Final Events V: The End

Final Events V: The End

Preface

I desire to conclude this book review begun in 2020, and revised in 2026. Frankly, I deduce that I have already dealt with some core issues from the book with my first four articles, anyway. 

REDFERN, NICK (2010) Final Events: And The Secret Government Group On Demonic UFOS And The Afterlife, San Antonio/New York, Anomalist Books.

Chapter Two: Sympathy For The Devil

Chapter Two takes, what to me sees an unexpected turn, when it states that to fully understand the complex nature, history and origins of the darkness that some within the United States government believe surround humanity (12); we need to understand the life and times of Aleister Crowley. (12). 

The Occult Encyclopedia 

Cited

'Aleister Crowley, born Edward Alexander Crowley (12 October 1875 – 1 December 1947) was an English occultist, magician, poet, painter, novelist, and mountaineer. He founded the religion of Thelema, identifying himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into the Æon of Horus in the early 20th century. A prolific writer, he published widely over the course of his life. Crowley gained widespread notoriety during his lifetime, being a recreational drug user, bisexual, and an individualist social critic. Crowley has remained a highly influential figure over Western esotericism and the counterculture and continues to be considered a prophet in Thelema. He is the subject of various biographies and academic studies.' 

Key cited source 

CROWLEY,  ALEISTER (1889-1989) (bulk 1901-1953) Aleister Crowley Collection, 

Manuscript Collection MS-01002,  Austin, Texas, An Inventory of His Collection at the Harry Ransom Center.

Thirdplacebooks

Cited 

'The Aleister Crowley Encyclopedia (Paperback) 

Aleister Crowley was an iconoclast and fascinating figure who shocked society with his debauched and occult behaviour. Crowley is famous for his spiritual, magic and occult studies. He was called a dangerous Satanist but there are many layers and nuances to his mystical beliefs and his religious system called Thelema. Crowley was a writer, poet, chess master, painter, spy, journalist, world traveller and mountain climber. He was a big recreational drug user and experimenter, and had a rather liberal attitude to sexual matters. His ideas and personality have inspired many artists, people and movements in modern times - such as the New Age movement, rock musicians and Wicca.' 

EVERETT HAROLD (2022) The Aleister Crowley Encyclopedia (Paperback), Harold Everett, North Charleston, South Carolina.

---

Similarly Redfern describes as an occultist that in 1918 (13) made contact with an 'interdimensional entity known as Lam' (13). Lam was a 'large-headed figure' (13). 

CROWLEY, ALEISTER (1919) The Blue Equinox: The Equinox III (1), Detroit, Universal Publishing Company. (Including the supplement "Liber LXXI: The Voice of the Silence").

The Equinox

The image below is from page 193

The portrait called 'The Way',  which is 'Lam' and its brief mention as the 'Lama of Lêng' on page 16 are the only references or mentions of Lam in The Blue Equinox (1919). (p. 1)

Lam was not mentioned in another publication during Crowley's life, but Lam was noted in a private diary or what could be called a magical record.

Within:

CROWLEY, ALEISTER (1918) The Amalantrah Working, New York, Magical Record.

Redfern explains that many researchers today reason that Crowley 'succeeded in tapping into the very same twilight realm that is home to the so-called alien "Grays" who practically dominate the modern era of UFOlogy and who feature heavily within the alien abduction-based works...' (14). 

It seems to me, suspicious that a classic occultist like Crowley would interact with an alien. Why would occult practice lead to Crowley as the perhaps first documented person to meet with an entity that might be an alien and might be a 'Gray'? Seems more likely to me that an occultist as his high level of involvement could quite reasonably interact with a demonic entity that can be make itself appear to be a member of the alien 'Gray' group or something that looks alien, at least. If an actual 'Gray' alien wanted to make first contact with a human being, why not communicate with a reputable scientist, astronaut, politician or world leader, for example? This perhaps, first documented 'Gray' encounter strikes me as more supernatural and extradimensional than extraterrestrial. In other words, more occultic than scientific. But, there is no distinct, documented, connection between what Crowley experienced and the encounters described by the Collins Elite.

With this Chapter, Redfern appears to be establishing the occult, perhaps Satanic connection to something, possibly, like 'Gray' aliens, at least, by Crowley.

Chapter 3: "Be Careful; They Bite"

Although historically interesting for certain, I do not find Chapter 3 that helpful in affirming that the alien beings are demonic. Rocket scientist and engineer, chemist and follower of Crowley in Thelema, Jack Parsons, full name, John Whiteside Parsons (born Marvel Whiteside Parsons) is described in very negative, unfavorable personal terms (18). I am not going to repeat these here as they do not academically help the review. Parsons was an occultist that also eventually connected with L. Ron Hubbard (20), that being the science fiction writer and the founder of the Church of Scientology. Essentially, the Chapter documents that there were occultists at NASA and within the United Airforce that believed in UFOs. Anecdotes about UFO‑believing Air Force insiders are provided by Redfern (18-25).

CARTER, JOHN (2000) Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons, Los Angeles, Feral House.

PENDLE, GEORGE (2006) The Naked Scientist: A Cultural History of the British Scientific Hero, London, Macmillan.

The Occult Encyclopedia 

Cited 

'John Whiteside Parsons (born Marvel Whiteside Parsons October 2, 1914 – June 17, 1952) was an American rocket engineer, chemist, and Thelemite occultist. Associated with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Parsons was one of the principal founders of both the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the Aerojet Engineering Corporation. He invented the first rocket engine to use a castable, composite rocket propellant, and pioneered the advancement of both liquid-fuel and solid-fuel rockets.'

Clearly Parsons was a substantial scientist, intellectually. 

