The Logical Fallacies Of Hick 's Position

At the conclusion of his presentation, how does Tim Goeglein discuss the Christian’s job in light of these 3 attacks?

In doing this McGrath lets our minds have enough backstory to more easily understand the information given. After giving historical background McGrath breaks down the topic in a very clear format. When talking about Jesus (pg. 58-76) He talks about why Jesus is important “Christology”, but then he educates us by breaking down the considerably large topic of Jesus into more manageable categories such as the names of Jesus; Messiah, Lord, Son of God, Son of Man, God. After going through the names of Jesus he then educates us on other important theological discussions of Jesus like: Functional statements about Jesus, Early Christological Models, The Council of Chalcedon, The incarnation and icons, and Christ as mediator. Then after discussing the ‘meat’ of the topic he then gives us an opportunity to “Engage with a text” at the end of every topic. These texts give different examples and opinions for each topic and then McGrath gives the reader a short series of questions for individual or small group discussion about the text/topic he had given.

The first theme of Youngblood’s book is Monotheism. A basic understanding that makes the reader aware that God is ‘…God, and there is no other” (Isaiah

An argument is an effective strategy used to persuade individuals or public that a general opinion or perception is either right or wrong. Although, as we try to create a reasonable argument, chances are we encounter logical fallacies. A fallacy is a faulty line in reasoning that hinder our ability to make an argument invalid, affecting our ability to argue effectively. Fallacies are more commonly used as a tool to influence opinion or actions of individuals or group of individuals to as to obtain a future goal while obscuring the truth of the matter. These are more commonly referred to as propagandas, which persuades the public to be “for” or “against” certain political ideas, religion, races and opinions as a whole. A propagandist wants invoke

Longenecker thoroughly represents the key theme of understanding by replicating the procedures and beliefs that first-century Christians held. The Lost Letters of Pergamum claim that understanding is exemplified throughout every page and letter of the work despite Antipas’ constant struggle to find acceptance. This would also appear to be the catalyst for the challenges and misunderstandings Christians regularly faced, according to Antipas’ initial reaction to Luke’s Gosepel: “you might be somewhat uncomfortable in your association with Christians. Their reputation throughout the empire is suspect” (41). This section demonstrates the fact that Christians were confronted

Great post. I do agree with you that Hick’s do acknowledge religion as valid as long as it has a transformational aspect in a person life. I also agree with his claim that religions are worshiping the same God and acknowledge God by different name.

He juxtaposes the high hopes he had held for the church based on its supposedly moral standing with its actual state of hypocrisy in which it worships God but turns a blind eye to racial injustice. King then emphasizes this hypocrisy using parallel structure and rhetorical questions to support his argument. By addressing the clergymen directly and using positive words like “hope”, “justice”, and “moral”, he also appeals to pathos to remind his audience of the values that the church stood for and call it to return to those values. Next, King alludes to the early church to show the church’s “powerful” beginnings. He uses a metaphor comparing the early church to a thermostat instead of a thermometer, emphasizing the active role the church must take in standing up for its beliefs and influencing society. By referring to the early Christians as “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators”, King links himself to them, increasing his credibility, and rebukes the clergymen for criticizing him using similar terms. He also explains that the early Christians “pressed on” despite resistance from society because they were “called to obey God rather than men”, further connecting his work with God’s will and implying that anyone who challenged him was challenging God Himself. King then continues to describe the present state of the church. He juxtapositions the strength of the early church with the weakness of the contemporary church and uses negative words like “weak”, “ineffective”, and “uncertain” to show his audience how the church has degraded from its original status. King’s subsequent declaration that the “judgment of God is upon the church as never before” invokes the authority of God to evoke a sense of fear from his audience, thus appealing to pathos. He supports his claim with a cause-and-effect statement that appeals to logos

To start off, Joseph Strorm has control over the people of Waknuk. For example, “He still continues to preach frequently on Sundays and to explain with practical clarity the laws and views … Upon a variety of matters… For the rest of the time, he saw to it that he, and all within his control, continued to set a high example to the district” (Wyndham 17). Joseph preaches words from Nicholson’s Repentances about how differences are terrible. This book is what the society of Waknuk has developed their religion from, so the citizens don’t have any other ideas to believe in. Joseph has manipulated the way the people of Waknuk think, using the Repentances and it has gotten to the point where families will go at each other's throats to report a deviation. Of course, this is what he wants; everyone divided, so they will not rally against him. Unity is true power.

After reviewing Ken White's argument, I have narrowed down a lot of information. The intended audience for White's argument are people who have neutral opinions on gun control and gun laws. When he first talked about the arguments surrounding guns, ths writer states, "It pleases me, it entertains like-minded people and it affirms whatever my "term" already believes (White, p.8)." This expresses the idea that some people already have neutral opinions on gun control. Furthermore, White breaks down the different kinds of terminologies in the gun control debate mean to certain people. The audience is shown two sides of the gun control argument. In conclusion, White is taking no sides. He is simply arguing how people have arguments over gun control. White is also an attorney that specializes in the First Amendment. This means he is open minded and he most likely believes in the freedom of people having opinions

Hick believes that one can only become "morally and spiritually mature" through their relationship with their creator2. Hick says, one must go through the suffering and pain that God allows oneself to endure, to give them the chance to become "a perfected child of God"2. One cannot say that the freedom and responsibly God gives a person to take on is intolerable if one truly wants the priceless relationship God offers2. The relationship with God, "could never be attained without" the choice between bad and good. Essentially one cannot say how much suffering one can endure, or put a price on the prize of God's love, because God's gift with him in heaven is priceless3.

