Luke 9: 28-46: Brief on knowing former strangers

New Westminster: Colourized, originally from trekearth

Luke 9: 28-46: Brief on knowing former strangers

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

I recently listened to an online sermon from Pastor Courson on Luke 9: 28-46. The transfiguration is within this section of the New Testament.

In his commentary, Pastor Courson opines as he did in the sermon, that the transfiguration was the Father's intent for humanity, if the fall did not occur.

I have listened to Pastor Courson since 1987; I reason he is not Reformed theologically, but rather is definitely evangelical and at least has some fundamentalist leanings. However, he is a biblical scholar (based on his commentary) in regard to evaluating the Scripture verse by verse. He, at least, adequately exegetes the Scripture. I do appreciate his commentary which I ordered from his ministry.

Bible and Biblical theology

Based on a Reformed biblical view and biblical theology, God wills all things within good and pure motives. The holiness and goodness of God expressed in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

Biblically, from a human perspective, human sin against God occurred willingly and was not forced or coerced as humanity was/is morally accountable. This is documented in Genesis 3 and in Hebrew Bible and New Testament atonement concepts.

Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion

Within my philosophical theological and philosophy of religion approach (s), God causes all things, whether intentionally willing them or willingly allowing them. God is a primary cause of all things.

Human beings can serve as a secondary cause as can angelic and demonic beings. Human beings are the secondary cause of human thoughts and actions where there is significant human moral accountability. This is reasoned to be without divine or angelic/demonic force or coercion in order that humanity significantly embraced these thoughts and actions in moral accountability. If there is no significant moral accountability, I would reason this hard determinism, sometimes defined as determinism, in contrast with my position which is soft determinism, sometimes defined as compatibilism.

Therefore:

The fall of humanity was predestined.

Further:

This was willed by God in order to save those in Jesus Christ through the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, and the eventual resurrection of humanity in moral perfection and immortality (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22).

Based on the biblical record, Peter knew the names and recognized the other two transfigured individuals other than Jesus Christ, those being Moses and Elijah (v 33). Unless Peter was informed of this by human means (biblically undocumented) it seems to be by supernatural, divine means. Pastor Courson reasons that those that opine persons in the Kingdom of God will not remember the past, including known persons, are incorrect. From the sermon (paraphrased) he opines that human beings will not be as stupid as present, and so therefore those in God's Kingdom would know by appearance and name, each member of the Kingdom of God by supernatural means. Former strangers would be known by supernatural means,

Browning explains that some within scholarship state that this section from Scripture is wrongly placed in the gospels (Also Matthew 17 and Mark 9) and is instead a post-resurrection account. (375).  But, Browning rejects this as the form of the narrative is too different than 'Easter narratives.' (375-376).

Stanley Harakas also notes the theory that this is a misplaced resurrection narrative. There are other theories that this is a largely symbolic story in support of the messiahship of Jesus Christ. (579). Other scholars reason it is an historical event presented in literal fashion. (579). Harakas explains that some Latin Fathers reasoned the story was a revelation of the Trinity. Historically, others reasoned this section has allegorical, symbolic and metaphorical meanings. (579).

But on this particular biblical section, I side with Pastor Courson and his largely plain literal approach to the New Testament. The context and the scholarship I have read has me conclude it is a (an) historical event presented in a literal fashion.

Those in Christ in the culminated Kingdom of God, having been purged of sin and provided resurrected, immortal bodies through limited free will and the guidance of the Holy Spirit should posses greater knowledge and intellect than in the previous earthly realm.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

HARAKAS, STANLEY S, (1999) A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, SCM Press, London.

Hasty generalization, yet another accident

Humorsharing.com

Hasty generalization, yet another accident

Preface

Originally published 20170727. Revised for an entry on academia.edu on 20240824.

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

The fallacy of secundum quid is known as the hasty generalization. (182). The fallacy of converse accident.

Hasty generalization, yet another accident

This occurs when a generalization is reached with unreasonable presentations that could also be 'very few' and  'unrepresentative'. (182-183).

Premises and conclusions would be taken from specific cases in attempt to make them generalizations. These will be based on inadequate premises and conclusions.

Based on the author's example on page 183, I provide this from my actual past:

I was in Bristol for an interview in regards to a possible PhD appointment. There were drunk students all over the streets. People must be always be drunk on the streets of Bristol.

'People must be always be drunk on the streets of Bristol', this part is untrue and would be considered the fallacy of hasty generalization. I just happened to see several drunk students out of the very limited amount of people I viewed walking in Bristol, because I was only visiting there for a short time.

As Pirie explains a sample must be 'sufficiently large and sufficiently representative' (183) and when the hasty generalization fallacy is used, the sample is not a sufficient one. 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fallacies 

Cited 

'The fallacy of secundum quid comes about from failing to appreciate the distinction between using words absolutely and using them with qualification. Spruce trees, for example, are green with respect to their foliage (they are ‘green’ with qualification); it would be a mistake to infer that they are green absolutely because they have brown trunks and branches. It is because the difference between using words absolutely and with qualification can be minute that this fallacy is possible, thinks Aristotle.'

