Holy (PhD Edit)

Morguefile.com

Concerning the idea of God being holy, Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling (1999) write the term holy is a Biblical idea, generally meaning to be set apart. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 60). It is described of God who is set apart from his creation, pure from any of the evil within it. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 60).

Mennonite Old Testament scholar Elmer A. Martens (1990) suggests holiness is concerned with the idea of separation, not separation from something, but separation to something. Martens (1990: 94). Biblically this type of holiness has to do with separation of a person to God. Martens (1990: 94).

Augustine writes that God is holy and the sovereign divine governor of the universe who is completely just in punishing evildoers, and God is not the cause of their wrong actions. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). God can rightly judge people because each evil person is the cause of his/her rebellion against God. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3).

I would suggest, from a Reformed perspective, what God allows as an omnipotent being, he therefore wills, but remains moral and holy in nature. This is a compatibilistic, yet Biblical model. Divine motivation remains holy and perfectly good. Theologically, the death of Christ leading to the atonement and resurrection, imputed to believers, is probably the best biblical example of God using the evil within his creation, most notably sinful thoughts and actions of humanity and demonic beings, for the good of his Kingdom.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.knight.org/advent

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

MARTENS, ELMER A. (1990) God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

All cats are selfish?

All cats are selfish?

The existential fallac

Edited for an entry on January 8, 2023

Photo

cat_hiding_in_the_sofa-700x560 anything.net 2016

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

Note

A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion.

Existential Fallacy 

Logically fallacious website referencing...

GOODMAN, M. F. (1983) First Logic, University Press of America, USA.

Cited 

'Description: A formal logical fallacy, which is committed when a categorical syllogism employs two universal premises (“all”) to arrive at a particular (“some”) conclusion. In a valid categorical syllogism, if the two premises are universal, then the conclusion must be universal, as well. The reasoning behind this fallacy becomes clear when you use classes without any members, and the conclusion states that there are members of this class -- which is wrong.'

Cited

'Logical Form: 

All X are Y. 

All Z are X. 

Therefore, some Z are Y. '

Cited 

'Just because the conclusion might be true, does not mean the logic used to produce it, was valid.'

This website is discussing a formal fallacy as problematic. Pirie too documents this as a formal fallacy (219).

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

It is a curious feature of logic that statements that refer to a whole of a class do not actually tell us whether there are members of that class.' (100).

'All cats are selfish.' (100).

Pirie explains that this documents that there are creatures known as cats. Being cats in themselves does not imply that they are selfish. (100). Rather the statement explains that some cats are selfish. It is a statement about a class and not necessarily each member of that class. (100).

It is a fallacy, according to Pirie to draw universal conclusions (100) in making that statement:

'All cats are selfish'. Rather, a more careful statement would be to state that some cats may demonstrate that they are selfish.

This fallacy brings me back to my United Kingdom academic training and the use of assertions versus arguments which would be premise (s) and conclusions. It would be a mere unproven, unsubstantiated assertion to state that 'All cats are selfish'. Instead a reasonable and sound argument is required.

This fallacy consists of placing something into a conclusion, which was not significantly offered as evidence in a premise (s). (100).

Admittedly, in academia, even in a PhD, at times assertions are used as each and every point in a dissertation cannot be argued in a limited space; but key ideas and points needs to be presented in valid argumentation.

Using the Langer text:

∃!=There exists
K=creatures
c=cats
$=selfishness

Below are more reasonable statements than 'All cats are selfish.' These are more reasonable assertions:

∃!=K (Creatures exist)
∃!=c (Cats exist)
∃!=$ (Selfishness exists)

Selfish creatures do exist, but not necessarily, universally cats.

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. 

GOODMAN, M. F. (1983) First Logic, University Press of America, USA. 

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

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers (2016), New York, Shelter Harbour Press.

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

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Travel Destinations on Twitter

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,