Hope (PhD Edit)

Today

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

PhD thesis excerpts on the theological concept of hope, from a Christian perspective:

There is hope!

David Lyon warns against the dangers of fundamentalism and hedonism/nihilism and states that the goodness and grace of the Christian God is the only hope for the world. Lyon (1998: 294). In a secularized Western culture the Christian Church needs to restructure where necessary certain practices without denying the Biblical revelation which provides hope for persons. Lyon (1998: 294).

Moltmann explains that it is believed that Christ will be God’s lieutenant in this godless world and bring about, through his crucifixion and resurrection, the promise of a better future, which includes hope. Moltmann (1993: 256). The Kingdom of God was present in Christ and this has been defined in history. Moltmann (1993: 263).

There is no hope!

Critically, D.Z. Phillips reasons that there is not actual hope for persons after death in another realm. Phillips (2005: 248). This would appear empirically true, but if the Biblical resurrection is true there is hope for those in Christ.

Clarence Darrow reasoned that there was no hope. He deduced that those within the New Testament era had little scientific knowledge, and therefore resurrection doctrine is a product of those with blind faith, wild dreams, hopeless hopes, and cowardly fears. Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267). Darrow (1932)(1973) writes that the best one can do is hold on ‘to the same speck of dirt’ as we proceed ‘side by side to our common doom.’ Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).

There is some hope!

John Roth does have hope as he looks for a resurrection of the dead in the future, and in the present realm hopes that somehow ‘the waste’ as in unnecessary evil, will be placed in check. He views the traditional concept of God that Davis has as a God that is ‘hidden, absent, even non-existent.’ A trust and hope in any type of God is risky, but Roth reasons that the hope does not completely die.

I question whether an omnipotent God with less than perfect motives that would will so much evil, not for the greater good throughout history (Roth's view), would ever change his ways or be convinced by finite creatures to do so. There is certainly a degree of truth to the idea that the evil God allows often cannot be reasonably understood by persons. This could, however, be due as much, or even more, to finite human nature and reasoning as opposed to a moral deficiency or lack of omnipotence with God.

Religious history in Scripture

Without the biblical resurrection of Jesus Christ and imputed to believers (Revelation 20-22, I Corinthians 15), death would end all hopes of ultimate reunion between those who remain and those who have died. Speculation from those in philosophy of religion, such as John Roth and John Hick, does not suffice. The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament manuscript copies do serve as authentic religious history. The New Testament documenting God's resurrection plans for humanity in the work, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

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.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

LYON, DAVID (1998) ‘Memory and the Millennium: Time and Social Change at the Fin de Siecle’, Timothy Bradshaw (ed.), in Grace and Truth in the Secular Age, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. 

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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. 

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

Not Blind Faith (MPhil & PhD)

Today

Preface

My academic approach to theology, religious studies and philosophy of religion, has been as an academic, to avoid the use of fideism.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Fideism

'The term itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism.' 'Fideism” is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of—if not outright adversarial toward—reason.

In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief.'
---

In this article I present some relevant 'faith' related excerpts from my British thesis work (2003) and (2010). This is non-exhaustive.

From MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives

Christianity is, of course, a faith and I would argue, since as human beings we only possess finite knowledge, that faith, knowledge and reason always work hand in hand in all philosophy. Christians do not want to possess a blind faith, but one that can withstand the best criticism because it is philosophically sound.

Christianity is also a historical faith and it states through Scripture that God supernaturally interacted with human beings through his prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ himself. So, the examination of Scripture is very important in any study of the problem of evil. Critics may suggest it is very convenient that the supposed supernatural occurrences in Scripture which support the Christian faith, and its remedy to the problem of evil through Christ’s work, took place thousands of years ago, before our scientific age. These supernatural events, it could be stated, are now rather hard to either prove or disprove. If they cannot be proven, why should the Christian answer to the problem of evil be taken seriously?

I admit this is an important criticism, but the Bible is consistent in its message, written within historical periods by historical people. The accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are in unity, and his resurrection, although disputed by some critics, does have the backing of New Testament authors, who claim to have witnessed the resurrected Christ, or to have personally known those who have.

