Stating one thing, meaning another

Bizarro!

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

'We are guilty of extensional pruning if we use words in their commonly accepted meaning, but retreat when challenged into a strictly literal definition. The fallacy becomes possible because there are two ways of understanding what words mean.' (104).

Basically, words can be taken strictly literally or somewhat figuratively. I have used the academic definitions of 'plain literal' and 'figurative literal' in my work. This was taken from Theology I-II at Trinity Western University and the late Dr. Earl Radmacher.

A friend states to you:

'If you do that, I will kill you.' (If that is literal, you need to cancel this friendship.)

'If you do that, I will kill you.' (If figurative, a friend means they will be at least somewhat annoyed with you.) (My examples).

'We can describe by the properties of what we refer to, or we can give examples. The first is called the 'intension' and the second is the 'extension' of the word.' (104).

Pirie explains this fallacy as 'extensional pruning'. A person under critique retreats to literal definition, from a less literal one, if confronted.  (105).

'All we said is that we'd install a switchboard. We didn't say that it would work.'

'(Nor did they.)' (105).

One goes from the intended to extended meaning.

The dealership had promised us a new vehicle. They then later stated that a vehicle that would run was never promised.

My example retreats to an extension of meaning, as an automobile dealerships fails to defend the unethical dealings of providing a promised vehicle, that does not run.

The foreign, cheaper, discount, surgeon promised my friend a new heart with a transplant. But my friend died when he was given a baboon's heart.

Some animal rights advocates may be pleased, but the foreign, cheaper, discount, surgeon failed to deliver the expected human heart and then unethically retreated to the use of a baboon heart, attempting a defence with the use of 'extensional pruning.' (My examples).

Revelation: Heaven is tainted by evil?

Edinburgh: Pinterest

From the non-dogmatic theology department

Brief and non-exhaustive

Recently in my studies I listened to a sermon (paraphrased) that opined the new heaven and new earth mentioned in the biblical books of Isaiah and Revelation, would be ultimately recreated (re-created), ex nihilo (out of nothing). This opposed to being restored.

As noted, I am not dogmatic on what exactly the biblical new heaven and earth will entail. However, this view reasons that God had to (paraphrased) complete an ex nihilo creation as opposed to a restoration because heaven, like the physical realm of matter through satanic and human falls (Genesis 1-3), was corrupted by the problem of evil because of Satan's access to God in heaven (Job 1).

Heaven is in one sense, being in the supernatural presence of God. In this sense it is a non-physical and supernatural realm. It is not heaven or the heavens with any material meaning. Browning explains that biblically 'heaven can refer to the region of the atmosphere or also to a supernatural world.' (166). Within the view presented there was not a significant distinction between these two concepts of heaven.

In the future (Revelation 20-22) as satanic beings will be cast into the lake of fire, it can be deduced that they will no longer have access to God in heaven. In a spiritual realm, once Satan or hypothetically, any fallen angel is no longer present, there is no evil present in supernatural heaven. Therefore, there is no required heavenly recreation, or restoration, for that matter. God is infinite and divine eternal goodness is not tainted by evil (Mark 10: 18).

Due to the fall (Genesis, Revelation), there is biblically, minimally a need for the restoration of the physical universe, including the earth. I admit that possibly a physical, material, ex nihilo recreation, is reasonable, biblical theology.

The New Testament concept of 'paradise' presents deceased, human beings, spiritually in the presence of God. It may possibly feature simulated physicality for human benefit. (Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12, Philippians 1). I do not see good evidence on why this realm of heaven, being within the presence of God, would be tainted by evil and therefore there would be a need for recreation or even restoration, for that matter. It seems to me that the supernatural heaven in any context, is not tainted by either a satanic or human fall. Through the atonement, reasonably sin could be purged from the spiritual state of citizens of paradise.

Mounce acknowledges that Isaiah did mention the concepts of a new heaven and new earth. (368). This he documents within Isaiah, Chapters 65-66. (368). He notes that 'renovation of the old order is a concept which belongs to the common stock of apocalyptic tradition.' (369). This idea would be in contrast to this view, support a restoration theology as opposed to a theology of ex nihilo recreation. The creation is renewed. (369).

Mounce states:

'Probably the new order of things is not to be thought of primarily as a physical transformation.' (369).

Mounce reasons that most scholars allow for varying levels of literal interpretation in regard to the new creation. (369). In contrast, the view presented appears to support largely plain literal interpretations of eschatological and creation texts, likely within a dispensationalist tradition.

