Theodicy: Origin in brief

Bachelor Christmas tree: Is that a red rooster (red bird) on the top?

From: Theodicy and Practical Theology, 2010, The University of Wales, Trinity Saint, David.

The term theodicy arose from G.W. Leibniz’ book in 1710 entitled Theodicy.

Robert M. Adams (1996) notes that the word theodicy is from the Greek, as theos is God and dike is justice. Adams (1996: 794). Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world. Adams (1996: 794).

The Eighteenth century was when Leibniz’ book Theodicy, Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998) was published and this era of history was when much of the modern debate concerning the problem of evil and theodicy began.

David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion explains that geniuses over the ages have continued to look for proofs and arguments concerning God. Hume (1779)(2004: 2). Theodicy would involve demonstrating that God exists and is good even as the problem of evil exists.

ADAMS, ROBERT. M. (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics.

Star upside down for more light

This is exclusive

The fallacy of exclusive premises

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

Pirie

'The standard three-line argument called a syllogism has two premises and a conclusion, the premises are the evidence and the conclusion is deduced from them.

If both of the premises are negative, no conclusion can be validly drawn from them and the fallacy is called the fallacy of exclusive premises.' (98).

Pirie's example of this fallacy:

'No handymen are bakers, and no bakers are fishermen, so no handymen are fisherman'. (98).

This fallacy incorrectly excludes one category of persons from another category of persons, without sufficient evidence to do so. Pire explains: "...some people genuinely believe that if a group is excluded from something, and that group is excluded from something else, than the first group is also excluded from it.' (99).

In the religious studies context, no baptist is charismatic, no charismatic is Reformed, therefore no baptist is Reformed, should be the type of reasoning strictly avoided!

Lander University: Philosophy

Greenwood, South Carolina

Cited 

[The Fallacy of Two Negative Premisses or Exclusive Premisses[ 

"No internal combustion engines are nonpolluting power plants, and no nonpolluting power plants are safe devices. Therefore, no internal combustion engines are safe devices."

Cited 

'This information is of no use to see how the terms in the conclusion are related.'

In other words, the claims are shown as invalid as the connection between them is not clearly presented by the claims provided. Further, I was taught at British, PhD level to avoid the use of negative premises and conclusions, (especially when preparing survey questionnaires) and I attempt to follow this on my website. This approach does assist with both clarity and in avoiding potentially fallacious presentations.

Lander University is helpful here from the link provided: 

Cited 

'Note also that both premisses are negative. As most people are intuitively aware, knowledge about what a thing is not, does not carry much information about what that thing is.' 

Agreed.

Lander in agreement with Pirie:

Cited

'Our Rule of Quality states that no standard form syllogism with two negative premisses is valid.'

Within a valid syllogism argument, a negative conclusion requires a negative premise, to avoid a formal fallacy. But again, I attempt to avoid the use of negative premises.

Langer

Using symbolic logic with positive statements:

Key

∃! is There exists

h is handyman

b is bakers

f is fisherman

(∃!) h=b (There exists (∃!)  handyman that are bakers)

(∃!) b=f  (There exists bakers that are fisherman)

(∃!) h=f  (There exists handymen that are fishermen)

There exists (∃!)  handyman that are bakers. There exists bakers that are fisherman. There exists handymen that are fishermen. This is reasonable, think Alaska, small rural America, Northern Canada, Northern Russia, Northern China, as hypothetical examples.

I managed to slip in a review of both philosophy texts, under review from cover to cover, on this website, in one entry...

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

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

LANDER UNIVERSITY (1997-2020)  Syllogistic Fallacies Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Syllogistic Fallacies: Exclusive Premisses 

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/exclusive_fall.html 

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

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

This entails to stay in the system

Google+ Richard Wanderman

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

Briefly, back to the Langer, philosophical text in Symbolic Logic, which I am slowly, due to other projects, reviewing from cover to cover:

A statement of a system in entirely specific terms requires a particular statement and equation for each assertion. In a general account, it requires fewer statements and equations. (101). Therefore, 'K (L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S) fm2'
K=interpreted as "creatures".
fm=interpreted as "fellowman of" (101). Or as I explain, in fellowship with. Langer explains, that 'of every two creatures it is either true or false that one is the other's fellowman.' (101).