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

From traditional and Reformed Christian perspectives, the Bible serves as the key Scripture and reference in regard to matters of faith. Cambridge theologian, J.S. Whale (1958) explains that within Protestant thought the Bible represents the whole counsel of God and nothing can be added whether by new revelation or tradition. Whale (1958: 15).

The Bible records these revealed events and they are perceived through faith for significance. Lindsell would support a traditional understanding of Biblical revelation where he states that through special supernatural revelation in Scripture, Jesus Christ is revealed to selected persons. Lindsell (1976: 17).

Clarence Darrow deduces that those within the New Testament era had little scientific knowledge, and therefore resurrection doctrine is a product of those with blind faith, wild dreams, hopeless hopes, and cowardly fears. Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267). Darrow’s assumption would more likely be correct if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament were written by persons that were clearly writing mythological literature with the primary use of metaphorical language. However,  there are those within both conservative and liberal Christian traditions that would reason the historical writers of Scripture wrote what they saw and experienced, and therefore many of these modern scholars accept a doctrine of physical resurrection.

Moltmann writes that after the resurrection the risen Christ appeared to his followers in order to guarantee that the glory of God and his creation would occur in the not too distance future. Moltmann (1993: 178). There should be a faith in place that can trust in a God that has intervened in history through his prophets, apostles and, of course, the atoning and resurrection work of Christ.

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.

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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

Love (PhD Edit)

Google+

This article presents selected excerpts from my PhD, The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David (2010) in regard to the love of God.

Objections

John Hick (1970) writes that evil is the most serious objection against the Christian belief in a God of love, and is probably the most difficult objection to write about. It can be disastrous to say too little or too much. Hick (1970: xi).

R.Wickham (1964) explains that within the discussion of the problem of evil and theodicy, it is asked how human suffering can be reconciled with the goodness of God. How can evil occur if God loves humanity? Wickham (1964: vii).

Incompatibilism versus Compatibilism

Tim Mawson (1999) indicates free will theodicy assumes moral evil that accompanies free will is necessary as a universe with free will is better than one without free will. Mawson (1999: 323).

The idea being that within free will theodicy significant, unfettered, human freedom, is vital for meaningful existence. Feinberg (1994: 65).

A greater good could not be realized unless God allowed his human creatures to freely reject him, since this was the only means by which they could also ultimately love, trust, and obey God. Schoenig (1997: 458).

This is incompatibilism.

Feinberg as a compatibilist states that within an incompatibilistic approach: God is therefore justified in having evil exist in his creation because the amount of overall good produced with significant human free will would far outweigh the negatives within the problem of evil, even though many persons reject God. Feinberg (1994: 65).

Compatibilism in contrast, states that human freedom can be significantly influenced by other secondary causes and most importantly, a primary cause. The primary cause is God, within a theistic model.

Robert H. Mounce (1995) explains that God directs the affairs in life, for those who love him, for the greater good. Mounce (1995: 187).

G.R. Lewis (1996) explains God does, at times, choose to work through angelic and human intermediates. Lewis (1996: 458). This would be a means by which God uses evil for his good purposes.

The idea that God is love is demonstrated through Christ’s work on the cross. Moltmann (1993: 227).

God is showing love within this system by allowing significant human freedom and not using compulsion to counter it (Calvin (1543)(1996: 68). It is also showing love through the work of Christ. This love of God needs to be presented within a Calvinistic sovereignty theodicy. God’s love may often be an overlooked idea within some Reformed, and Calvinist writings, and this may be because Calvinism is a largely philosophical system of theology. Green (1971: 2).

Millard J. Erickson explains that God demonstrates his love through benevolence, grace, mercy, and persistence. Erickson (1994: 292). The love of God and Christ needs to be demonstrated within a Calvinistic sovereignty theodicy in order to serve as an effective form of practical theology for those suffering. I favour compatibilism, to hard determinism or incompatibilism.

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 (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.

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.

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.

GREEN, JAY (1971) Five Points of Calvinism, ‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers. HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

LEWIS, G.R. (1996) ‘God, Attributes Of’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MAWSON, TIM (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil and Moral Indifference’, in Religious Studies, Volume 35, pp. 323-345. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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

SCHOENIG, RICHARD (1997) ‘The Free Will Theodicy’, in Religious Studies, Volume 34, pp. 457-470. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

WICKHAM, EDWARD R. ‘Forward’, in O.Fielding.Clarke (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited.

