Prayer that works

I, in particular appreciate Dr. Stanley's premise (paraphrased) that a personalized god is fictional, and therefore cannot answer prayer.

Within a speculative theistic model, prayer is not provided to the God of religious, Scriptural, history. Biblical Christianity is not dependent on sentimental theology. Millard Erickson writes that natural theology deduces that God can be understood objectively through nature, history, and human personality. Erickson (1994: 156). But, it should be stated that although natural theology can perhaps bring a person to a limited knowledge of God, it does not provide revealed information concerning salvation or everlasting life for human beings. Erickson explains that Biblical revelation views God as taking the initiative to make himself known to followers. Erickson (1994: 198).

The Hebrew Bible and New Testament present historical persons that experienced the supernatural God and supernatural occurrences. Some will accept the historicity of these persons, but deny the supernatural aspects of the Bible, but according to the New American Standard Bible presented by Charles Caldwell Ryrie and the Lockman Foundation, approximately 40 authors wrote the Biblical texts over a period of approximately 1600 years. Ryrie (1984: xv).

Encountering The New Testament (2013) documents that there are copying mistakes in biblical manuscripts (11). I would add, that it is obvious to anyone that compares different manuscript versions, in New Testament Greek, that they are not always identical. But the New Testament is the 'best-attested writing in antiquity.' (11). There are close to six thousand biblical manuscripts with at least fragments for the New Testament. (11). There is also a brief time lapse between gospel events and their documentation as originals as autographs to copies. (11).

The Encountering texts states that transition was not perfect, but it was more than reliable enough for us to have little doubt in what the New Testament writers first wrote.' (12). There are no grounds for any serious theological doubts. (12). The New Testament is internally consistent. It is near 100% certainty of accuracy. (12).

Original scriptural autographs were not protected by a supernatural force field, but the documentation has been accurately maintained as has the theological message.

Praying to the Biblical God is a reasonable, historical practice.

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

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

RYRIE, CHARLES, CALDWELL (1984) The New American Standard Version Bible, Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.

More pizza!

Pinterest: Guess what I would like to eat now...

Quote

'The zero sum game in itself is not a fallacy.' (112).

It denotes something that is limited in supply and that the share enjoyed by one person effects the share held by other persons. (112). It is a pizza-like assumption, states the author. (112).

If there are essentially eight equal slices of pizza and one entity takes five pieces of pizza, the majority, then there is less pieces of pizza, a minority of pieces, left for everyone else.

Pirie correctly states that the fallacy is assuming that as one entity has more pieces of pizza, that everyone else will receive less. (112).

This fallacy overlooks the fact that more pizza (s) can be made. (112).

Not to be too political, this is not a political website, but instantly my mind thinks that in at least some general terms, socialism assumes there is one pizza and that everyone must receive their fair share. Whereas, although not intrinsically against types of fairness, conservative-libertarian, capitalistic approaches would emphasis the need for more pizzas to be produced.

Pirie reasons the fallacy occurs when people think that a value in a deal is fixed. (112).

He opines that sharing wealth does not make the poorer countries richer, rather greater economic trade increases wealth for poorer countries. (112-113). Economically, rather than trying to divide up one pizza equally, it is better for the richer and poorer alike to make more pizzas. This is an economic truth, from my moderate conservative position.

The author explains that this fallacy appeals to human  envy. (113). But human envy is sin.

Galatians 5: 16-24 New American Standard Bible

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh [g]sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you [h]please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: [i]immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, [j]factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who [k]belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

'The zero sum game in itself is not a fallacy.' (112).

It would not be fallacious to state that if x marries y (drrnm), y (drrnm) would no longer be romantically available.

However, I suppose I could be hypothetically cloned...

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

Your form defines your class?

Not again, yet...

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

I continue with the review of the Langer philosophical text, as I am also reviewing the Pirie philosophical text in entries.

Concepts and classes

A class is a class of so and so's, as in each member of the class has a certain character. (115). Langer uses the following example, bear in mind this was written in the 1950s and 1960s: A man belongs in the class of politicians, only if he is a politician. Being a politician equals being in the class of politician. (115).

