 |
| January 16, 2017 |
Preface
This posting was published January 16, 2017, and was revised March 29, 2024 for an entry on academia.edu.
Some related articles
Monday, October 02, 2006 A Vicious Regress (There is a version on academia.edu)
Prime Time Sports
This was hosted by Bob McCown on Sportsnet at the time. (Paraphrased conversation)
Prime Time
Caller: The baseball player mentioned, signed with a new agent. But how did he find that agent? Did he not need an agent to find that agent?
Host: The player knows the industry and player agents. If you are meaning that the player needed to find an agent to find an agent, then that agent would need to find an agent to infinitude.
---
Blackburn on Vicious Regress
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.
Caller: The baseball player mentioned, signed with a new agent. But how did he find that agent? Did he not need an agent to find that agent?
Host: The player knows the industry and player agents. If you are meaning that the player needed to find an agent to find an agent, then that agent would need to find an agent to infinitude.
---
Blackburn on Vicious Regress
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. A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion. The vicious regress is considered by some an informal fallacy. The fact that it is debated is a clue that it is not a matter of formal, logical, form.
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'. Elements (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 presenting faulty reasoning. I reason.
Bradley (371) opines 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. Bradley mentions that overall, a vicious regress is not necessarily illogical. This point is debated by philosophers. But, I reason a vicious regress is not philosophically reasonable.
This regress can be stopped by stating as premise that a particular agent is sufficient.
Necessary/Sufficient
Department of Philosophy Dr. Craig Hanks
Cited
Confusion of Necessary with a Sufficient Condition
A causal fallacy you commit this fallacy when you assume that a necessary condition of an event is sufficient for the event to occur. A necessary condition is a condition that must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event. A necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not provide sufficient cause for the occurrence of the event. Only the sufficient grounds can do this. In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there.
Cited
I don't know why the car won't run; I just filled the gas tank.
A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event.
The vehicle needs to be started too. A missing premise.
I reason that as God is the necessary cause of all things, directly or indirectly, God is also the sufficient cause of all things. As a theistic philosopher of religion and theologian within the Reformed tradition, everything that occurs is caused by God, either directly willed, or indirectly willed, which could also be called, allowed. The necessary cause exists, but contingent caused things only exist when the necessary cause is the sufficient cause.
Blackburn on Necessary/Sufficient conditions
Philosopher Blackburn explains... 'If p is a necessary condition of q, then q cannot be true unless p is true. If p is a sufficient condition of q, then given that p is true, q is so as well.' (73). Blackburn provides the example: Steering well is a necessary condition of driving well... (73). But it is not sufficient, as one can steer well, but be an overall bad driver. (73). Perhaps, one steers very well, but is overly occupied by texting while driving. (My add, and not my practice)
This concept from Blackburn with the use of symbolic logic, provides a level of complexity, yet consistent and logical at the same time. But providing a true example provides another level of difficulty.
A solid/true example
Infinite attributes (a) are a necessary condition of infinite nature (b). Infinite attributes (a) are a necessary condition of infinite nature (b), then infinite nature (b) cannot be true unless infinite attributes (a) are true. If infinite attributes (a) are a sufficient condition of infinite nature (b), then given that infinite attributes (a) are true, then infinite nature (b) is so as well.
Based on a 2017 phone conversation, with additions
In a 2017 phone conversation, paraphrased, I referenced in brief, the three examples of a vicious regress, below.
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.
In answer
From a theistic philosophy of religion, perspective, the first cause, can be considered what is necessary and exists by necessity. The necessary is infinite and eternal. The sufficient cause. The contingent is finite, and at best, everlasting.
From a biblical perspective this is Almighty God, infinite and eternal. Finite creations are contingent. God created the finite...
ESV (English Standard Version)
12 It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.
NASB (New American Standard Bible)
12 It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens.
King James Version (KJV)
12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
I am not a linguist, but a fellow scholar from church mentioned Jerimiah 10:12 to me and I reason it works here. The English versions I chose appear to reasonably match the Hebrew translation to English.
---
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.
In answer
Human choice is traced back to human nature. Human nature is traced back to its creator, God, that has infinite, eternal nature and will/choice. God simply is. Existing outside of time eternally, and creating finite, time, matter, energy, space, outside of eternity.
Time is caused by time, is caused by time, is caused by time, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress.
In answer
It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause.
If time is infinitely past, how do we arrive at the present time?
(We do not)
If there is an infinite distance between Maple Ridge and Vancouver, how do we arrive in Vancouver?
(We do not)
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) 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.
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.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas.http://www.jonathanedwards.com
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. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
GIJSBERS, VICTOR, (2006) ‘Theistic Arguments: First Cause’ http://positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm pp. 1-2.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
MARTIN, WALTER (2006) 'The Mormon Doctrine of God', San Juan Capistrano, Walter Martin.org. http://www.waltermartin.org/mormon.html#mormdoc
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.
REED, HOLLY (2004) ‘Jonathan Edwards’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology.
SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) A logical proof that Mormonism is false, Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm
SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. http://www.utlm.org
STORMS, SAM (2006) 'Jonathan Edwards on the Will', Kansas City, Missouri. Enjoying God Ministries. Enjoyinggodministries.com http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=368
TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.
TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
