Canadian v Canuck

Recently

Further review of symbolic logic from American, philosopher, Suzanne K. Langer.

Some key symbols from the textbook:

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ =There exists
∃! =There exists
∴=Therefore
·=Therefore


From Langer:

A < B

Class A is included in Class B (Symbolic logic) (134-135).

This opposed to

A < B

Class A is less than Class B (Mathematics).

'In logic, the symbol stands for a strict concept, namely its definition. and nothing else...' (136). This can restrict, in context, a particular use of a word. Therefore, if one class in included in another, every member of that class is a member of another class. (136). Here the equation A < B is relevant as Class A is included in Class B. And vice-versa, B < A.

A technical use of a word may be broader than its ordinary use. (136). She uses the example:

A < A  (136). Class A is included in Class A.

Therefore, every class within a formal context is a subclass of 'I'. (137). Note, in the text, this symbol to me appears to be a rather funny shaped 'I', even upon close inspection. There is a possibility it is another symbol, but by a close look, it appears to be 'I'. This is a case of mutual inclusion and I =I' (137).

She writes

(I' < I) . (I < I') (137).

I' is included in I therefore I is included in I'

I=I'

I reason, therefore:

C=Canadian
N=Canuck

(C < N) ∴ (N < C)

The class of Canadian is included in the class of Canuck, therefore the class of Canuck is included in the class of Canadian.

or

(C < N) . (N < C)

(C ε N) A Canadian is a Canuck.

(N ⊃ C) A Canuck is the same as a Canadian.

(N ⊨ C) A Canuck entails a Canadian.

(C ε N) ∴ (N ⊃ C) . (N ⊨ C)

A Canadian is a Canuck, therefore a Canuck is the same as a Canadian, therefore one being a Canuck entails one being a Canadian.

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

Pinterest: I tag myself Reformed as opposed to Calvinist, but an interesting point.

It is worth it, to save lives/We just cannot afford it

The Telus representative opined that my new Samsung A5 had the best Android camera for photo quality. I thought I would attempt my first photos with the Saint George, icon, the Hintz brought me back from Bulgaria a few years ago. I very much enjoy the art of the icon, although I do not treat it as an icon as I am Reformed, not Eastern Orthodox. I think the photo is of decent quality. It is not as clear as I would like, but the art is sort of rough by nature.

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

It's worth it if it saves lives

Pirie explains that through this fallacy almost anything can be justified, regardless of the cost. (136).
It is admirable but not practical to philosophically reason that one cannot put a price on a life. The resources of a nation could not all be placed into saving one life. (136-137).

Theoretically, money could be diverted from other government services to make railways safer. (137). More funds could be placed into road safety and health services. (137).

A bottom line of what the author is stating is that there are limited financial resources to save a human life and human lives. I agree. This is true in both public and private contexts; government and corporate.

On the other hand, it would not reasonably take the entirety of a nation's gross domestic product, or more accurately, budget, to save a human life. Saving a life, would never be that costly. Perhaps a small company could bankrupt itself saving a life. Not most corporations.

Could a nation or large corporation go bankrupt attempting to save all lives? Yes, we all die, and there is no cure. But medical research and hospitals do the best they can. This makes this a moot point, because all the money in the world will not keep everyone alive.

I agree that  It's worth it if it saves lives is fallacious, but I also reason that in some contexts, a fallacy stating: We just cannot afford it, is also used.

There is not an infinite amount of funds for a human life, but there is not infinite funds for anything. It is a matter of reasonable budgeting.

Biblically, there is a strong sense that a human life takes much priority over money. The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil (1 Timothy 6), whereas there are New Testament calls to love one's neighbour as self (Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10), love one another in the Church (John 13-15) and to love your brother (other people) (1 John 2).

From a New Testament perspective, one is to side more on saving a life, than saving money.

Defined Out Of Possibility

Lake Como, Italy-Twitter

As always with this format, this complex entry is admittedly, non-exhaustive.

I viewed President Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia on Fox News and CNN. Fascinating imagery of a vastly different culture was presented. It appeared to be a very kind welcome to the Islamic Kingdom.

