On Dualism

On Dualism 

Dualism

Any system of thought which attempts to define the nature of something as composed of two distinct dualities, substances or principles. Pocket Dictionary (1999: 41).

Any view that postulates two kinds of thing (s) in common in some domain, is dualism. In contrast, where this is only one kind of thing (s), it is monistic. Blackburn (1996: 110).

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology

Dualism was only mentioned once in my PhD:

Question 29: God desires that women’s sufferings be understood

Many respondents, 140 (65.7%) supported this idea while only 16 (7.5%) opposed it with a choice of ‘D/DS’. Fifty-seven (26.7%) were ‘NC’.

Gebara writes that Biblical Scripture, which emphasizes differences between male and female, has led to a ‘hierarchical dualism’ that is used to exclude women. Gebara (2002: 5). Gebara reasons evils experienced by women are often linked with the idea they are considered a second, less valuable sex. Gebara (2002: 85). Gebara’s comments demonstrate that her particular feminist views are not supported by the majority of my respondents. Gebara (2002: 2, 85). This is not to imply that many of my respondents do not support feminist theology in some regard.

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives 

From my Mphil:

C.S. Lewis tied in his free will concept with what he saw as the doctrine of the fall. He concluded that this concept was developed by the church fathers to counteract the heresy of Monism, that God produces effects being both good and evil, and Dualism, where two Gods existed, one good and one evil.

Statement six:

This statement stated: Absolute Dualism, a universe containing two co-eternal Gods, one good, the other evil, is Biblically permissible. Of Anglicans 2% were uncertain with this statement, while 98% disagreed with it. With Baptists 2% agreed with the statement, 2% were uncertain, and 96% disagreed with it. Scripture seems to strongly indicate that Satan and his fallen angel partners were created by God, and thus not infinite or equal to God. In Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:16, and Revelation 4:11, it is pointed out that God alone is the creator of all things, and as stated earlier, no being appeared to have existed with God prior to creation.

Statement seven:

This statement stated: Relative Dualism, a universe containing an eternal, infinite, good God, and a finite created Devil, is permissible within a Biblical world-view. The statement is, of course, related to the previous one, and I think this view is expressed in Scripture. Here 74% of Anglicans agreed, while 14% were not certain, with 12% disagreeing. With the Baptists, 86% agreed, 4% being not certain, and 10% being in disagreement.

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

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

LEWIS, C.S. (1961)(1983) A Grief Observed, London, Faber and Faber.

LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio, Barbour and Company. 

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

Worldview, theology, philosophy, not person or persons

This book review continues...

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter Six: Divide and Conquer

Mr. Wallace explains that the religion under discussion is Islam. (45). The people are Muslims. (45). Mr. Wallace makes this distinction on his Fortress of Faith, radio program, as well. A Muslim is a submitted one, and Islam means submission, surrender. (45).

They are not the same. In other words, to intellectually, theologically, philosophically critique Islam as a false religion and false worldview, is not the same as criticizing individual Muslims, those within Islam.

The author reasons that objective arguments are required to critique Islam. (46). To set aside emotions (46) in regard to any Muslim persons and to review factually, the doctrines of Islam. (46).

God willing, I attempt to take an objective (object) as opposed to subjective (subject) matter favouring facts or feelings in regard to academia, intellectual issues, worldview, theology, philosophy.

Examples:

Subjective

'I often prefer the more landscaped British topography to the more natural Canadian topography'.

Objective

'It is documented that Canada has more total area (land and water), than does the United Kingdom'.
---

I do not embrace Islam as I do not hold to its worldview, its theology and philosophy; it is not because of my views of the ethics or morality of any Muslim or Muslims.

Worldview, theology, philosophy, not person or persons is the key is this type of academic review.
---

Recent

Black and white allusion

The Antichrist?

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

I was listening to Mr. Wallace on Fortress of Faith via KARI radio,  while driving home this week. I have not been listening to the program for a long period, so this was the first time I have heard Mr. Wallace theorize that the New Testament concept of antichrist, the man of lawlessness, and related, best
describes Islam.