Being a theologian would place one in the class of theologian.

T=Theologian
C=Class of theologian
B=Bible scholar
⊃ = means the same as
⊨ = entails
˜ = not

T ⊃ C (A theologian means the same as the class of theologian.)
T ⊨ C (A theologian entails the same as the class of theologian.)
T ˜ B  (A theologian is not the same as a bible scholar.)

And the two classes would be different.

T ˜ B would be true strictly speaking. It could be stated that a theologian is not necessarily a bible scholar. But of course many theologians are bible scholars, but not all as my Dead Sea Scrolls scholar professor at Trinity Western University would often state of himself:  'I am not a theologian'.

I do consider myself a bible scholar, but as I am not a linguist or archaeologist; my main academic concentrations would be biblical theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion.

In a similar way some theologians are philosophers of religion and some are not. My view is that it is a significant intellectual handicap to be a theologian and not a philosopher of religion, or a biblical theologian and not a philosopher of religion, but that is my take. This based on the availability of less cumulative facts and knowledge to formulate truth.

I also view it as more of a significant handicap than being a biblical theologian, philosophical theologian or philosopher of religion that is not a linguist. I reason it is more straightforward to reference linguistic terms at least. I am not stating that being a linguist is easier. Not at all! I am not as natural at languages than at theological and philosophical work. I am stating that it is more straightforward to reference Hebrew and Greek words and meanings than it is to learn philosophy and philosophy of religion. But it is debatable. However to be clear, I am by no means including learning archaeology!

Defining forms of classes

Langer uses the proposition x must die (116).

If

Socrates is mortal and/or Socrates must die

Plato is mortal and/or Plato must die

Aristotle is mortal and/or Aristotle must die (116).

These are members of the same class being:

 x must die (116).

If those subjects are mortals, the proposition is true, if subjects are not mortals, the proposition is false. (116-117). Those subjects that are mortals would be in a class, as those that are not mortals would be in another class.

The form defines the class. (117).

Limited Free Will

Edited from a recent email

Human ability in conjunction with compatibilism

This is not the ability to choose otherwise, as in middle knowledge and versions of libertarian free will.

Middle Knowledge April 20, 2016

In my compatibilistic model, at least, through a theoretical chain of human nature and choice, a person embraces as secondary cause, what was caused, willed and allowed by the primary cause. This in regard to human thoughts, choice, acts and actions. This first cause would be God in a biblical view.

An example:

I like theology by nature.

In my nature I pursue by choice, theology.

I do not have an alternative possibility as a secondary cause, to not like theology. This was determined by the primary cause.

The resulting choices to seek a PhD in Theology and related Philosophy of Religion, was not left to alternative possibility.

In regard to liking theology, we could also claim other secondary causes, like by hereditary (I am adopted, but perhaps someone biologically related liked theology?) but there is still a primary cause.

I do not have incompatibilist free will or a form of libertarian free will, to not like theology or not to pursue it. I have compatibilist free will and the term I coined as limited free will. During my British studies I looked for the term in texts and online and did not see it.  Eventually I heard, Dr. Charles Stanley also use it. I highly doubt I invented it, but at least it is somewhat original.

I have significant moral responsibility in how I choose to deal with theology.

Limited Free Will June 29, 2015

God could have caused, willed and allowed me to not pursue my PhD, even though I like theology and then shown me the error of my ways. But I would have embraced the error as a secondary cause. I could understand the error at a later time and embrace the choice I should have made. But I am embracing my greatest desire at the time, so to speak.

As an adult, I did not initially pursue theological academia, but was eventually shown this to be error. I view it as not primarily a change of choice, but rather a divine molding of nature so I would pursue my natural interest in theology, as opposed to other interests, such as working and not being a student, being made more important. Within my soft determinism (not hard determinism) view, it was not that God gave me incompatibilist alternatives and I originally made an error; it was that God caused, willed and allowed my original view and then molded my nature in order that I would eventually, by nature, be different and therefore choose differently.