Noted citations from that website

'Aristotle, Categories, H.P. Cooke (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938.

–––, On Sophistical Refutations, E. S. Forster (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955.

–––, Posterior Analytics, H. Tredennick (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. 

–––, Topics, Books I and VIII, R. Smith (trans.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. 

Hans Hansen, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020.'

The converse accident fallacy or reverse accident fallacy argues that specific premise (s) leads to a general conclusion. From the qualified (uncertain) to the unqualified (certain).

Converse accident fallacy example:

Y votes for a liberal party

Y is a Christian

Christians vote liberal

Accident fallacy

Accident fallacy has been covered previously on my website and does move from the general premise (s) to the specific conclusion. 

From the unqualified (certain, my add) statement to the statement qualified (uncertain, my add). (7). Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7). Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case. (7).

Accident fallacy example:

Christians vote for a conservative party

X is a Christian

X votes conservative

This distinction can be confusing for the reader as I have found via research the converse accident fallacy is considered within accident fallacy. I am not disagreeing with the definitions. The hasty generalization would be within accident fallacy/converse accident fallacy with a specific premise (s) leading to a general conclusion.

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. 

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

The runaway train

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

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

The runaway train

The runaway train fallacy occurs when an argument used to support an action, would also further support an action. The argument needs to stop at a particular point...(180).

The author's example:

Lowering the highway speed limit from 70 mph to 60 mph might save lives. (180).

Lowering the highway speed limit from 70 mph to 50 mph might save even more lives. (181).

Lowering the highway speed limit from 70 mph to 40 mph might save even more lives. (181).

The speed limit at 0 mph would save the most lives. (181).

This type of fallacy, according to Pirie, occurs when someone advances a general argument for something the arguer regards as a special case. (182). Should the argument only be limited to a special case or should it have more general ramifications? (182).

To counter this fallacy, with the example provided, premises and conclusions which support higher speed limits should also be considered. Lower speed limits may save more lives, but the effects on transportation, the economy, etcertera, need to be considered.

Further:

There are drivers that drive at higher speeds in a careless fashion.

There are drivers that drive at lower speeds that continually hit the brakes. This could lead to accidents and even multi-car accidents.

Both these groups are potentially, dangerous drivers.

Redness?

Redness?

20160506_135347 Colourized, my photo 

Preface

The review of the Pirie text was entry by entry. This was originally published on Blogger 20170725. Edited on Blogger, 20241222, for an entry on academia.edu.

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

Redness  

The fallacy of reification is also known as hypostatization. It consists in the supposition that certain words denote real things. (178). The 'redness' of the sunset, as example. Pirie reasons 'redness' is not present with a red sun, red ball, or red anything. (178).

The fallacy is turning descriptive qualities into real things. (178).

Perceived redness can vary from wavelengths. Oxford Science defines colour as the sensation produced when light of different wavelengths falls onto the human eye. (178). The visible spectrum varies continuously with wavelength ranges. (178). There is an abstract aspect to the human evaluation of colours and how each set of human eyes would interpret the sensations of light and colour.

I see dark red, you see red-blue, etcetera. It is not an error to describe the redness of something in subjective terms, but it should not be understood as objective terminology.

Reification occurs when it is assumed that the descriptive attributes are as real as the objects they depend on. (178).

Logically fallacious

'Reification (also known as: abstraction, concretism, fallacy of misplaced concreteness, hypostatisation)

Description: When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence.

Example #1: How can you not want to go jogging? Look at that street -- it’s calling your name. It wants your feet pounding on it. “Jog on me!”'

'Fun Fact: Reification is similar to anthropomorphism, except that reification does not have to deal with human qualities.' 

'References: reification | literature | Britannica.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/reification ---'

Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy 

Cited 

'Hypostatization 

The error of inappropriately treating an abstract term as if it were a concrete one. Also known as the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness and the Fallacy of Reification. 

Example: 'Nature decides which organisms live and which die. 

Nature isn’t capable of making decisions. The point can be made without reasoning fallaciously by saying: “Which organisms live and which die is determined by natural causes.” Whether a phrase commits the fallacy depends crucially upon whether the use of the inaccurate phrase is inappropriate in the situation. In a poem, it is appropriate and very common to reify nature, hope, fear, forgetfulness, and so forth, that is, to treat them as if they were objects or beings with intentions. In any scientific claim, it is inappropriate.' 

My example: 'Nature chooses the survival of the fittest'. My Reformed, biblical, Christian worldview, also views nature as not capable of making decisions. It is a finite creation of the infinite, eternal, triune God. Nature has various life, but is not a conscious, rational entity in itself.

Cited from Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy website

'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.'

Cited

'Website author

Bradley Dowden
California State University, Sacramento
U. S. A.' 

---

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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