 |
| McSween, British Columbia: trekearth.com |
My friend John and I briefly discussed the concept of vicious regress on the phone last night, along with more typical subjects.
(I do not just talk theology/philosophy for those of you opining. If I was a betting man, which I am not, I would bet more than one person has stated that this is all I talk about, as fact.)
Vicious Regress: October 2 2006
Vicious Regress May 21 2016
Vicious Regress January 16 2017
Last night on the phone, I referenced in brief, the three examples 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 philosophy of religion, the first cause, can be considered what is necessary and exists by necessity. From a biblical perspective this is Almighty God, infinite and eternal.)
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.
(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.)
Time is caused by time, is caused by time, is caused by time, 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.
(If there is an infinite distance between Maple Ridge and Vancouver, one will never arrive in Vancouver.)
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. 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'. (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 faulty reasoning. That is the case with my three examples, I reason. Bradley (371) mentions 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.
 |
| McSween, British Columbia: trekearth.com |
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.
