Philosopher Simon Blackburn (PhD Edit)

Windsor Walkway, London:

Philosopher Simon Blackburn (PhD Edit)

Preface

Philosopher Simon Blackburn's work has been very helpful within my academic career, especially in regard to philosophy and philosophy of religion.

His Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy has provided many educational entries. Professor Blackburn explains philosophical entries in a rational and clear manner and yet with the intellectual depth required. This has allowed me to interact with his text and learn from it, even with various amounts of agreement and disagreement on theological and philosophical issues.

Wikipedia: Simon Blackburn

Cited

'As a patron of the British Humanist Association, he has argued against the existence of God, preferring to describe himself as an "infidel" rather than an "atheist".[5] He was one of 55 public figures to sign an open letter published in The Guardian in September 2010, stating their opposition to Pope Benedict XVI's state visit to the UK,[6] and has argued that religionists should have less influence in political affairs.[5] At the same time, he has also argued, in a televised debate, against the claim of "New Atheist" Sam Harris that morality can be derived from science.[7]'

Professor Blackburn's unique personal website

Simon Blackburn

---

Philosopher Simon Blackburn (PhD Edit)

From my PhD thesis

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

I will document the more important thesis entries in regard to theodicy and the problem of evil.

Theodicy 

Simon Blackburn (1996) writes that theodicy is the part of theology concerned with defending the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God while suffering and evil exists in the world. Blackburn (1996: 375).

A reasonable definition of theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, all loving God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists.

The unlimited and unfixed. Blackburn (1996: 193).  In my reasoning, God is considered infinite and his creation finite and therefore limited. Humanist Simon Blackburn, from a non-theistic critical perspective, reasons there are difficulties with the concept of an omnipotent God not being able to make a stone so heavy he could not lift it, as this would make God possibly contradictory Blackburn (1996: 268), but does explain that the classic explanation is that God cannot commit the logically impossible. Blackburn (1996: 268).

William T. Shedd explains that God cannot do what is ‘absurd and self-contradictory’. Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359 Volume 1).  D.Z. Phillips raised similar objections in (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God.  I also dealt with Phillips' interesting work in the PhD thesis and on this site. (March 12, 2016). In my view, this is an answered objection by those such as Shedd. I reason God cannot commit the logically impossible, and God as infinite does not have finite attributes; although God can without contradiction, incarnate himself. In the case of Jesus Christ, his infinite and finite natures do not mix.

Freewill 

Blackburn explains free will theory requires autonomous beings that are able to perform free actions without any significant influence upon their will. Blackburn (1996: 31). He describes autonomy as the ability of agents to govern themselves, and for this to occur autonomous agents must commit actions which are truly their own. Blackburn (1996: 31). Autonomy cannot occur when an outside force is coercing or forcing a will to act. Blackburn (1996: 31).

This definition relates to incompatibilism and related views:

I hold to a Reformed compatibilist view:

If to both compatibilists and incompatibilists, human beings at times can be forced to commit actions against their will, Pojman (1996: 596), it is ever more likely that the human will is not the primary cause in human actions, but the secondary cause if it is allowed to be a secondary determining factor by the primary cause. Pojman (1996: 596).

This concept is describing soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596).

If human beings are forced or coerced to commit human actions, this is hard and not soft determinism.

Therefore

These actions would be done without significant human freedom and therefore it would be intellectually untenable to attach human moral responsibility to such actions.

Within compatibilism human freedom is considered to be analogous to God’s freedom but not equal with it; human freedom is considered limited while God’s is absolute. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 28).

Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will theodicy that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action. Feinberg (1994: 64).

There can be no antecedent conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions) or simultaneous causes of human actions.

Indeterminism and libertarian free will are related terms to incompatibilism. At times used synonymously.

Soft determinism is a related term to compatibilism, at times used synonymously. 

This is contrasted with hard determinism or determinism:

Pojman (1996) explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596).

Within determinism or hard determinism, God causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Pojman (1996: 596).

This could be an outside force, as well, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist, or one could hold to hard determinism.

Schelling suggests that ‘absolute causal power in one being leaves nothing but unconditional passivity for all the rest.’ Schelling (1845)(1936: 11).

This would be a difficulty with accepting hard determinism.

In his article entitled ‘Conditional’ Simon Blackburn writes that an antecedent exists if p causes q. P is the antecedent or prior cause of q which is the conditional and the consequence. Blackburn (1996: 73-74).

Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. Pojman (1996: 596).

Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (1994: 60).

Human Nature

Blackburn writes that some forms of metaphysical libertarianism, postulates that free choice is not causally determined, but is also not random. Blackburn (1996: 218). It is suggested that an agency situated outside of human nature, in regard to making human choice, is possible but likely ‘fantasy.’ Blackburn (1996: 218).

It appears human choice should be traced back to human nature. Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). Blackburn (1996: 218). It appears Blackburn is discussing a human agency. I agree with the use of the term ‘fantasy’ in context as human will is traced back to human nature, in agreement with Edwards. 