Cited 

'Following some brief involvement with Marxism in 1939, Parsons converted to Thelema, the new religious movement founded by the English occultist Aleister Crowley.Together with his first wife, Helen Northrup, Parsons joined the Agape Lodge, the Californian branch of the Thelemite Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.) in 1941. At Crowley's bidding, Parsons replaced Wilfred Talbot Smith as its leader in 1942 and ran the Lodge from his mansion on Orange Grove Boulevard. Parsons was expelled from JPL and Aerojet in 1944 owing to the Lodge's infamous reputation and to his hazardous workplace conduct.'

Cited

'In 1945, Parsons separated from Helen, after having an affair with her sister Sara; when Sara left him for L. Ron Hubbard, Parsons conducted the Babalon Working, a series of rituals intended to invoke the Thelemic goddess Babalon on Earth. He and Hubbard continued the working with Marjorie Cameron, whom Parsons married in 1946. After Hubbard and Sara defrauded him of his life savings, Parsons resigned from the O.T.O., then held various jobs while acting as a consultant for Israel's rocket program. Amid McCarthyism, Parsons was accused of espionage and left unable to work in rocketry.' 

Interesting that Parsons was connected to both Crowley and Hubbard. 

Cited 

'Death In 1952 Parsons died at the age of 37 in a home laboratory explosion that attracted national media attention; the police ruled it an accident, but many associates suspected suicide or murder.'

---

Comments

I find this book review problematic and will end it here. 'He said, she said', is just not the kind of work I want to deal with.

When seeking to do an academic book review, I do find Redfern's work interesting. But this book serves as a narrative description of personal lives and professional careers of occultists, as in Crowley and Parsons. In the case of L. Ron Hubbard, that is definitively historically, the founder of the Church of Scientology, he is basically mentioned in this book because he knew Parsons (20-21). Yes, in each case, the view of the person being discussed is not a historical, biblical, Christian belief. This does not mean that there is a significant connection to a belief in alien beings that then might be demonic. As an academic, that tries to produce significant scholarship, I am not going to speculate on possible, occult activity of Hubbard, through guilt by association with Parsons (20-21) from Redfern. This because Redfern documents that Parsons knew Hubbard and that Hubbard might have been involved in the occult simultaneously with Parsons (20-21). I am also not going to then again speculate on how this relationship might be connected to a belief by either person in aliens. Just because according to the Collins Elite, within the United States Department of Defense, these aliens might be demonic.

These three being associated with negative personal morality (internal) and ethics (external) by Redfern, because of occult involvement in the case of Crowley and Parsons, and possible occult involvement in that case of Hubbard (21-22), does not academically suffice for me to continue with this review. 

I cannot in good conscience, document this material as a significant academic, historical, investigation.

A scientist or engineer holding to a form of naturalism may very well support the explanation that UFOs are actual natural, extraterrestrial aliens, as opposed to supernatural, extradimensional demonic beings. This would be a standard, philosophy of science, secular understanding.

A naturalist might, even in fact, accept the aliens as natural, extradimensional beings, that are also extraterrestrial. 

The occultist can reason the entities are perhaps natural or supernatural, perhaps extradimensional and perhaps extraterrestrial. 

Some kind of worldview belief in aliens does not necessarily promote a personal, demonic, Satanic agenda.

It does not take an occultist to believe in UFOs. 

I am thankful to Redfern for this text as reference material. However, for me to continue with this book review as an academic one, I would require stronger documented evidence of a historical, belief by key players associated with the United States Department Defence in alien entities. Then simultaneously, there would need to be substantial documentation on why these aliens could be, or should be considered demonic. What we have documented is reasoning from Redfern by some within the Collins Elite that the United States Department of Defense has been dealing with possible alien entities, that might be demonic. As a scholar, I would like to see in print the worldview and philosophy of these supposed alien entities. In other words, there is no primary, alien (or demonic) documentation or even the Collins Elite citing them.

---

CARTER, JOHN (2000) Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons, Los Angeles, Feral House.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

CROWLEY,  ALEISTER (1889-1989) (bulk 1901-1953) Aleister Crowley Collection, 

Manuscript Collection MS-01002,  Austin, Texas, An Inventory of His Collection at the Harry Ransom Center. CROWLEY, ALEISTER (1918) The Amalantrah Working, New York, Magical Record. CROWLEY, ALEISTER (1919) The Blue Equinox: The Equinox III (1), Detroit, Universal Publishing Company. (Including the supplement "Liber LXXI: The Voice of the Silence"). EVERETT HAROLD (2022) The Aleister Crowley Encyclopedia (Paperback), Harold Everett, North Charleston, South Carolina. LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. PENDLE, GEORGE (2006) The Naked Scientist: A Cultural History of the British Scientific Hero, London, Macmillan. PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

REDFERN, NICK (2010) Final Events: And The Secret Government Group On Demonic UFOS And The Afterlife, San Antonio/New York, Anomalist Books.

Fallacy Of Accent: 'If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him'

Fallacy Of Accent

Preface

Photo: Portofino, Italy, 20221014, Facebook

Article originally published on Blogger 20151104, revised on Blogger 20251013.

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

The review of the Pirie text continues. Note: A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion. This entry deals with an informal fallacy.

Pirie

Cited

'The fallacy of accent defends for its effectiveness on the fact the meaning of statements can change, depending on the stress put on words. The accenting of words or phrases can give a meaning quite different from that intended, and can add implications which are not part of the literal meaning.' (31).

Example used

'Light your cigarette' (31).

a) Without accent it looks like an invitation. (31).
b) As opposed to lighting a tablecloth or something else. (31).
c) Instead of someone else. (31).
d) Instead of sticking it in your ear. (31).

The author notes that by changing the accent, the meaning can be changed. (31)

The large letter emphasis is mine, based on the Pirie examples...

'Light your cigarette', reads like an invitation or instruction.

''Light your CIGARETTE', reads as if an instruction to light the cigarette instead of something else.

'Light YOUR cigarette' read like an instruction to light your own cigarette and not another's.

'LIGHT your cigarette' reads as an invitation, instead of sticking it in your ear.

