Compact Symbols (And post)

May 31: Colounized photo turning Spring into Summer

I am an online subscriber to Focus On The Family.

I support their biblical, Christian focus, but I am not always in agreement with theological and psychological explanations provided.

This takes me back to one of the critiques from United Kingdom educational days and the need for robust theology and robust theological answers.

This just arrived via email from Focus as email header:

'Get Marriage Done Right Free with a donation of any amount!'

For a book.

Ah, that is the solution! Having completed an online copywriting course, several years ago, this header is as much about copywrite as theology and psychology.
---

Compact Symbols

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

Langer explains that symbols used within symbolic logic should be easy to write and recognize and be compact. (59).

Langer used 'ch' for chess-playing. (54-59).

The symbol 'ch' could in another context symbolize 'chess'.

The author explains:

'A chess-man'  used within symbolic logic, would unless 'highly conventionalized' (59), be a poor symbol for chess-playing. (54-59).

She explains that the 'A' as a poor symbol example provided, could be easily confused for the symbol 'a'. (59). Symbols such as '2' and 'i' could also be confused with other symbols that were similar to those. (59). Unless specific symbols are 'conventionalized', they should be avoided for the sake of clarity. (59).

The author also mentions the legitimate problem of 'typographical convenience' (60), and indeed this was an issue documented in my last article, also reviewing the Langer text, as my laptop keyboard is not equipped to correctly type all of Langer's symbols. I also could not find her exact examples online to copy and paste.

Symbols should be presented clearly and compactly.

Another reasonable possibility for a  'chess-playing' symbol.

'cp'

As noted 'ch' could also be used as a symbol for chess, and I reason the following could be as well.

From Chess symbols:

Wikipedia

Two examples cited:

white chess king ♔
black chess knight ♞

Possible uses within symbolic logic:

♔=chess
♞=chess

♔p=chess-playing
♞p=chess-playing

However, I was required to copy and paste the chess symbols and therefore for the sake of clear and compact communication these symbols would need to be 'conventionalized' and available within typographical convenience for reasonable, clear and compact, dialogue.

No, I do not play chess, but have been known in the past to play British computer soccer.

Brief But Significant Symbolic Glossary

Burnaby Mountain Park

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

Cited

'...a given symbol equals by interpretation a certain term or relation. (58).

Interpretation is abbreviated as 'int'. (58)

Glossary

Note my keyboard does not have the correct symbols in order for me to copy Philosopher Langer's glossary exactly. Where I am using an approximate symbol, it will be noted with *

This also allows an example of symbolic logic...

"=" =int "identical with"
"e" =int "membership in the class"*
"C" =int "entailment"*
"E!"=int "there exists" (58).

Therefore:

Howard James Bartel=Pope Chucklins=Saint Chuckles=Chucky

Batman e superhero

To sleep C to dream (57).

To eat C to digest.

Langer's example is:

E! God (57).

E! FC Bayern Munich
E! Donald John Trump
E! Justin Pierre James Trudeau

Langer warns:

'The assignment of arbitrary meanings to signs with traditionally established uses should be avoided. That is to say, one should not use = to mean chess playing...' (59).

The = symbol having similar traditional uses in philosophy, mathematics and science, therefore it would be reasonable for clarity to use = in its traditional context within symbolic logic. Certain symbols are 'generally used within those connotations.' (59).

Professor Langer (December 20, 1895 – July 17, 1985) Wikipedia, is a clear and concise philosophy presenter in regard to material presented in the text.

Burnaby Mountain Park

Burnaby Mountain Park

Burnaby Mountain Park

Briefly On Symbolic Suggestiveness: Chicago, Denver, New York

Time

The author states that

'Suggestiveness should never be allowed to interfere with logical clarity or elegance.

For instance, if we wanted to state that Chicago lies between New York and Denver, we might well use C for Chicago, and D for Denver, but to use NY for New York would be confusing, because, if we use Roman capitals for elements, the use of two letters would suggest some combination of two elements.' (59).

It could be viewed as suggesting two locations, for example.

'If we wanted a more suggestive symbolism than A, B, C,...' (59).