Seriously? This is obvious!

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

Every schoolboy knows

'You would be amazed what every schoolboy knows. Anxious to secure acquiescence of their controversial claims, disputants solemnly assure their audiences that every schoolboy knows the truth of what they are saying. (93).

The audience, not wishing to made to look ignorant, remains quiet. (93).

People are intimidated by the disputants and arguments.

I have stated in such instances that I refuse to be bullied or 'gooned' in a discussion.

People are 'supposed to keep silent about their doubts'. (93).

Those presenting 'the every schoolboy knows' fallacy push to not be questioned. (93).

This fallacy assumes arguments are true, beyond reasonable evidence presented. (94).

Pirie explains that this fallacy is often used with the term 'obviously'. But the arguments are by no means obvious. (95).

The 'obviously' and every school boy knows type arguments, in my mind are often used by those with limited argumentation on their side, and therefore use this fallacy to attempt to end intellectual opposition.

Seriously? This is obvious! States this fallacy.

ebay

Grace (PhD Edit)

This article features the very limited key mentions of the theological term 'grace', from my Doctorate. 

The biblical concept of 'grace' was alluded to more so in the work than the actual word. This entry is based on uses of the word 'grace' and its meanings.

Please see Ephesians 1-2, as persons in Christ are saved by grace through faith for good works, and not by good works.

The Holy Spirit 

The Holy Spirit plays a key part in the transformation of persons into Christian believers. It is in fact an aspect of God’s participating in his creation and human salvation. Franke (2005: 53). 

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, Whale (1958: 124). Packer (1973: 59).

The Holy Spirit is the supreme agent of grace. Whale (1958: 124). 

Free will

Luther dogmatically assumes that there is no middle way between God’s grace and human free will, and postulates that human free will should be theologically denied and everything should be ascribed to God. Luther (1525)(1972: 133).

Luther’s sovereignty perspective (Luther (1525)(1972: 123)) may place less emphasis on the human will than the later writings of Calvin and Feinberg. Luther is far more forceful in presentation that is Calvin and especially Feinberg. He is very forceful in his debate with Erasmus. 

Essentially, Luther at least denies any type of human libertarian free will. He in today’s modern language, would be a compatibilist. 

As a modern compatibilist, I do not deny significant human free will, but hold to limited free will. Human beings are secondary causes of what God wills as the primary cause. There can also be other secondary causes, such as human beings, demonic beings and angelic beings. 

Human beings are not forced to commit thoughts, acts and actions that they would be hold morally accountable for by God. Moral accountability requires human beings to at least with limited free will, embrace these thoughts, acts and actions. 

These are done semi-autonomously, but not fully autonomously. 

If human beings are forced to commit thoughts, acts and actions, they are not morally accountable. 

In contrast 

There are incompatibilist, evangelical counters to the Reformed view. 

Ephesians scholar Francis Foulkes (1989) explains that predestination is not in opposition to human free will. Foulkes (1989: 55). The gospel of grace was offered to all persons, and those persons that accepted the message were elected. Foulkes (1989: 55).

Foulkes insists that the human faith required rests totally on God and not in self. Foulkes (1989: 55). Frankly, Foulkes does not explain how this works within his incompatibilistic system. 

Problems of evil and suffering 

G.C. Berkouwer explains that ‘Man is-even when alienated from God-not alone.’ Berkouwer (1962: 183).

God has still gifted fallen humanity and there is a possible limitation to human corruption, that being the grace of Christ, and his words and work. Berkouwer (1962: 186-192). 

Millard J. Erickson explains that God demonstrates his love through benevolence, grace, mercy, and persistence. Erickson (1994: 292).The love of God and Christ needs to be demonstrated within a Calvinistic sovereignty theodicy in order to serve as an effective form of practical theology for those suffering. 

BERKOUWER, G.C. (1962) Man: The Image of God, Grand Rapids, W.M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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. 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. 

PACKER, J.I. (1973) Knowing God, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity 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. 

PACKER, J.I. (1996) ‘Regeneration’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

Short on Church government, too

Last evening at Northview Community Church membership class, the lead pastor mentioned (paraphrased) that in the New Testament Scripture, the terms elder and pastor were basically synonymous, or often used synonymously.

