Calvin & Compatibilism: (MPhil/PhD)

Verona: People & Countries, Facebook

As per United Kingdom, MPhil and PhD standards, most citations are in my own words.

I consider myself more so Reformed as opposed to a Calvinist. I, for example, am joining a Mennonite Brethren, believer’s baptism church.

In modern, but not Reformation era terms, Calvin could be considered a compatibilist and explains that those who committed wrong actions performed them willfully and deliberately. Calvin (1543)(1998: 37).

God was working his good purposes through the evil conduct of people, but Calvin pointed out that God’s motives in willing these deeds were pure while those who committed wrong had wicked motives. Calvin (1543)(1998: 37).

Calvin suggests outward human preaching ‘strikes only the ears’ while the inward instruction of the Holy Spirit is how a person is enlightened in Christ. Calvin (1543)(1996: 233).

Human preaching is valuable in that it works at times in conjunction with the Holy Spirit transforming individuals. Calvin (1543)(1996: 233).

Humanity has nothing on its own, but depends totally on God. God bestows on humanity what he wills. Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 1: 2).

Calvin did not believe that God would eliminate human impulse, but rather God would have the impulse of a person he desired subject to the spirit of God. Calvin (1543)(1996: 225).

Preaching and teaching the word of God impacts a person to believe in Christ. Calvin (1543)(1996: 34).

God’s motives remain pure in the simultaneous willing of human actions that are sinful and evil. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).

Human beings and their actions were the secondary causes of primary causes willed by God. Calvin (1543)(1996: 38).

God’s motives in willing an action would work toward the greater good even while human beings freely sinned. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).

‘For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without wilful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them.’ Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

'At the same time, however, the will and purpose to do evil which dwells within them makes them liable to censure. But, it is said, they are driven and forced to this by God.’ Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

‘Indeed, but in such a way that in a single deed the action of God is one thing and their own action is another. For they gratify their evil and wicked desires, but God turns this wickedness so as to bring his judgements (judgments) to execution.’ Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

The incompatibilist thinks if someone freely refrains from an action, they must not have been causally determined or significantly influenced to do so. Pruss (2003: 216).

The compatibilist thinks if someone refrains from an action, they have the power to do this and were not constrained from doing the action by an outside force. Pruss (2003: 216).

Incompatibilism denies that any outside influence can significantly will any action, or impose itself on a significantly free being for a truly free action to occur. Pruss (2003: 216).

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.

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.

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

PRUSS, ALEXANDER R. (2003) ‘A New Free-Will Defence’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, pp. 211-223. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Pinterest

Pinterest

Matthew 16 & 18 In Brief

From trekearth with saturation added

I present brief research and provide a short presentation motivated by a recent sermon I heard at Northview Community Church.

Matthew 18: 15-20

English Standard Version

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Matthew 16:19

English Standard Version 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[a] in heaven.”

Footnotes: Matthew 16:19 Or shall have been bound… shall have been loosed

In basic agreement with the Northview sermon:

In regard to  Matthew 18: 19: From the Pastor Courson commentary

'Jesus is saying. "Church it's your job to bind sin. Sin is bound in heaven. Therefore you have authority to bind it on earth. Righteousness and holiness, mercy and forgiveness are released in heaven. Therefore you have been given authority to release them on earth." Binding and loosing speak of the authority the Church has in dealing with matters where sin is flagrantly, contently and obnoxiously practiced.' (146). The text also notes that church discipline is presented in like-manner in 1 Corinthians 5. Here is the story of the man in the Church delivered to Satan for discipline, because of sinful lifestyle. Following repentance, this is to lead to forgiveness and restoration. (146).

Notice, there is a distinct and definitive theological difference between, sin lifestyle as is being described in these texts, and the concept of each an every Christian being sinful or a sinner by nature (Romans, Hebrews). Until the resurrection and full human restoration (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22), those in Jesus Christ will be minimally tainted by sin. But this should be distinctly different than living a sinful, non-Biblical lifestyle. Even though the atonement and resurrection covers all in Christ, each believer is post-mortem, ultimately judged for works rendered in Christ (2 Corinthians 5, also Ephesians 2, James).