This would not be the most effective symbolism when documenting cities. In this example, the 'C' as the third city listed,for New York, could be confused with the 'A' for Chicago, the first city listed, because Chicago begins with the English letter 'C'.

Langer suggests for this set either:

C, D, and N

or

C, D, and Y

not

C, D, and NY (59)

I would prefer

C, D, and N to state that Chicago is between Denver and New York

Therefore for an example, adding

R=Dr. Russ

And the cities I have visited from that statement

v= Has visited
nv+ Has not visited

Notice as Langer has with her examples such as 'ch' for chess and 'br' for bridge (54-58), these are stated as elements in small letters in order to not be confused (hopefully) with the cities stated with large capital letters.

R v N

R nv C

R nv D

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

Very Brief On Vicious Regress

I hope the extra wave effect, intentionally provided, is appreciated...

A Vicious Regress October 2 2006

Very Brief On Vicious Regress

I have been in a few recent discussions in regard to vicious regress and infinite regress.

To state:

A god, is caused by a god, is caused by a god, is caused by a god, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause.

A choice is caused by a choice, is caused by a choice, is caused by a choice, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause.

Time is caused by time, is caused by time, is caused by time, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324). A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).

An example of a benign regress is infinite numbers both plus and minus, as they in reality represent conceptualized things as opposed to being real things. 'Problem' solved.

Therefore:

Based on my philosophical reading and Blackburn's explanation, it can be deduced that philosophers would debate whether a particular vicious regress is illogical and whether it is using a logical fallacy.

Further:

An argument can be logical and not sound, as sound arguments are not the only valid arguments but are those where 'all the premises are true'. (1997: 35).

Whether or not a particular vicious regress, and the examples I raised, are illogical and using a logical fallacy in the sense of invalid argument is of secondary importance. It is of primary importance when a vicious regress is not reasonable and does not solve its own problem and is fallacious as in faulty reasoning. That is the case with my three examples, I reason.

Bradley mentions that it is not illogical, and not a vicious regress that each act of free choice is caused by another act of free choice. I agree that it is not necessarily illogical, but disagree that the argument as described is not a vicious regress.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

A fine Bulgarian gift from Dean and Anjela a few years ago. Note, I am neither a communist, socialist, nor a smoker. I still do not know what I did to earn this lovely Bulgarian medal...

I did drive Anjela and Sophia to the mall once when Dean was away on work travel.

Ambiguous Language

Poland: trekearth

Back to a review of the Langer text on Symbolic Logic, after a break since March as I was facilitating on a local church course and posting related articles.

The previous Langer post needs to be restated for context:

Chapter 2: The Essentials Of Logical Structure 

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.

---

Continued

Ambiguous Language

Langer explains 'Our linguistic means of conveying relations are highly ambiguous. But the expression of relations is the chief purpose of language. If we were interested only in things and not in their arrangement and connection, we could express ourselves with our forefingers.' (56).

An interesting author example, and the idea of supposed human communication as ape-like creatures within the concept of Darwinian Evolution comes to mind. Assuming that at one point evolving 'humanity' perhaps did communicate by such methods.

This being the case, if indeed one would accept such views over explanations that include both reasonable scientific induction and deduction and a literal view and not mythological view of the historical religious history of Genesis and Scripture. This reasonable approach that can include both plain literal and figurative literal biblical interpretations based on what biblical language and context dictates.

But I digress.

The author explains that in the example, the two John's are not likely to be confused. This is because these relations can be explicitly known in discourse. (56).

However, Langer expresses the idea that terms and concepts not explained clearly through discourse need to be explained when obscurity in communication occurs. (57). In order to escape error 'another sort of discourse' is required. (57).

This being symbolic logic. (57).

A more precise symbolism can bring logic out of language. (57).

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

Populum, Argumentum Ad

Recent

This fallacy is a particular irritant and was as well, before I was an academic. But I will attempt objectivity.

Quote

'The argumentum ad populum appeals to popular attitudes instead of presenting relevant material. In other words, it is based on prejudice. It exploits the known propensity of people to accept that which fits in comfortably with their preconceptions. The popular prejudices may or may not be justified, but the speaker who makes his case depend solely upon them is guilty of an ad populum fallacy. Pirie (165).