To be clear, I am not attacking Islamic people. Academic evaluation is the objective in my scholarly work.

I have made friends with persons of other worldviews, including Islam. Obviously, from my writings, I am opposed to radical Islam, and any violent, radical worldview. I certainly do not hold to Islam, in any form, as being essentially true as a religion and worldview.

As a very brief, non-exhaustive, explanation, I reject Islam because it is chronologically later (claimed) revelation than the New Testament and Hebrew Bible. It is originally from Arabia, not Israel and Europe and not within the traditions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Islamic doctrine rejects essential New Testament doctrine, such the trinity and deity of Jesus Christ, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

In contrast, the new covenant of the New Testament replaces and amplifies the old covenant of the Hebrew Bible. If it replaced with outright contradiction, illogic, it would be void. The New Testament is viewed as progressive revelation from the Old Testament. The Bible is not 'flat', but neither would outright contradiction be intellectually tenable.

Yet, Islam, in part claims the divine validity of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, while denying and contradicting certain biblical essentials. This is fatal contradiction. The importance of this should not be overlooked. Being an Abrahamic, monotheistic faith in no way counters this fatal objection.

The New Testament, for example, having thousands of manuscripts in whole or in part for support which would be contradicted outright by later Islamic rejection of the trinity and salvific work of Jesus Christ.

For me the popularity of Islam is irrelevant as a truth claim. I would place more credibility in a supposed, hypothetical, religious worldview which presented something new and denied the divine inspiration of the previous biblical revelation which it contradicts in regard to certain essential theology.
---

Wikipedia

Wikipedia defines Saudi Arabia as Unitary Islamic absolute monarchy.

Cited

'Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy.[108] However, according to the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia adopted by royal decree in 1992, the king must comply with Sharia (Islamic law) and the Quran, while the Quran and the Sunnah (the traditions of Muhammad) are declared to be the country's constitution.[109] No political parties or national elections are permitted.[108] Critics regard it as a totalitarian dictatorship.[110]'

In regard to government and significant societal influence, no other worldview is permitted, other than the Kingdom's interpretation of Islam and Islamic Law.

Essentially, all other worldviews have been dismissed and any serious intellectual challenge with premises and conclusions of Saudi interpretation of Islam, religion and worldview has been legally and culturally defined out of possibility. Other religious and worldview alternatives are defined out of possibility, by limiting intellectual thought and expression to rules within a State/Religion model.

This in my humble opinion, is connected to spiritual blindness. John 12: 37-43, 2 Corinthians 4: 3-4.

John 12:37-40

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

37 But though He had performed so many [a]signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and [b]be converted and I heal them.”

Footnotes:

John 12:37 Or attesting signs
John 12:40 Lit be turned; i.e. turn about 

2 Corinthians 4:3-4

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled [a]to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this [b]world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving [c]so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Footnotes:
2 Corinthians 4:3 Lit in
2 Corinthians 4:4 Lit age
2 Corinthians 4:4 Or that the light...image of God, would not dawn upon them

Also, notably this concept in Isaiah.

A few other philosophical considerations within worldview, not of salvific nature where alternative premises and conclusions can be defined out of possibility.

Secondary Christian doctrine
Politics
Nationalism
Sports philosophy
Ageism, dating and marriage

Defining alternatives out of possibility can be a fallacious method of deleting, philosophical, religious and worldview risk and potential exposed error. A correct worldview and related views within, may have been reached, but if this is done by defining away other worldviews, philosophical and theological views, this is more likely achieved fortuitously than through reason and research.

This significantly increases the possibility of spiritual and intellectual error.

For clarity:

Humanity does not have infinite knowledge and absolute (100%) certainty. If something is defined out of possibility, this needs to be done through reason and research, not by lazy intellectual thinking and risk avoidance. Something can be defined out of reasonable possibility without absolute certainty, through reason and research. I would add that seeking divine guidance through Scripture and the Holy Spirit is essential.
---

Encountering The New Testament Greek Manuscripts, Part or All of the New Testament. 
Page 10.