However, because of inherited corporate type Northview church language, women at Northview can be titled as pastor, but are not overseers or elders.

I reason, that based on a biblical, contextual approach the Northview approach is correct. But, I do acknowledge that the modern workings of this doctrine, can at least be hypothetically difficult, when a woman in a smaller congregation, especially, has the most religious studies and theological education and opines and teaches without significant error. If in some cases the most superior intellect present in regards to Bible, is an educated woman. This is a legit possibly in today's western world where often more women are seeking advanced degrees than men. Even so, I reason that Scripture should be submitted to in context.

I have written on this subject previously. January 2011

I apolozgize that the scans are not perfectly straight. The text is very large and my copier screen, small. For this article. I used software to straighten the images, which cuts off text slightly.

Strong page 40: Overseer

Strong page 80: Elder

There are considerations such as I Timothy 3 pointing out that an overseer should be the husband of one wife.

So a man, a male.

Also in Ephesians 5 there is the concept of the husband as head of the wife and as Christ is the head of the Church, a reasonable resulting view being a woman, therefore should not be the spiritual head of a local church, if she is not the spiritual head of the home.

I do not conclude from this that a woman should not be a head of a corporation, country, etcetera.

I do not conclude that a woman should not be awarded a PhD or Doctorate in Religious Studies, degrees.

Browning states that when the overseers met they were considered the elders (presbuteroi) Browning (1997: 112).

Wallace notes it in English as (presbytereroi). Wallace (1996: 347).

Thiessen expresses his opinion that the terms pastor, elder and bishop all were one and the same office in the New Testament quoting Acts 20. Thiessen (1956: 418). He quotes Saint Jerome that stated the elder was identical to the bishop in the text the 'Early Years of Christianity' from E. De Pressense. Thiessen (1956: 418).

Wallace states that the term episkopos/overseer is used interchangeably with versions for the word for elder in Acts 20 and in Titus. Wallace (1996: 347). Wallace reasons overseers are always elders but he is not sure that elders are always overseers. Some elders may have not been overseers. Wallace (1996: 347).

If in the New Testament when the overseers met they were the elders then there could be an argument made that the only legitimate elders today in a church are overseers/pastors/reverends. However, with my findings it is not crystal clear that only overseers were elders Biblically.

Northview has, it appears, elders that are not specifically trained Christian religious teachers. Definitely, these are not overseers. But some overseers do serve as elders.

Browning states women could be regarded as deacons. Browning (1997: 93). Deacons were agents of the overseers. Browning (1997: 93).

If the views suggested by Wallace is the Biblical case, then women can become Biblical deacons only.

The terms and meaning for elder and overseer are not identical. But it seems that an overseer, biblically could always be an elder; an elder may or may not be an overseer.

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

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Perrysburgh, Ohip, Welch. 

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

WALLACE, R.S. (1996) ‘Elder' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

The Tin Man/Ethical Superiority

Wikipedia: Original novel

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

Ethical Superiority

Pirie:

"It is not a fallacy to be ethically superior to your opponent. It is fallacy to assume you are without supporting evidence. And the evidence must be more compelling than the fact that your opponent disagrees with you.' (92).

With apologies to the fundamentalists; with my first employment post-Secondary school, a mentor in the insurance field, taught me to never assume, because:

ass/u/me

I have taken this life lesson and applied it to my academic work.

This is similar to my concept of not guessing in academia, as much as possible. 

Back to Pirie:

One party assumes to be ethical with a position and therefore the other party with a contrary position is assumed unethical. (92). This is also transferred to related morality.

But a different worldview or different opinion on a subject, does not necessarily make either position ethical or unethical.

Pire reasons this has also been called the 'Tin Man' fallacy as in the Tin Man, from the Wizard of Oz (1939) has no heart. (93). This is opposed to the 'Straw Man' fallacy. (93). The Straw Man fallacy will be discussed in a future entry, but it misrepresents an opponent's position, and then knocks that misrepresented position down. (193).

Straw Man attacks can be connected to personal (ad hominem) attacks, as in producing fictional intellectual attacks and as well, personal attacks versus an opponent.

