The power of positive linking (The joy of commenting)

Trekearth, Greenich

The power of positive linking, the joy of commenting...or not.

It has been very encouraging the past year with gaining new readers, commenters, and links. I have been gaining more than losing and so the Lord is helping my blogs to progress. Thank you to all my readers, commenters and links with this site and satire and theology.

A blogger can remain primarily within his or her own denomination or group and write a very good blog. I have stated this before, but I will state it again, unless one is quite well-known in his or her field in which he or she is blogging, he or she needs to network with others on-line, or risk basically writing an on-line journal that only a few persons ever read. As it is, even with a very modest roughly 50 unique blog links between my two blogs, it is still difficult to write articles that receive significant attention. Some desire only to have a small blog and that is not wrong.

These are some of my thoughts:

Blog trolls should not be tolerated, and I apologized for involving readers with my latest troll's comments and then deleting all the related troll incident comments. I allowed the blog troll's comments from a person that likely knows me in person and is a Facebook friend. I allowed the comments in order to easily counter the primarily false things stated about me, which were presented in the form of a personal attack. This type of controversy is good for blog traffic as satire and theology had its best day of traffic so far, but I think the negative environment overall puts me in a bad mood and creates unnecessary speculation concerning the troll on the blog. From now on I will likely deal with a troll's comments without publishing a personal attack.

Taking blog trolls out of consideration, on my blogs and related links, we primarily debate issues in a good spirit. On my blogs there have recently been discussions concerning my PhD topic of free will and determinism, and also the topic of singleness. These topics are controversial and have been discussed on both of my blogs as one can see if one searches through the archives. Please remember, I am not trying to offend anyone, but please be open-minded and not overly defensive. If you disagree with me, that is fine and state your case if you desire. There is no point in us ignoring each other, or arguing on and on concerning issues of disagreement when we usually agree and can offer each other much needed blog support. We can state our case and disagree on secondary issues as Christians, agreeing on essentials in Christ. As for my non-Christian links, I will never attempt to force my theological views on anyone, and we can simply agree to disagree on the topic of Christianity and feel free to challenge me respectfully, and once again there is no point ignoring each other, or in arguing on and on, as we can state our case in one or maybe two discussions and move on.

Pragmatically, too much disagreement and debating makes blogging too much of a chore and is too time consuming. As a Christian in a type of ministry, I present my case to Christians and non-Christians and leave it for persons to ponder on. At the same time, I can ponder on the points of others and may change my mind in the future.
If we write-off a blog because we have a significant disagreement with it, although we usually are in agreement, we are hurting our own networking blog cause, and it is very tough to find readers, commenters, and links as already noted.

In my mind, thekingpin68 is a more important blog than satire and theology, however, about half of my readers appear to disagree, including two of my former pastors. Some find thekingpin68 too academic, and others find satire and theology too ridiculous and/or too hard-hitting. The traffic for both blogs is basically identical and satire and theology receives a few more comments and thekingpin68 has a few more links. For those of you that only like one blog that is fine, but I offer my other blog as a link. I have no intention of setting up the program with Blogger that lists blogs and the most recent article, although thank you to those of you that have my blogs listed that way. As long as one of my blogs is listed as a permanent link on your blog I will link you back, provided your blog is not anti-Christian or very objectionable in my view. Many do not use the actual names of my blog in linking me and that is fine. I am stating that I do not have to be on your main links list, but I would like to visible in order to willingly link you back. I am not really concerned if I am in one's featured top list or whatever. The two blogs really feature the same controversial worldview, and both are presented respectfully. I will link with respectful Reformed Christians, non-Reformed Christians and non-Christians under the guidelines I just mentioned.

In regard to comments, I already spend twenty hours or so on blogging per week. I refuse to 'reinvent the wheel' and therefore unapologetically at times do cut and paste previously posted material and will place it in comments. I do not have the time and energy to retype out assertions, arguments and information over and over again and will have even less time to do this as a professor, and when I am looking for work as a professor. It is quite time consuming researching and writing my own blog postings on thekingpin68 and satire and theology, plus commenting for my blog links, and commenting on newly found blogs that I might wish to link with in the future. Thanks for understanding.

