Tuesday, November 30, 2021

PhD: Twitter quote 111

Photo: Nigel Fearon Photography, Riverview NB, CBC, November 30 2021

Edited from PhD

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

Twitter version I

Humanity must bring itself out of the chaos and confusion of reality to have a workable system in able to work out ‘a single plan.’ Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6). (1 of 2)

Twitter version II

This type of world was anticipated ‘by individuals of exceptional genius’ but could only become true after a long period of scientific examination and thought. Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6).(2 of 2)

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

CAREY, GEORGE W. (2002) ‘The Authoritarian Secularism of John Stuart Mill’, in On Raeder’s Mill and the Religion of Humanity, Volume 15, Number 1, Columbia, University of Missouri Press. 

GORDON, DAVID (2000) ‘John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control’, in The Mises Review, Volume 6, Number 1, Auburn, Alabama, Ludwig Von Mises Institute. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1789-1861)(2003) Utilitarianism and On Liberty, Mary Warnock (ed.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1825-1868)(1984) Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, John M. Robson (ed.), University of Toronto Press, Toronto, University of Toronto Press. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1833)(1985)(2009) Theism: John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X - Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, Toronto, University of Toronto Press. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(2002) The Utility of Religion, London, Longman, Green, and Reader. http://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/mill/three/utilrelig.html 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(1885) Nature the Utility of Religion and Theism, London, Longmans, Green and Co. 

MILLBANK, JOHN, CATHERINE PICKSTOCK, and GRAHAM WARD (2001) Radical Orthodoxy, London, Routledge.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

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

My response

Edited from my PhD and two related website articles




Mill desired to replace the God of Christianity with a Religion of Humanity. Carey (2002: 110). In The Utility of Religion from 1874, Mill explains that Christianity offers rewards in the next life for good conduct and the Religion of Humanity would be superior as human virtue would exist for unselfish reasons. Mill (1874)(2002: 16). Although I reason Christians should do what is good and right, just because it is good and right, and not primarily for a possible reward, Mill does not demonstrate in my mind a conclusive argument in how human beings, as they are, can or will ever operate with completely unselfish motives. Is all selfishness wrong, or does some degree of human self-concern and a desire for self-benefit remain an integral part of how God intended humanity to be? Carey (2002: 114).

A finite deity, that was held to be Mill, although admittedly logically possible, requires further explanation. Hypothetically, humanity and the universe could have been created by a finite God that was created by another cause. If the being is not revealed through Scriptural revelation, it is a God of primarily, philosophical speculation and requires further elaboration on the part of Mill. In regards to, for instance, why humanity should believe in and follow this type of deity, assuming that there is not a greater, infinite, eternal first cause that would necessarily exist behind that being.

Monday, November 22, 2021

The Orthodox Study Bible: the cowardly (Non-exhaustive)

 The Orthodox Study Bible: the cowardly

THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, NEW TESTAMENT AND PSALMS (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Preface

My review of this excellent study bible within Orthodoxy continues; from my perspective as a Reformed theologian and philosopher of religion. This study bible uses the New King James Version (NKJV).

A few weeks ago, my friendly neigbour was chauffeuring me for a ride in one of his SUV vehicles, as he sought the cheaper gasoline of Silverdale, Mission. We chat theology and other topics. We were discussing the public and I stated (paraphrased) that we in Christ are saved by grace through faith alone, regenerated, justified, sanctified through the applied atoning and resurrection work of  Jesus Christ, Ephesians 1-2, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews as New Testament examples.

I also stated that some in the public are cowards in regards to God, Jesus Christ and the gospel, and these types of cowards, according to Revelation 21, will not be part of the Kingdom of God, as they favour being favoured within the world system.

My friend opined that sounded harsh. I stated, I have read the idea used within Revelation, will look it up, text it to him, which I did, and eventually write on it...God willing.
---

Revelation 21: 7-8 NKJV

7 He who overcomes [a]shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, [b]unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Footnotes Revelation 21:7 M I shall give him these things Revelation 21:8 M adds and sinners,
---

(M stands for Majority Text, in contrast to minority texts, my add)

What do the footnotes in the NKJV [New King James Version] mean?/Bible Gateway

Cited 

M-Text This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text [a consensus of most Greek manuscripts]. It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.
---

Orthodoxy

This text notes for 'cowardly', these are in contrast to those that overcome and inherit the Kingdom of God (631). 'Those who fall away through cowardice or unbelief face instead the lake of fire (v.8). They lose God's inheritance, seeking instead the damning recompense of sin and death (see 20: 15: 22: 15), in company with the beast, the false prophet, Death and Hades.' (631).