I am reasoning it should state 'depending'. I do this humbly as I have my share of technical errors, being my own proofreader! I edit when I am aware it is needed.

Further, the author explains that this fallacy can inflame passions and prejudices more appropriate to mass hysteria than to rational discourse. (165).

Those that use this fallacy 'take the easy way out'. (165).

This relates to my philosophical complaint in regard to lazy thinking and cop-out thinking.

Not that any human being has perfect thinking, but at times corrective reasoning should be pursued.

Playing on the emotions of the multitude. (165). Or, trusting in that fallacious type of thinking in regard to personal preferences and convictions, as opposed to researching and asking God for truth, even if that is uncomfortable truth.

Blackburn agrees with Pirie, basically, stating that this fallacy is 'appealing to the prejudices of the people.' (24).

Relevant and obviously non-exhaustive examples:

Significantly accepting the views of a known teacher over a critiques of a less known teacher, because the known teacher is more popular. Not primarily because of the merits of argumentation.

Considering one person in a romantic context over another significantly because it is more socially and culturally acceptable, not mainly based on character and other positive attributes.

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

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

Mark Final Study: Robots?

May 11

Christianity Explored

My friend 'Chucky' and the rumoured computer chip installed in his brain. Is he a possible robot candidate and within his hyper-Mennonite upbringing, a classic victim of hard determinism?

Mark Final Study: Robots?

During the Christianity Explored, Gospel of Mark course, finale, a 'seeker', now with a Bible, asked (paraphrased):

Why does God not just create people that believe in Jesus Christ?

An excellent question and actually I view it and its ramifications as a serious objection to a classic libertarian free will defence and incompatibilism.

There are both non-Christian and Reformed objections to libertarian free will views; please see bibliography, in particular Mackie, Flew, Plantinga and Feinberg.

Please also see this site archives.

A kind Roman Catholic, evangelical answered with the classic and typical evangelical church answer (paraphrased):

People could not love God without the option of free will and the option to not to love God; otherwise people were robots.

I respectfully answered that within a Reformed tradition there was a better answer, although her answer had some truth to it. I replied along the lines as I have written in my PhD and on my academic sites which I will present again in a more complex form than in the course:

God could inevitably bring about, through the use of the regeneration and the resurrection of elected human persons, the end of human corruption, and even Plantinga’s concept of transworld depravity. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53). If God willed and created a finalized Kingdom of restored persons that had experienced the problem of evil and were saved from it, then it could be reasoned that with God’s constant persuasion through the Holy Spirit and human experience and maturity, transworld depravity would never take place again.

No human wrong decision would need to occur as God always determines otherwise, without force and coercion; restored human beings do not lack experience as did the first humans (Adam and Eve) who rebelled against God causing corruption.

I speculate that theological praxis of sovereignty theodicy is more certain and comforting than free will theodicy, as transworld depravity is overcome by taking the primary choice (secondary human choice remains as simultaneously caused by God) of human belief in God away from corrupted human beings. Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8). Plantinga (1982: 184-189). Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 2, 7). Luther (1516)(1968: 31). Feinberg (1994: 126-127).

It is placed in the hands of a sovereign God.

I have also written on the issue of God being perfectly able to create significantly free creatures that do not sin:

Greg Welty And Christ As Sinless Human Being (PhD Edit) March 10, 2014

The church table leader kindly attempted to shed light on the discussion by stating I was Reformed and did not believe in free will, but I stated that I do not believe in libertarian free will, but limited free will. I had stated earlier in the conversation that I was a soft determinist.

I realize many incompatibilists will not accept the soft determinism/hard determinism distinction, intellectually preferring a blanket 'determinism' term; but academically, theologically and philosophically, a significant distinction remains:

Significant human will or human free will is removed from a hard determinism model.

Significant human will or limited free will or like (freely) remains within many Reformed models, including mine and that of John S. Feinberg in 'The Many Faces of Evil'.

Some hyper-Calvinists may rightly be considered hard determinists.

Another recent article:

Middle Knowledge Revisited April 20 2016

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.knight.org/advent

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AULEN, GUSTAV (1950a) Christus Victor, Translated by A.G. Hebert, London, S.P.C.K.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=11207&search_id=606108&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1 

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.