Here are some more terms:

With social research methods and statistics:

Validity: A concern with the integrity of the conclusions that come from a piece of research. It usually refers to measurement validity. Bryman (1999: 545). Measurement validity is the degree to which a measure of a concept truly reflects the concept. Bryman (1999: 541).

Within philosophy:

Validity: In its primary meaning it is whether arguments are valid or invalid according to whether conclusion follows the premises. Premises and conclusions themselves are not valid or invalid, but are true or false. Blackburn (1999: 389). From my reading, an argument is considered valid as long as it does not have a true premise and false conclusion. A valid argument can have a true premise and true conclusion, false premise and false conclusion and a false premise and true conclusion. An argument can have more than one premise.

So, one can have these valid combinations:

tt

ff

ft

But not

tf

This is stated in The Elements of Reasoning written by David A. Conway and Ronald Munson on page 34.

Premise: Bloggers can blog primarily within their own group.
Premise: Bloggers can primarily avoid web networking.
Conclusion: This will likely result in a small blog.

I am not stating a small blog is necessarily bad, or that a large blog is necessarily good.

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

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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









Thank you!

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/07/happy-little-
semiautomatic-assault.html


Jeff Jenkins sent me this photo of me and an unnamed woman. I do not know who she is but she seems to want to have priority in the photo.

These are my terms

These are my terms

Vestruskaftafellssysla, Iceland (photo from trekearth.com) 

Preface

My MPhil and PhD theses work has included the study of philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, Biblical studies, empirical theology, social research methods and statistics. 

Empirical theology

Leslie J. Francis explains that an element of practical theology is the use of empirical data. Francis (2005: 1). William Dean reasons that empirical theology begins with a particular speculative view of life, which in turn leads to the use of the empirical method. Dean (1990: 85-102). Clive Erricker, Danny Sullivan and Jane Erricker comment that empirical theology questions how theology relates to social sciences. Erricker, Sullivan and Erricker (1994: 6-7). Empirical theology is better known in Europe and the British Isles than in North America, but consists of using social research methods and statistics to come up with empirical data concerning theological concepts. My MPhil and PhD theses both contain the use of questionnaires and sections which include statistical analysis of the data. Interestingly, I have found that within philosophy of religion and social research/statistics the same terms are sometimes used, but not with the exact same meanings. This can make remembering terms tricky, as for my work I need to remember some terms in two contexts, and occasionally more. 

Here are two examples: 

Empiricism

Bryman mentions the classic and philosophical use of the term, which I have found in philosophy and philosophy of religion. This a general approach to reality, which suggests knowledge is only knowable through sense experience. Other forms of knowledge would not be acceptable. Bryman (2004: 7). Bryman then defines the term more specifically in regard to social research and statistics and states that ideas must be subjected to testing before they can be considered knowledge. This would be considered an accumulation of facts. Bryman (2004: 7). Empirical theology would view findings from questionnaires as at least possible actual theology, and some would consider the findings equal with Scripture. I have rejected this approach and still reason that theological deductions based on Scripture are more important in developing doctrine than are findings from questionnaires. Although questionnaires can be helpful in discerning the theological mindset of those surveyed, as God has inspired his Scripture through historical persons his theological views take precedence as truth over any contrary views found statistically. Empirical theology can point out weaknesses in how theology is perceived and presented. My findings for both my MPhil and PhD theses demonstrate that Reformed views concerning God and his sovereignty in regard to the problem of evil are not properly understood within the majority of the Christian Church. 