I am wondering, are the cowards, the cowardly, only those who claimed to believe in Jesus Christ and yet fell away? The apostate?

Mounce

Mounce has an excellent, thorough, Revelation commentary. In regards to 21: 7. Quote: 'Those who deny Christ and are enticed by the allurements of the harlot to follow the beast have no inheritance in the family of God.' (374). Not necessarily a former confessing believer, seems to me. But, in 21: 8, Mounce opines 'Leading the retreat are the cowardly...' (375). Mounce has a footnote that states the ASV (American Standard Version, my add) translates as the 'fearful'. (375). But this definition is quote 'insufficiently specific' (375). These people, in retreat, from the Mounce text notes are people that fear the beast, Satan, likely represented by the Antichrist, more than they trust the love of Jesus Christ. (375). Mounce in the main text, reasons, these people as a 'last resort chose personal safety over faithfulness to Christ.' (375).

But, Mounce then states at the end of this section for 21: 8, 'This list of all apostates and pagans is to be into the lake of fire that burns with fire and brimstone (cf. 20:15).' (375).

Pagans are separated from the apostates formerly within the Christian Church.

In regards to the lake of fire, in my theological opinion, Hades (hell1) is cast into the lake of fire (hell2). The unregenerate outside of Christ, in spirit form from Hades are resurrected. Mounce writes that this is the second resurrection of the wicked only (the unregenerate, my add) (365). In my reading over the years, there is biblical and theological debate whether these people have resurrected bodies as do the regenerate (Revelation 20-22, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4, re: second coming and resurrection, 2 Thessalonians 2, re: second coming). If they do have resurrected bodies, what is the ontological, nature and existence of these bodies? For everlasting punishment and not everlasting life, as is the regenerated, resurrected, believer (Revelation 20-22), biblically, at least.


Cited

New Testament Greek

δειλοῖς (deilois)

Strong's 

1169: cowardly, fearful

deilos: cowardly, fearful 

Original Word: δειλός, ή, όν Part of Speech: Adjective Transliteration: deilos Phonetic Spelling: (di-los') Definition: cowardly, fearful Usage: cowardly, timid, fearful.

Origin deos


Strong's 

1190. Derbaios Original Word: Δερβαῖος, α, ον fear, reference

Bauer defines δειλός, ή, όν, as cowardly, timid, as in particular of Revelation 21: 8 of those of little faith. (173). 

Bruce

Bruce in his Revelation commentary explains that the cowardly and unbelieving is 'John's catalogue of those who are excluded from the blessings of the new creation begins with those who through fear have denied the faith in the face of persecution.' (1626).

Seems to be a description of the fearful, apostates.

Dr. Grant Richison


Cited

'Grant is a Bible expositor who is dedicated to a lifetime of studying and teaching God’s Word. Dr. Richison has been the senior pastor of three churches from 1965 to 1992. His most recent pastorate was at Grant Memorial Baptist Church, Winnipeg, Manitoba, where, for a 20-year period, he had oversight of a ministry that expanded from a church of 300 to one of the largest churches in Canada.

During the period of his pastorates, Grant taught at William Tyndale College (Detroit MI), Providence Theological Seminary (Manitoba), Northwest Baptist Seminary (Vancouver), International School of Theology (Vancouver extension), and Briercrest Graduate School (Saskatchewan). He taught Greek, Advance Greek grammar, exegesis courses and theology. His website Verse-by-Verse Commentary is read in most countries of the world (versebyversecommentary.com). The blog has over 14,000 pages of material written by Grant.'


Cited

'In contrast to Christians who have an eternally right standing with God, we now turn to those who have no standing with God. These others will have a part “in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone.” We see eight characteristics of the non-Christian. First, the “cowardly” are those who are spineless. They cave into their fears rather than trust God to save them eternally. They live in stark fear of death. It is cowardly not to receive Jesus as your Savior. “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Hebrews 2:14-15).