Papyri Cataloged 127
Uncial Mss. Cataloged 318
Minuscule Mss. Cataloged 2, 880
Lectionaries Cataloged 2, 436
Total 5, 761 (Numbers in all categories inch up periodically with new discoveries) German numbers from 1994 and 2011 are accessed.

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

This is less than, but not in this case

Yesterday

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

From the previous entry:

Langer states that Class A and Class B differ in intensions, but they are identical by their extensions. (125). The extension of Class A is the extension of Class B. The two classes, A and B, define the same class. (125). Intension is the pure meaning. (125). Extension is the exemplifications of concepts. (125). Extension allows the reader to observe how classes relate to each other, in common membership. (125-126).
---

The idea that Class A in included in Class B, allows for the use of a symbol to be employed. (134).

Here I should acknowledge that the Langer text becomes potentially confusing. She admits that the symbol < within mathematics stands for 'is less than'. (134). However, the author provides an exception from this common case (134) and suggests that within symbolic logic the symbol can stand for 'is included in.' (134).

Therefore her example:

A < B

Class A is included in Class B (Symbolic logic) (134-135).

This opposed to

A < B

Class A is less than Class B (Mathematics).

A reminder that in academics identical terms and symbols may vary from discipline to discipline. This was also the case in archived entries on this website in regard to certain terms with philosophy versus statistical mathematics/social research methods.

≡df=Equivalence by definition (135).

: (Equal (s) )
ε (Epsilon and means is)
⊃ (Is the same as)
⊨ (Entails)

Based on Langer's definition from 135.

A < B ≡df  (x) : (x ε A) ⊃ (x ε  B)

Class A is included in Class B, is defined as the equivalent of x which equals x is A, which is the same as x is B.

It could also be stated

A ⊨ B 

Class A entails Class B.

A reminder that the usefulness of learning symbolic logic is in reading some academic philosophical work that contains symbol logic within argumentation.

This learning may also assist one in understanding mathematics. Philosophy of religion does overlap with theology that overlaps with biblical studies. That is a main reason I am reviewing and learning the text.

A twisted crown of thorns.com

Adding Extension For Context

Venice: trekearth.com

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

The author's example (125).

Mayflower passengers (Class A).

Founders of Plymouth (Class B).

These are two very different defining concepts. (125). However, every one of the members of Class A was also a member of Class B. (125).

The two classes are mutually inclusive as they have the same membership. (125).

Langer states that Class A and Class B differ in intensions, but they are identical by their extensions. (125). The extension of Class A is the extension of Class B. The two classes, A and B, define the same class. (125).

Intension is the pure meaning. (125).

Extension is the exemplifications of concepts. (125).

Extension allows the reader to observe how classes relate to each other, in common membership. (125-126). If one is left with intension as concept for class alone, it becomes very difficult to systematize such concepts. (126). Without an extension for context, one would see no common connection between Class A and Class B in Langer's example.

Quote

(a) : (a ε B) ⊃ (a ε A) and A includes B and B includes A. (127).

:  (Equal (s) )
ε  (Epsilon and means is)
⊃ (Is the same as)
⊨  (Entails)

Class A equals Class A is Class B and is the same as Class A is Class A and includes Class B and Class B includes Class A.

a ⊃ b (Class a is the same as Class b)

a ⊨ b (Class a entails Class b).

Simply put by Langer.

A=B (127).

a ⊃ b : a ⊨ b : a = b : a ε b

Class A is the same as Class B equals Class A entails Class B equals Class A equals Class B equals Class A is Class B.

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

Reddit: Interesting theory

Useless & Disposable?

Today

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

Irrelevant Humour

'The fallacy of irrelevant humour is committed when jocular material irrelevant to the subject under review is introduced in order to divert attention away from the argument.' (234).

Quote:

'My opponent's position reminds me of a story...' (234).

The author notes that this will have nothing to do with the argument. (234).

Humour is used to direct an audience away from the actual argument being discussed. (234).

For example, the state is placing a person on trial for taking a religious stance, perceived against the best interests of the government and its citizens.

The prosecutor spends significant time with humour, at the expense of the defendant, mocking the religious practices of the person on trial. This is an attempt to persuade the crowd to view the person on trial as a religious weirdo, an extremist, with a worldview not in agreement with the state and its citizens. A religion, supposedly, not in agreement with the law of the land.