The author states: 'The fallacy lies with the additional implications introduced by emphasis. (32).

For this website context, that being philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, philosophy and Bible, this following statement from Pirie is relevant and profound:

'Your most widespread use of the fallacy of accent can be to discredit opponents by quoting them with an emphasis they never indented'. (32). He notes that Richelieu needed 'six lines by which to hang an honest man.' (32).

Cardinal Richelieu of France

I reason he is meaning Cardinal Richelieu of France. This would be a good historical example where Christianity was politicized and did not closely follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his disciples, the Apostles and scribes which through divine revelation promoted Gospel truth. 

The use of accent in a fallacious manner can twist words for the purpose of a lie. One should pay special attention to the educated and elite, whether in a political, corporate, religious or other context when he or she may be using the fallacy of accent to persuade the masses.

Oxford Reference.com 

Oxford Essential Quotations (5 ed.) Edited by: Susan Ratcliffe 

Publisher: Oxford University Press Published online: 2017

Current Online Version: 2017DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001eISBN: 9780191843730 

Cited

'Cardinal Richelieu 1585–1642 French cleric and statesman

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. attributed'

Adam Smith Institute 

Cited 

'Cardinal Richelieu is remembered for making France into a centralized state by building up the power of the crown and weakening that of the nobles. He used brutal methods to do so, building up a network of spies and informers, having the rivals and opponents of his power executed, and banning political discussion in public bodies. His reputation was forever cast by Alexandre Dumas in “The Three Musketeers,” who portrayed him as a ruthless, power-hungry and cynical ruler. He will be remembered for his famous observation, “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” And he did have quite a few people hanged.'

---

But of course the masses can use the fallacy as well.

Aristotle

This fallacy was noted by Aristotle. 

The Internet Classics Archive: On Sophistical Refutations By Aristotle: Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge (circa 350 BC)

Cited

'An argument depending upon accent it is not easy to construct in unwritten discussion; in written discussions and in poetry it is easier. Thus (e.g.) some people emend Homer against those who criticize as unnatural his expression to men ou kataputhetai ombro. For they solve the difficulty by a change of accent, pronouncing the ou with an acuter accent. Also, in the passage about Agamemnon's dream, they say that Zeus did not himself say 'We grant him the fulfilment of his prayer', but that he bade the dream grant it. Instances such as these, then, turn upon the accentuation.'

---

Zeus stating something differs from Zeus stating that a dream stated something.

Accent fallacy relies on unclear, unconcise, emphasis and tone presented. This can be verbal or written.

There are various related fallacies, but...

Amphiboly was a related fallacy mentioned by Aristotle. It uses ambiguous, unclear, unconcise syntax and grammar. This can be verbal or written.

--- 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

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

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

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

Preface

USSR flag from Wikipedia

On 20281110, I had recently viewed a World War I documentary on British Columbia's, Knowledge Network. I published this article on Blogger. This article significantly updated 20250813.

Below is a link to a related Blogger article:

Tuesday, July 25, 2023 Baculum, Argumentum Ad III/Appeal to Force
---

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

I believe that on the documentary, a form of the second quote below was stated from Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union. His views on the use of terror.

Word Future Fund

Cited

'From the 1 September 1918 edition of the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta:'

'“We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”'

'Excerpt from an interview with Felix Dzerzhinsky published in Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918.'

'We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession.”'

'Excerpts from V.I. Lenin, “The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (1906) Keeping in mind the failure of the 1905 revolution, Lenin argued that it was imperative for an even more ruthless application of force in the pursuit of overthrowing the Tsar’s regime.'

'“We should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary. And now we must at last openly and publicly admit that political strikes are inadequate; we must carry on the widest agitation among the masses in favour of an armed uprising and make no attempt to obscure this question by talk about "preliminary stages", or to befog it in any way. We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed from the masses the necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination, as the immediate task of the coming revolutionary action.'
---

Vancouver 20181110

It is a good thing to see the founding leader of the Soviet Union actually, historically, exposed within this documentary. This to counter views, sometimes expressed within the Western World, that Soviet thuggery and terror only evolved from original more peaceful intentions.

No, historically, the USSR used thuggery and terror from its beginning. It really lacked significant reason behind it, when facing opposing views, and resorted to terror. A related informal fallacy...

Baculum, Argumentum Ad/Appeal to Force 

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

'When reason fails you, appeal to the rod.' (46). Pirie lists Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin as a classic adherent. (47). This fallacious approach uses force as means of persuasion as the argument would be lost without it. (46). Stalin followed Lenin...

As a worldview, the communism of the USSR and other worldviews as examples, have used (or use if present context is valid) terror to varying degrees. Non-exhaustively, I offer up:

Church State Christianity: Notably, Medieval State-Church Christianity

Radical Islam

Fascism: Notably, Nazism

Communism

---

Does New Testament Christianity promote the use of terror on its citizen and non-citizens?

Admittedly, the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament featured the Kingdom of Israel and a kingdom within this temporal realm will use violence and force. Terror can be an aspect of violence and force, of course, whether it is officially sanctified or/or used by some its officials. Biblical Christianity, however, reasonably and accurately interpreted, within its biblical interpretation, promotes progressive revelation which progressed from the Hebrew Bible theocracy and theonomy, which had its warlike aspects.

Progressive revelation is defined as the understanding that God's self-disclosure is in progression from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 96). Therefore the New Testament offers a more complete revelation. The Old Testament is to be understood in light of the fuller teaching of the New Testament. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 96). At Columbia Bible College (Mennonite) and Canadian Baptist Seminary, I was taught that the Bible is not flat, as there is progressive revelation which ended in the apostolic age. This teaching, even now, as I am firmly Reformed theologically, still fits within my Christian worldview.

Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. (Hebrews 12: 24). The law in particular was only a shadow of good things to come. (Hebrews 10). The law cannot save as in Romans 4, but persons are saved through righteousness of faith fulfilled in Christ. Galatians 2 mentions the folly of following the law as we now have Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 4-6, Jesus explains the deeper spiritual meanings of the law. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is as valid as the New Testament, but it is often stated that we must interpret the Old Testament through the New Testament. Well, I can understand this since there is progressive revelation, but the Old Testament must be read in context, or else one risks reading the New Testament into the Old Testament. Christianity explains that the New Testament revelation of Christ/apostles does not contradict the previous revelation and instead adds to it explaining the plan of God. If my concentration academically in a particular article was on the Hebrew Bible, I would have no problem with studying Hebrew scholars for the original context, but I reason the New Testament can shed light on many of the older teachings. 

The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament must be read in context, and the New Testament should not be read into the Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible should be studied for original context. But, I conclude that Biblically a flat Bible hermeneutical approach which does not properly interpret old covenant teaching through a new covenant amplification, should be academically rejected for one that takes a progressive revelation approach, in order for one to posses the fullness of God’s Scriptural revelation and the gospel message. 

The gospel plan of the New Testament is God’s final Scriptural revelation for humanity. There is therefore no other means of salvation (John 14: 6, Acts 4: 12). Theologically, as examples, Islam is rejected for reasons such as the denial of key doctrines about Christ, including his deity, and the Latter-Day Saints theology is rejected for reasons such as holding to polytheism and henotheism (belief in more than one God, or the belief that more than one God in existence is possible, although only one is worshipped) which are against Scriptural teaching. (Isaiah 43, 44, 45). Christ as the Alpha and Omega, as the beginning and the end (Revelation 1: 8, 21: 6, 22: 13) demonstrates theologically his nature as the one and only Almighty God. There is only one God in existence and only one God that should be worshipped. Mounce states that this title of Christ in Revelation sets Christ beyond the created order and Christ is also unlimited as The Son and has the same divine nature as the Father (and I would add the Holy Spirit). Mounce (1990: 393). 

The religious philosophy of worldview progressed to New Testament dogma which teaches the Church to love believers and non-believers alike with truth and witness. God's ultimate and everlasting punishment for those outside of Jesus Christ in Revelation 20 and the likely largely figurative literal, lake of fire, is sanctioned and issued from an infinite, eternal God that is of infinite love and infinite justice.

The present temporal, or the future everlasting, Christian Church and Christian Community is not sanctioned to use any means of terror in order to culminate its existence. New Testament theology and dogma does not sanction force or coercion into the eventually, fully culminated Kingdom of God. 

The unregenerate are not chosen by God and with significant human freedom and moral accountability, the unregenerate reject the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Post-mortem the unregenerate face everlasting justice and the consequences of sin and death. Hell is described in somewhat metaphorical terms, but the spirit resides in Hades (Luke 16, example) then likely the resurrection body and spirit in the lake of fire (Revelation 20).

The regenerate, chosen by God and with significant human freedom and moral accountability, embrace the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Post-mortem the regenerate, through grace through faith, alone, face everlasting life within the Kingdom of God. Human works righteousness does not suffice for justification, sanctification or any aspect of salvation. A believer in Christ should do works within salvation, but cannot do works for salvation.

For New Testament Christianity, the terror is not within the culminated Kingdom of God, but remains a possibility post-mortem, for those outside of it...

Revelation 22: 14-15: New American Standard Bible (NASB)

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life, and may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral persons, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

Bible Hub: 2965.kuón 

Cited: 

κύνες kynes dogs 

'2965 kýōn – literally, a dog, scavenging canine; (figuratively) a spiritual predator who feeds off others. [A loose dog was disdained in ancient times – viewed as a "mooch pooch" that ran about as a scavenger.]'

Bible Hub: Revelation 22:15

Cited

Pulpit Commentary 

'"The dogs" are those who are described in ver. 11 as "the filthy;" the term is proverbial amongst Eastern nations as an expression for what is most degraded.' 

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 

'The dog, moreover, was an unclean animal; dogs, therefore, are represented as outside the city, because nothing unclean is allowed to enter.'

Bauer states Revelation 22: 15 uses 'dogs' 'Original Word: κύων', non-literally. It means the unbaptized and impure, he opines (461). In other words, those outside of the Church.

---

Revelation 22 is not prohibiting the regenerate from having a resurrected dog etcetera within the culminated of God. Non-exhaustively, this could be understood as prohibiting spiritual predators from Kingdom membership and as well it could be understood as a prohibition against the spiritually unclean. The second option may be the superior one in context.

---

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, 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. 

HOEHNER, HAROLD, ThD, PhD (1985) The Epistle To The Romans, Institute of Theological Studies.

HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.

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

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

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press. 

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

ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Vancouver: 20181110

        

Value of Symbolic Logic for Science & Philosophy

Value of Symbolic Logic for Science & Philosophy

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

Preface

Unlike with my review of the Pirie text, the Langer review text never ended. But I will end this non-exhaustive review with this article, and of course continue to use the book as reference. My PhD was in philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, and my website work consists mainly of these academic disciplines along with biblical studies and philosophy. I am not a scientist or mathematician, but I have reviewed symbolic logic, which has mathematic symbols, for presenting propositions and premises.

Of course when I use science and mathematics, it needs to be accurate. This book review has strengthened my understanding of formal logic as a system, just as the Pirie text review has helped me to better understand informal logic. 

A formal fallacy occurs when a logical form is not used, and therefore is illogical in structure, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion. In the similar way, formal logic is concerned with a logical form, to follow the rules of a logical system, to avoid being illogical. Informal logic is attempting to avoid fallacious reasoning with use of premise (s) and conclusion. 