'They cave into their fears rather than trust God to save them eternally.' 'It is cowardly not to receive Jesus as your Savior.'  Not distinctly, former public Christian adherents.

Dr. Jack W. Cottrell


Cited  

'Academically, Jack has a BA and a ThB from Cincinnati Christian University; a BA in philosophy from the University of Cincinnati; an MDiv from Westminster Theological Seminary; and a PhD in theology from Princeton Theological Seminary. He was a Professor of Theology at Cincinnati Christian University from September 1967 to December 2015 — a total of forty-eight and one-half years.'


'Question: In Revelation 21:8, why is “cowardly” in the list of people that will not enter heaven? What does this word mean? What is John getting at? 

Answer: This well-known verse says, “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death” (ESV, throughout). Thus it seems clear that the “cowardly” indeed will not enter heaven. 

Who are the “cowardly”? The Greek word is “deilos,” which is from a family of words that occur only rarely in the NT. This is the adjective; it is found here in Rev. 21:8 and in the parallel accounts in Matt. 8:26 and Mark 4:40. These texts are reporting the incident where Jesus and His disciples are in a boat in a great storm, and the disciples cry out, “Save us, Lord; we are perishing.” Jesus rebukes them thus: “Why are you afraid [deilos], O you of little faith?” (Matt.), or “Why are you so afraid [deilos]? Have you no faith?” (Mark). The noun “deilia” is used just once, in 2 Tim. 1:7, “For God gave us a spirit not of fear [deilia] but of power and love and self-control.” The verb “deiliao” is also used just once, in John 14:27b, “Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid [deiliao].” 

The basic meaning of the adjective thus is cowardly, fearful, timid, fainthearted. In these and in Christian writings in general the word does not refer to specific and usually mundane fears such as fear of water, fear of spiders, fear of heights, or fear of speaking in public. Rather, the word is used in a context of persecution, where one has to choose between taking a stand for Jesus and denying faith in Him. C. Spicq says this: “When Rev. 21:8 places the fainthearted and the unbelieving in the lake of fire, it has in view Christians during times of persecution who, out of a fear of suffering, renounce their faith. It is a commonplace that human courage and cowardice are revealed in the face of death” (“Theological Lexicon of the NT,” Hendrickson 1994, I:301). In effect, then, such cowardice is similar to or even the same as unbelief. Rev. 21:8 lists the cowardly and the faithless together.'

Comments

1. This brief research has informed me that according to scholarship, in general, the primary context of the cowardly or fearful in Revelation 21: 8 is apostates. Quoting this study bible: 'Those who fall away through cowardice or unbelief face instead the lake of fire (v.8). This is in contrast to verse 7 and He who overcomes [a]shall inherit all things...

In 21: 8, Mounce opines 'Leading the retreat are the cowardly...' (375). Mounce in the main text, reasons, these people as a 'last resort chose personal safety over faithfulness to Christ.' (375). Cottrell states 'In effect, then, such cowardice is similar to or even the same as unbelief. Rev. 21:8 lists the cowardly and the faithless together.'

2. I am wondering, are the cowards, the cowardly, only those who claimed to believe in Jesus Christ and yet fell away? 

But, Mounce then states at the end of this section for 21: 8, 'This list of all apostates and pagans is to be into the lake of fire that burns with fire and brimstone (cf. 20:15).' (375).

I think there is a secondary context, as in the pagans, that were never part of the Christian Church and reject God, Jesus Christ and the comforts of conformity to the world. These are the people I had in mind, more so, in the discussion with my friend.

Note that all the types of people on the list....8 But the cowardly, [b]unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” I do not see a biblical, theological reason that these are all necessarily apostates, or always apostates, in fact, more often, likely not having been within the Christian Church, whatsoever, I would reason. So I do not think that the cowardly and fearful are always apostates either.