The fallacious implementation of Tin Man/Ethical Superiority approach is easy to imagine.

The Christian accuses someone of a contrary worldview and that same worldview of being unethical and immoral. The person of a non-Christian worldview condemns the Christian and biblical and gospel views as being unethical and immoral.

However, reasonable ethical standards need to be established and then a breaking of these ethics, reasonably established for a rational critique to occur.

Not assumed. 

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.

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

The System

Burnaby Mountain: Burrard Inlet

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

Quote:

'If a propositional form of one variable is said to hold or to fail for all values in the range of significance of that variable, this is a statement about the form. Such a statement is either true or false; that is, either it is true that

'(a) : ~ (a fm a)' or it is false.

~=false 

If certain values are assigned to (a), it will be false that (a) is the fellowman of (a). (97).

It is therefore true in this particular system (97) that (a) is not the fellowman of (a), and therefore (b) is not the fellowman of (b) etcetera down the alphabet. (98).

These are general terms (97-98) that are consistent within the system. There are consistent forms.

As a general condition (a) is 'not his own fellowman' is true. (98). 

It is true in the symbolic logic system presented. But it depends on how terms are defined within each specific system. 

Symbols must be understood in context.

∃=sometimes or somebody (98--99).

rb=robbed (98-99).

∃ rb A=Somebody robbed A; Somebody robbed Smith. (98-99).

∃ fm A=Somebody is the fellowman of A (Smith).

Structure, forms, context and system need to be reasonably explained and understood within philosophical, theological and biblical writing; within academic writing. This needs to be understandable for the reader.

Again, this is not the most clear technical textbook, but I am doing my best to work through it and explain. The uses of the terms true and false here require considerable concentration. Ironically, a text promoting intellectual clarity through the use of symbolic logic is not as clear as possible, although I find working through it very educational and useful.

Symbolic logic is an alternative to written language because written language is prone to ambiguous language, but at the same time there can be ambiguity with the use of the symbols.

Keep calm

Ontology Too

Not a burning bush, but busy work month...

Ontology August 2015

Below are my limited definitions of ontology from my doctorate.

T. Patrick Burke (1999) describes ontology as dealing with the doctrine of being. Burke (1999: 416).

Erickson (1994: 272) and philosopher R. Douglas Geivett (1993: 53) point out that the term ontology is also used in context of arguments for the existence of God.

From the August 2015 article, ‘Ontology.’ 

Ontology is from the Greek word for being, and is a 17th century term for the branch of metaphysics that is concerned with what exists. Blackburn (1996: 269).

The ontological argument is an a priori (non-empirical knowledge or speculation, my add) has been used by those such as Anselm and is noted as purely a priori as an attempt to prove the existence of God. Blackburn (1996: 269).

Blackburn writes that Aquinas did not accept the argument. Blackburn (1996: 269).

Blackburn mentions Plantinga as a modern philosopher that has stated a version of the ontological argument. Blackburn (1996: 269).

The view of Anselm is that God is something of which nothing greater can be conceived. Blackburn (1996: 269).

Plantinga uses the concept of possible worlds and that it is at least possible that a maximally great being exists in every possible world, if it exists in one possible world, it exists in all possible worlds. So, the maximally great being exists in every possible world. Blackburn (1996: 269). Plantinga (1977)(2002: 111-112).

It is an impossible proposition of the maximally great being in one possible world and every possible world, to not exist, therefore the being exists in the actual world. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 111-112). 

Plantinga presents a version he reasons is valid and sound and he states that the argument does not prove the existence of God. His version, proves not the truth of theism, but that fact that the argument is rational; or its 'rational acceptability' as an argument. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 112).

This does read as reasonable and sound and true.

I have never used an ontological argument and likely never will.

The critic can state that he/she, because much of the argument rests on what a human being can reason in conception, can conceive of a being as great as the maximally great being.

I certainly believe in studying ontology and the ontological, but I side with Plantinga in questioning ontological arguments for the existence of God as very speculative.

I use arguments for God being philosophically and theologically the first cause and this parallels the Genesis (1-3) creation account without being explicitly biblical.

I do not wish to argue in terms of a greatest being or maximally great being one can conceive of (ontological arguments).