I have heard this type of theory previously. I certainly respect Mr. Wallace's research into both Scripture and Islam, but to be honest, I have never found the possibility of Islam as the antichrist, very convincing.

It is plausible, but not convincing.

Eschatology can be interpreted in such as way that Kingdom of the Antichrist is simply taken in a preterest context and of the New Testament era. It can also be interpreted in a futurist context as a revitalized Roman Empire combined with a satanic, demonic version of Christianity with a false, satanic Messiah, perhaps Satan incarnate. This could be a form of Islam I suppose.

There are other interpretations, but these types are the ones I hear of and read of most often:

But, the Islamic world is presently far beyond, in power, what I would consider the four main world power blocks (Not a dogmatic order):

The United States of America
Russian Federation
Western Europe/Europe
The People's Republic of China

It does not seem to me that the Islamic world will any time soon, pass one of these blocks in political and military power. I am highly skeptical, that if there is indeed a futurist Kingdom of the Antichrist, that such a Kingdom would occur through Islam.

Antichrist July 2008

Edited

Strong lists the Antichrist four times from the New Testament, and the term Antichrists once. The references are from First and Second John.

Strong's number 473 is noted as ἀντί, and therefore is anti, anglicised. Strong (1986: 13). The number 5547 is χριστός, which is Christ, which Strong's states is from 5548 which means the anointed, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus. Strong (1986: 106). The beast from Revelation 11: 7 onward is figuratively described as θηρίον.

Robert Mounce is a well-known scholar on the Book of Revelation. In Revelation, the Antichrist is the beast and the enemy of the Church in the last days. Mounce states that this may be the beast of Daniel 7: 7. Mounce (1990: 225).

David A. Hubbard writes that the term antichrist is found only in the Johannine letters. The concept is found in both Testaments and in intertestamental writings. Hubbard (1996: 55). Hubbard explains as Christ is not fully revealed in the Old Testament, the Antichrist is not either. Hubbard notes that in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolizes rebellion, and in eschatological terms seems to depict the defeat of God's final enemy, while Daniel 8 describes Antiochus IV who persecuted the Jews and their religion. Hubbard (1996: 55).

The description of the king of the north in Daniel 11 has helped shape the picture of the New Testament Antichrist, as he erected the abomination of desolation, exalted himself to a position of deity, and his helpless death points to Christ's slaying of the Antichrist. The beast from the sea in Revelation 13 points toward Daniel 7 and ties Daniel to the New Testament. Hubbard (1996: 55).

In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark the abomination of desolation recalls Daniel's prophecy and this may be pointing to a single personality according to Hubbard. Hubbard (1996: 55). In Second Thessalonians, Paul describes the man of lawlessness and the lawless one (Second Thessalonians 2:3, 8-9). This man claims to be deity and according to Hubbard is not a pseudo-Messiah pretending to represent God, but a pseudo-God that viciously opposes all other religions. Hubbard (1996: 56).

The Antichrist will do many amazing wonders with satanic power that will be attributed to God (Second Thessalonians 2: 9-10 and Matthew 24). Hubbard reasons that John, like Paul and Daniel, depicts a single Antichrist who demands personal worship. Hubbard (1996: 56). John adds to Paul's version by mentioning the false prophet, the second beast. This person will direct the political and religious workings of the Antichrist. Hubbard (1996: 56).

If the Antichrist is a system as opposed to an actual person, the second beast, the false prophet, could also be an aspect of the system. Mounce writes that the beast has ten horns and seven heads. The ten horns are like Daniel's fourth beast from Daniel 7: 7. Ten kings come from the fourth kingdom. The seven heads can be connected to the seven-headed dragon of Revelation 12: 3. The number seven carries the idea of completeness. Mounce (1990: 250). The beast is given divine permission to rule for forty-two months. Mounce (1990: 254).

