Whitehead & The Infinite God

From Theodicy and Practical Theology, The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David. PhD, thesis. 

Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’ Whitehead (1926: 153). His Process theology is a philosophical approach that does not rely on any kind of divine revelation.Viney (2008: 1). Instead it relies on a process of change over time as a theory of metaphysics. Viney (2008: 1). God’s actual concrete nature is responsive and influenced by the processes that take in the world, and therefore God is limited.

Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. However, God could still be infinite completely in nature and willingly allow evil to exist within his creation, which shall be discussed particularly in Chapter Three as a Reformed view. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.

July 21, 2017 

What exists as necessary is good.

God exists as necessary.

Therefore, God is good.
---

Evil, if it exists at all, it is a corruption of the good. For God to be proposed as infinitely good and infinitely evil, would mean that the infinite evil is not defined correctly as evil.

VINEY, DAVID (2008) ‘Process Theism’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1926) Religion in the Making, New York, The MacMillan Company.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1927-1929)(1957) Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press/MacMillan Publishing Company, Incorporated.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1967)(1986) ‘Adventures of Ideas’, in Forest Wood JR., Whiteheadian Thought as a Basis for a Philosophy of Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, University Press of America, Inc. http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2736&C=2479

Mistakes Columbo Villains Make

Columbo

Mistakes Columbo Villains Make

Preface

Slight revisions on July 8, 2023

Non-exhaustive. I have not seen all Columbo episodes, but I have viewed a significant amount. I am not an expert on Columbo or any television program.

A non-typical, but yet philosophical, article from me...

Mistakes Columbo Villains Make: A man's got to know his limitations

Columbo Wikipedia

'Columbo is an unassuming police detective of Italian descent whose clothes are disheveled and whose trademarks include wearing a rumpled, beige raincoat over his suit, and smoking a cigar. He is consistently underestimated by his suspects who, while initially reassured and distracted by his circumstantial speech, become increasingly annoyed by his pestering behavior. Despite his unassuming appearance and apparent absentmindedness, he is extremely intelligent and shrewdly solves all of his cases and secures all evidence needed for a conviction. His formidable eye for detail and relentlessly dedicated approach, often become clear to the killer (and even the viewer) only late in the story line.'

The Columbo formula:

'In almost every episode the audience sees the crime unfold at the beginning and knows the identity of the culprit, typically an affluent member of society.'

End citations   

This 'typically an affluent member of society' is successful within the world system, and might often be considered an intellectual of sorts. A mistake typically made by the villains is to assume that his/her affluence, success and intellect, is at an extremely high level and therefore he/she can deceive the police and not be charged with murder.

Another related typical mistake made by these villains is to underestimate the intellectual ability of an expert detective, Lieutenant Columbo, to find enough evidence to legally charge him/her with the crime of murder, due to his greater knowledge and experience in crime solving. Because of how Columbo presents himself, as many times, not that smart, he in a sense catches the villain off guard, in most of the episodes I have viewed, it seems to me. Therefore, a lesson from Columbo is that intellectual superiority in the villain's area of expertise does not equate with intellectual superiority in an area where the villain is less familiar; crime solving.
---

For the context of this website, this article serves as a reminder to those critics of biblical studies, theology, religious studies and philosophy of religion that have no significant training in these academic disciplines and yet assume these are pseudo-academic disciplines. The lesson is useful in many other instances as well. But, if I was transported into a fictional Columbo universe, I would not expect to get away with murder because I have a PhD. 

I state that I am finite and sinful...

Romans 6: 23 is appropriate here.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

---

The Kansas City Chiefs are the Super Bowl Champions, but would not be the favourites against a very good American high school, baseball team, playing in a baseball game.

Dirty Harry: Magnum Force (1973)

'A man's got to know his limitations.'

La Campagna: Italy, trekearth

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Refuting the example

Five places to teach abroad: Seoul

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

Refuting the example

Examples are often used in support of arguments. When critics attack the example and not the central thesis, it is considered fallacious and is known as refuting the example. (176).

Based on Pirie's example: (176).

'Teenagers are bad-mannered these days.' 'A teenager was running and bumped into me yesterday and did not apologize to me'

Pirie based reply:

'That is wrong, as the boy in question, was no longer a teenager.' (176).

The interjected complaint and example in regard to the incident with the former teenager does not support the central premise that 'teenagers are bad-mannered these days'. The young male mentioned in the example, is not a teenager.

Example premises:

'Right-wing, American fundamentalist, Christians do not regard science seriously enough.'

'Russ Murray on his blog, mentioned the Kingdom of God, which is not scientific.'

I am not right-wing, I am a moderate conservative, I am slightly right of centre, politically, and it would be a very debatable premise to call me right-wing, if the concept of far right is meant.

I am a moderate conservative, biblical Christian within the Reformed tradition. Incidentally, sadly, some within the University of Manchester, Religions and Theology Department committed the fallacy discussed, on this point, assuming I was an American, fundamentalist, Christian, or at least a Canadian of the same views.

According to my two passports, I am Canadian and British. I do not possess an American passport.

Discussing the Kingdom of God, academically, would make sense in the context of theology and biblical studies. I also do discuss science concepts at times with academic references.

The example does not support the premise.

The red herring

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

Riot Act, Inc

Related entry April 26

Ignoratio elenchi 

'An ancient fallacy identified by Aristotle. (128). When one attempts to argue something, but instead succeeds in arguing something else. (128).'  Based on my reading some commentators view these as the same fallacy. Regardless, they are related. This is a reminder than even technicalities and terminology are debated at times, within philosophy and academia.

The red herring

This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is used to divert people away from the point being made, and to proceed to a different conclusion. (174).

'You never remember my birthday.'

'Did I ever tell you what beautiful eyes you have?' (175).

Logically fallacious

'Logical Form: Argument A is presented by person 1. Person 2 introduces argument B. Argument A is abandoned.'

Person A premise: I enjoy reading Russ Murray's websites.

Person B premise: He looks a bit like a twelve-pack, kingpin.

My muscular, non-pretty boy, non-six-pack appearance is not related in context with the quality or lack of quality of my written presentations.