I do argue that the infinite first cause being must exist by necessity (first cause arguments).

This avoids a vicious regress, a regress that cannot solve its own problem.

This is a subtle but important difference.

A critic of ontological arguments can state that perhaps Thor is as maximally great as the biblical, Lord, God the Father or God the Son or God the Holy Spirit (trinity).

Whereas, my first cause argument allows for one infinite, first cause.

ANSELM (1962) Anselm's Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2nd Ed., La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co.

AQUINAS, THOMAS (1981) Summa Theologica (1a Q2), "Whether the Existence of God is Self-Evident Thomas More Publishing.

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

BURKE, T. PATRICK (1999) ‘Ontology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

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.

Soren Kierkegaard (PhD Edit)

Facebook & Momchantha.com

While I was working on my PhD and a questionnaire, I stated to readers that I would share both my questionnaire results and the PhD in segments.

Most of the thesis work has been presented at least once online in an article. But looking through Blogger archives, now thankfully very helpfully updated after years, I have not done an entry, specifically on Danish philosopher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard, known in particular for work on existentialism.

Overall, in my academic work,, I have dealt with his writing, minimally. I concentrated mostly on writers that could be connected to theodicy and the problem of evil within theology and philosophy. 

Briefly…
---

Soren Kierkegaard states that ‘sin is man’s destruction.’ Kierkegaard (1847-1848)(1955)(1966: 108). 

Compatibilism allows for limited but significant human freedom. Kierkegaard suggests that Christianity is a religion of freedom and Christians are convinced to voluntarily give up all contrary to Christ. Kierkegaard (1847-1848)(1955)(1966: 186). The term 'convinced' is a good one and I reason this is a work of the Holy Spirit.

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847-1848)(1955)(1966) On Authority and Revelation, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, Incorporated.

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1848-1849)(1961) Christian Discourses & The Lilies of the Field and The Birds of the Air & Three Discourses at The Communion on Fridays, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Oxford University Press.

Tricky Equivocation?

Today

Tricky Equivocation?

Updated for an academia.edu entry on August 14, 2022. Mainly a review of the Pirie text.

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

'Equivocation' means the use of words ambiguously. Often done with intent to deceive, it can even deceive the perpetrator.

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when words are used with more than one meaning, even though the soundness of the reasoning requires the same use to be sustained throughout. (90).

Happiness is the end of life 
The end of life is death 
So happiness is death (90).

Pirie notes importantly that the above argument is valid in format. (90) But it is fallacious.

I would deny the proposition that happiness is the end of life. I do not agree. Happiness can be part of life.

Based on the Pirie's point that the argument format is valid; this again, as I have noted in previous articles, demonstrates the difference between a logical argument and a reasonable argument,

More important is the reasonableness and soundness (truthfulness) of an argument.

A key to denying questionable arguments is to deny at the proposition & premise stage.

A proposition is the same as a statement.

A premise (s) is to support the conclusion.

'Equivocation use of words is fallacious because it invites us to transfer what we are prepared to accept about one concept onto another one which happens to have the same name.' (90).

'Calvin Coolidge was once asked:

'What do you think of the singer's execution?'

(He replied: I'm all for it') (91).

Blackburn: Equivocate

'To make a statement that is capable of being taken in more than one way, with the aim of exploiting the ambiguity.' (124).

A friend: 'I saw Chucky, murdering someone last night.'

Me "Did you call the Ridge-Meadows RCMP?'

A friend: 'I saw Chucky (fictional doll), murdering someone last night.' (on television)

Me "Did you call the Ridge-Meadows RCMP?' (In regard to Howard: also known as Chucky)

Why assume it is our friend, Chucky?

This would be using fallacious reasoning. A fallacious proposition & premise.

Texas State University: Department of Philosophy

Cited 

'Equivocation 

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.'

Example 

Cited

'Sure philosophy helps you argue better, but do we really need to encourage people to argue? There's enough hostility in this world.'

(Argue1 = Argue more effectively)

(Argue2 = Argue with hostility)

(An argument does not necessarily imply hostility)

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

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).

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

TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY (2022): 'Equivocation', Dr. Craig Hanks, Chair, Texas State University.