Pastor Courson in Matthew 16: 19, describes how the Church while binding sin, should be in harmony with heaven. (God, my add) (129). In regard to Peter, what I have heard Pastor Courson discuss online, is in basic agreement with William Barclay:

'There is no reason to doubt that Jesus gave to Peter a leading place, but this is the leading place expressed in terms of the church as an institution.' (65). And as the book of Acts forward, demonstrated, Peter was a key Apostle, although the Apostle Paul wrote more New Testament texts. Peter is key leader and Apostle, but not necessarily the preeminent leader and Apostle.

Based on the Northview sermon, Courson sermons and the texts referenced; I reason that those within the Church that flee church discipline, are risking rejecting the divinely sanctioned discipline of the Church.

Yes, church discipline can be in error and in the wrong spirit, but church discipline based in reasonable, contextual exegesis, guided by the Holy Spirit, to bind sinful, non-biblical, lifestyle, should be obeyed.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1966)(1975) Introduction to the First Three Gospel, Westminster Press, Philadelphia.

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

Doppelganger & Division

trekearth

Doppelganger & Division

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

June 9

I stated:

Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division

'The fallacy of composition occurs when it is claimed that what is true for individual members of a class is also true for the class considered as a unit.' (62). 'It is fallacious to suppose that what is true of the parts must also be true of the new entity they collectively make up.' (62). 'This must be a good orchestra because each of its members is a talented musician.' (62).
---

Division according to Pirie is:

'The doppelganger of the fallacy of composition is that of division. When we attribute to the individuals in a group something which is only true of the group as a unit, we fall into the fallacy of division.' (85).

'Both of these form a fallacy of equivocation.' (85). This occurs because of the ambiguity of collective nouns. (85). 'The gospels are four in number. St. Mark's is a gospel, so St. Mark's is four in number.' (85).

Something should not be attributed to an individual, only because it is often attributed to a group.

Chucky is German, Germany has won four World Cups and three Euros in football; therefore Chucky is very good at football.

There is a danger of 'typecasting people according to the groups from which they emanate.' (86).

Leroy is African American and is therefore a fast sprinter.

From the June 9 article:

Blackburn once again helpfully explains the converse fallacy, as he did with accident fallacy and its converse version, that I hopefully explained well in two articles. The fallacy of division is therefore stating: Corporate to individual C t I (my add):  'If something is true of a group, then it is also true of individuals belonging to it.' (71).

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

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

June 9 article

A confusing proposition?

Vancouver: Instagram

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

On page 90, under the header:

'Propositional Forms.'

Quote

'Every proposition in a formal context is either true or false. We may not know which it is; but we may rest assured that it is one or the other.

An expression like:

a fm b (90).

Here, a is the fellowman of b or a is in fellowship with b. 'This is true with one set of values and false with another...' (90).

r (Russ) is in fellowship with c (Chucky, my friend since 1989).

r fm c. This is true.

r (Russ) is in fellowship with c (Chucky, the murderous doll).

r fm c. This is false.

The author further explains that:

The expression "a fm b"...is neither true nor false. (90). It is not a proposition at all. 'It is only the empty form of a proposition.' (90). It has to be filled in with particular elements to be an actual proposition. (90).

In my above examples, I filled in with elements. I defined them.

Examples of propositions from my PhD, Wales.

God reveals himself in the Bible

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same God

God is close to all persons

God is beyond his creation

God is in all things

I did not merely present, for example:

a reveals himself in b. By the text standards, that would not be a proposition.

Each question was followed by AS A NC D DS (Agree Strongly, Agree, Not Certain, Disagree, Disagree Strongly).

It is only when all its terms are fixed, it requires a truth value. It then becomes propositional, a proposition. (91).

If no values are assigned to terms, then it is not a proposition. It is an expression. (90).

Langer admits, 'The name is not very fortunate', as in these expressions are called 'propositional forms' even though they are not propositions! (91). This may add to the confusion for those trying to learn symbolic logic.

This type of communication would be at times technical, but appealing to the use of a textbook in the construction of propositions would be reasonable.

Ironic that this presentation was hung on the wall at the pub by our table, where we had our post-Bible study, theology talk. But strangely, almost everyone at the table took a photo.