Therefore, the defendant on trial, through humour, is portrayed as useless and disposable, as is the religion and its followers. This is separate and apart from the evidence the state presents in the court case.

Pirie explains that heckling is an effective form of this fallacy. (235). If a crowd supports the humour and distracting intent of the heckler this largely eliminates a more serious intellectual level of argument. In my example, the prosecutor could emotionally move the crowd and be further aided by a heckler. A heckler could even potentially be a 'plant' of the state.

This approach avoids a serious intellectual, theological and philosophical discussion in regard to the validity of the defendant's religious worldview and if these religious views are actually opposed to the best interests of the state and its citizens. Do these religious views actually oppose the law of the land?

Irrelevant Humour, is a fallacy of intellectual avoidance. Uncomfortable arguments can be avoided by fallaciously using humour to dismiss the other side as useless and disposable.

Yesterday

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

Hebrews 6: Very non-exhaustive

Cleaning up archives, I found this Facebook Graffiti attempt at art from 2009

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

Admittedly, a very complex subject, with varying interpretations over the centuries, but Hughes summarizes Hebrews 6.

This was my Hebrews commentary text at Columbia Bible College.

Hughes explains in regard to Hebrews 6:

It is a irremediable (no remedy) state for those persons, who have publicly confessed a Christian faith, in baptism and then in the future reject the gospel. (221). This expressed in verses 4-6, in particular. (221). These people have renounced their baptism and the gospel. These are not genuine branches of Jesus Christ. (221). In other words, these people never were regenerated Christian believers.

Those truly redeemed through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, will not fall away into apostasy. (221).

Hughes opines that being enlightened (v4) may be a connection to Christian baptism. The idea of having 'tasted the heavenly gift' is a description of the eucharist. (208). 'Enlightenment' may be interpreted as the equivalent of catechetical instruction. (208). But these are not universal interpretations, admits Hughes. (208). Despite, these spiritual interactions with the biblical, triune, God, Hughes reasons that the apostasy is real and not hypothetical. (212).

I reason this is likely an accurate interpretation as those in Jesus Christ may, at certain points not be in a proper state of repentance, but this never leads to a public or private apostasy. The impossibility of repentance here according to Hughes, is absolutely real in this context. (213).

Hughes, is correct in stating that God's work, through the Holy Spirit, cannot and will not fail in achieving salvific purpose. (221). The mystery of divine election is that Jesus Christ will never have died in vain for anyone. (221). This view is in agreement with Reformed theology.

Those who reject Jesus Christ after partaking in the gospel, reject the crucifixion of Christ in atonement and his resurrection. These people are within the ranks of those that crucified Jesus Christ. (221).

Interestingly:

1 Corinthians 3: 14-15 New American Standard Bible

14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

These verses are often interpreted in context as being in regard to believers and in particular Church leaders. Fee states that there are biblical warnings 'against those who would take the church lightly and and destroy it by worldly wisdom and division.' (146).

Hebrew 6: 7-8

7 For ground that drinks the rain which often [e]falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close [f]to being cursed, and [g]it ends up being burned.

This is often interpreted as being non-believing, apostates, as noted from Hughes' view.

katakahsetai  (1 Corinthians 3: 14: Marshall 489)

This is defined as ‘will be consumed’. This is burned up work that is considered loss.

kausin ( Hebrews 6: 8: Marshall 649)

This is defined as ‘burning’. The end of those being judged as apostates.

Apostates are figuratively burned waste according to Hughes. (223). If indeed, the 1 Corinthians section is in regard to Christians/Church leaders and the Hebrews section is in regard to apostates, in can be concluded that useless work is useless work, whether from believers or non-believers. 

For balance, I should state that from the similarities of the verses, it is also plausible that the same group of persons in being discussed, that being non-repentant, believers. But, in agreement with Hughes, this is a problematic interpretation. To be clear, I do not reason that anyone that publicly denies the gospel is a true Christian believer. For a believer, to not always be completely repentant of sin is biblically possible and theologically tenable. Apostasy is in non-belief. Non-belief places a person outside of the Kingdom of God.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

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

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

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

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

In Defence of the Defence

Foto Blur: Barcelona

UWTSD, (2009), PhD Viva for Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010).

