurrection and Cultural Rebranding (PhD Edit)

Edited from

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

I reason that the atoning and resurrection work of Christ for believers must remain an essential element of Christian preaching, teaching and ministry. However, Brown believes the Bible teaches that there is hope for those in the world who are poor and oppressed. Brown (1984: 14). Gebara (2002: 107). Brown explains that if God sided with these suffering persons in Biblical times, he also does today. Brown (1984: 14).

I can grant this proposition, and state that although the salvific work of Christ for humanity should remain the core of Christian faith and philosophy, simultaneous to this Christians must help in an earthly physical sense, those they are attempting to assist in a spiritual sense. This is an important and essential way of making theology practical.

Within my theology and philosophy of religion, the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers in the eventual culminated Kingdom of God is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil. 

Jesus Christ the person is held in extremely high regard as is his ministry, atoning work and resurrection, and his person and work cannot be separated in importance. Franke (2005: 72). The New Testament not only demonstrates the witness of the redeeming act of God in Christ, but is also the summation of the man that is the word of God. Hughes (1990: 38). Erickson writes that Scripture teaches the resurrection of those who believe in Christ. Erickson (1994: 1194). He also reasons it is likely that unbelievers too will be raised, Erickson (1994: 1194), although this concept is not as clearly explained as is the idea of the raising of those who trust in Christ. Erickson (1994: 1200).

Thiessen bases the traditional Christian belief in physical resurrection in the texts from both Testaments and describes the resurrection bodies as both physical and spiritual in nature. Thiessen (1956: 491). Whale writes that the resurrection is not to be considered an addition to the Christian faith, but is the Christian faith. Whale (1958: 69).

The resurrection can be debated, and there are progressive liberal views within Christian society, such as Gebara that will question traditional doctrines. Gebara (2002: 121). It can also be denied outright by critics. Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267). Phillips provides a negative atheistic critique of eschatological Christian concepts in his Chapter, ‘Last things.’ Phillips (2005: 247-275).

Within speculative, non-orthodox theology and in philosophy of religion, those such as Gebara are looking for the greater good now and not primarily in some future realm. She suggests for example, that we need ‘Everyday Resurrections.’ Gebara (2002: 121-132). Phillips reasons that there is not actual hope for persons after death in another realm. Phillips (2005: 248).

This would appear empirically true in one sense as resurrections typically are non-existent, but if the Biblical resurrection is true, there is hope for those in Christ. The resurrected Christ was empirically viewed within documented Scripture.

However, if one does not believe in the resurrection of Christ, God’s key witness through historical documented Scripture to the world that he wishes to save it from the problem of evil is gone. The remedy to sin and death would be non-existent and therefore concepts of a perfected world far-fetched.

BROWN, ROBERT MCAFEE (1984) Unexpected News, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’, in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

DARROW, CLARENCE (1932)(1973) ‘The Delusion of Design and Purpose’, in The Story of My Life, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

Brief: Aggression V Adaptation

From Amazon.com

Preface

This is not a book review or discussion of the text above. The book's title and use of the words 'Aggression and Adaptation' loosely relate to this brief and non-exhaustive article.

The two terms came to mind after reasoning out concepts recently with family and friends in discussion.

Both terms were suitable in this context beginning with 'A'. I then searched online to see if the two words had been used together in an academic context and they have as it turns out.

Admittedly there are other related words one could use to basically describe the two concepts I am describing and comparing.

Aggression 

From Oxford, the definition that fits in this context: '3 Self-assertiveness: forcefulness.' Oxford (1995: 26).

Examples of other related terms:

Intensity: '1 The quality or an instance of being intense.' (708).

Intense: '1...existing in a high-degree, extreme, forceful.' (708).

Adaptation

'1 The act or process of adapting or being adapted.' (15).

Adapt: '1 a...fit, adjust (one thing to another) (15).
'1 b...make suitable for a purpose.' (15).

Fit and adjust are also other related terms.

From Oxford Dictionary of Science it offers definitions more in regard to evolutionary science as opposed to psychology.

But a useful physiological entry is presented as in adaptation and 'the adjustment of the eye to vision in very bright or very dim light.' Oxford Dictionary of Science (2010: 13).

The human eye adjusting to degrees of light is an example of human adaptation to different situations.

Brief: Aggression V Adaptation

Propositions within this post and then my conclusion. Three areas of life.

Symbols

Party 1=P1
Party 2=P2
Party 3=P3

Thesis writing and academia

Aggression

An academic advisor and institution, P2, does not accept a thesis Chapter from the academic writer, P1.

P1 reasons spending four to six hours a day, five to six days a week, working on the thesis Chapter is insufficient.