Some key symbols from the text

˜ = not

⊃ = means the same as

∃ = there exists

∃! = there exists

⊨ = entails (new for my review)

Therefore

(a)˜ (a fm a)=A is not the fellowman of a. One is not the fellowman of self. (101).

(a fm b) ⊃ (b fm a) =A is the fellowman of b means the same as b is the fellowman of a. (101).

John is the fellowman of James, means the same as James is the fellowman of John.

(a fm b) ⊨ (b fm a) =A is the fellowman of b, entails b is the fellowman of a.

Langer writes it is not explained in this system anything beyond that these elements have been documented as creatures. Elements may even be one and the same creature. (102). If, within a different system, two of the creatures were the same, even as represented by two different elements; for example (a, b) were the same creature:

˜ (a fm b)=A is not the fellowman of b, as they are one and the same creature. (102).

This is mental gymnastics, but what can be reasoned is the need for an understanding of a philosophical system in context. A review is required that does not reasonably go beyond the information provided.

The exception that proves the rule

Instagram Vancouver

The exception that proves the rule

Edited on August 13, 2022.

This is part of the Pirie text review.

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

Cited

'Exceptions of course, disprove rules. Despite this, many people confronted by a counter example to their claim will dismiss it as 'the exception that proves the rule'. This fallacy consists in the dismissal of a valid objection to the argument.' (96)

Pirie reasons:

'Even in the specialized case, the exception disproves the universal rule. The trouble with sweeping statements is that it really does take only one exception to negate them. (97). The exception that proves the rule fallacy for Pirie is for those with intellectual and philosophical neat and tidy categories, that do not want exceptions that disprove the universality of their views, disturbing their worldview. This would be a fallacy used at times by those that are not interested in working through theological and philosophical tension within their worldview.

Jesus Christ stated in John 14: 6, the theological claim of the exclusivity of Jesus Christ for any human being to know the Father, to know God. This is an exclusive claim with no exceptions, as with central biblical, gospel, doctrines. But this does not mean that all Christian doctrine therefore has no exceptions. This would have to be examined contextually and objectively. For example, do all speak in tongues? (1 Corinthians 12). Rhetorically no. Yet, tongues is such a controversial topic, the extremes ranging from every Christian should speak in tongues via the Holy Spirit, to no one should speak in tongues as the New Testament, apostolic era is over.

Pirie example:

'Medical advances are made by painstaking research, not by chance. I know there was penicillin, but everyone knows that was a chance in a million.' (97).

Pirie, claims therefore the rule is not universal in regard to medical research. (97).

There could be other medical and scientific breakthroughs, made more so through trial and error than by directed painstaking research, although most of the time, painstaking research is required for significant findings.

My example:

Only countries with a large population and large base of players can win the FIFA World Cup; Uruguay winning the championship twice was many decades ago and was an exception to the rule.

Admittedly, this type of reasoning can be very easy to fall into.

I would suggest when required, replacing universal claims with general claims, with exceptions, in order to avoid fallacious reasoning such as Pirie names: 'The exception that proves the rule.'

---

To answer the graphic. There is not an exception to every rule.

Memegenerator.net

The exception proves the rule

Source

MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN IDIOMS AND PHRASAL VERBS (2002) by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

'Something that does not follow a rule shows that the rule exists. (Often used facetiously, to justify some rule you have proposed but which someone else has listed exceptions. From a Latin phrase meaning that an exception tests a rule.) Ellen: Men are always rude. Jane: But Alan's always polite. And Larry and Ted are polite, too. Ellen: They're just the exceptions that prove the rule. Bill: All the shows on TV are aimed at people with low intelligence. Alan: What about that news program you like to watch? Bill: The exception proves the rule.'

In these cases, there are no real, absolute, rules. Again, I would suggest when required, replacing universal claims with general claims, with exceptions, in order to avoid fallacious reasoning such as Pirie names: 'The exception that proves the rule.'

---

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

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

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

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

ELLIS, DAVID J. (1986) 'John' in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

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

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books. 

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

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

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN IDIOMS AND PHRASAL VERBS (2002) by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/the+exception+proves+the+rule

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.

ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

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

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