This is not to state that the sinful humanity both regenerate and unregenerate cannot have significant intellectual understanding of the alternative. I can very much understand by nature not liking theology. I can deduce a life without me studying theology. I know many that dislike theology, I can deduce it. I can deduce whether it is good or bad to be interested in theology. Therefore again, there is moral responsibility. As with Romans 1-3, a person can deduce truth about God without choosing or knowing God.

Indeterminism is equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free. Compatibilism would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions.

J.S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637).

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

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

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

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

Deism & theism, atheism, agnosticism

Solva, Wales: trekearth.com

Theism and Deism: July 26 2008

Deism: April 17, 2007

My brief and former academic advisor at the University of Manchester, David. A. Pailin, defines deism as coming from the Latin word deus and parallels the Greek which is theos. Pailin (1999: 148).

In modern times deism is used to define a supreme being who is the ultimate source of reality, but does not intervene in the natural and historical processes through revelation or salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin writes that the common use of the term ‘theism’ does not carry the same negative implications. Pailin (1999: 148). He explains that historically deism is not so much a set of doctrines, but a movement, largely British, that became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pailin (1999: 148).

Many within deism will have doubts concerning concepts of supernatural religious doctrines, revelation and the authority of the Bible. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity. Pailin (1999: 149).

William J. Wainwright explains that deism understands true religion as natural, as opposed to supernatural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). He writes that some self-styled Christian deists accept revelation although they argue that the content is the same as natural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). Most deists reject revelation as fiction, but many reason that God has ordained that human happiness is possible through natural means that are universally available. Wainwright (1996: 188). Salvation therefore does not come via divine revelation. Wainwright (1996: 188).

Henry Clarence Thiessen writes that for deism God is present in his creation by his power and not in his being and nature. He has endowed creation with certain invariable laws that he oversees in general terms. Theissen (1956: 74). God has created creatures and left them under invariable laws to their own destiny. Thiessen (1956: 74).

For Thiessen, the Christian world-view rejects deism because it accepts that God has revealed himself in creation through divine revelation, has providential control and does at times use miracles within his creation. Thiessen (1956: 75). Thiessen opines, a deistic God is not much better than no God at all for humanity. Thiessen (1956: 75). Thiessen has an excellent point, if deistic approaches reject a God who intervenes within his creation, then it allows, practically speaking, for human beings to expect to have the same end in life as if there is no God. Basically the same end result as atheism.

Wainwright deduces that God has ordained human happiness to all universally, but ultimately how happy can human existence be when physical death is the end result for every person? However, the meaning of life, human life is not substantially meaningful, if permanently terminated. People lose their consciousness and life accomplishments without everlasting life, and therefore life loses ultimate meaning and happiness does not result.

The deist can speculate that God can and perhaps shall provide everlasting life and ultimate continual meaning for life, but this is merely speculation devoid of any historically grounded revelation from God. Accepting that human nature is corrupt as described in Romans 1-3, it is very unlikely that the problem of evil would ever be solved but rather merely treated by humanity if deism is true. There would at no time be any solution for sin, death, and the problem of evil, since the infinite, omnipotent God would not interfere with his creation and regenerate and change individuals in order to eventually establish a Kingdom of God where the problem of evil does not exist. With a deistic universe seemingly sin, death, and the problem of evil continue to exist as long as humanity does. Deism seemingly does not offer any ultimate solution to the problem of evil.

Additional: February 18, 2017

This blog website entry is purposely limited in entry size. I have archived articles that support my view that the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are religious history inspired by God and without error in the original autographs. However, admittedly as I write philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, I am not a linguist and certainly not an archaeologist.

Manuscripts for New Testament: August 18, 2008

Encountering New Testament: August 21, 2013

Old Testament Apocrypha: July 15, 2014

Business Insider: November 21, 2015

Vicious Regress: October 2, 2006

Deism & theism, atheism, agnosticism

Problems related to first cause and vicious regress in my view are fatal flaws for non-theistic worldviews which in my mind make them untenable. I do not reason that atheism or agnosticism are the next most reasonable worldviews after Biblical Christianity, including the Hebrew Bible.