---

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

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

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. Jonathanedwards.com. http://www.jonathanedwards.com

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

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

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

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

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

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

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

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

Personality Versus Character

Google+

Link

Psychology Today August 3, 2011, from Alex Lickerman M.D. Happiness in this World

Cited

'Personality vs. Character: The key to discerning personality from character is time'

Cited

'WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Personality is easy to read, and we're all experts at it. We judge people funny, extroverted, energetic, optimistic, confident—as well as overly serious, lazy, negative, and shy—if not upon first meeting them, then shortly thereafter. And though we may need more than one interaction to confirm the presence of these sorts of traits, by the time we decide they are, in fact, present we've usually amassed enough data to justify our conclusions.

Character, on the other hand, takes far longer to puzzle out. It includes traits that reveal themselves only in specific—and often uncommon—circumstances, traits like honesty, virtue, and kindliness. Ironically, research has shown that personality traits are determined largely by heredity and are mostly immutable. The arguably more important traits of character, on the other hand, are more malleable—though, we should note, not without great effort.

Character traits, as opposed to personality traits, are based on beliefs (e.g., that honesty and treating others well is important—or not), and though beliefs can be changed, it's far harder than most realize.'

Cited

'WHY DOES IT MATTER?

The problem in forming judgments about a person's suitability for important roles in our lives (employee, friend, lover, spouse) is that we all have an uncanny predilection for observing attractive personality traits and manufacturing out of them the presence of positive character traits (that is, if someone is outgoing, confident, and fun we're more likely to think they're honest, moral, and kind). But it's far from clear that the one kind tracks with the other. In fact, as I recounted in Listening To Your Inner Voice (link is external), that assumption often gets us into trouble.

We unconsciously tend to connect personality to character for two main reasons: we want to like people we already like, and the most reliable way to assess a person's character is laborious and time consuming.'

End Cited

Briefly for the purposes of this blog post:

The Nelson's text in the Introduction provides a 'Character Study' and states 'many truths about standards of conduct'. (xiii).

Standards of conduct of those mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament being very important in the overall evaluation of human beings.

However, the word 'character' in itself may not always used theologically in English Bible translations. Concepts of human character are Scripturally important although described with various terms as can be seen documented in the differences between the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and King James Version (KJV) translations in the example below. English Bible versions being translations of New Testament Greek manuscripts, complete or fragmented.

Romans 5:3-5

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

3 And not only this, but [a]we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Romans 5:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

In my view, Biblical concepts of human personality are less important in evaluating persons than are concepts connected to human character and standards of human conduct. I would grant that aspects of personality could be considered within the human character, but the overall character of a person and the standards of conduct are more important than his/her personality.

Indeed, the overall human nature of a person needs to be evaluated and considered, with only God having infinite knowledge of any person.

Sin nature and sinful human nature (the second term noted to me and preferred from Dr. William Kay, Bangor University) are theological concepts very much emphasized within Reformed theology.

The Nelson's text providing word study entries:

There is no entry for 'personality' in the Nelson's text, although the Scripture documents in regard to 'person', as in human being and individual. (521).

The somewhat more academic text, 'Strong's Concordance' has entries for 'person' and 'persons.' (1057), but none for personality.  It also does not document the word 'character'.

Thiessen opines it is an erroneous understanding to suppose that Biblically 'there is little or no connection between a man's beliefs and his character.' (29).

'Personality Versus Character' as a theological and philosophical topic, has in particular interested me the last few years. In our present age in private and public contexts, many persons appear to place more importance on human personality than in human character.

In the Western world, politicians with style over substance seem more likely to become elected.

Pop culture stars often become more famous through the use of style and less so by presenting significant and substantial artistic work to society.

Many of the secular relationship 'coaches' and 'mentors' and even some Christian ones, present the case that one should be the 'alpha' and 'type a' person, and yet this clearly places more emphasis on human personality than human character and this approach would not be consistent within a Biblical worldview.

I have completed online psychology personality tests in private and employment contexts and I usually score approximately fifty percent 'alpha' and 'type a' person, the extrovert and about fifty percent 'introvert'.

I would cautiously state that the extreme 'alpha' and extroverted personality examples provided by these psychological tests, based on associated acts and actions would risk presenting a person not of positive Biblical character.

Extreme personality traits extroverted and introverted would risk demonstrating negative character.

An example of the extreme 'alpha' extrovert would be asserting one's will on other persons in a dominating manner with little or no consideration for others and yet the Scripture documents:

Philippians 2:3

English Standard Version (ESV)

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves;

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves,

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

NELSON'S THREE-IN-ONE BIBLE REFERENCE COMPANION,(1982), Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

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

Dyadic & Triadic

Google+

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

Chapter 2: The Essentials Of Logical Structure 

Continued

I noted the following in comments in the last review of this text, but I now see that I need to include this section in the main body of this post for context.