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

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) 'Revelation' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

COTTRELL, JACK (2010) Jack Cottrell. com, Word Press.
https://jackcottrell.com/

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

HOCKING, DAVID (2014) The Book of Revelation, Tustin, California, HFT Publications.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

RICHARDSON, GRANT C (1999) Verse-By-Verse Commentary, Word Press.
https://versebyversecommentary.com/

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

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

THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, NEW TESTAMENT AND PSALMS (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
---

 istockphoto

Thursday, November 18, 2021

PhD: Twitter quote 110

PhD: Twitter quote 110 

Image: Pinterest 

Twitter version 

Carson demonstrated that with compatibilism there is philosophical tension between God's sovereignty & human moral responsibility.
---

My MPhil thesis was part one of my PhD program from the University of Wales.

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


Carson provided an important chapter on compatibilism that discussed the tension between God’s sovereignty and human moral responsibility. This is the most complicated chapter of his text. He demonstrated that both these ideas are Scriptural and philosophically sound, although there exists a tension which means that how the two concepts coexist is not completely humanly understood.

Carson noted that compatibilism being true means God stands behind good and evil, but in different ways. To put it bluntly, God stands behind evil in such a way that not even evil takes place outside the bounds of his sovereignty, yet the evil is not morally chargeable to him: it is always chargeable to secondary agents, to secondary causes. On the other hand, God stands behind good in such a way that it not only takes place within the bounds of his sovereignty, but it is always chargeable to him, and only derivatively to secondary agents. In other words, if I sin, I cannot possibly do so outside the bounds of God’s sovereignty (or the many texts already cited have no meaning), but I alone am responsible for that sin–or perhaps I and those who tempted me, led me astray and the like. God is not to be blamed. Carson (1990: 213).

---

Definitions 

From my MPhil/PhD research work and thesis (1999-2010) and website research work (2004-Present)

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


Edited

Compatibilism (Soft determinism)

Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling define compatibilism as the theory that human free will is compatible with God’s sovereign prerogative to determine or will all events. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 28).  P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to the philosophical concepts of 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). 

John S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force (for there to be significant human moral accountability with human will and actions, my add), but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine, with the use of persuasion, that actions 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 these were 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). 

I personally embrace, what I named limited free will, within compatibilism. Human beings through nature, consciousness, desire and will embrace as secondary causes, thoughts, acts and actions. Simultaneously, God, within theistic compatibilism, is the primary cause of all things, but with holy, pure and good motives.

Incompatibilism (Indeterminism)

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. This would include concepts of libertarian free will.

Blackburn explains free will theory requires autonomous beings that are able to perform free actions without any significant influence upon their will. He describes autonomy as the ability of agents to govern themselves, and for this to occur autonomous agents must commit actions which are truly their own. Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism in regard to human free will, believes that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states. Mawson (1999: 324).

Norman Geisler (1986) describes a form of incompatibilism which he calls self-determinism. Geisler (1986: 75). Moral choices are not caused or uncaused by another being, but are self-caused. Geisler (1986: 75). Incompatibilists, therefore, do not deny there are outside forces that influence significantly free human actions; however, they do not accept any notion that a free act can be caused in a determined sense by one being upon another and remain a significantly free act. Ferre (1973)(1976: 35). Geisler (1986: 75). Mawson (1999: 324). An act cannot be determined or simultaneously determined and remain truly free within incompatibilism. Ferre (1973)(1976: 35). Geisler (1986: 75). Mawson (1999: 324). 

Determinism (Hard determinism)

Simon Blackburn comments that this is the doctrine that human action has no influence on events. Blackburn (1996: 137). Blackburn gives the opinion that fatalism is wrongly confused with determinism, which by itself carries no implications that human actions have no effect. Blackburn (1996: 137). In other words, there are forms of determinism where human actions are significant. 

D.G. Bloesch explains that fate is not chance, but instead is cosmic determinism that has no meaning or purpose. Bloesch (1996: 407). He writes that fate/fatalism would differ from a Christian idea of divine providence and its implied use of determinism, in that fatalism is impersonal and irrational, whereas providence is personal and rational. Bloesch (1996: 407). In contrast to 'fate' or fatalism, biblical, theological determinism, has divine meaning. Thiessen comments that fatalism is not determinism because fatalism holds that all events are caused by fate and not natural causes, and nothing can change these events. Determinism, in contrast, holds that all events occur by necessity. Thiessen (1956: 186).