In chapter four, Nash attempts to look at the logical fallacies of Hick’s position. He examines other pluralist claims against exclusivism and its supposed outdated reasoning. The other pluralist that he cites is W.C. Smith, and Paul Knitter. Nash presents these claims by talking about the basic understanding of logic. Nash main point is to point out the truth and validity of the very basic principles of this argument. He points out several rules of logic, in addition, he points out, the idea of truth and its ties to propositions. Then he moves on to differentiate truth and logic with religious claims: “while belief certainly includes more than mental assent to proposition, belief always includes believing something, and that something is a proposition.” It is imperative to note, just like any other claim religion should be looked at in the same way. Nash disagrees with W.C. Smith also. Nash noted, “Smith’s way of handling religious “truth” might appear to solve a serious problem for pluralists (the problem created by their apparent rejection of logic), it only raises new and equally troubling questions.” Therefore, pluralist like these two men that downplays logic and truth will never be able to support their beliefs.

Smith, and Paul Knitter are in direct opposition to each other. Nash affirms that if two truths, which are diametrically opposed to one another, cannot still both be true. This would violate one of the primary laws of logic being the law of non-contradiction. Hick argues that truth can be relative and subjective to the person believing in the truth. In a sense, two truths that are opposite to each other can still be true despite their undeniable contradiction to each other. Conversely, Nash states “truth is a property of some propositions.” Therefore, pluralists have attempted to redefine truth with something other than propositions. However, Nash rebuttals this ideal held by pluralist revealing the usages of truth has to have a basis in property. Truth is not merely a difference in opinion as Smith attempts to define it. Pluralist according to Nash will state that when someone from a certain religion is affirming or denying religious truths they are only stating their opinion or preference for that religion. However, this is not an accurate statement and in order for it to be true, Smith is required to change propositions of all people groups and from a vase array of world religions. Nash relates these arguments like Smith’s idea of pluralist finds their basis in existentialism. Nash affirms that if Smith’s theory is correct, then every follower of each of the worlds’ major religions are wrong and

One component of these chapters that I felt was extremely prevalent was the character development of Huck. There were multiple instances when Huck had to make certain decisions that would effect him in the long run, and with most of those decisions came a moral struggle. It seemed as if within these chapters, Huck is trying to find out who he truly is as a person. One example of these moments is in chapter 16 when he is having an internal battle, trying to convince himself that helping Jim gain his freedom is in fact the right thing to do. The quote reads, “I couldn't get that out of my conscience, no how nor no way. It got to troubling me so I couldn't rest; I couldn't stay still in one place…I tried to make out to myself that I warn't to blame, because I didn't run Jim off from his rightful owner” (Pg. 87). In the quote stated above you can clearly see the internal struggle that Huck goes through, trying to find himself along the way. He looks at the situation with 2 different perspectives, one of them being that taking Jim to gain his freedom is immoral and the wrong thing to do, the other being taking Jim to gain his freedom is the right thing to do. Although Jim knows that either way he will feel guilty but he ends up choosing to take Jim's side because of his loyalty. Jim shows his appreciation to Huck by saying things like, "Dah you goes, de ole true Huck; de on'y white genlman dat ever kep' his promise to ole Jim”(Pg. 92), causing Huck

The Christianity problem follows him since then, because, as his character Tom Sawyer, has to memorize passages from the Bible that emphasis on God’s power, know-all and anger; so that “The Bible’s imprint on his mind remained indelible under the palimpsest of later scientific knowledge. ”(Fischer, 57) Later, when he marries Olivia, he doesn’t continue to read the Bible and starts to doubt of its power to save his soul, because he sees it as a source of myths and unreal stories. These sentiments, first of worship and then of renouncement, are hidden in Huckleberry Finn’s character to whom he imprints his hesitation, whether to be or not a religious person, whether to believe in God or in magic and signs. So Huck is an independent soul, who takes his own decisions that are guided by his own system of values. “Through the character of his beloved Huck, Clemens could indulge his old values of independence, self-indulgence, laziness, skepticism, irreverence and forthrightness.”

Hick challenges theologians to transform Christian Religion to address effectively the modern world, which is now undoubtedly pluralistic. He both criticizes what he considers outmoded Christian in light of recent developments in religious epistemology, while simultaneously suggesting new possibilities for the enrichment of Christian experience as religious experience. While some of these suggestions are certainly open to debate, it is nonetheless certain that Hick, like Columbus, has discovered the "new world"—a new pluralistic world—which all future theology must take into account (although it is clear that, despite this recent discovery, the Indians—though this time the real Indians—have long since beaten us here as well). In light of his