Matthew 6:9-13

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 ‘Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. 11 ‘Give us this day [a]our daily bread. 12 ‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from [b]evil. [c][For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]

Footnotes:

a Matthew 6:11 Or our bread for tomorrow
b Matthew 6:13 Or the evil one
c Matthew 6:13 This clause not found in early mss

Sweeping generalizations

New Westminster Quay

New West Minster Quay

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

'Dicto simpliciter is the fallacy of sweeping generalization.' (83).

'All atheists are immoral.'

Does one know the ethical and moral views of each and every atheist?

'Religion is the cause of the evils of the world.'

Which religion? They are not all the same in worldview. Is not some evil caused from non-religious sources?

Pirie:

To insist that the generalization must apply to each and every case, regardless of individual differences, is to commit the fallacy of  Dicto simpliciter.  (83).

He further that many of our statements are not universals and that this because at times there are accidental features which makes something an exception. (83).

About Education

Definition

'Dicto Simpliciter is a fallacy in which a general rule or observation is treated as universally true regardless of the circumstances or the individuals concerned. Also known as the fallacy of sweeping generalization, unqualified generalization, a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, and fallacy of the accident (fallacia accidentis).'

This site then quotes Blackburn from 2016, a new version of the text I use:

'A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ("from the statement unqualified to the statement qualified") is the fallacy of arguing from a general to a particular case without recognizing qualifying factors: "If some snakes are harmless, then some snakes in this bag are harmless" (The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2016).'

This is another form of accident fallacy:

Composition fallacy June 9, 2016

Anecdote December 16, 2015

Accident fallacy November 29, 2015

Accident fallacy November 7, 2015

2 Peter 3: Brief Considerations

September 30, 2012: Second Peter

Admittedly, I have edited this post from 2012, more than once, This is because I am learning as I study.

I am less than dogmatic in regards to interpretation with 2 Peter 3, in a similar way to Hebrews 6 and related passages from James. I hope this suffices in the humility department.

Second Peter 3:9

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

William Barclay takes the perspective that when the text is stating that God does not want any to perish, like Paul in Romans in certain verses (Barclay lists 11: 32) it is in the context of God shutting persons out to unbelief. Barclay (1976: 343).

I stated in the September 30, 2012 article as 'You' is being addressed in (3), as in Christians:

'In context therefore, it is possible that Second Peter Chapter 3:9 is not directed to non-believers in regard to salvation but is directed to Christians in regard to repentance. It may be stating basically that the Lord is patient with you (Christians), not wishing for any of you to (perish/die) in a state of non-repentance.'

However:

If this is indeed relating to the unregenerate, although written to Christians, Erickson is helpful.

Quote:

‘…God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), yet he apparently he does not actually will for us all to be saved, since not everyone is saved.’ (361).

Quote

‘We must distinguish between two different senses of God’s will, which we will refer to as God’s “wish” (will1) and God’s will (will2).’ (361).

Will1 is God’s general intention and Will2 is God’s specific intention.

Or it could be stated Will1=God’s perfect will and Will2=God’s permissible will.

However, there is a theological and philosophical problem. If it is God’s eternal permissible will to save only some, then God caused this in a sense. I reason it can be traced to the fallen human nature that works through limited free will.

As my Hebrews professor told me at Columbia Bible College (paraphrased), although we all have a fallen nature outside of Christ by default, some have a fallen nature that will never accept Christ and be acceptable to God. Others will be regenerated.

Therefore, God’s eternal, perfect will would actually be for some to reject him and remain everlastingly outside of his Kingdom, although in a sense, God wishes it would be otherwise.

This places doubt that God's wish is God's perfect will. Rather it may be a divine wish. God wishes salvation for all (universalism) within his will, but it will not occur. God, in my view, could create significantly free finite creatures than remain morally perfect, in a finite sense. The classic example being angels that did not fall.

Does being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1: 27) determine that sin and a fall must occur?

Jesus Christ was both God and man, and did not sin and fall. He is the example of human being as we know it, that did not sin and fall. The incarnation accepted. I find it difficult to believe that God needed to make human beings or human type beings that would or could sin and fall, in order for them to be significantly free. The atonement and resurrection of Christ was God's salvific plan for humanity. Those in Christ would eventually be restored to finite perfection. (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22).

God is infinitely perfect, holy and free and cannot logically sin, but he understands evil infinitely well.

Perhaps a perfect finite creature, merely needs to understand evil, reasonably well within freedom?