As noted earlier in this PhD Viva series, my tutors placed much emphasis on empirical and practical theology. This was done for the sake of thesis originality. I agreed on the originality point.

I also agreed that problem of evil and theodicy work needed practical theology, associated. However, I reasoned the thesis needed more philosophy of religion and philosophical theology material within the pre-Viva version, than I was advised to include.

As it turned out, the external and interviewer reviewers requested more work in regard to philosophy of religion and Reformed theology. Practical and Empirical theology was largely downplayed within the Viva review.

I had provided a very significant amount of work and citations from John S. Feinberg, John Calvin and from others within Reformed theology, but the external reviewer had one writer in particular, he suggested I use in final revisions, in regard to Reformed methodology. This suggested theologian was John R. Franke.

I complied. This was In Defence of the Defence and required eight months additional work.

Below are some related Doctoral excerpts.

PhD thesis

Concerning objectivity, within this thesis my Reformed perspective shall not be spared from an objective evaluation and critique as a result of empirical findings. Again, this is not to indicate, in any way, that I wish to avoid intellectual challenges to Reformed theology as concepts from both conservative and liberal perspectives shall be reviewed and examined within this work.

John R. Franke (2005) provides, within The Character of Theology, a recent academic method of examining and explaining Christian and Reformed theology which are reasoned to exist, in part through Biblical revelation. Franke (2005: 8-10). This approach by Franke and others is an appropriate precursor to a discussion of Feinberg’s Reformed sovereignty approach.

Franke mentions that some evangelicals will have difficulties with his approach that takes a non-traditional look at theology and not only a traditional Biblical approach. He reasons that what is Biblical should not just be assumed and should be a subject of intellectual scrutiny, and on this point I fully agree. Franke (2005: 8-10).

I consider myself primarily Reformed as opposed to primarily evangelical. Many evangelicals will struggle with the compatibilism accepted within my PhD thesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

Insulated from alternatives

Germany, Trekearth

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

In reality, in life, premises leading to conclusions, as in arguments, should face counter arguments. (132).

For the sake of truth, scientific, philosophical, theological, etcetera, one has to be open to countering premises. This based on comments from 132-133.

A problem with all kinds of fundamentalism, whether, religious, non-religious, academic, cultural, what have you, is that fundamentalism is often very closed-minded in regard to any intellectual alternative positions.

With my new Telus cable package, I have recently started viewing Fox News, besides CNN, which I have viewed for decades, and Tucker Carlson on Tucker Carlson Tonight, states that his show is opposed to 'group think'. I too am opposed to 'group think', as in 'group assume' without significant openness to alternative views.

Some only surround themselves with like-minded people. (133). Therefore using Pirie's title providing Insulation from alternatives.

I have an academic, researched, reasoned Reformed, Christian, worldview that is still developing by God's guidance with the use of scripture, theology, philosophy of religion, in particular. A positive about attending secular European, British, Universities for MPhil/PhD theses was being forced to consider premises and conclusions opposed to my own, and learning through evaluation.

Often premises/propositions that are not held universally will be quickly negated within society. (134). This is in my opinion a form of lazy, intellectual thinking.

Examine current partisan American politics with this fallacy in mind!

Problems of Individual Suffering

La Campagna, Italy, trekearth.com

UWTSD, (2009), PhD Viva for Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010).

My doctoral thesis was challenged by the external and internal reviewers in regard to problems of individual suffering.

I explained to the external and internal reviewers that I reasoned that my Reformed, philosophical, theological, theodicy approach was significantly and largely true. However, as I was both finite and sinful, I did not have exhaustive insights to individual human suffering within problems of evil.

This is a significant reason why my tutors at the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David were correct to strongly suggest I include practical and empirical components along with theoretical ones, within my PhD thesis.