Tomis Kapitan notes that determinism is usually understood as meaning that whatever occurs is determined by antecedent (preceding cause) conditions. Kapitan (1999: 281). Pojman states that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for actions determined, as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586).

In contrast, the compatibilist, soft-deterministic God of Reformed theology allows significant human freedom with the embracing of human thoughts, acts and action via human nature, desires and limited free will. The human ability with significant freedom to embrace thoughts, acts and actions as a secondary cause, philosophically and theologically eliminates God as forcing or coercing human thoughts, acts and actions where there is human, moral, accountability.

I reason God at times, does force or coerce events in regard to humanity, in those cases, there is not significant human moral accountability. For example, a person unwillingly becomes an amputee. This is against the nature, desires and will. A person does not sin by rejecting the amputation with nature, desires and will.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Fatalism’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLOESCH, D. (1996) ‘Fate, Fatalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

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. 

FERRE, FREDERICK (1952)(1976) ‘Self-Determinism’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 10, Number 3, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

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

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland. 

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

KAPITAN, TOMIS (1996) ‘Free Will Problem’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

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

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

Sunday, November 14, 2021

Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias

Edited November 15, 2021

Image: The Far Side (Bonus early Christmas art)

Photo: Copenhagen, Denmark Chris Harris, Facebook 

Preface

I mentioned this concept in a conversation with my Dad. I then looked it up...

A recent related article on my second website...


Cited from...

Review of General Psychology: Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises,Raymond S. NickersonFirst Published June 1, 1998 Research Article 

Abstract 

'Confirmation bias, as the term is typically used in the psychological literature, connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand. The author reviews evidence of such a bias in a variety of guises and gives examples of its operation in several practical contexts. Possible explanations are considered, and the question of its utility or disutility is discussed.'

Comments

I reason that rational, thinking people, even the highly rational people, have confirmation bias. Even academics like myself that seek significant objectivity. It is natural to interpret new information with a premise/premises that leads to a conclusion, in agreement with premises and conclusions, already held to within a worldview and related paradigms.


Author: Bettina J. Casad 

Cited 

'confirmation bias, the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one’s existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional and often results in ignoring inconsistent information.' 

Comments

A significant problem is ignoring contrary premises that could possibly lead to contrary conclusions, especially to one's own worldview and related paradigms. Philosophically and academically, a reasonable, significant pursuit of truth requires a reasonable, significant evaluation of available, relevant, information that is in disagreement with held beliefs.

(The British MPhil/PhD system emphasizes this in particular; depth and breadth in research and presentation, as my one tutor would state; leading to ten to twenty citations per page)

Cited 

'People are especially likely to process information to support their own beliefs when the issue is highly important or self-relevant.'

Comments 

In particular in regards to worldviews issues and related paradigms.

Cited

'Confirmation bias is one example of how humans sometimes process information in an illogical, biased manner. Many factors of which people are unaware can influence information processing. Philosophers note that humans have difficulty processing information in a rational, unbiased manner once they have developed an opinion about the issue. Humans are better able to rationally process information, giving equal weight to multiple viewpoints, if they are emotionally distant from the issue (although a low level of confirmation bias can still occur when an individual has no vested interests).'

Cited 

'Human decision making and information processing is often biased because people are limited to interpreting information from their own viewpoint. People need to process information quickly to protect themselves from harm.' 

Comments

Premises and a conclusion (s), can still be confirmed as reasonably, significantly true, with a certain amount of bias. There is no such thing as complete objectivity. However, objectivity in general is required for a significantly, good evaluation of what information is true. It is possible, in my view, to fortuitously (without intention) believe what is true, without deep analysis of information. For example, a person is taught a true worldview and/or true paradigms, by his/her parents from childhood.

Cited

'Confirmation bias is strong and widespread, occurring in several contexts. In the context of decision making, once an individual makes a decision, he or she will look for information that supports it. Information that conflicts with the decision may cause discomfort and is therefore ignored or given little consideration. People give special treatment to information that supports their personal beliefs.' 

Cited

'It is not that people are incapable of generating arguments that are counter to their beliefs but, rather, people are not motivated to do so.' 