This conclusion of my mine, however, prayerfully should not impact how I interpret certain passages such as from 2 Peter 3. Let the Scripture state what it states in context. 

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

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

Isaiah 45: God allows and creates

This week

Again listening to a recent Searchlight sermon, I examine the related commentary.

Quote in regard to Isaiah 45: 5-7

Isaiah 45:5-7: New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 “I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will [a]gird you, though you have not known Me; 6 That [b]men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing [c]well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.

Footnotes:
Isaiah 45:5 Or arm
Isaiah 45:6 Lit they
Isaiah 45:7 Or peace

'On the eye of their being carried into captivity, God says He has plans for His people they wouldn't understand. The Hebrew word translated "evil" is ra, or "catastrophe." This means that the Lord is the One who at the very least allows, if not creates, certain situations in my life that to me might seem unsettling or catastrophic.' (428).

David F. Payne writes in regard to this section: 'prosperity and disaster, alike come from Him (God, my add)'.(751).

Bible Hub

Strong's with 7451 lists בּוֺרֵא רָ֑ע Isaiah 45:7 (of God).

'ra' from 7489 (144), a prime root to spoil, figurative, to make, or be good for nothing. (145) 'Ra' in 7451 defines as bad or evil, adversity, affliction, calamity as the first examples.

Therefore, there is basic agreement between the texts.

Continued with Pastor Courson:

'Too often, we blame Satan for the wrong in our lives. But, as we know from Job 1, Satan can't do a single thing to us unless it is allowed by the Lord.' (428).

Courson views this as a form of purification. (428). The Master Potter is transforming those in him to the type of vessel desired. (428).

In this case, the Pastor states that one should not seek their own will, but accept God's plans for their own betterment. (428). This is of course, far easier said than done, humanly speaking and these connect to problems of evil and problems of suffering. God's assistance is prayerfully required.

Pastor Courson to me is not an obvious Reformed adherent, but in this section his views reflect a biblical, Reformed perspective.

Within a compatibilist view, God would cause, will, create and allow all things within his perfect nature and morality, for his holy divine purposes. Satanic beings and human beings could indeed be secondary causes of same events, but without perfectly holy motives. Satanic beings, of course directly opposing God with distinctly unholy motives, while simultaneously serving him. Human motives will at least, minimally, be tainted by sin.

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

PAYNE, DAVID F. (1986) 'Isaiah' in The New International Bible Commentary, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering, Grand Rapids.

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

Values & not worth

Bologna: People and Countries-Facebook

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

Cited

'The elements which may be meant by a variable symbol are called values. Here again we encounter the use of "value" in a mathematical sense, not to be confounded with any sort of "worth". (87).

Cited

'A value for a variable is any element which the variable may denote. The entire class of possible values for a variable, i.e. of individual elements it may signify is called the range of significance of the variable. (87).

Cited

'In the expression "a fm a" (a is the fellowman of a, or a is in fellowship with a, my add) within our formal context, the range of the variable a is the entire universe of discourse. (87).

Universe of discourse explained previously as according to Langer, quoted from a previous entry:

'The total collection of those and only those elements which belong to a formal context is called a Universe of Discourse. (68).

She states further:

'Any element whatever may be substituted for a, and the result will be a proposition which is either true or false. (88).

But she notes that the two terms a fm a, may be in dyadic relation (88) which is describing the interaction between a pair of individuals. Therefore, Langer reasons that the terms a and b are not 'necessarily distinct.' (88). The first and second mentioned elements may be the same element. 'If the same variable appears in both places, then we know the terms denoted are identical.' (88). If different variables occur, it is not known whether or not they are identical.(88).

Specification is when a specific value is assigned a value. (88). It is not the same as interpretation, where a symbol is commissioned with a meaning.

Interpretation fixes the terms with a universe of discourse and an equation. (88).

From Langer, it is explained as a equals, by specification, the element C. Therefore a=C. This does not tell us that a denotes the sort of thing called a house, but which house it denotes: the house named C.

'The range of significance of a variable, then, is the class of all those and only those elements which may be substituted for it by 'specification.'

In other words, specification in symbolic logic is a specific denotation for a symbol.

My examples:

Interpretation would be h=house
Specification would be w=wood cabin house.