PhD thesis

I can interject and state that academically solving the logical and gratuitous problems of evil by tying them back to God is an ultimate intellectual solution, Wright (1996: 197), but there are still practical ramifications to deal with, such as why certain evils occur. The fact that a sovereignty theodicy can logically and reasonable solve its problem of evil, does not mean that suffering often comes with an explanation. This is where practical and empirical theology can be very helpful when they offer practical assistance to those suffering under the problem of evil.

Henri Blocher explains that philosophical explanations have failed in dealing with the problem of evil. Blocher (1994: 84). Although I somewhat disagree with this comment, I can acknowledge philosophical theodicy does not take the place of effective practical theology that can assist a sufferer in having a true Christian religious experience.

Carl Henry reasons that theistic arguments do not in themselves vindicate God, and God’s revelation is required. Henry (1983: 282). In other words, through the study of Scripture and personal experience with God through revelation, the creator can be better understood, even though he willingly allows evil.
---

Problems of individual suffering do not cancel out reasonable, academic theodicy.

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

HENRY, CARL (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books.

HENRY, CARL (1996) ‘Image of God’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

Viva voce fight?

Facebook

UWTSD, (2009), PhD Viva for Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010).

The external reviewer from London complained (paraphrased) that I was not emotional and fired up enough during the Viva, also known as Viva Voce.

But after their verbal attacks, I then
supposedly livened up.

I replied that I did not think that a Viva was a fight.

But I thought to myself, if you two want a fight, you will get one, I have studied the problem of evil, theodicy, free will and determinism ten plus years more than either one of you fine scholars.

In the end, I was highly complimented for the Viva performance.The external reviewer admitted that I had significant philosophical knowledge, but more of this knowledge needed to be in the thesis. As I stated in the previous entry, I very much wanted to write a more philosophical thesis, but was advised otherwise. The final work has much more philosophical content.

PhD thesis

Systemization would be a task of systematic theology and philosophy of religion. Practical and empirical theology can provide opportunities to evaluate practically systematic theology and philosophy of religion in regard to the problem of evil. (2000)(2007)

I have studied Biblical Studies, theology and philosophy of religion for many years, and on a personal level philosophical theology has often had natural practical implications for me.

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.

PATTON, JOHN (2000)(2007) ‘Modern Pastoral Theology in the United States’, in James Woodward and Stephen Pattison (eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

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. 

WOODWARD, JAMES AND STEPHEN PATTISON (2000)(2007)(eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

Academic Responsibility?

Italy: Facebook-Travel+Leisure

UWTSD, (2009), PhD Viva for Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010). 

This is brief a entry in regard to the 2009 Viva where the internal and external reviewers questioned the lack of biblical studies and philosophy work in the thesis, I presented.The reviewers suggested my work was evangelical and perhaps, biblically naive. 

I stated I had followed adviser directions and that the University should take responsibility for how I was advised. It was as if the left hand (Wales, tutors) and right hand (Wales, reviewers, internal and external) passed all responsibility on to the advised. 

In the end, my revised final, passed thesis, rightly contained far more Reformed theology, philosophy of religion and even some New Testament Greek. The last two academic approaches had been discouraged by my tutors prior to my Viva, in favour of empirical approaches that the reviewers were not very concerned about! My final thesis was superior in quantity to the pre-Viva version. The work below is in the final version with edits for this website. This is added Reformed theology and biblical studies. 

The reviewers were largely correct in their assessment, but as a local pastor with a Doctorate that unofficially reviewed my work, stated (paraphrased): 'You had that philosophical work in the thesis, and the tutors asked you to take it out.' 

My Viva performance, I was told, demonstrated I knew what I was writing and talking about. The external reviewer told me I could complete the revisions required in three months, but I did even more revisions and took eight months. The internal reviewer was very kind enough to do a final review and between the two of us, we only found a handful of further changes. I then received the PhD. Again, the final thesis is superior in quantity to the pre-Viva version.

PhD Edit

In my mind, the concept compatibilism, although the modern philosophical 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 (The Greek New Testament 1993: 654), within Ephesians 1: 5, in the context is ‘predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ’ The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1322). There is προορισθέντες at Ephesians 1: 11, as  in ‘we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to his purpose’ appear to support Reformed compatibilist notions.

The Greek New Testament (1993: 655).