Positivism

Blackburn writes that within philosophy this view holds that the highest or only form of knowledge can be known through sensory perception. This is a version of empiricism. It focuses on optimism from the hopes of science and originated in the 19th century and relates to evolutionary and naturalist theory. Blackburn (1996: 294). Bryman writes that within social research and statistics, positivism advocates the use of methods of natural sciences for the study of social reality and beyond. This concept can include only knowledge confirmed by the senses. Bryman (2004: 11). Logical positivism, which is also known as logical empiricism, accepts empiricism, but also allows for the power of formal logic to describe the structures of permissible inferences. Blackburn (1996: 223). Richard A. Fumerton explains that some positivists have allowed for the idea that a proposition can be meaningful if it is likely to be true. Fumerton (1996: 445-446). Fumerton notes that a strict positivism leads to a rejection of religious and moral philosophy. Fumerton (1996: 445). A view that combines the need for empiricism as a method of finding truth and allows for non-empirical rational philosophical propositions that are also considered a form of truth, because the rational philosophical propositions are logical and cannot be reasonably contrasted by superior counter propositions, would be a view that would work with a Christian worldview. Perhaps a form of logical positivism could offer this reasonable compromise position between empirical science and related views and philosophy of religion and theology. 

Rationalism is the view that unaided reason can be used in finding knowledge without the use of sense perception. Blackburn (1996: 318). Christian theology uses philosophical reasoning, and a priori knowledge in deducing the existence of God, and this could be considered a form of rationalism and some logical positivists could accept rationalism in conjunction with an acceptance of empirical science. A priori knowledge can be known without the use of sensory experience in the course of events in reality. Blackburn (1999: 21). A posteriori knowledge can be known through the use of some sensory experience, and if something is knowable A posteriori it cannot be known A priori according to Blackburn. Blackburn (1996: 21). I realize the Francis link now appears dead, but I used the information from the page within my PhD. 

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

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

DEAN, WILLIAM (1990) ‘Empirical Theology: A Revisable Tradition’, in Process Studies, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 85-102, Claremont, California, The Center for Process Studies. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2791. 

ERRICKER, CLIVE, DANNY SULLIVAN, AND JANE ERRICKER (1994) ‘The Development of Children’s Worldviews, Journal of Beliefs and Values, London, Routledge 

FRANCIS, LESLIE J. and Practical Theology Team (2005) ‘Practical and Empirical Theology’, University of Wales, Bangor website, University of Wales, Bangor. http://www.bangor.ac.uk/rs/pt/ptunit/definition.php. 

FUMERTON, RICHARD A. (1996) ‘Logical Positivism’ in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

     

The dangers of sentimental theology II

Campo Del Moro, Spain (photo from trekearth.com)

This is my first attempt at writing an article earlier than the posted date. This is supposed to post July 1 at 00: 00: 01. This is a revised version of a previous article I wrote on this blog. I view this article as one of my more important ones and have thought that it needs more feedback. I have therefore reposted it with some changes in the hope that with my slightly increased readership more persons will find the article valuable and worth pondering on. The previous article was 'The danger of sentimental theology' and this is 'The dangers of sentimental theology'.

The last few years I have thought more about death than previously. I am not obsessed with the subject, but part of my focus with the Christian faith, and Christian theology, within the problem of evil and theodicy, is attempting to understand in some ways, what exists beyond death. In the last few years a few people that I have known have died, where as in previous times the only deceased persons I had known were my grandparents. I had lost pets to death, which is difficult, but it is not the same as losing a person to death for which one has had personal conversations on more than one occasion.

Scientifically and empirically (by use of the senses) it appears that human beings die and all that is left are physical remains. Some religions and religious persons believe in an existence of the human spirit that exists after death. In the media, and at funerals it is said sometimes that the person that has passed away has gone to a better place. This is speculative, assumed and hoped for, since the departed was usually and seemingly a good person, humanly speaking. This appears to be sentimental theology, and by that I mean theology that is primarily driven by feelings, that is speculative and lacks a significant use of reason that can be supported by historically based religious revelation. Please note, I am not stating that all theological speculation is lacking the significant use of reason. The naturalist can dismiss this sentimental theology on empirical grounds. Simon Blackburn defines naturalism as generally a view that nothing resists explanation from methods of natural sciences. A naturalist will therefore be opposed to the concept of mind-body since it allows for the possible explanation of human mental capacity outside of science. Blackburn (1996: 255). Henry Clarence Thiessen explains that naturalists reject the idea of God and view nature as self-sufficient and self-explanatory. Thiessen (1956: 32).