Langer provides further equations continued from the Chapter: pages 53-54

1. I played bridge with my three cousins

2. I played chess with my three cousins (53)

A=Speaker

B, C, D=Three cousins (54)

A br B, C, D (54)

If in chess each player was played separately

A ch B
A ch C
A ch D

A ch (B-C-D)* (54)

*The hyphen which could also be a + expresses an operation when the two terms are united as one. (54)

So this could be A ch (B+C+D)

I take it here the author means uniting B-C-D, as she explains this will be explained more later and must at this point be taken in faith. (54) It is actually three terms, but I take the point and she means two or more.
---
'When a relation-symbol stands in a construct, the number of terms grouped with it reveals the degree of the relation. But when it is not actually used, but merely spoken of, it is sometimes convenient to have some way of denoting its degree. This may be done by adding a numerical subscript; for example, "kd2" means that "killing" is dyadic (a pair), "bt3" that "between" is triadic.' (55).

The examples of different degrees are provided:

ch2
br4  (55)

The author states that two beings named 'John' are not likely to be treated as the same in the language of discourse (56). It is made apparent in context that there is this John and that John. (56).

Symbolic logic provides a new medium of such expression. (57).

For example the following

John a
John b

Are a symbolic way of differentiating between two different persons named John using arbitrary symbols as Langer calls them. (58). Although the example is mine.

Langer writes natural language has a tendency to let one word have and embody many meanings and this leads to in philosophical terms fallacious argumentation and reasoning. (55).

In fact, twisted arguments can be created. (55).

A reason for the use of symbolic logic and reasoning as alternative within philosophy.

In a religious context, philosophy of religion crosses over with theology and there are at times theological arguments that are presented both in natural language and with symbolic logic, and so therefore learning both modes of argumentation is beneficial.

Heavens Gate China Google+

Buzzwords

Google+

Buzzwords

Preface

The review of the Pirie text, entry by entry continues. Revised for an entry on December 16 2023.

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson, Editor, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

The dictionary defines 'buzzword' as a slang (as of 1995, my add). It is a fashionable piece of especially technical jargon and also a catchword or slogan. (179).

Pirie

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

The author correctly states: 'A buzzword is not in itself a fallacy'. (55). 'It is simply a word or phrase used to impress, or one that is fashionable'. (55).

Pirie explains that the fallacy occurs when the word, words, phrase, phrases, are used to 'give more weight' (55) to what is being stated than the arguments or facts in themselves sustain and provide. (55).

Immediately, in a religious and political Western context, particular buzzwords come to mind that could be used by those in ideological and philosophical opposition to provide more weight in statements against those with whom they disagree. Such tactics are used instead of one dealing more accurately with statements and/or arguments presented by both sides.

A few such words and phrases in orange

My comments

Christian, evangelical, fundamentalist

When I was working on my PhD, first at Manchester and then at Wales, my temporary tutor at Manchester, implied that I subscribed to evangelical, fundamentalist views. But in reality, although there was some overlap in sharing a belief in core, gospel, essentials with those groups, I was actually more Reformed than evangelical and a moderate conservative, that was quite philosophical as opposed to a fundamentalist.

Right wing, fundamentalist

As with the previous example, someone significantly more to the left than you, might assume this...

Someone significantly more to the right than you, may assume not...

Far right

Far right, conservative
Left wing, secularist
Radical socialist

These types of terms are as well, terms often used by opponents to dismiss the views of those that disagree with them, because by definition, these views are considered radical, unacceptable and unreasonable; by those using these buzzwords in a fallacious manner.

Terns should be used in a factual context and manner. Pirie mentions that such buzzwords in the public arena (paraphrased) end up being considered more important because of their use as buzzwords. (55). Buzzwords need to be current to be effective. (55). In other words, they need to be fashionable in order that the reader and listener understands them in order to be persuaded. Using current buzzwords, in my humble opinion, is also important when a person wishes to make a buzzword, politically, socially, culturally, relevant. It may not be accurate though...

The author's examples of buzzwords:

'Corporate social responsibility'. (55).

That reads very familiar from my own corporate work experience...

It makes the corporation appear more caring and therefore able to sell more products. (55).

Social responsibility in my mind in also influenced by the times and may reflect morality and ethics based in trends and fashion. The Biblical worldview, however, represents eternal and everlasting morality and ethics from the infinite, eternal God  ( Examples: Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5,  Matthew 5-7, Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10). Eternal morality and ethics from the eternal God, having no beginning and no end as an aspect of God's character. This is an attribute of God. See for example Erickson (284). Everlasting morality and ethics from the eternal God, having a beginning in time with no end, existing within God's finite creation. Note, humanly speaking, morality is internal, ethics is external.

As a term 'corporate social responsibility' is 'looking decidedly moth-eaten'. (55). 'Big data' (56), is another example provided by the author. It is supposed to represent a move forward and 'not many people would favour using less information'. (56).

But what is the definition of big?

But what is the definition of data?

Pirie is correct 'big data' is an example of fairly empty words and phrases. (56). There is a lack of substantial argumentation and fact attached to those types of terms and phrases.

One has to be on top of the fashionable use of words list for the use of this fallacy. (56).

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

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic. 

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

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

 

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

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan. 

SCHULTZ SMAUEL J, AND GARY V. SMITH, (2001) Exploring the Old Testament, Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books. 

SHORT, STEPHEN S. (1986) ‘Mark’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1995) Della Thompson, Editor, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.