Key symbols from Langer text

≡df = Equivalence by definition 

: = Equal (s) 

ε = Epsilon and means is 

⊃ = Is the same as 

⊨ is Entails

˜ = Not ∃ 

= There exists 

∃! = There exists 

 ∴ = Therefore 

. = Therefore 

< = Is included

v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives) 

x = variable

. = Conjunction meaning And

0 = Null class

cls = Class

int = Interpretation 

∧ = Logical conjunction

# = Higher in pitch

---

The Value of Logic for Science and Philosophy

Langer opines that the development of logic, such as is used within symbolic logic, is not dependent on psychology or metaphysics. (332). In contrast, the author reasons that logic has greatly influenced the development of science (332-333), and at the same time has 'shifted many a philosophical point of view' (332-333). Using logic it is asked, what are the presuppositions of a view? (333). What are the premises of a view? (333). I agree that presenting logical, reasonable and true premises is crucial within credible academic work.

Langer explains that philosophy, unlike science, does not use sense experience to check errors all the time (333). My add, philosophy is not empirical, at least primarily. It is using reason. I would not go so far to state that the empirical does not at times influence reason, of course it does. Theology may be considered 'philosophy in regards to God', my Reformed, biblical, Christian theology holds to the post-mortem doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the gospels/Acts/Revelation, as examples) and the future post-mortem resurrection (1-2 Thessalonians, Revelation 20-22, as examples) of regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as examples) believers based on the historical, empirically viewed resurrection of the God-man, Jesus Christ.

Cited

'Here let it only be said that general logic is to philosophy what mathematics is to science; the realm of its possibilities, and the measure of its reason.' (334).

Author summary of book

Langer writes that logistics is a specialized system of logic (334), with the purpose to show that the fundamental assumptions of mathematics are all purely logical notions (334), and therefore all mathematics may be deduced within a system of logic. (334).

A number is defined as a class of classes having a certain membership (335). That ''0" is the number in the class of empty classes (335). That "I" is the class of all classes with only identical members (335). 

Cited

'The process of forming a "member" is to define the numerosity of a given class without reference to the number, and then establish the class of all classes similar it. Two classes are similar if the members of one may be put into one to one correspondence with the members of the other. The concept "number", itself, denotes the class of all such classes of similar classes.' (335).

Generalized System of Classes 

Earlier in the Langer text, I reviewed the following: 

Monday, December 11, 2017: An empty class 

This review has progressed where we are now at the point in the textbook where philosopher, Langer explains that we have passed from a system of individuals and predicates, such as a class of white houses (wt) and a class of brick houses (bk). (171). 

This leads to a system of certain classes

< = Is included as in houses = white houses and brick houses. (171). 

Etcetera, including red houses (rd), green houses (gn), wood houses (wd). 

This means that in any universe whose elements are classes there is one class having the logical properties of 'the class of no houses'. (172). This is also known as an empty class, and this class is included in every class of the universe. (172). Langer explains that in each universe there is one 'greatest class' which is analogous to 'the class of all houses'. (172-173). This includes every class is the universe. (173). Langer means in this context, the universe of discourse for symbolic logic. 

Therefore, for any class, there is at least one class 0 included. Therefore, for any class, there is at least one class 1 included. 

(∃0) (a) : 0 < a 

There exists at least one class 0 that for any class a, 0 is included in a. (173). 

(∃1) (a) : 0 < a 

There exists at least one class 1 that for any class a, 1 is included in a. (173). 

0 represents there is a class of no houses in this universe of discourse. 

1 represents there is a class of houses in this universe of discourse. This specific system. (173). 

For any Universe of discourse, such as K (houses) whose elements are classes contains a 0 and a 1. (173). There are houses and non-houses. 

There are Christians and non-Christians, there are Canadians and non-Canadians, etcetera. 

(∃!) (cr) : 0 < cr 

There exists at least one class 0 that for any class cr (Christians), 0 is included in a. 

There is a class of no Christians, in this universe of discourse. 

(∃!) (cr) : 1< cr 

There exists at least one class 1 that for any class cr (Christians), 1 is included in a. 

There is a class of Christians, in this universe of discourse.

---

Boolean

Boolean is an aspect of algebra that is not powerful enough to support mathematics (335). But is used to present values instead of numbers, such as in symbolic logic. I reason symbolic logic also lacks the complexity of premise based, written argumentation. Similarly to symbolic logic, having developed and presented one sentence propositions for both MPhil and PhD questionnaires and surveys, these lack the context needed to develop deeper, sophisticated ideas. When answering these types of questionnaires, one is often left with filling in context and answering based on those deductions. The same could be stated for reviewing argumentation that is strictly using symbolic logic.

The calculus of elementary propositions

The calculus of elementary propositions is extended to general proposition by asserting that the function in an analyzed proposition is true. (336). Not with any specific argument (336), this has to do with format (my add). Because it is format, it has to do with the individual argument, presented this way (336). The calculus of elementary propositions is found to follow the pattern of the elementary calculus. (336).

Any individual, as in the quantifier (x) (336) is taken as primitive (336). Based on what Langer wrote, 

(x) : ax . ⊃ . bx

x equals ax therefore is the same therefore as bx

ax entails bx because the symbols that serve as functions are interchangeable. (336). Every function defines a class, 'namely the class of arguments which it is true.' (336). This class is its extension. (336).

Every function defines a class, namely the class of arguments for which it is true. (336). The class and its extensions. If a class is taken in extension, it can then be stated to be in classes. (336). Therefore, the calculus of classes may be derived from the calculus of general propositions. (336).

Relationship

Defining the relation between classes (336), the author explains that transitions from one sub-system to another have created some difficulties which have been met by developing the 'theory of logical types'. (337). This concept back to Properties of Relations is section 2 in Chapter X: Abstraction and Interpretation. 

With a general or abstract proposition, it is stated 'there is at least one relation, R having certain properties; and the form of the proposition to be expressive of those properties. Relations which have all their logical properties in common are of the same type, and are possible values of the same variable R.' (246). 

The most fundamental characteristic of a relation is its degree. (246). Forming dyads, triads, tetrrads, etc.. (246). Sets of 2, 3, 4, etc..my add. 