Comments

Mental fatigue and what I call 'mental laziness' can also contribute to embracing confirmation bias. This may be done with various amounts of intention.

Cited

'People may be overconfident in their beliefs because they have accumulated evidence to support them, when in reality much evidence refuting their beliefs was overlooked or ignored, evidence which, if considered, would lead to less confidence in one’s beliefs. These factors may lead to risky decision making and lead people to overlook warning signs and other important information.' 

Comments

Unchecked confirmation bias can lead to error in worldview and related paradigms.

(Error but not necessarily in moderation, fatal intellectually, if views are basically correct)


Cited

'Confirmation Bias is the tendency to look for information that supports, rather than rejects, one’s preconceptions, typically by interpreting evidence to confirm existing beliefs while rejecting or ignoring any conflicting data (American Psychological Association).'

'Noor, I. (2020, June 10). Confirmation bias. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html' 

Cited 

'This type of bias explains that people interpret evidence with respect to their existing beliefs by typically evaluating confirming evidence differently than evidence that challenges their preconceptions.' 

Comments

Emotionally charged approaches to information can lead to a blind rejection of contrary data and embracing confirmation bias, with various amounts of intention.

In my opinion, it is the significant embracing of confirmation bias which is an intellectual danger.

--- 


Many informal fallacies referenced by Pirie, are influenced by confirmation bias, I reason.

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

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

Sunday, November 07, 2021

Impressed and Not Impressed

 

1. Impressed: I only viewed this sermon from about the 24 minute mark on, as I was working with parking, but I thought (as per usual) that Pastor Matt presented a good, biblically, theologically, balanced message, with bonus common sense, in regards to the pandemic, church and government.

2. Not impressed: Thank you, Facebook, but 99 views in 11 minutes, would be impressive.

 

Monday, November 01, 2021

PhD: Twitter quote 109

PhD: Twitter quote 109

Photo: A Travel Bucket List, Japan, October 26 2021

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


Twitter version

Mill rejects Christianity. Mill (1874)(2002: 16). Carey (2002: 110), and traditional Christian doctrine concerning omnipotence. Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 24). Carey (2002: 115). Gordon (2002: 3). 


Edited from PhD thesis

Mill rejects Christianity. Mill (1874)(2002: 16). Carey (2002: 110), and traditional Christian doctrine concerning omnipotence. Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 24). Carey (2002: 115). Gordon (2002: 3). Mill’s deity is similar to the ‘Platonic Demiurge’ Wainwright (1996: 188). Carey (2002: 116). 

This deity simply develops matter from preexisting chaos Wainwright (1996: 188). Therefore God would not only be limited in power but also finite in nature. Mill supports a concept of a first cause Carey (2002: 116). Gordon (2002: 3). Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 10), as in a series of events Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 7). But this leaves the nagging question and problem of what was the cause of the Demiurge? 

An infinite eternal God can be understood as the first cause not needing a cause. God’s essence is eternal and necessary (logically must exist), and the finite universe is temporal and contingent (not necessary). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 191 Volume 1). God as a necessary being is therefore the cause of contingent creation. Frame reasons God is the creator and the Lord of the beginning of history. This occurs within his eternal plans. Frame (2002: 389). Within this view God is the implied first cause that exists necessarily prior to everything else. Pojman (1996: 596). 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3. Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half –Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

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

CAREY, GEORGE W. (2002) ‘The Authoritarian Secularism of John Stuart Mill’, in On Raeder’s Mill and the Religion of Humanity, Volume 15, Number 1, Columbia, University of Missouri Press. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 

GORDON, DAVID (2000) ‘John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control’, in The Mises Review, Volume 6, Number 1, Auburn, Alabama, Ludwig Von Mises Institute. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1789-1861)(2003) Utilitarianism and On Liberty, Mary Warnock (ed.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1825-1868)(1984) Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, John M. Robson (ed.), University of Toronto Press, Toronto, University of Toronto Press. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1833)(1985)(2009) Theism: John Stuart Mill The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X - Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, Toronto, University of Toronto Press. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(2002) The Utility of Religion, London, Longman, Green, and Reader. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(1885) Nature the Utility of Religion and Theism, London, Longmans, Green and Co. 

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

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

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

Revised November 1, 2021, reformatting due to Blogger template updates