PhD: Twitter quote 45
Paraphrased citation
GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter
Monday, January 11, 2021
PhD:Twitter quote 45
Thursday, January 07, 2021
PhD: Twitter quote 44
PhD: Twitter quote 44
PhD version
With citation removed
A traditional orthodox Christian perspective would be that Scripture, at least with primary doctrines, is not inconclusive or ambiguous, but trustworthy as the Holy Spirit inspired chosen persons to write the Scriptures and what is written is what God desired.
Twitter version one
Biblical Christianity views Scripture, as not inconclusive or ambiguous, but trustworthy as the Holy Spirit inspired chosen persons to write the Scriptures.
Twitter version two
Biblical, orthodox, Christianity views Scripture, as not inconclusive or ambiguous, esp. with key doctrines, but trustworthy as the Holy Spirit inspired chosen persons to write the Scriptures.
Tuesday, January 05, 2021
The Orthodox Study Bible: Acts 2: 21
The Orthodox Study Bible: Acts 2: 21
This Orthodoxy Bible uses the New King James Bible (NKJV)
Cited
Acts 2: 21
21 And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.’
In context, the Apostle Peter quotes from the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, Book of Joel 2 28-32.
With these New Testament citations of the Old Testament, as Peter is cited in Acts 2: 16-21, the context provided is not identical as the older original. A reason is that the Hebrew Bible and its covenant, although remaining as scripture, are accompanied by, as in progressive revelation, the New Testament and its covenant (Luke 22: 20 & Hebrews as examples). The New Testament emphasis is the new covenant, doctrines and theology, which replaces the old covenant. Still the Hebrew Bible should be understood as well in its original context within the old covenant.
My focus however in this limited space, website format, is the Acts version. This article will be unexhaustive.
The new covenant...
Sourced
Luke 22:20
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is (a) poured out for you is the (b) new covenant in My blood.
a
Mt 26:28 Mk 14:24
b
Ex 24:8 Je 31:31 1 Co 11:25 2 Co 3:6 Heb 8:8 Heb 8:13 Heb 9:15
PROBLEM: In Acts 2, Pentecost arrives, and the disciples are filled with the Holy Spirit. In response to criticism, Peter says that what they hear and see was “spoken by the prophet Joel” (cf. Joel 2:28–32). Yet, in the passage that Peter quotes, there are events in it that did not happen at Pentecost, like the moon turning to blood. Does Peter err on this occasion?
SOLUTION: First, Peter was simply showing that Pentecost involved a partial or initial fulfillment of Joel 2:28–32. This partial fulfillment was in regard to the indwelling Holy Spirit for believers. And this is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost. Joel says that God “will pour out My spirit on all flesh ... I will pour out My Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28–29). And God did pour forth His Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
Second, Peter’s reference was to indicate that the last days had been inaugurated (cf. Heb. 1:1–2; 2:4). The wonders of the sky above and the signs on the earth beneath (Acts 19–21) are to take place later on in earth’s history at the time of Christ’s second coming. Notice that these things will happen “before the ... great and notable day of the Lord” (v. 20) which is yet future (cf. Matt. 24:1ff).
This excerpt is from When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1992). © 2014 Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe.
The Orthodoxy text states in regards to Acts 2: 16-21, that Joel was one of the early prophets (ninth century, BCE) that proclaimed God's sovereign Lordship and judgement in the last days. (275). With Pentecost the first part of the prophecy was answered with the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit to believers. The second part will be fulfilled at the second coming of Jesus Christ. (275).
Some key New Testament sections related to the second coming are Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12. (My add)
Cited
Key for the Acts-Joel example:
Different Languages: The Hebrew Bible was written in Hebrew, with parts in Aramaic, the New Testament in Greek, with parts in Aramaic.
Indirect quotations: The New Testament writers frequently quote the Old Testament without verbal exactness. Most likely, many of the quotations were from memory. At times the citations were made according to the sense of the Old Testament rather than making a direct quote.
Sometimes the quotations in Scripture are indirect not direct. An indirect quotation does not cite someone directly but does report accurately what that person said.
Indirect quotes were used to emphasize the New Testament covenant, doctrines and theology.
Strong's Concordance
Original Word: ἐπικαλέω
GRK: ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα
Verb-Aorist-Subjunctive-Middle-3rd Person Singular
Corey Keating
Cited
As far as the tense of the verb in the subjunctive mood, it should be remembered that the subjunctive only shows the kind of action (verbal aspect or ‘aktionsart’) and not time. Only verbs in the indicative mood indicate time in an absolute sense. (See intermediate discussion of verb tenses). However, the ‘time’ implied by the subjunctive is usually future since it is a mood of contingency. Thus the future indicative and the aorist subjunctive are closely related and sometimes used in substitution for each other.
Aorist is past tense. Subjunctive is usually, future tense. The middle is neither active or passive.
Humanly speaking, based on the New Testament Greek, and accurate translations, the Lord can be theologically called upon, in biblical times up to present times and future times, within this present realm.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.
---
This article is part of a revised article for this website and an entry on academica.edu.
Friday, January 01, 2021
Philosophy: Induction, Deduction, Abduction
Philosophy: Induction, Deduction, Abduction
PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers (2016), New York, Shelter Harbour Press.Induction versus Deduction
Image: Induction and deduction, page 93.
Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning does not necessarily follow with a logical conclusion. (93).
This text writes that 'inductive reasoning is not indubitably valid...' (93).
Many philosophers today believe that 'inductive reasoning is simply a different way of providing reasons for beliefs.' (93).