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Theology and Falsification’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

FLEW, ANTONY (1983)(1996) ‘The Falsification Challenge’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

GRIFFIN, DAVID RAY (1976) God, Power, and Evil, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1516)(1968) Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Translated by J.Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1518)(1989) ‘Heidelberg Disputation’, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

WELTY, GREG (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Greg Welty PhD, Fort Worth, Texas.Philosophy Department, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/probevil.htm

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad/To My Friend In Regard To C.S. Lewis

Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad/To My Friend In Regard To C.S. Lewis

Preface

May 6 2016 updated August 29 2023 for an entry on academia.edu

Photo features 'Bob Ross' 'cheater trees', covered by 'pollution', August 27, 2023, Port Moody, British Columbia 

Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad

A Facebook discussion: May 2016

A Facebook friend and I were at one time discussing C.S. Lewis as a writer. My friend was defending Lewis as a fiction writer, which I can view as reasonable. There was no disagreement on that issue.

My friend was offended that I did not particularly embrace the non-fiction theological and philosophical writings of C.S. Lewis. In particular his writings on the problem of evil and the nature of God, as these are areas of my academic expertise through academic degrees and website work. I am not whatsoever, claiming to be a C.S. Lewis scholar or a scholar in regard to his fictional works. I do agree with Lewis on several theological and philosophical points. 

I am not stating I cannot learn from the writings of C.S. Lewis in regard to theology and philosophy. There are many writers and speakers I can learn from. However, C.S. Lewis is not primarily an authority I would appeal to, which I very much realize is contrary to many evangelical, North American pastors and church attenders.

My friend opined (paraphrased) that appealing to academic sources such as myself in regard to theology and philosophy of religion and differing in any negative way from the theological and philosophical work of C.S.Lewis was fallacious. As in the fallacy, 'Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad', my friend indicated.

My friend also stated that some in the 'New Age' have doctorates and are not authorities. I stated that I was not academically and intellectually defending all of the views of those with doctorates. Far from it, if a person actually regularly reads my articles posted on my sites; I am not a supporter of views primarily, at least, based on the fact a source has a doctorate or not.

Again, the review of the Pirie text: 

(As a different friend told me on the phone one time, 'It is like you have three jobs.')

Pirie and Blackburn

Pirie explains that Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad  is an appeal to false authority. (210).

Here is a key, quote

'...it is a fallacy to suppose that an expert in one field can lend support in another. Unless one has special expertise, he is a false authority' (210).

Blackburn agrees basically with Pirie and my view:

'ad verecundiam appealing to an authority outside its legitimate area'. (24).

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 

Cited

'The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them.'  (End citation)

My perspective

C.S. Lewis was a Christian apologist and 'pop' popular theology writer on some issues.

C.S. Lewis was not an academically trained theologian or philosopher.

C.S. Lewis Wikipedia

Cited 

'Clive Staples Lewis, FBA (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963) was a British writer, literary scholar, and Anglican lay theologian. He held academic positions in English literature at both Oxford University (Magdalen College, 1925–1954) and Cambridge University (Magdalene College, 1954–1963).'

Lay theologian Wikipedia

Cited 

'A lay theologian is a theologian "who is not ordained, or a theologian who has not been trained as a theologian".[1] Lay theologians often have academic qualifications in other academic disciplines.'

(End citation)

Academic research in theology, philosophy and philosophy of religion, is special expertise. My professional and special expertise and academic training is in theology, philosophy of religion and biblical studies.

More specifically, my professional and special expertise and academic training is in regard to the problem of evil, the nature of God, free will and determinism. I reviewed C.S. Lewis' theological views in regard to problem of evil and the nature of God, within my MPhil thesis.

Therefore, I commit no fallacy by with at least some expertise, opining on the related theological and philosophical work of C.S. Lewis. Pirie further explains that that fallacy introduces material that has no bearing on the matter under discussion. (211). Such as in my case, with friend, attacking my credentials, because even some people in the 'New Age' have doctorates.