Texas State University: Department of Philosophy

Trulyfallacious.com

Predestination Too

Predestination Too 

Predestined September 2010 

2 Peter 3 September 2016

This further revised section from my PhD post-viva final revisions, connects to my most recent 2 Peter 3, article.

PhD revised

In my mind, the philosophical and theological concept of compatibilism, although the term is not used, is implied in Scripture. The subject of predestination for salvation, for example, is a complex theological discussion and could be a topic for a Biblical Greek thesis.

However, within Ephesians 1, ‘predestined’ which is προορίσας[1] within Ephesians 1: 5,[2] and in the context is ‘predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ’ and προορισθέντες[3] at Ephesians 1: 11, as in ‘we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to his purpose’ appear to support Reformed compatibilist notions. 

Strong defines προορίζω[4] which is the root word connected to the forms of the word in Ephesians 1, as to limit in advance in figurative terms,[5] and to predetermine, determine before, ordain, and predestinate.[6]  Bauer defines the root word as meaning to decide before hand, predestine of God and applies this definition to Ephesians 1: 5 and 11. [7] Minimally, there appears reasonable textual support from this verse[8] that could support a Reformed compatibilistic perspective on how God chooses persons for his ultimate culminated Kingdom. 

2 Peter 3 article revised

Quote

Erickson:

‘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, as can be seen biblically and theologically in 2 Peter 3: 9 and 1 Timothy 2: 4. There are various interpretations, however. 

The question arises if God wishes to save all people as in all individuals or all peoples? I have seen the all peoples explanation raised in Reformed writing and dialogue.

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.

This is not outlandish or unreasonable. On one hand, God desires me not sin, he does not tempt me (James 1), but on the other hand God created humanity with an eternal plan of salvation from sin. This implies significantly free creatures that will sin is the eternal plan.

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. Jesus Christ was both God and perfect man.  He never appealed to the sinful nature inherited by Adam and Eve. 

The atonement, resurrection and gospel work are from and in God’s perfect will (Ephesians 1, those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the word, implied eternal), I reason, and this leads to God ultimately producing humanity as desired within the Kingdom of God from start to finish.

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

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

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

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

---

[1] The Greek New Testament (1993: 654).

[2] The Greek New Testament (1993: 654). 

[3] The Greek New Testament (1993: 655).

[4] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).

[5] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).

[6] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).

[7] Bauer (1979: 709).

[8] I realize many other verses could be examined concerning this subject.  I provide Ephesians 1 as a prime Reformed example within a limited space allotted for this topic.

Those emotional appeals...

This week

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

Emotional appeals as fallacy occur when 'it becomes the means of deciding the soundness of an argument.' (87). Emotions being used to influence what is determined as fact.

This fallacy can be triggered by a person (s) abusing the emotions of the determined audience. To play on the emotional disposition of such an audience. (88).

The author writes that 'sentimens is a clever fallacy.' (89). Perhaps this should be documented as 'sentiments'; a more common usage.

If someone does not play along with this sentimental philosophical approach, he or she may be considered 'cold'. (89). This can lead to an abandonment of reason. (89).

In contrast, emotional fallacy should be abandoned. Not emotions, but the abuse of emotions should not be used in attempts to determine reasonable arguments and truth.

I have written articles on this website noting the dangers of sentimental theology. See Blogger search, top right.

Blackburn is helpful here noting on emotion. (117).

'Each indicates a state of some kind of arousal, a state that can prompt some activities and interfere with others.' (117).

Emotion should not interfere with reasonable, intellectual activity that decides soundness of arguments and truth.

Those emotional appeals can influence thought on academic and personal levels. A counter, I suggest, is a reasonably open-minded review of different views that oppose heartfelt ones. Even if these opposing views are not accepted it keeps one's own views sharper.

From a Christian, biblical perspective, one should seek God (and God the Father) through the incarnation of his Son, Jesus Christ who in eternal truth and the Holy Spirit, also a member of the eternal trinity (John 14).

Although the Scripture is not specific philosophy, philosophy of religion or scientific text, it can be reasoned that 'all truth is God's truth', and God should be sought for both biblical and extra-biblical knowledge. I am not meaning primarily (obviously!) an emotional religious, spiritual appeal to God, but one that encompasses the human experience of emotion and intellect.

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

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

Tumblr