My example of inductive reasoning: I bought a book that so far only contains modern Canadian stamps through page 45 of 50. I assume the book only contains modern Canadian stamps.
(Perhaps, but unlikely, the last page has modern American stamps, for example)
This opposed to deductive reasoning. (93). Premise (s) + premise (s) = conclusion.
Abduction
In 'How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument', Kenneth Samples explains three approaches in logic:
Deduction, which establishes with certainty true conclusions
Induction, which establishes probably true conclusions
Abduction, which uses a set of established facts to infer the best explanation.
Samples admits the abduction method is less well-known. Reasons (2014: 2). Indeed, abduction is not mentioned via the index in 'Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers' text under review which is from two years later in 2016. My other new philosophy textbook under review: 'The Little Book of Philosophy' see previous website entry, only mentions deduction via the index, stating: 'Pythagoras also established the principle of deductive reasoning'...(21). This was used to build toward a conclusion, so the text uses 2 + 2 = 4. (21). Therefore premise + premise = conclusion, my add.
Blackburn defines abduction as a term introduced by Peirce 'for the process of using evidence to reach wider conclusion, as inference to the best explanation'. (1). Peirce thought that these findings were to be examined for a rational explanation. (1).
Also citing Blackburn:
He explains that deduction is 'A process of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn a set of premises.' (96).
Peirce, C. S. [CP]. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, edited by C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A. Burks, 1931–1958, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Peirce cited:
As he says, “[a]bduction is the process of forming explanatory hypotheses. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new idea” (CP 5.172); elsewhere he says that abduction encompasses “all the operations by which theories and conceptions are engendered” (CP 5.590).
Abduction relies on inference.
I infer from the accused murderer's sinister smile, during a description of the crime in court, that he/she is guilty of murder.
2. Thagard, Paul and Cameron Shelley. "Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence." Waterloo, Ontario: Philosophy Department, Univerisity of Waterloo, 1997. June 2, 2005. < http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/%7FAbductive.html>'
SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.
Cited
In the philosophical literature, the term “abduction” is used in two related but different senses. In both senses, the term refers to some form of explanatory reasoning. However, in the historically first sense, it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in generating hypotheses, while in the sense in which it is used most frequently in the modern literature it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in justifying hypotheses.
In the latter sense, abduction is also often called “Inference to the Best Explanation.”
This entry is exclusively concerned with abduction in the modern sense, although there is a supplement on abduction in the historical sense, which had its origin in the work of Charles Sanders Peirce
Blackburn's definition on induction sheds some more light...
Induction, Deduction, Abduction
Blackburn cited:
Induction
'The term is most widely used for any process of reasoning that takes us from empirical premises to empirical conclusions supported by the premises.' (192). Induction is commonly 'distinguished from arguments to theoretical explanations.' (192).
From the 'Elements' text, it appears that abductive argumentation is not reviewed.
Inductive arguments are mentioned in the context of 'inductive generalization' where the inference is from some sample of a population to all or some percentage of its members. Elements (1997: 43).
The authors state that there is no 'simple answer' to support evidence for an inductive generalization but statistics are used to avoid 'gross errors'. Elements (1997: 43).
The authors then contrast induction from deduction. The two types of arguments are contrasted. Nondeductive are contrasted from deductive arguments and the terms inductive and induction are used for 'reasoning that generalizes from particular instances'. Elements (1997: 43).
Cited
Deductive reasoning: conclusion guaranteed
Deductive reasoning starts with the assertion of a general rule and proceeds from there to a guaranteed specific conclusion. Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application: In deductive reasoning, if the original assertions are true, then the conclusion must also be true. For example, math is deductive: If x = 4 And if y = 1 Then 2x + y = 9
Cited
In this example, it is a logical necessity that 2x + y equals 9; 2x + y must equal 9. As a matter of fact, formal, symbolic logic uses a language that looks rather like the math equality above, complete with its own operators and syntax.'
Cited
Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely
Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence.
Cited
Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot
Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete. A medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning: given this set of symptoms, what is the diagnosis that would best explain most of them? Likewise, when jurors hear evidence in a criminal case, they must consider whether the prosecution or the defense has the best explanation to cover all the points of evidence. While there may be no certainty about their verdict, since there may exist additional evidence that was not admitted in the case, they make their best guess based on what they know.
Cited
While cogent inductive reasoning requires that the evidence that might shed light on the subject be fairly complete, whether positive or negative, abductive reasoning is characterized by lack of completeness, either in the evidence, or in the explanation, or both.
Cited
References
'1. Verfaillie, Catherine. "Adult Bone Marrow Stem Cells Can Become Blood Vessels." News release from the University of Minnesota. Jan. 30, 2002. June 1, 2005.
Brief Comments
Academically, in my writing, I rely more on deductive reasoning and arguments than inductive or abductive reasoning and arguments, but certainly make use of all three in academia and life. With deduction I am seeking to present, a logically consistent, reasonable premise (s) and conclusion. Or a logical, reasonable, statement/proposition, if not an argument. Induction relies on probability and abduction relies on inference.
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.
DIELS, H. and W. KRANZ, 1952, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (in three volumes), 6th edition, Dublin and Zürich: Weidmann, Volume 1, Chapter 14, 96–105 (Greek texts of the early testimonia with translations in German. Referred to as DK.).
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers, New York, Shelter Harbour Press.
PEIRCE C. S. [CP]. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, edited by C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A. Burks, 1931–1958, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)