As much as symbolic logic is meant to be a more reasonable and clear approach to dialogue than the linguistic syntax approach, I deduce that this parsing between interpretation and specification will lead to confusion in many instances.

Is explaining the difference between h (house) and w (wood cabin house), or a (a house) and C (a specific house), within symbolic logic going to be simpler than writing the concept out in sentence and paragraph form in English? I think this depends on context and audience.

Valuesaustralia.com

Comedy: I would recommend missing all family reunions.

Brief On Objectivism

Sunday

Blackburn: 'Objectivism (ethics) Any view upholding the objective status of ethical commitment, in opposition to error theories, scepticism, and relativism. The central problem is finding the source of the required objectivity. (267).

On error theory: 'Term due to the 20th-century philosopher J.L.Mackie, describing a theory according to which everyday thought in some area is sufficiently infected by mistaken philosophical views to be widely in error.' (125).

Mackie was a key non-theistic exemplar for MPhil and PhD studies. In the context I examined, he was a non-theistic compatibilist.

Cambridge explains: 'Objectivism may be naturalist or non-naturalist. The naturalist objectivist believes that values, duties, or whatever are natural phenomena detectable by introspection, perception, or scientific inference. (244). This is connected to empiricism and empirical facts. (244).

I agree. I connect naturalism, philosophically with empiricism.

The non-naturalist objectivist, believes that values and ethics exist independently of any belief about them. (244). These can be revealed as ethical intuition and as necessary. (244). These are not based on empiricism (primarily at least) but more so an approaches within rationalism. Based on reason.

The Christian, theistic position would be largely at least, based on the non-naturalist view. Scripture, theology and philosophy would be reasonable sources of objective ethics. The Hebrew Bible and New Testament viewed as actual, documented texts with thousands of manuscripts in whole and part. The Scripture viewed as religious history, inspired by God through writers that experienced God. In the New Testament context, the Son of God. Theology, as in Christian theology, would be the philosophy of God in support of Scripture. Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion, when in agreement with Scripture and theology, would be under the concept of 'All truth is God's truth.' I reason there is room for a limited type empiricism, in the sense that within a Christian theistic worldview, scientifically the finite, material world can be practically understood through science.

Naturalism and empiricism is often connected to non-religious worldviews.

In my philosophical understanding, no person is completely objective in intellectual approach and worldview. There are assumptions and biases that effect and influence reasoning. However, a significant objectivity is willing to examine different views and to accept where facts lead. In other words, to avoid being so emotionally attached to views that a reconsideration of views in virtually impossible.

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

SPRIGGE, T.L.S (1996) 'Ethical Objectivism', The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Today

Going Social: Brief Review

Going Social

It has been requested of me to essentially review, Chapter One: Social Marketing Even More Important Than You Think. (1). I have opined that social networking and related social marketing will continue to increase in importance, over the next few years, at least. This is because they are growing and progressing industries still at this point, and will be more utilized by businesses and organizations over the next several years.

The author cites Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs from Abraham Maslow in 1943. (5). I have read this theory previously with my psychological studies during my Bachelor's degree. Quote: 'Once an individual's physiological and safety needs are met, the remaining layers of needs are related to social well-being.' (5).

The author reasons that the rules behind online socialization are the same as socializing in real life. (5). This is idealistically true.

I do not fully accept this point, practically. Although I can understand that the principles are similar, the fact is that ethically, because of levels of anonymity and privacy, some people at times, will tend to treat online social contacts as less important. Avoiding face to face contact allows some to act in ways online, that they would not offline.

However, online Christian ministry, for example, must avoid this type of situational ethics (a phrase used by professors and students at Columbia Bible College) and hold to universal Biblical ethics in regard to love and truth. An online reality with social media, is it is not within a fictional universe and therefore persons need to be treated the same as in 'real life.'

Goldman reasons: 'Increasingly, customers want to be reached on social platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and the like, by companies with which they choose to interact with online.' (6). Online customers and associates need to be treated as well as face to face real life contacts.

The author discusses the power of recommendation. (11).

'MP3s are a great example of this phenomenon: Instead of going into a store to buy the CD, you can download a few tracks on iTunes or Amazon in the first minute of or two of hearing a band.' (11).