Strong describes proorizw as to limit in advance in figurative terms, and to predetermine, ordain, and predestinate. Strong (1890)(1986: 81). Bauer defines the root word as meaning to decide before hand, predestine of God and applies this definition to Ephesians 1: 5 and 11.Bauer (1979: 709). Minimally, there appears reasonable textual support from this verse that could support a Reformed compatibilistic perspective on how God chooses persons for his ultimate culminated Kingdom.  

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

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

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.

Augustine v Feinberg

UWTSD, Lampeter campus

UWTSD, (2009), PhD Viva for Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010). 

My external and internal reviewers opined that Augustine, my first historical example within incompatibilism, was considered the far better historical source, within the problem of evil/theodicy discussion, than was John S. Feinberg, my main Reformed, compatibilism, example.

I disagreed.

I based much of my Reformed theodicy approach via John S. Feinberg and secondarily as an historical source, John Calvin.

I replied that popularity was irrelevant, and academic truth was not a popularity contest. I also pointed point out that one of my reviewers was a noted Roman Catholic, more likely to follow Augustine than Feinberg, that was a Reformed theologian and philosopher. I also mentioned that I did reference John Calvin in regard to free will and determinism, and he would rival Augustine in the popularity contest department.

If one wished to play that game.

I was told by reviewers that I did an excellent job in the Viva.

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.

Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe. Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26).

Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98).

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

Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130).

I found Feinberg’s explanation of this a bit repetitive and it would perhaps be good for him to have speculated on God’s reasons for willingly allowing evil in more specific terms as I have to some degree in my work.

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

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

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

God In The Dock?

UWTSD, (2009), PhD Viva for Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010).

Paraphrased:

Internal Reviewer:

'A problem with your type of theodicy work is that it places God in the dock.'

Me:

'I do not place God in the dock, but the theodicy and problem of evil, academic discussion does at points. However, my Reformed theodicy is a reasonable and I reason, at least a significantly true answer.'
--- 

From PhD text 

This work is not seeking to place God in the docks or primarily to take God out of the docks.

(Note today: Docks is the plural of dock. My theodicy work did not attempt to place God in a human dock or docks.)

Doubtless many critics of theism and Christianity do place God in the docks and so a work should deal with these concepts. I reason, based on the philosophical and theological presentations that the compatibilism of a Reformed theodicy better deals with problems associated with the logical problem of evil and gratuitous evil than do incompatibilist perspectives. God is explained in a reasonable logical manner as being in charge of creation and therefore through Christ is also able to restore creation.

The compatibilist or soft-determinist states although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Pojman (1996: 596).
---

May 2, 2017

Reformed compatibilism presents God, the alpha and omega (Revelation) with infinite sovereignty, providence, omniscience and holiness causing and willing all things, including the eventual culmination of the new heaven and new earth. (Revelation 21-22). God is ultimately responsible for all things, but not as if a criminal in a court dock (s).

The completed atonement and resurrection work of Jesus Christ in process to humanity remedies evil through new covenant (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, Hebrews), eventual resurrected, spiritual bodies for believers (1 Corinthians 15) and culminated restored creation (Revelation 21-22).

Matthew 26:28

King James Bible

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

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

  

An Illicit Process

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

Illicit Process

This fallacy uses unsupported claims, unsupported premises. (131).

A reasonable conclusion cannot be drawn in regard to a whole class, without some knowledge about what applies to all in this class. (131).

For example:

To state as conclusion that all Christians are fundamentalists without reasonably demonstrating this in a premise or premises, is fallacious.

Pirie cited:

'Some Australians are pleasant fellows, and some con-men are not pleasant fellows, so some Australians are not conmen.' (132).

Pirie writes that this might be true, but cannot be proven by this argument. (132).

As a premise it might be true that some Australians are pleasant fellows.

As a premise it might be true that some con-men are not pleasant fellows.

There is not enough significant evidence and significant reason to demonstrate that some Australians are not con-men as conclusion. It may be asserted and assumed on 'the street', but is not an academic factual argument.

Fallacy files

'Any form of categorical syllogism in which a term that is distributed in the conclusion is undistributed in a premiss.' (premise, my correction).