Therefore, P1 aggressively and intensely spends eight to twelve hours a day, five to six days a week, working on the thesis Chapter in order to meet the academic standards of P2.

Adaptation

P2 does not accept the thesis Chapter of P1.

P1 seeks in greater measure to follow P2 instructions and educational institutional standards, adjusting and adapting the thesis Chapter to academic requirements of P2.

Relationships

Aggression

P2 does not want a relationship (business relationship, friendship, potential romantic relationship) with P1.

Therefore, P1 aggressively increases the intensity of interest in P2 and aggressively increases the intensity of the presentation of P1 value to P2.

Adaptation

Accepting a very wise statement made several times in class by a Trinity Western University, Dead Sea Scrolls scholar and professor: Dr. Peter Flint:

'Be true to yourself and be true to God.'

P2 does not want a relationship (business relationship, friendship, potential romantic interest) with P1.

P1 becomes more valuable through adjustment and adaptation to P2; attempting to meet the requirements and needs of P2.

It is reasonable and possible that advisement to P1 from P3 may be useful.

Employment

Aggression

P1 spends four to six hours a day, five to six days a week, in employment search and has not been hired by P2.

Therefore, P1 spends eight to twelve hours a day, five to six days a week, in employment search in order to be hired by P2.

P1 reasons a more aggressive and intense approach is required in order to be hired by P2.

P1 reasons more 'hustle' is required for employment opportunities from P2.

Adaptation

P1 spends four to six hours a day, five to six days a week, in employment search and has not been hired by P2.

Therefore, P1 needs to seek professional assistance from an employment facilitator or related, P3.

When qualified and reasonable professionals, P3 will state that four to six hours a day, six days a week is sufficiently aggressive and intensive and demonstrates required work ethic from P1.

However, P1 needs to adjust and adapt each and every resume, curriculum vitae and cover letter to each and every employment posting of P2.

P1 needs to research the potential employer, including the website of P2.

P1 seeking to meet the requirements and needs of P2.

Conclusion

In the three areas and examples listed:

Aggression, intensity and related is of secondary importance in achieving the good and in achieving success for P1.

Aggression, integrity, forcefulness and related can be beneficial in many cases when used in a limited and correct manner by P1, but if overused and used incorrectly can work against achieving the good and in achieving success for P1.

Adaptation, fitting in, adjusting and related is of primary importance in achieving the good and in achieving success for P1.

This needs to be done in truth and not falsely, in order to produce what is required.

There is of course in all three areas within being true to self (P1) and being true to God, the reasonable option and possibility of not seeking to meet the requirements of P2 with aggression and adaptation.

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson, Editor, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Oxford Dictionary of Science (2010) Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Vancouver: 2015

Philosopher Simon Blackburn (PhD Edit)

Windsor Walkway, London: trekearth

Philosopher Simon Blackburn's work has been very helpful within my academic career, especially in regard to philosophy and philosophy of religion.

His Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy has provided many educational entries.

Professor Blackburn explains philosophical entries in a rational and clear manner and yet with the intellectual depth required. This has allowed me to interact with his text and learn from it, even with various amounts of agreement and disagreement on theological and philosophical issues.

Wikipedia: Simon Blackburn

Cited

'As a patron of the British Humanist Association, he has argued against the existence of God, preferring to describe himself as an "infidel" rather than an "atheist".[5] He was one of 55 public figures to sign an open letter published in The Guardian in September 2010, stating their opposition to Pope Benedict XVI's state visit to the UK,[6] and has argued that religionists should have less influence in political affairs.[5] At the same time, he has also argued, in a televised debate, against the claim of "New Atheist" Sam Harris that morality can be derived from science.[7]'

Professor Blackburn's unique personal website

Simon Blackburn

---

From my PhD thesis

I will document the more important thesis entries in regard to theodicy and the problem of evil.

Philosopher Simon Blackburn (PhD Edit)

Theodicy 

Simon Blackburn (1996) writes that theodicy is the part of theology concerned with defending the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God while suffering and evil exists in the world. Blackburn (1996: 375).

A reasonable definition of theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, all loving God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists.

The unlimited and unfixed. Blackburn (1996: 193).

God is considered infinite and his creation finite and therefore limited.

Humanist Simon Blackburn, from a non-theistic critical perspective, reasons there are difficulties with the concept of an omnipotent God not being able to make a stone so heavy he could not lift it, as this would make God possibly contradictory Blackburn (1996: 268), but does explain that the classic explanation is that God cannot commit the logically impossible. Blackburn (1996: 268).

William T. Shedd explains that God cannot do what is ‘absurd and self-contradictory’. Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359 Volume 1).