As I did research some C.S. Lewis for my MPhil thesis, I do happen to acknowledge that Lewis is a reasonable source within Christian scholarship. But, he is not personally, one of my key sources. My work is not perfect, and I admit I edit my work. I admit I am finite and sinful, but I am not in error on this issue by using a fallacy or the Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad, fallacy. At the same time, I am not claiming an infinite understanding of the issue, I am not infinite, obviously!

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

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

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

LEWIS, C.S. (1961)(1983) A Grief Observed, London, Faber and Faber. MPhil 2003

LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio, Barbour and Company. MPhil 2003

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins. MPhil 2003

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

STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY (2020) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 

by Hans Hansen.

Mark 10 Sixth Short Study/The Dangers Of Exaggerated Critique

Abbotsford, after church, May 4

Colourized version

I think both photos are decent versions, considering they are from my new LG mobile and not from a professional camera or from a professional photographer. I like the bluish original as much as the reddish colourized version, but neither caught the actual essence and brilliance of the colours.

---

The Dangers Of Exaggerated Critique

After class I viewed on the Knowledge Network

David Starkey's: Music & Monarchy

Dr. Starkey told a version of the following story...

Wikipedia

'The ejection of non-conforming Puritan ministers from the Church of England in the 1630s provoked a reaction. Puritan laymen spoke out against Charles's policies, with the bishops the main focus of Puritan ire. The first, and most famous, critic of the Caroline regime was William Prynne. In the late 1620s and early 1630s, Prynne had authored a number of works denouncing the spread of Arminianism in the Church of England, and was also opposed to Charles's marrying a Catholic. Prynne became a critic of morals at court.

Prynne was also a critic of societal morals more generally. Echoing John Chrysostom's criticism of the stage, Prynne penned a book, Histriomastix, in which he denounced the stage in vehement terms for its promotion of lasciviousness. The book, which represents the highest point of the Puritans' attack on the English Renaissance theatre, attacked the stage as promoting lewdness. Unfortunately for Prynne, his book appeared at about the same time that Henrietta Maria became the first royal to ever perform in a masque, Walter Montagu's The Shepherd's Paradise, in January 1633. Histriomastix was widely read as a Puritan attack on the queen's morality. Shortly after becoming Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud prosecuted Prynne in the Court of Star Chamber on a charge of seditious libel. Unlike the common law courts, Star Chamber was allowed to order any punishment short of the death penalty, including torture, for crimes which were founded on equity, not on law. Seditious libel was one of the "equitable crimes" which were prosecuted in the Star Chamber. Prynne was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment, a £5000 fine, and the removal of part of his ears.

Prynne continued to publish from prison, and in 1637, he was tried before Star Chamber a second time. This time, Star Chamber ordered that the rest of Prynne's ears be cut off, and that he should be branded with the letters S L for "seditious libeller". (Prynne would maintain that the letters really stood for stigmata Laudis (the marks of Laud).) At the same trial, Star Chamber also ordered that two other critics of the regime should have their ears cut off for writing against Laudianism: John Bastwick, a physician who wrote anti-episcopal pamphlets; and Henry Burton.'

Dr. Starkey stated (paraphrased) that Prynne had called stage actresses 'whores' and this eventually led to his prosecution and the removal of his ears. Unfortunately the queen of that era had recently been performing on stage.

Another lesson on being careful what one states and writes, including the dangers of exaggerated critique in a serious context. If satire is used, it should be cautiously and respectfully.

Christianity Explored

Mark 10 Sixth Short Study

Christianity Explored

Mark 10:13-16

In regard to Jesus blessing the little children, at the table we agreed that the disciples at least somewhat misunderstood the ministry of Jesus Christ in attempting to prohibit the children access to him, the Messiah and Lord, in as much as the disciples understood the true nature of Christ, prior to the resurrection.

As Christ noted, to be in the Kingdom of God, a child-like faith is required by humanity and I stated that with all my research, I consider myself finite and sinful, implying therefore a child-like faith is appropriate.

The child-like qualities of 'trust and receptiveness' being crucial in this context. Short (1986: 1170).

At our table, we agreed that children are generally more willing to accept things by grace through faith than are adults. Short states in regard to child-like faith: 'apart from any thought of merit...' Short (1986: 1170).