A symbol of R2 (246) is also in the form of a R b. (246). The symbolic logic symbols of 'a' and 'b' here are considered identical. (246). These are known as reflexive. (246). Taking one of the examples:

(a) . ˜ (a nt a) (247).

(A) therefore not (house 'a' is north of house 'a') 

In other words, house 'a' is not north of itself. A non-reflexive symbol possibly, but not necessarily, combines a term with itself. (257).

Langer example: 

(∃a) . a likes a (247). (A exists) 

therefore 'a' likes 'a' 

(∃a) . ˜ (a likes a) (247) (A exists) 

therefore 'a' does not like 'a' 

Langer implies that a creature may or may not like itself. (247). 

A transitive relation is such that if it relates two terms to a mean (average my add), it relates the extremes to each other. The significance of this trait lies in the fact that it allows us to pass, by the agency of a mean term, to more and more terms of which is thus related to every one of the foregoing elements. This creates a chain of related terms; in ordering a whole universe of elements, such a relation which transfers itself from couple to couple when new terms are added one at a time, is of inestimable value (too great to accurately calculate in value, my add). This is the type of relation by virtue of which we reason from two premises, united by a mean or "middle terms," to a conclusion''. (248). 

I will not use Langer's now non-politically correct and offensive to many in 2021, language, that was used commonly in the 1950's and 1960's. But the following is based on Langer on page 248. 

All Canadians are human beings 

All human beings are mortals 

----------------------------------- 

Therefore all Canadians are mortals 

--- 

Related equations 

Canadians=c 

Human beings=h

Mortals=m 

(∃c) < (∃h) ∴ (∃m) 

Canadians exist, is included in human beings exist, therefore mortals exist 

(∃c) ⊨ (∃h) = (∃!m) 

Canadians exist, entails human beings exist, equals mortals exist 

Practical philosophy 

The use of a class (term) and related classes (terms) as transitive can assist in the development of valid, logical, reasonable, premises and conclusions (arguments).

Langer finale

For the author, symbolic logic for science is a close relation to mathematics. (337). Logic is indispensable for philosophy because analysis of concepts is the only practical check for error. (338). I agree that propositions/statements always need to be checked for error. I agree that premises and conclusions need to be checked for errors. Symbolically presenting these premises may or may not add clarity to a situation, depending on the writer and as well, the reader. But admittedly, at times, I have found it useful to review premises individually before placing them within an argument in prose form, especially on website work. Such premises could theoretically be presented with symbolic logic and I have done so. Langer opines that symbolic logic 'offers a great deal of direct philosophical material'. (338).

ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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.

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.

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. 

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

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’ in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

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. 

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1983) (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

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

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

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

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847-1848)(1955)(1966) On Authority and Revelation, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, Incorporated.

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1848-1849)(1961) Christian Discourses & The Lilies of the Field and The Birds of the Air & Three Discourses at The Communion on Fridays, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Oxford University Press. 

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing. 

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

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

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

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

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

PACKER, J.I. (1996) ‘Regeneration’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

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

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1799)(1961) On Religion, in Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, New York, Praeger University Series. 

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1821)(1928)(1976) The Christian Faith, Edited by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books. 

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. 

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

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

---

  

Damning the alternatives

Damning the alternatives

@natipervivereamilano Xmas 2024, Facebook. God-willing, I plan to see Milan in April 2025.

Merry Christmas from Milan

Preface  

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

This article originally published on Blogger 20160812, significantly revised 20241225.

Pirie

Quote:

'In cases where there is a fixed and known set of alternatives, it is legitimate to establish the superiority of one by showing all of the others to be inferior. However, in cases where the alternatives are not fixed or known, and where absolutes are not fixed or known, and where absolutes rather than comparatives are sought, it is a fallacy to suppose that we argue for one by denigrating the alternatives.' (75).

This is damning the alternatives. (75).

Example, based on the author's:

A dictatorship, such as the People's Republic of China, will claim that only their form of Marxist, communism is good for China, politically.

Any other form of government is a denied, political possibility. The CCP is not opening up political alternatives for public review.

In Pirie's example, he states '(And he may be proved wrong, tomorrow.)' (75).

Based on author's example:

Wales is a very good team, look at England and Scotland, they are terrible.

Other teams are not being taken into account that might be much better than Wales, and therefore Wales might not be 'very good'. If the author is referencing Rugby League or Rugby Union, as examples, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand are historically, reasonable, better alternatives than Wales.

The fallacy leaves out alternatives.(75). Relevant material is avoided. (75). It is a fallacy of the partisan. (75). It promotes one side by demoting another side. (75-76).

Damning the Alternatives 

Cited

'From Conservapedia'

'Damning the Alternatives is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone ranks favorably a certain position by selectively choosing just its pros while treating all other alternatives with bias, emphasizing solely their cons. From logical standpoint, one cannot prove that the position A is a better one or superior to others just by showing that there are difficulties with other positions. In extreme case, the alternative views are intentionally ignored completely or even suppressed and their supporters persecuted; and/or, all positive alternatives are denied and only negative is promulgated wrt. certain position.' 

Cited

'Randal Hedtke (2010). Secrets of the Sixth Edition. Master Books, 57, 139. ISBN 978-0-89051-597-6. 

Jane E. Miller (2004). The Chicago Guide To Writing About Numbers. The University of Chicago Press, 225. ISBN 0-226-52631-3.'

---

A logical premise can be presented in a statement/proposition. If the statement premise is not contradictory, it can be considered logical, without necessarily being reasonable or even true. A logical premise or premises, can be presented in an argument. If the premise or premises and conclusion are not contradictory, they can be considered logical, without necessarily being reasonable or even true.  

From The Elements of Reasoning: Validity in deductive arguments is a technical term in logic. Elements (1997: 33). The concept of true premises and false conclusion would be 'inconceivable in a valid argument'. Elements (1997: 33). Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33). 