In my view this is an answered objection. D.Z. Phillips raised similar objections in (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God.  I also dealt with Phillips' interesting work in the PhD thesis and on this site. (March 12, 2016).

Freewill 

Blackburn explains free will theory requires autonomous beings that are able to perform free actions without any significant influence upon their will. Blackburn (1996: 31). He describes autonomy as the ability of agents to govern themselves, and for this to occur autonomous agents must commit actions which are truly their own. Blackburn (1996: 31). Autonomy cannot occur when an outside force is coercing or forcing a will to act. Blackburn (1996: 31).

This definition relates to incompatibilism and related views:

I hold to a Reformed compatibilist view:

If to both compatibilists and incompatibilists, human beings at times can be forced to commit actions against their will, Pojman (1996: 596), it is ever more likely that the human will is not the primary cause in human actions, but the secondary cause if it is allowed to be a secondary determining factor by the primary cause. Pojman (1996: 596).

This concept is describing soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596).

(If human beings are forced or coerced to commit human actions)

Therefore

These actions would be done without significant human freedom and therefore it would be intellectually untenable to attach human moral responsibility to such actions.

Within compatibilism human freedom is considered to be analogous to God’s freedom but not equal with it; human freedom is considered limited while God’s is absolute. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 28).

Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will theodicy that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action. Feinberg (1994: 64).

There can be no antecedent conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions) or simultaneous causes of human actions.

Indeterminism and libertarian free will are related terms to incompatibilism. At times used synonymously.

Soft determinism is a related term to compatibilism, at times used synonymously. 

This is contrasted with hard determinism or determinism:

Pojman (1996) explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596).

Within determinism or hard determinism, God causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Pojman (1996: 596).

This could be an outside force, as well, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist, or one could hold to hard determinism.

Schelling suggests that ‘absolute causal power in one being leaves nothing but unconditional passivity for all the rest.’ Schelling (1845)(1936: 11).

This would be a difficulty with accepting hard determinism.

In his article entitled ‘Conditional’ Simon Blackburn writes that an antecedent exists if p causes q. P is the antecedent or prior cause of q which is the conditional and the consequence. Blackburn (1996: 73-74).

Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. Pojman (1996: 596).

Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (1994: 60).

Human Nature

Blackburn writes that some forms of metaphysical libertarianism, postulates that free choice is not causally determined, but is also not random. Blackburn (1996: 218). It is suggested that an agency situated outside of human nature, in regard to making human choice, is possible but likely ‘fantasy.’ Blackburn (1996: 218).

It appears human choice should be traced back to human nature. Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). Blackburn (1996: 218). It appears Blackburn is discussing a human agency.

I agree with the use of the term ‘fantasy’ in context as human will is traced back to human nature, in agreement with Edwards. (March 12, 2016).

---

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com. http://www.jonathanedwards.com

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

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

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

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

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Personality Versus Character

Google+

Link

Psychology Today August 3, 2011, from Alex Lickerman M.D. Happiness in this World

Cited

'Personality vs. Character: The key to discerning personality from character is time'

Cited

'WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Personality is easy to read, and we're all experts at it. We judge people funny, extroverted, energetic, optimistic, confident—as well as overly serious, lazy, negative, and shy—if not upon first meeting them, then shortly thereafter. And though we may need more than one interaction to confirm the presence of these sorts of traits, by the time we decide they are, in fact, present we've usually amassed enough data to justify our conclusions.

Character, on the other hand, takes far longer to puzzle out. It includes traits that reveal themselves only in specific—and often uncommon—circumstances, traits like honesty, virtue, and kindliness. Ironically, research has shown that personality traits are determined largely by heredity and are mostly immutable. The arguably more important traits of character, on the other hand, are more malleable—though, we should note, not without great effort.

Character traits, as opposed to personality traits, are based on beliefs (e.g., that honesty and treating others well is important—or not), and though beliefs can be changed, it's far harder than most realize.'

Cited

'WHY DOES IT MATTER?

The problem in forming judgments about a person's suitability for important roles in our lives (employee, friend, lover, spouse) is that we all have an uncanny predilection for observing attractive personality traits and manufacturing out of them the presence of positive character traits (that is, if someone is outgoing, confident, and fun we're more likely to think they're honest, moral, and kind). But it's far from clear that the one kind tracks with the other. In fact, as I recounted in Listening To Your Inner Voice (link is external), that assumption often gets us into trouble.

We unconsciously tend to connect personality to character for two main reasons: we want to like people we already like, and the most reliable way to assess a person's character is laborious and time consuming.'

End Cited

Briefly for the purposes of this blog post:

The Nelson's text in the Introduction provides a 'Character Study' and states 'many truths about standards of conduct'. (xiii).