A Christian theist such as myself can reason that the person that has died was morally imperfect as we all are, was part of, and affected by, the problem of evil, did not receive direct communication from God normally, and likely not at any point, prior to death. From this there is not an obvious reason to realistically, and reasonably assume that a person that has passed away goes to a better place within a speculative theistic model which lacks historically based religious revelation. Within a speculative theistic model, I would reason that if a person lives an earthly temporal life apart from direct communication with God, then it is reasonable to assume that if God does grant everlasting life, it will not be some type of heaven in God’s presence, and therefore not necessarily a better place.

Biblical Christianity is not dependent on sentimental theology. Millard Erickson writes that natural theology deduces that God can be understood objectively through nature, history, and human personality. Erickson (1994: 156). But, it should be stated that although natural theology can perhaps bring a person to a limited knowledge of God, it does not provide revealed information concerning salvation or everlasting life for human beings.

Erickson explains that Biblical revelation views God as taking the initiative to make himself known to followers. Erickson (1994: 198). This would be a more effective way than natural revelation as God reveals personal things about himself through his prophets, apostles, scribes, and of course Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. It can be reasoned that this revelation is documented in the Bible with persons that are historical and not mythological. Thiessen writes that God revealed himself in the history of ancient Israel. Thiessen (1956: 33). God is presented as personally appearing to chosen persons in the Hebrew Bible through dreams, visions and directly. Thiessen (1956: 34). Thiessen explains that miracles were also noted to occur within the Hebrew Bible, miracles being unusual events that were not a product of natural laws. Thiessen (1956: 35). The Hebrew Bible and New Testament present historical persons that experienced the supernatural God and supernatural occurrences. Some will accept the historicity of these persons, but deny the supernatural aspects of the Bible, but according to the New American Standard Bible presented by Charles Caldwell Ryrie and the Lockman Foundation, approximately 40 authors wrote the Biblical texts over a period of approximately 1600 years. Ryrie (1984: xv). Not all these persons knew each other and yet spoke of the same God that revealed himself progressively over time. The atoning work and resurrection of Christ was documented and discussed by several historical authors within the New Testament and through this work everlasting life is provided to followers of Christ. The book of Revelation describes the culminated Kingdom of God in Chapters 21-22.

The New Testament provides information about the historical Jesus Christ and his followers in historical setting and this gives much more credibility for theology concerning the concept of life after death in the presence of God, than does sentimental theology which denies or twists the concepts of Scripture in order to fit some type of speculative theistic hope for everlasting life which is devoid of the significant use of reason and revelation. This is a dangerous way to approach God and life, as there is not convincing evidence for believing that God will provide a departed person with meaningful everlasting life, outside of revelation from God explaining by what means he would bring a person that has passed away into his presence forever, and/or place them in a better place.

There are many spiritual dangers associated with sentimental theology which include false hopes, and false theology. The ultimate danger is being wrong about God, and not receiving his everlasting grace and mercy.

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

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

RYRIE, CHARLES, CALDWELL (1984) The New American Standard Version Bible, Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.

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

Trying to understand the critic

Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Heads up!

I quit flying with Air Transit (Air Sardine Can) because of lack of leg room. I heard on the news recently that they were adding leg room.

Both the critic and Christian can agree the certain human needs are not met in this world. The blind need to see, the starving need to eat, and the sick need to be healthy. It is natural to desire that basic human needs to be met, and it is natural for human beings to seek fulfilment. The Christian should accept that God exists and has revealed himself and his plans in a limited fashion in Scripture, and that God is just in willingly allowing the problem of evil. God has a plan to remedy evil through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, and the eventual culminated Kingdom of God. The critic will often reject this supernatural revelation and related theology, especially if he/she is not a theist. The Christian may reason that God is the first cause and that this makes much more sense than the idea of an eternal universe with a vicious regress (a regress that does not solve its own problem as in this case an infinite past cannot arrive at the present) or non-eternal universe beginning to exist by chance. The critic, especially if not a theist, may reject the idea of the Biblical God as creator.