Therefore a valid deductive argument can have: 

False premises and a true conclusion (FT) 

False premises and a false conclusion (FF) 

True premises and a true conclusion (TT) 

However... 

True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid. 

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. These also have true conclusions. Pirie explains that a conclusion must be consistent with the arguments present in support of it. (66). A conclusion must be reasonably and legitimately supported by propositions/premises. 

Briefly reflecting on theology and theistic philosophy of religion

Statements/propositions supporting the Christian worldview should be logical, reasonable and true.

Premise (s) supporting the Christian worldview in an argument should be logical, reasonable, true and sound. Sound meaning that all premises and conclusion are true.

---

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

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973)(eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

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

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

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. 

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

Anecdote

Anecdote

Preface

This photo is from my British Isles-Manitoba trip: Edinburgh on the way to Edinburgh Castle, April 16 2024.

This Blogger article was originally published December 16 2015, with significant additions and revisions on May 11 2024. 

Pirie

Back to the Pirie text review:

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

The author explains an anecdote is a particular story. (41). In contrast, a general assertion explains what occurs in general. (41). An anecdote does not prove or demonstrate the general assertion wrong, but only that something happened in a particular case. (41). The counter-example does indeed prove or demonstrate the general assertion is not universal. (41). The anecdote does not disprove the general assertion. The anecdote does not disprove what generally happens. (41).

'To counter an argument of principle with a few contrary cases is to enter the fallacy of anecdotal reasoning'. (42)

Anecdotal fallacy has similarities to accident fallacy, also in Pirie's text and discussed on this site in two articles. Both involve general and specific cases and arguments. 

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Cited

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Cited 

'Author Information 

Bradley Dowden 

Email: dowden@csus.edu 

California State University, Sacramento 

U. S. A.'

'Anecdotal Evidence

 
This is fallacious generalizing on the basis of a some story that provides an inadequate sample. If you discount evidence arrived at by systematic search or by testing in favor of a few firsthand stories, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of overemphasizing anecdotal evidence.

Example:

Yeah, I've read the health warnings on those cigarette packs and I know about all that health research, but my brother smokes, and he says he's never been sick a day in his life, so I know smoking can't really hurt you.'

End Citation

Anecdotal fallacy

Overruling general knowledge and argumentation via specific anecdotal argument.

Example

Yes, I know cigarettes supposedly according to medical science cause lung and other cancers, but both my Grandpa's smoked like fireplaces and each lived to 90 years old plus and so I smoke every day.

The philosophical red flag that comes to mind is the danger of making what is specific, general and what is general, specific.

Example

Fallaciously making what is specific, general:

Premise: God spoke to me in a dream once.

Conclusion: God speaks to me in every dream.

A problem with this argument is that is that it takes specific evidence from one dream, which does not apply to virtually every other dream (with allowance for a few exceptions) that has occurred. Dreams are typically in the natural realm and one anecdotal dream that may have an aspect to it that was supernatural, does not mean that all dreams have a supernatural aspect and supernatural content.

Composition Fallacy

In contrast

Thursday, June 09, 2016 Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division 

The Composition Fallacy 

Pirie 

Cited

'The fallacy of composition occurs when it is claimed that what is true for individual members of a class is also true for the class considered as a unit.' (62).

'It is fallacious to suppose that what is true of the parts must also be true of the new entity they collectively make up.' (62). 

'This must be a good orchestra because each of its members is a talented musician.' (62).

Blackburn defines this fallacy similarly: '...arguing because something is true of members of a group or collection, it is true of the group as a whole. (71). 

Example

Fallaciously making what is general, specific:

Premise: Human dream content is natural.

Conclusion: Human dream content is always entirely natural.

A problem with this argument is that although all human dreams have a natural aspect, taking place in the human brain, it is not logically impossible, or unreasonable, that a particular human dream could have a supernatural aspect and supernatural content.

References

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

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

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

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource 

Cited 

'References and Further Reading'

'Eemeren, Frans H. van, R. F. Grootendorst, F. S. Henkemans, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, E. C. W. Krabbe, C. W. Plantin, D. N. Walton, C. A. Willard, J. A. Woods, and D. F. Zarefsky, 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 

Fearnside, W. Ward and William B. Holther, 1959. Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 

Fischer, David Hackett., 1970. Historian’s Fallacies: Toward Logic of Historical Thought. New York, Harper & Row, New York, N.Y. This book contains additional fallacies to those in this article, but they are much less common, and many have obscure names. 

Groarke, Leo and C. Tindale, 2003. Good Reasoning Matters! 3rd edition, Toronto, Oxford University Press. 

Hamblin, Charles L., 1970. Fallacies. London, Methuen. 

Hansen, Has V. and R. C. Pinto., 1995. Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press. 

Huff, Darrell, 1954. How to Lie with Statistics. New York, W. W. Norton. 

Levi, D. S., 1994. “Begging What is at Issue in the Argument,” Argumentation, 8, 265-282. 

Schwartz, Thomas, 1981. “Logic as a Liberal Art,” Teaching Philosophy 4, 231-247. 

Walton, Douglas N., 1989. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

Walton, Douglas N., 1995. A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press. 

Walton, Douglas N., 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press. 

Whately, Richard, 1836. Elements of Logic. New York, Jackson. 

Woods, John and D. N. Walton, 1989. Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972-1982. Dordrecht, Holland, Foris.

Vicious sports regress

January 16, 2017

Vicious sports regress

Preface

This posting was published January 16, 2017, and was revised March 29, 2024. 

Some related articles

Monday, October 02, 2006 A Vicious Regress 

Saturday, May 21, 2016 Very Brief On Vicious Regress 

Wednesday, November 29, 2017 A Vicious Regress IV

Prime Time Sports 

This was hosted by Bob McCown on Sportsnet at the time. (Paraphrased conversation)

Prime Time

Caller: The baseball player mentioned, signed with a new agent. But how did he find that agent? Did he not need an agent to find that agent?