I have made this transfer over from CD to MP3, the last few years and You Tube is a very good source as well. MP3 is a more useful method of storing digital at this point than is CD. CD serves as a good archived music source.

'Social marketing is more about the social component and less about the marketing.' (13). This is true with ministry as well.

Chapter 10: How To Build Strong Relationships With Bloggers And Work With Online Personalities. (199). By bloggers Goldman means 'highly trusted experts.' (199). He states 'Given the rising importance of bloggers'... (201), they should be considered a meaningful part of marketing strategy. (201).

I agree with his distinction between generic bloggers and bloggers that have expertise in the field or fields in which they present.

Theories within this text can be largely summed up from the front and back covers: 'Going Social: Excite customers, generate your brand with the power of social media. (Front cover). Pinpoint where your audience "lives" online. Create relevant, engaging content. Give your brand a unique voice and personality. Build strong bonds with bloggers...' (Back cover).

GOLDMAN, JEREMY (2013) Going Social, Amacom Management Association, New York.

Time

Religion & Confusion

Recent fire at our new location. 

My final post in review of God In The Conversation.

In Chapter 6: Confused by No Gods, The writings of Richard Dawkins are discussed. John Smed writes: 'Dawkins argues that mankind's only hope is to face the truths of science and get rid of delusion.' (40). The author replies to Dr. Dawkins: 'Dawkins assumes most scientists agree with him. In fact a great many scientists believe in God. In a 2014 Religion in Science (Italics my add). International study, only 38% of scientists believe there is a conflict between science and religion. BBC research in 2004 revealed that only 39% do not believe in God, 21% say they don't know.' (41).

Based on those statistics, 40% would have some kind of belief in God. This is a decent and reasonable percentage of scientists, although not a majority.

As I noted, in two archived posts on Satire Und Theology, I do not find Dr. Dawkins views in regard to religious studies and philosophy convincing.

Goodreads

 '“It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?” ― Richard Dawkins'

There is not historical documentation from many sources over many years from different geographical areas for fairies at the bottom of a garden.

There is Biblical historical documentation of approximately 3500 years of actual persons, from various regions who experienced God. There are scribes, prophets, apostles and of course the resurrected Jesus Christ who are actual documented persons. This is connected to the Church Fathers and their writings. There is considerable historical and modern scholarship in regard to the historicity of both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

I conclude: The Biblical documentation would still be actual even if the Scripture contained some falsehoods, meaning a false comparison and false analogy is presented.

I view the original autographs as inspired by God through writers and inerrant.

Definition of False Analogy:

False Analogy

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
---

The Appendix of the God In the Conversation discusses Bringing God Into the Conversation.

Love people. (111), Expect to make a friend. (112), Put the person first, not their argument (112), Discern where God is speaking. (113), are examples. These are theological and evangelical approaches I personally use and find very helpful in a gospel context. Honest and open worldview dialogue is encouraged, while praying at the same time.

SMED, JOHN F. (2016) God In the Conversation, Prayer Current, Vancouver.

Finding my religion

Sunset

SMED, JOHN F. (2016) God In the Conversation, Prayer Current, Vancouver.

Quote:

'When it comes to finding a religion people get confused. There are too many options. Religions seem to run in every direction. There is pantheism, New Age, the Dali Lama, agnosticism and atheism - as well as the major world religions. Christianity is divided between Catholics and Protestants - and a hundred varieties within the two. Without a road map, religions diverge and merge, ending up in an undifferentiated tangle.' (33).

The text provides a reasonable answer:

'I know I cannot think my way to God. Prayer connects me with God and put things together.' (35).

This followed up with:

'Do you think you might be interested in the prayer life of Jesus?' (35).

Prayer Current
---

I realize that within Christianity there is also Orthodox and Non-denominational traditions, but the text is informative and like this website, not an exhaustive textbook.

According to the Biblical model, God can only be 'known personally' through revelation. Romans 1: 17 for example. This is contrasted with God being 'known about' which is also discussed in Romans 1.

Romans 1:17

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed [a]from faith to faith; as it is written, “[b]But the righteous man shall live by faith.”

Footnotes:
a. Romans 1:17 Or by
b. Romans 1:17 Or But he who is righteous by faith shall live

Righteousness and legal justification is provided by Jesus Christ's work of atonement and resurrection to those believers in Christ. It is revealed to those chosen (Romans and Ephesians), those that are believers, and not discovered through reason and speculation alone (although it is reasonable).