The critic and Christian can share in anger and frustration toward God. I know this is a controversial subject, but to suffer great loss and disappointment effects both the critic and believer alike. I can relate to the critic’s anger with God, but through my studies of theology, Biblical studies, and philosophy of religion, I reason that Scripture and reason inform me that as God has revealed himself through prophets, apostles and Christ, he is worth trusting in as a good God. Therefore, theologically and philosophically the existence of God, or his existence as a benevolent God is not dependent on human needs and human fulfilment being met. This does not mean that if a need is not met, it is not a true need, but rather that God has more important needs and plans in regard to an individual. This is often very brutal and very painful to tolerate and accept for persons, including myself. But when God’s perfect nature is understood, and imperfect sinful human nature is understood, God can be viewed as using the problem of evil for the greater good while dealing with creatures that according to the book of Romans, do not have their own righteousness, will not seek God on their own, and have sin that makes them worthy of death. The concept of a post-mortem punishment and separation from God is also noted with everlasting hell from Jesus’ teaching and with the lake of fire in Revelation, Chapter 20.

The critic and Christian can agree significantly concerning the difficult nature of this universe and the harsh way in which God often treats persons who all eventually end up dead, whether they trust in Christ or not. Human beings cause some suffering upon themselves through wrong actions which God willingly allows, but other things happen to persons that God has willed that were out of human control. The critic could claim that this type of evil makes God’s existence unlikely, but one should know that intellectually denying historically based Biblical supernatural revelation is problematic, and that the problem of origins without a first cause God presents a greater intellectual problem than does the problem of evil. If one does not have some reasonable explanation for origins and first cause, one will also not significantly understand where the process of human existence is being directed. I am very much in favour of the study of science, and not judging science by Scripture, but science in itself does not provide the meaning of life that Biblical revelation does.

End



Philosophical theology and philosophy of religion are the two main featured disciplines in my MPhil and PhD theses work. Philosophical theology deals primarily with problem of evil/theodicy issues from theological and Biblical perspectives, whereas philosophy of religion deals with the same issues primarily from philosophical perspectives. Another distinction would be the academic department where one takes a dissertation. My theses have both been completed in Religion and Theology departments, but could have been completed in philosophy departments without major changes in the projects, I reason.

This being said, I have had to read through philosophical journals and texts and some of the terminology is different than one will often find in theology and Biblical commentaries. This can be challenging work.

Here is one example with some practical explanation. Terminology is often made simpler by a little bit of study and reflection. Therefore this aspect of the article is really not all that difficult to comment on once terminology is somewhat understood. I discuss these terms since one may come across them while reading philosophy of religion material.

Counterfactual Conditional:

Simon Blackburn notes that these are also known as subjective conditionals, although the terms do not always coincide. Blackburn (1996: 85). A counterfactual is a conditional (hypothetical statement) of a form if p were to occur q would, or if p happened q would occur, where the proposition of p is contrary to the known fact, which would be not-p, this would be a counterfactual conditional. Blackburn (1996: 85-86). So simply stated as example, ‘if your hand had been broken, the diagnosis would have been different, would be a counterfactual condition even as the facts are that the hand was not broken. Blackburn (1996: 86). Blackburn explains that there is growing awareness that the classification of conditionals is ‘extremely tricky business’ and categorizing them as a counterfactual or not may be of limited use. Blackburn (1996: 86).

Wayne A. Davis provides another explanation in that contrary-to-fact conditionals, which are subjunctive conditionals presuppose the falsity of a prior proposition. The example used states ‘If Hitler has invaded England, Germany would have won’. Davis (1996: 163). Counterfactuals presuppose and do not assert the falsity of the antecedent (prior) statement/proposition. Blackburn notes that wherever the conditional (hypothetical statement) comes out true, p (the contrary proposition) would be false. Blackburn (1996: 86).

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

DAVIS, WAYNE A. (1996) ‘Counterfactuals’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

End

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/friday-fun-playing-age-game.html