See also

Matthew 19
Luke 18

SHORT, STEPHEN S. (1986) ‘Mark’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Collective Guilt

GTA: trekearth

Collective Guilt

May 3, 2016 article, which has been edited and reformatted for an entry on academia.edu on August 8, 2022.

I continue with my review of the Pirie text:

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

Pirie:

'Guilt is something that pertains to individuals, not to institutions or categories.' (59).

I can grant the point. However, having written on corporate ethics at times on this site, I reason there are many times when individuals within corporations and organizations should transfer individual human guilt to a corporate level, repent and make restitution where this is possible.

The corporate entity, and not just in a business context to be clear, should not be by its existence therefore able to excuse itself, to forget the sin and guilt of its individuals and to avoid repentance.

I can again grant what Pirie is stating:

'...it is a fallacy to suppose that the guilt pertains collectively to the group'. (59).

Not every person in a corporate context is necessarily guilty, but at the same time this should not prohibit a corporate entity, in various contexts, not just business, from taking moral and ethical responsibility for the wrong acts and actions of some individuals within the group.

Would this not be even more the case when it is immoral and unethical actions from corporate leadership?

Pirie wisely states in the context of historical wrongs committed by the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that 'Crimes and misdeeds are committed by people, not by nationalities.' (59).

Theologically and Biblically, although it could be stated that humanity has the collective guilt of sin against God (Romans 1-6, Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, Hebrews 4 and 9); it is still true that all persons are judged individually.

Some key examples:

Revelation 20

The unregenerate are judged for sins, not being covered by atonement of Christ. Everyone judged according to their deeds (New American Standard Bible Revelation 20: 12-13). Those not in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire. This is likely figurative literal language for everlasting hell (14-15).

Biblehub

'Strong's Concordance ergon: work Original Word: ἔργον, ου, τό Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter Transliteration: ergon Phonetic Spelling: (er'-gon) Short Definition: work, labor, action, deed Definition: work, task, employment; a deed, action; that which is wrought or made, a work.'

Strong (41).

Greek New Testament

From Revelation 20: 12 and 13

Byzantine Majority

kata         ta   erga          autwn
according   to   the works   of them

Alexandrian

kata         ta   erga          autwn
according   to   the works   of them

Hort and Westcott

kata         ta    erga          autwn
according   to    the works   of them

According to works, deed, actions.

2 Corinthians 5

The regenerate in Christ are judged for works as in 'deeds in the body...whether good or bad.' (New American Standard Bible 2 Corinthians 5: 10).

Biblehub

'Strong's Concordance prassó: to do, practice Original Word: πράσσω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: prassó Phonetic Spelling: (pras'-so) Short Definition: I do, fare, require Definition: I do, perform, accomplish; be in any condition, i.e. I fare; I exact, require. Strong (80).

Deeds and works, practiced.

Greek New Testament

epraxen
Be practiced

The Greek matches from Alfred Marshall and also Byzantine Majority, Alexandrian and Hort and Westcott manuscripts.

1 Corinthians 3

Those that build upon the foundation (12) will have their work tested (13) and be rewarded (14) or the works (work) burned up (15). A reference to the post-foundational work of those in Christ that built upon the New Testament gospel work.

Although both exist, Biblically, for God, in the New Testament context especially, individual human guilt seems to take priority over collective guilt, in regards to judgment. I acknowledge here that the Hebrew Bible, in regards to the judgement of Israel, as a key, but not only example, does have a strong corporate judgement component. This is not overlooked in the New Testament writings of Paul, for example in Romans and Galatians. See also Hebrews. 

---

ALLEN, LESLIE. C, in Bruce, F.F. (ed.), (1986), Romans, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

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

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1981) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BRUCE, F.F., (1963)(1996) Romans, Grand Rapids, IVP/Eerdmans.

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

BRUCE, F.F. (ed.), (1986) The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

CLINES, DAVID, J. A. (1986), 2 Corinthians, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books.

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

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

HOCKING, DAVID (2014) The Book of Revelation, Tustin, California, HFT Publications. 

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

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers (2016), New York, Shelter Harbour Press. 

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

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