Religious speculation can provide some truth, making philosophy of religion a valid academic pursuit. But in at least some agreement with Kant from Critique of Pure Reason and related, in that regard, God can be reasoned as existing, intuitively and/or perhaps Kant would think God can be reasoned by deduction related to morality; although Kant was not a supporter of speculative religious doctrine, as he viewed it. Revelation from God in Scripture and resulting claims made within could perhaps be tied to Kantian concepts and intuition arising from empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66).

I disagree with Kant in regard to the historical revelation. The infinite can make self reasonably known to the finite. In Scripture, God works through prophets, apostles and scribes. Therefore, Christ’s exclusivity claim of John 14: 6, can be tied to the idea above, as in whatever God reveals would be the exclusive truth and the rest speculation, some true, some false.

This view of Scripture along with prayer would be useful in working through various religious and philosophical worldviews in pursuit of a reasonable explanation and ultimately, the truth.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

SMED, JOHN F. (2016) God In the Conversation, Prayer Current, Vancouver.

Very Dynamic (New search)

Burnaby

Recent website employment has me researching website design and templates. I thought the BBC.com website, was well-designed. I tried to find within Blogger, a significantly similar design, and then customized the new templates for both of my websites. I decided on switching to a 'Dynamic' template. I have chosen 'Magazine' as the default view, but 'Classic' represents a useful throwback to traditional blog views.

The 'Search' function is a vast improvement to older templates. I previously for years had to research my archived articles through the Blogger Dashboard or by a search engine.

To search, for example 'Blackburn', on this site, an often cited secular, philosophical source, type in 'Blackburn' in the search box. The preview options, and the amount of preview options are listed, presently as 'Show all 118 results'. These can be followed by pressing enter or clicking on the results. This takes the reader to a new page with results presented in preview article form.

In denial of the preceding

Instagram Vancouver

In denial of the preceding

September 1, 2016 article revised on May 1, 2023. Placed on academia.eu

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

Cited

'...the fallacy of denying the antecedent (precedes from, my add) is for those who do not really care if their brain is going forwards or backwards. It does not admit the possibility that different events can produce similar outcomes.

If I eat too much, I'll be ill. Since I have not eaten too much, I will not be ill' (81).

Other events can bring about the same results and the event that is assumed to have taken place, did not take place. (81).

Illness could be caused by, for example:

Food poisoning.

A virus.

Bacteria.

Cited

'If he's slow, he'll lose.'

'Since he isn't slow, he won't lose'. (81)

Pirie states he might just be stupid. (81). He might lose to someone that is faster.

'Denying the antecedent is a fallacy because it assigns only one cause to an event for which there might be several.' (82). The are other possible causes.

Pirie reasons that this is a conservative status quo fallacy. (82). In my mind, this is another fallacy used by those prone to intellectually lazy thinking.

The concept of antecedent is also related to counterfactuals, which means they are contrary-to-fact conditionals, that presuppose that the antecedent is false. (163).

'If Hitler had invaded Germany, Germany would have won.' (163).

My example

God existence = No problems of evil

If God exists

Then there is no problems of evil

This of course rejects Biblical revelation explaining God's reasoning for willingly allowing evil and his eternal plan (Ephesians 1) for the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to save those in Christ, and restore creation. This also rejects theological and philosophical explanations within defences and theodicy. 

I can reason that some critics may conclude that my example assumes an informal and not formal fallacy. But, the existence of problems of evil does not logically cancel out the existence of God.

Denying the antecedent: Logically fallacious 

References: Kiersky, J. H., & Caste, N. J. (1995) Thinking Critically: Techniques for Logical Reasoning, West Publishing Company.

Cited

'Logical Form:

If P, then Q.

Not P. 

Therefore, not Q. 

Example #1: 

If it barks, it is a dog. 

It doesn’t bark. 

Therefore, it’s not a dog.' 

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

DAVIS, WAYNE A. (1996) ‘Counterfactuals', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University.

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

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

Logically fallacious

Denying the antecedent: Logically fallacious 

References

KIERSKY, J.H. & Caste, N. J. (1995) Thinking Critically: Techniques for Logical Reasoning, West Publishing Company.