However, barring the gospel work of atonement, resurrection and restoration through the triune God, applied to those in Jesus Christ; the end result for humanity is most reasonably the same with deism and a related theism, as with atheistic or agnostic worldviews. That being postmortem human non-existence.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Solva Wales: trekearth.com

War is substituted by sport?

Warlordgame.com: Computer games are another sport of sort.

Philosophical speculation

This type of philosophical (and psychological) speculation is admittedly presented in a limited sense. The idea is that there may be  connections, as opposed to presenting the idea of war being substituted by sport, as hard fact. Which it is not. Obviously, British soldiers in red coats did not directly become Manchester United. This entry is more speculative and less hard fact than most of my work on this website.

Societally and culturally, the brilliant colours of European and colonial warfare and competition, have perhaps been replaced by the brilliant colours of Western professional sports clubs in competition. In particular with UEFA football. Similarly, with European football, the tribalism of war have been replaced with the tribalism of supported clubs.

I am not the first of course to suggest such connections, but watching Knowledge Network and Rick Steves on PBS in regard to European history, has me pondering on possible connections. As war placed region versus region, professional sports places region versus region. There may be other societal and cultural areas of substitution as well.

Revolutionplayset.blogspot.com

The brilliant red coats of the United Kingdom versus the brilliant colonial blue coats of the American colonies, certainly comes to mind. The National Hockey League has the Columbus Blue Jackets, and I reason a Canadian franchise from Ontario named the Red Coats would be fascinating. But we do have the Canadiens, Maple Leafs and Canucks, three of the present seven Canadian clubs with synonymous names.
---

Taxology

At a Northview Community Church class last night the term taxology was used, which is a rarely referenced term in Religious Studies. In fact it is not referenced precisely in Oxford (1995). Rather the related term taxonomy is defined as 1 'the science of classification esp. of living and extinct organisms.' 2 'scheme of classification.' (1428). From research it appears taxology would be used synonymously.

This appears to be a primarily scientific term used in the context of Religious Studies and Christian missions within the class by the linguist professor. Similar terms used within theology and philosophy of religion contexts could be for example, classification and linguistically, genre.

A connection

Considering these two sections together, as a Christian philosopher and theologian, when I compare the British soldiers to American soldiers they would seemingly be classified as very similar. The Americans arising within the British. It makes me question whether a war between two groups so similar in classification should have ethically and morally occurred. Warfare is of course political and complicated, but I reason my point stands.

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

Momarewethereyet.net

Crucifixion & compatibilism

Mount Fuji: Google+

Edited from 

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

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

The Romans with the help of the Jews, executed Christ and this was an evil and a sin. God did not force this but he foreknew this would occur and with this death worked out salvation for humanity, those chosen in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8). It would, however, be too weak to say that God simply allowed the execution of Christ because as an infinite, omnipotent being, he had the power to prevent the execution as he has the power to prevent all sin. So, in this sense, God wills evil, but he does not force people to sin, nor does he sin himself.

God had perfect and holy motives in causing, willing and allowing the crucifixion which included through God the Son, the atonement, resurrection and eventual culminated kingdom of God for those in the Church.

The crucifixion is a key biblical example of compatibilism. Both God's sovereignty and significant human freedom are involved.

Compatibilism (soft determinism)

P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1). Louis P. Pojman, defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596).

J.S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637).

W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30).

Incompatibilism

Indeterminism is equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free.

Compatibilism would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions.

FEINBERG. JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, 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.

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

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

False precision & Sample

2017-02-08: Colourized

False precision

Preface

February 8 2017 article, edited with additions for a posting on academia.edu on November 13 2023.

February 8 2017

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

Cited

'False precision is incurred when exact numbers are used for inexact notions. When straightforward statements are decked out in numbers well beyond the accuracy of measurement, the precision is false and can mislead an audience into supposing that information is more detailed than is really the case.' (109).

Pirie lists an example where Scots were shown to be 63% more generous that the Welsh. (109). The author asks what the measurement of generosity would be? (109).