Mounce further demonstrates the rather figurative literal (not mythological) nature of this eschatological language in Revelation. The reference to 'no longer any sea' (New American Standard Bible, my add) is likely a reference to a dread of the sea by many ancient cultures. The sea was viewed as an evil. To state that through the metaphorical use of 'sea' that evil will no longer exist in the new order, seems far more intellectually palatable than attempting to explain the lack of major water bodies in a new creation within an everlastingly liveable universe for human beings.

Although resurrected persons have a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15: 44), they still have physical qualities and live in a physical universe. As resurrected human beings in Christ still have a restored, physical nature and attributes, quite reasonably, the universe and earth should also have restored physical attributes. Perhaps a restored earth will be similar to the pre-fall Garden of Eden? Perhaps it will have more spiritual aspects than at present?

David F. Payne in his 2 Peter commentary opines that everything on the earth will be 'laid bare', is probably a more correct text than stating everything will be 'burned up'. (1569). This would lead to the theology of eschatological restoration as opposed to eschatological recreation.

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

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

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

Tumblr and Google+: This fits with a recreation view?

New York, Boston, London, Paris & symbolic logic

Google+

Continuing on with the review of the Langer philosophical text, learning and sharing findings.

On page 111 it states:

'Express symbolically the propositional forms exemplified by:'

B.

New York is greater than Boston.

London is greater than Paris.

Paris is greater than London.

C.

If Paris is greater than London, then London is not greater than Paris.

If London is greater than Paris, then Paris is not greater than London.

The symbol > as in greater than is suggested for use by Langer. (111).

Some key symbols from the text

˜ = not
⊃ = means the same as
∃ = there exists
∃! = there exists
⊨ = entails

N > B ⊨ B < N
(New York is greater than Boston entails Boston is less than New York)

N > B ⊃ B < N
(New York is greater than Boston means the same as Boston is less than New York)

How New York is supposedly greater than Boston is not defined within this philosophical text.

P ˜ <  L

(Paris is not less than London)

E ⊨ (P, L) Brackets sometimes used for clarification.

Europe entails Paris and London.

∃!E or ∃!(E)
∃E or ∃(E)

Europe exists (There exists Europe).

I can deduce that this type of written communication could, if defined properly, clarify some philosophical and theological issues, or at least provide a different explanation.

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

foxlimousines.co.uk

Low probability fallacy and the supernatural

Piclogy: Twitter, Budapest

Low probability fallacy and the supernatural

Preface 

Edited October 7, 2023 

Back to the review of

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

Ex-post-facto statistics

Pirie reasons:

'...there are innumerable statistical fallacies ready to trap the unwary and aid the unethical.' (102).

'I draw the ace of spades. It was only a 1 in 52 chance, but it came up.

(The same applied to all cards, but one had to come up.)' (102).

'We cannot draw too many conclusions from the low 'probability' of certain past events'. (102).

'The fallacy is committed when we go on to suppose, from the occurrence of events of low probability, that something supernatural was operating...' (102).

This is reasonable from Pirie, in my view.

'This fallacy is a great prop for those who suppose themselves the children of destiny.' (103). Basing this view on the unlikely events that occurred in life.' (103).

There is the scientific concept of probability:

'The likelihood of a particular event occurring.  If there are n equally likely outcomes of some experiment, and a ways in which event E could occur, then the probability of event E is a/n.' Oxford (662).

If there were 7 equally likely outcomes of an experiment, and 8 equal ways in which the event (E) could occur: E=7/8 probability.

The science is also reasonable.

Reasonable and rational, Christian faith and philosophy is not primarily based in subjective views with low probability. The resurrection of Jesus Christ, for example, is documented in the textual religious history, known as the New Testament, and was also attested to by Church Fathers, who were basically disciples of the New Testament disciples and apostles. The resurrection is held to as doctrine because it is textually witnessed by disciples, apostles and associates.

Resurrection as doctrine was held to as intellectually certain, as in internal and external evidences 'for' were significantly stronger than internal and external evidences 'against' and those in the Christian community acted accordingly. The Christian belief is the resurrection of Christ, and the future resurrection of believer's in Christ (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22), for that matter, is not based on either high or low probability.

If interested see in 'search' top right, my writings on 'certainty', which is philosophically, not 100% certainty, because humanity lacks infinite knowledge. From my PhD thesis and website work.

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

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

CLINES, DAVID, J. A. (1986), 2 Corinthians, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

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

EELLS, ELLERY (1996) 'Probability', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 649-650. Cambridge University Press.

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

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

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.

HOCKING, DAVID (2014) The Book of Revelation, Tustin, California, HFT Publications.

KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge. 

MARSH, PAUL W. in Bruce, F.F. (ed.), (1986), First Corinthians, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

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

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

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

SLUGA, HANS (1996) ‘Wittgenstein’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.