Standards of conduct of those mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament being very important in the overall evaluation of human beings.

However, the word 'character' in itself may not always used theologically in English Bible translations. Concepts of human character are Scripturally important although described with various terms as can be seen documented in the differences between the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and King James Version (KJV) translations in the example below. English Bible versions being translations of New Testament Greek manuscripts, complete or fragmented.

Romans 5:3-5

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

3 And not only this, but [a]we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Romans 5:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

In my view, Biblical concepts of human personality are less important in evaluating persons than are concepts connected to human character and standards of human conduct. I would grant that aspects of personality could be considered within the human character, but the overall character of a person and the standards of conduct are more important than his/her personality.

Indeed, the overall human nature of a person needs to be evaluated and considered, with only God having infinite knowledge of any person.

Sin nature and sinful human nature (the second term noted to me and preferred from Dr. William Kay, Bangor University) are theological concepts very much emphasized within Reformed theology.

The Nelson's text providing word study entries:

There is no entry for 'personality' in the Nelson's text, although the Scripture documents in regard to 'person', as in human being and individual. (521).

The somewhat more academic text, 'Strong's Concordance' has entries for 'person' and 'persons.' (1057), but none for personality.  It also does not document the word 'character'.

Thiessen opines it is an erroneous understanding to suppose that Biblically 'there is little or no connection between a man's beliefs and his character.' (29).

'Personality Versus Character' as a theological and philosophical topic, has in particular interested me the last few years. In our present age in private and public contexts, many persons appear to place more importance on human personality than in human character.

In the Western world, politicians with style over substance seem more likely to become elected.

Pop culture stars often become more famous through the use of style and less so by presenting significant and substantial artistic work to society.

Many of the secular relationship 'coaches' and 'mentors' and even some Christian ones, present the case that one should be the 'alpha' and 'type a' person, and yet this clearly places more emphasis on human personality than human character and this approach would not be consistent within a Biblical worldview.

I have completed online psychology personality tests in private and employment contexts and I usually score approximately fifty percent 'alpha' and 'type a' person, the extrovert and about fifty percent 'introvert'.

I would cautiously state that the extreme 'alpha' and extroverted personality examples provided by these psychological tests, based on associated acts and actions would risk presenting a person not of positive Biblical character.

Extreme personality traits extroverted and introverted would risk demonstrating negative character.

An example of the extreme 'alpha' extrovert would be asserting one's will on other persons in a dominating manner with little or no consideration for others and yet the Scripture documents:

Philippians 2:3

English Standard Version (ESV)

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves;

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves,

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

NELSON'S THREE-IN-ONE BIBLE REFERENCE COMPANION,(1982), Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Dyadic & Triadic

Google+

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Chapter 2: The Essentials Of Logical Structure 

Continued

I noted the following in comments in the last review of this text, but I now see that I need to include this section in the main body of this post for context.

Langer provides further equations continued from the Chapter: pages 53-54

1. I played bridge with my three cousins

2. I played chess with my three cousins (53)

A=Speaker

B, C, D=Three cousins (54)

A br B, C, D (54)

If in chess each player was played separately

A ch B
A ch C
A ch D

A ch (B-C-D)* (54)

*The hyphen which could also be a + expresses an operation when the two terms are united as one. (54)

So this could be A ch (B+C+D)

I take it here the author means uniting B-C-D, as she explains this will be explained more later and must at this point be taken in faith. (54) It is actually three terms, but I take the point and she means two or more.
---
'When a relation-symbol stands in a construct, the number of terms grouped with it reveals the degree of the relation. But when it is not actually used, but merely spoken of, it is sometimes convenient to have some way of denoting its degree. This may be done by adding a numerical subscript; for example, "kd2" means that "killing" is dyadic (a pair), "bt3" that "between" is triadic.' (55).

The examples of different degrees are provided:

ch2
br4  (55)

The author states that two beings named 'John' are not likely to be treated as the same in the language of discourse (56). It is made apparent in context that there is this John and that John. (56).

Symbolic logic provides a new medium of such expression. (57).

For example the following

John a
John b

Are a symbolic way of differentiating between two different persons named John using arbitrary symbols as Langer calls them. (58). Although the example is mine.

Langer writes natural language has a tendency to let one word have and embody many meanings and this leads to in philosophical terms fallacious argumentation and reasoning. (55).

In fact, twisted arguments can be created. (55).

A reason for the use of symbolic logic and reasoning as alternative within philosophy.

In a religious context, philosophy of religion crosses over with theology and there are at times theological arguments that are presented both in natural language and with symbolic logic, and so therefore learning both modes of argumentation is beneficial.

Heavens Gate China Google+