I would add that even if the number is accurate, the use of a sample is limited. In contrast, a government census could provide access to populations of Scotland and Wales.

Alan Bryman in his text Social Research Methods explains that a sample is a segment of the population that is selected for research. It is a subset of the population. Bryman (2004: 543).

The recent United States Presidential election and the United Kingdom, Brexit votes demonstrate that statistical samples of populations do not always equate with end election results.

Perhaps the concepts of sample is not emphasized enough in the media?

Examples of false precision:

'Ninety percent of atheists are very immoral.'

'Ninety percent of Christians are using God as a crutch.'

Reason tells me both statements are likely untrue and both lack statistical support.

If someone states:

'I estimate that fifty percent of whales are gay, but I am not certain.'

Reason provides me with uncertainty, not having studied whales. But it lacks statistical support. In contrast, it is not at least, claiming precision.

Pirie reasons that academic departments reply on this type of data, using false precision. (110). Note my point on sample size, as one problem. Academically, I would suggest completely avoiding the use of false precision, and if numbers are used to humbly admit that reasoned deductions and estimations are being used.

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, University Press.

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

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

---

November 13 2023

Logically fallacious: Fake Precision

Cited 

'(also known as: over-precision, false precision, misplaced precision, spurious accuracy)

Description: Using implausibly precise statistics to give the appearance of truth and certainty, or using a negligible difference in data to draw incorrect inferences.' 

Cited 

'Tour Guide: This fossil right here is 120,000,003 years old. 

Guest: How do you know that? 

Tour Guide: Because when I started working here three years ago, the experts did some radiometric dating and told me that it was 120,000,000 years old. 

Explanation: Although more of a comedy skit than anything else, this demonstrates the fallacious reasoning by the tour guide in her assumption that the dates given to her were precise to the year.' 

Cited

'Tip: Don’t confuse fake precision with real performance.'

Huff, D. (1993) How to Lie with Statistics (Reissue edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Example

I took a walk in the back 40 forty (40 acers of underdeveloped land).

Merriam-Webster

Cited 

'a remote and uncultivated or undeveloped piece of land of indefinite size (as on a farm)' 

“Back forty.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/back%20forty. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

It would be false precision and fallacious to assume that the underdeveloped land I walked in was actually 40 acres. In fact, the land I had in mind, from my past, was actually approximately five acres.

Fallacy files: Overprecision 

Cited

'Overprecision 

Alias:

Fake Precision1 

False Precision2 

Misplaced Precision3 

Spurious Accuracy4'

Cited

'Exposition: This fallacy involves treating imprecise information as more precise than it is. When imprecise claims contained in the premisses must be taken as precise in order to support the conclusion, the argument commits the fallacy of overprecision.'

Reasonable not absolute certainty required

Kelly Burchert: Facebook, today

New York Daily News February 2

'Interesting point, counter-point on religion'

My friend Dr. Jennifer Lloyd (UBC) sent this to me on Facebook.

My comments

In humanity, we all have faith because none of us have 100% certainty. Absolute certainty would require one to be infinite.

I can have reasonable certainty that I exist, but not absolute 100% certainty. I will admit I had an adviser and professor at Trinity Western University that disagreed with my view. He stated that the gospel was 100% absolutely certain. But I held to and hold to, that only God has absolute certainty. I have reasonable certainty in regard to the gospel as being true.

During my MPhil/PhD theses work, when I had to study Kant and Wittgenstein, I developed partly through the Cambridge Philosophy Dictionary, an understanding that there is humanly, no absolute, 100% certainty.

As well, reading Kant I did reasonably consider Kant's views on the noumenon, plural noumena realm. I can grant that the non-empirical spiritual realm is speculative and that God could not be known in a personal context by speculation alone. But, contrary to Kant, I do reason that both revelation leading to theology and philosophy of religion can contain reasonable certainty.

Reasonable certainty is that internally and externally premises and conclusion (s) are consistent and not disproved by counter propositions and conclusions.

In regards to the gospel, it is internally consistent as the Scripture is consistent. There is significant and sufficient manuscript evidence extant and the writings of Church Fathers, combined with effective scholarship.