Host: The player knows the industry and player agents. If you are meaning that the player needed to find an agent to find an agent, then that agent would need to find an agent to infinitude.
---

Blackburn on Vicious Regress

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324) A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324). An example of a benign regress is infinite numbers both plus and minus, as they in reality represent conceptualized things as opposed to being real things. 'Problem' solved. 

Therefore: Based on my philosophical reading and Blackburn's explanation, it can be deduced that philosophers would debate whether a particular vicious regress is illogical and whether it is using a logical fallacy. A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion. The vicious regress is considered by some an informal fallacy. The fact that it is debated is a clue that it is not a matter of formal, logical, form.

Further: An argument can be logical and not sound, as sound arguments are not the only valid arguments but are those where 'all the premises are true'. Elements (1997: 35). Whether or not a particular vicious regress, and the examples I raised, are illogical and using a logical fallacy in the sense of invalid argument is of secondary importance. It is of primary importance when a vicious regress is not reasonable and does not solve its own problem and is fallacious as in presenting faulty reasoning. I reason. 

Bradley (371) opines that it is not illogical, and not a vicious regress that each act of free choice is caused by another act of free choice. I agree that it is not necessarily illogical, but disagree that the argument as described is not a vicious regress. Bradley mentions that overall, a vicious regress is not necessarily illogical. This point is debated by philosophers. But, I reason a vicious regress is not philosophically reasonable.

This regress can be stopped by stating as premise that a particular agent is sufficient.

Necessary/Sufficient

Texas State: Department of Philosophy 

Department of Philosophy Dr. Craig Hanks

Cited 

Confusion of Necessary with a Sufficient Condition 

A causal fallacy you commit this fallacy when you assume that a necessary condition of an event is sufficient for the event to occur. A necessary condition is a condition that must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event. A necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not provide sufficient cause for the occurrence of the event. Only the sufficient grounds can do this. In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there. 

Cited 

I don't know why the car won't run; I just filled the gas tank. 

A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event.

The vehicle needs to be started too. A missing premise.

I reason that as God is the necessary cause of all things, directly or indirectly, God is also the sufficient cause of all things. As a theistic philosopher of religion and theologian within the Reformed tradition, everything that occurs is caused by God, either directly willed, or indirectly willed, which could also be called, allowed. The necessary cause exists, but contingent caused things only exist when the necessary cause is the sufficient cause.

Blackburn on Necessary/Sufficient conditions

Philosopher Blackburn explains... 'If p is a necessary condition of q, then q cannot be true unless p is true. If p is a sufficient condition of q, then given that p is true, q is so as well.' (73). Blackburn provides the example: Steering well is a necessary condition of driving well... (73). But it is not sufficient, as one can steer well, but be an overall bad driver. (73). Perhaps, one steers very well, but is overly occupied by texting while driving. (My add, and not my practice) 

This concept from Blackburn with the use of symbolic logic, provides a level of complexity, yet consistent and logical at the same time. But providing a true example provides another level of difficulty. 

A solid/true example

Infinite attributes (a) are a necessary condition of infinite nature (b). Infinite attributes (a) are a necessary condition of infinite nature (b), then infinite nature (b) cannot be true unless infinite attributes (a) are true. If infinite attributes (a) are a sufficient condition of infinite nature (b), then given that infinite attributes (a) are true, then infinite nature (b) is so as well.

Based on a 2017 phone conversation, with additions

In a 2017 phone conversation, paraphrased, I referenced in brief, the three examples of a vicious regress, below. 

A god, is caused by a god, is caused by a god, is caused by a god, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause. 

In answer

From a theistic philosophy of religion, perspective, the first cause, can be considered what is necessary and exists by necessity. The necessary is infinite and eternal. The sufficient cause. The contingent is finite, and at best, everlasting.

From a biblical perspective this is Almighty God, infinite and eternal. Finite creations are contingent. God created the finite...

Bible Hub: Jeremiah 10:12 ESV 

ESV (English Standard Version) 

12 It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.

Bible Hub: Jeremiah 10:12 NASB

NASB (New American Standard Bible) 

12 It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. 

Bible Hub: Jeremiah 10:12 KJV

King James Version (KJV) 

12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

I am not a linguist, but a fellow scholar from church mentioned Jerimiah 10:12 to me and I reason it works here. The English versions I chose appear to reasonably match the Hebrew translation to English.

Bible Hub: Jeremiah 10:12 Hebrew

---

A choice is caused by a choice, is caused by a choice, is caused by a choice, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause. 

In answer

Human choice is traced back to human nature. Human nature is traced back to its creator, God, that has infinite, eternal nature and will/choice. God simply is. Existing outside of time eternally, and creating finite, time, matter, energy, space, outside of eternity.

Time is caused by time, is caused by time, is caused by time, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. 

In answer

It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause. 

If time is infinitely past, how do we arrive at the present time?

(We do not)

If there is an infinite distance between Maple Ridge and Vancouver, how do we arrive in Vancouver? 

(We do not)

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

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1

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

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas.http://www.jonathanedwards.com 

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

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

GIJSBERS, VICTOR, (2006) ‘Theistic Arguments: First Cause’ http://positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm pp. 1-2. 

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

MARTIN, WALTER (2006) 'The Mormon Doctrine of God', San Juan Capistrano, Walter Martin.org. http://www.waltermartin.org/mormon.html#mormdoc 

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

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

REED, HOLLY (2004) ‘Jonathan Edwards’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology. 

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) A logical proof that Mormonism is false, Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm 

SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. http://www.utlm.org 

STORMS, SAM (2006) 'Jonathan Edwards on the Will', Kansas City, Missouri. Enjoying God Ministries. Enjoyinggodministries.com http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=368 

TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online. 

TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.