The beast blasphemes God in a way similar to Antiochus in Daniel's day, and the Roman Empire in John's day. This means the Antichrist is likely a secular authority. Mounce (1990: 254). The beast will overcome the saints and put them to death, and this too will echo the times of both Antiochus and the later Roman Empire. Mounce (1990: 255). But, as Mounce points out, there is victory in martyrdom for Christians in this era. Mounce explains that the entire world will worship this beast, apart from those written in the Lamb's book of life and the beast will be a type of false Christ described in Matthew 24. Mounce (1990: 255). So, on this last point he appears to differ from Hubbard.

To demonstrate how careful one should be in dealing with eschatology and the issue of the Antichrist, consider the following:

Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. The events and book of Revelation are not relegated to the future, but are understood to have occurred by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476. Mounce (1990: 41). Mounce explains that a major problem with this position is that the decisive victory over evil described in Revelation is not achieved. John views the overthrow of evil occurring with the defeat of Antichrist. Mounce (1990: 42).

The futurist view is more common among scholars and understands that Revelation describes a final victory over evil. Some scholars regard everything after Revelation 4:1 as taking place in the future. But, Mounce sees this as problematic as the book still needs to be relevant for the first-century reader. Mounce (1990: 42). Mounce reasons that no single approach is sufficient. The preterist is correct that the book of Revelation must be understood in a first-century context. The futurist is correct that the book is centrally eschatological describing how this age will come to an end. Mounce (1990: 44).

Mounce also explains the value of the historist approach which sees the importance of specific fulfilment in history. A problem which this view is that it is quite subjective in connecting certain historical events to Scripture. Mounce (1990: 42). The benefits of the idealistic approach are that God can be seen as guiding the events. But, Mounce notes that the idealitic approach may lack a distinct consummation of events. Mounce (1990: 43). Its allegorical method tends to lessen the historical nature of future events. Mounce (1990: 43).

W.R.F. Browning writes that the lawless one is expected before the Second Coming of Christ and has been identified with the Roman Empire and Nero. Beyond the historical dimension, Antichrist is a symbol for a final revolt against Christ, although the revolt is embodied in a historical person such as Judas Iscariot. Browning (1997: 17). By the use of Judas, I reason Browning means that the Antichrist will act as a representative of God and Christ, but in reality represents satanic powers.

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

HUBBARD, DAVID A.(1996) ‘Antichrist’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

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

Logic versus Truth

Logic versus Truth

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

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as ⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And 0
= Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation
--
The Truth of the Proposition

Philosopher Langer writes that in the book, so far, nothing had been mentioned in regard to the truth of a proposition. (188). An implied proposition is true if all the premises are true. (188). The implied proposition could also be defined as the conclusion. If the premises are false, she opines that the proposition may or may not be true. (188). There can be false premises and a true conclusion for a valid argument, but there cannot be true premise (s) and false conclusion with validity. Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33).

Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (FT)
False premises and a false conclusion (FF)
True premises and a true conclusion (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid.

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. A sound argument also has a true conclusion.

Langer explains

Brutus killed Caesar ⊃ Caesar is dead. (188). (⊃ is means the same as).

Since the implied premise is true the proposition is also true (consequent). (188). If Brutus killed Caesar ˜ ⊃ Caesar is dead (my equation using not the same), this would not change the implication that Caesar was dead. (188). Brutus did not kill Caesar; Caesar died in another way.
---

Logic versus Truth

February 13, 2018

Importantly, philosopher Langer explains that there is no guarantee that there is truth in a logical system. (189). Logic does not necessarily promote a fact, rather 'it stands for the conceptual possibility of a system'. (189). Logic documents with the deduction of premises. It stands for 'the consistency of all propositions'. (189). It is standing for logical validity. (189), not factual certainty or truth. (189).

This is standard from philosophy, logic, texts. Certainly not something Langer or I manufactured as original.

In many cases when a person states that a premise or argument is logical, the person means that it is true. But a premise or argument can be logical and false. Therefore, it would be more accurate in many cases to claim that a premise or argument is true and or reasonable.

L ˜ = T

Logic does not equal truth

L ˜ ⊃ T

Logic is not the sane as truth

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.

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

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