Externally, in my view, no other worldview represented by premises and conclusion (s) is superior or disproves the gospel, the historical atonement and resurrection of Christ and related. Philosophy of religion and philosophical speculation could reasonably lead to knowledge in regard to the existence of God. As a matter of admittance, I did study atheistic, agnostic and critical perspectives for my British studies, as well as various Christian views.

Agreed, there is scientific empirical fact, such as the law of gravity. I can have reasonable faith in the law of gravity. There is also philosophical science, like transitional forms in Darwinian evolution, which are not established empirical fact within current scientific philosophy. My Manchester philosophy of religion professor granted that transitional forms is scientific theory only. Although he held to it as true.

A belief in one trinitarian God over 2999 other gods, is if properly and reasonably held, based primarily on Biblical revelation leading to theology and secondarily, philosophy of religion and philosophical speculation. I prefer the term 'first cause' over 'the prime mover', but I get the point from the video. Clarification: The trinity cannot be reasonable known other than via revelation. However, through reason and philosophy, one could for example, deduce that the infinite, eternal God required distinctions of personality within nature in order to be a personal being. Granted, within the eternal it would be timeless and all would be known within relationship.

Philosophical speculation on its own may reasonably lead someone to theism, but it will not lead someone to the revealed gospel (Romans, Hebrews, John, 1 John).

Mr. Gervais reasonably, does have faith in regard to science and philosophy.

Even if we grant that virtually, without infinite knowledge and certainty, he needs little faith to believe in the empirical, he needs faith to hold to non-empirical science and scientific philosophy.

Mr. Gervais also has faith, not fact that there is no evidence or knowledge of God, because he appears to assume that only empirical knowledge will suffice. This is very problematic as by definition, the immaterial, spiritual God will not be empirically provable. This is a common mistake of some agnostics, atheists and critics. They dismiss the religious history of revealed Scripture as a type of knowledge. They may dismiss philosophical speculation for theism and accept philosophical speculation against theism.

Mr. Gervais risks scientism, which humanist, British philosopher, Simon Blackburn describes in his Oxford Philosophy Dictionary.

From Oxford Scientism: '1 a: a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).'

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

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

Mark Morrey: Facebook, today

Are human beings a mechanical tool? (PhD Edit)

From

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

G.C. Berkouwer reasons that God wants a free man, not a mechanical tool or creature that can be maneuvered as the Almighty sees fit. Berkouwer (1962: 333).

I reason human freedom always operates within the framework of God’s sovereignty and providence.

Plantinga postulates since a world containing significantly free creatures where good outweighs evil is more valuable than a world with automatons or robots. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30).

Also noted from my PhD:

'People were not robotically inspired to write Scripture.'

In other words I do not hold to dictation theory, but an inspiration theory through the Holy Spirit. For example, the Apostle Paul was a Hebrew Bible scholar and was inspired within that framework,

2 Peter 1:20-21

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

February 2, 2017

In my view, human nature is not neutral. It is fallen (Genesis 3, Romans, Hebrews). I therefore do not hold to libertarian free will. For the most part, one cannot choose his/her own nature and therefore, any significantly freely made thoughts, acts and actions come from that nature.

If thoughts, acts and actions are forced or coerced, a secondary entity is not significantly morally responsible. If something is forced or coerced, it could be considered as mechanical from the secondary entity. I do reason that God could force or coerce human beings and all creatures, but also reason human beings and creatures would not be significantly responsible for thoughts, acts and actions.

When I state, for the most part, I would reason that one could stop smoking, a slight change in nature, I suppose, but biblically outside of the triune God, the atoning work of Jesus Christ and the resurrection, one cannot stop sinning in the body. The essential ontological nature is set.

At least in general terms, I do not see human beings or angelic beings (demonic included) as mechanical tools because I reason limited free will exists, which has humanity and angelic beings as secondary causes, embrace the willfully made choices of God, the first cause. This is true whether God, directly wills something or indirectly allows something.

Berkouwer 2014

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

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

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

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