PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC

 Logic, a fundamental aspect of human reasoning, encompasses several key processes that contribute to the systematic and coherent structure of our thoughts. Here, we'll explore some essential principles of logic:

1. Deduction: Deductive reasoning involves drawing specific conclusions from general principles or premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. It is a top-down approach that aims for certainty in its conclusions.

   
   

2. Induction: In contrast to deduction, inductive reasoning involves making generalizations based on specific observations. It moves from the particular to the general and is inherently probabilistic. Inductive reasoning is crucial in scientific inquiry, where observations lead to hypotheses and theories.

   
   

3. Abduction: Abductive reasoning is the process of forming the best possible explanation given the available evidence. It involves identifying the most likely cause or explanation for a set of observations. While not as certain as deduction, abduction plays a crucial role in everyday problem-solving.

   
   

4. Analogical Reasoning: Analogical reasoning involves drawing parallels between different situations or scenarios. By recognizing similarities between them, one can transfer knowledge or solutions from a known context to an unfamiliar one. Analogies are powerful tools in creative thinking and problem-solving.

   
   

5. Conditional Reasoning: This type of reasoning involves understanding and evaluating “if-then” statements. It explores the logical connections between conditions and their consequences. Conditional reasoning is prevalent in everyday decision-making and problem-solving.

   
   

6. Boolean Logic: Boolean logic deals with binary conditions: true or false, yes or no. It's a crucial aspect of computer science and mathematics, where logical operations involve the manipulation of binary values using AND, OR, and NOT operators.

   
   

7. Syllogistic Reasoning: Syllogisms are logical arguments that consist of three propositions: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The conclusion logically follows from the premises. Syllogistic reasoning helps to assess the validity of arguments.

   
   

8. Critical Thinking: While not a specific process, critical thinking is an overarching skill that involves evaluating information, identifying biases, and making reasoned judgments. It incorporates various logical processes to enhance decision-making and problem-solving.

   
   

9. Fallacy Identification: Understanding logical fallacies is crucial for recognizing flawed arguments. Fallacies are errors in reasoning that can undermine the validity of an argument. Being able to identify and avoid fallacies is essential for maintaining logical coherence.

   
   

10. Decision Theory: Decision theory involves assessing choices based on probability, utility, and preferences. It provides a framework for making rational decisions in uncertain situations, taking into account potential outcomes and their associated values.

In conclusion, the principles of logic are diverse, ranging from deductive and inductive reasoning to analogical thinking and decision theory. Developing proficiency in these processes enhances our ability to think critically, solve problems, and make informed decisions in various aspects of life.

Navigating Moral Waters: Understanding Kant's Categorical Imperative

 Introduction:

Immanuel Kant, an influential figure in modern philosophy, bequeathed us with the Categorical Imperative—a moral principle that transcends personal desires and situational circumstances. In this blog post, we will unravel the intricacies of Kant's Categorical Imperative, exploring its foundations, formulations, and implications for ethical decision-making.

1. Foundations of Kantian Ethics: Kant's moral philosophy centers around the concept of duty and the idea that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. Unlike consequentialist approaches, Kantian ethics emphasizes the importance of intention and the moral law that governs human conduct.

2. The Categorical Imperative Defined: At the core of Kant's ethical system is the Categorical Imperative—a universal, unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings. Kant presents various formulations of this imperative, but a central idea remains: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

3. First Formulation: Universalizability: Kant's first formulation challenges individuals to assess whether their actions could be consistently applied as a universal law without contradiction. This prompts a shift from subjective preferences to objective principles, demanding individuals to consider the implications of their actions on a broader moral scale.

4. Second Formulation: Humanity as an End, Not a Means: The second formulation underscores the inherent value of humanity. According to Kant, individuals should act in a way that respects the dignity and autonomy of others, treating them as ends in themselves rather than as a means to an end. This principle safeguards against exploitation and promotes mutual respect.

5. Implications for Ethical Decision-Making: Applying the Categorical Imperative requires careful consideration of one's motives and the moral implications of an action. It encourages individuals to think beyond immediate desires and consider the broader ethical landscape, fostering a sense of moral duty that transcends personal inclinations.

6. Critiques and Contemporary Relevance: While Kant's Categorical Imperative has enduring appeal, it is not immune to criticism. Some argue that its rigid universality may overlook the nuances of specific situations. However, many contemporary ethicists find value in Kant's emphasis on rationality, autonomy, and the pursuit of moral principles.

Conclusion: Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative stands as a beacon in the realm of ethical philosophy, challenging us to navigate the complex waters of moral decision-making with reason and universal principles. As we delve into Kantian ethics, we discover a framework that transcends personal biases, inviting us to embrace a moral duty grounded in rational reflection and a profound respect for the inherent worth of humanity.

Unveiling Dispensationalism: Understanding its Foundations and Impact

Introduction: Dispensationalism, a theological framework that interprets the Bible through a series of distinct eras or dispensations, has been a significant influence on Christian thought for over a century. In this blog post, we will delve into the foundations of dispensationalism, its key principles, and its impact on the interpretation of Scripture.

1. Defining Dispensationalism: Dispensationalism divides human history into different periods, each marked by a unique way in which God interacts with humanity. These dispensations are often seen as distinct economies of God's dealings, and proponents argue that this approach provides a clearer understanding of God's overall plan for humanity.

2. The Scofield Reference Bible: Dispensationalism gained widespread recognition through the Scofield Reference Bible, published in the early 20th century by theologian C.I. Scofield. This annotated Bible presented a dispensationalist perspective, offering commentary and explanatory notes that became influential in shaping the theological views of many Christians.

3. Key Dispensationalist Principles: Dispensationalism typically identifies seven dispensations, including innocence, conscience, human government, promise, law, grace, and the millennial kingdom. Each dispensation is characterized by a unique set of divine principles and responsibilities, providing a framework for understanding the evolving relationship between God and humanity.

4. Eschatological Significance: One of the distinctive features of dispensationalism is its approach to eschatology—the study of end times. Dispensationalists often emphasize a pre-tribulation rapture, a literal interpretation of biblical prophecies, and the importance of Israel in God's future plans.

5. Critiques and Alternative Views: While dispensationalism has a significant following, it is not without its critics. Some theologians argue that the system imposes artificial divisions on the biblical narrative and may lead to a fragmented understanding of God's redemptive plan. Others advocate for covenant theology, presenting an alternative framework for interpreting the Bible.

Conclusion: Dispensationalism continues to shape the beliefs of numerous Christians around the world, influencing how they approach Scripture and understand God's plan for humanity. Whether embraced or critiqued, this theological framework has left an indelible mark on Christian thought. As we explore dispensationalism, it's essential to engage with its principles critically, recognizing the diversity of perspectives within the broader Christian community and fostering thoughtful dialogue on matters of faith and interpretation.

CONJOINED TWINS - WHAT HAPPENS IF ONLY ONE COMMITS A CRIME?

 Have you ever wondered what would happen if one conjoined twin committed a crime, but the other was innocent? This is a thought-experiment occasionally encountered in Law schools. To paraphrase English jurist William Blackstone, “It is better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent suffer.” 

The issue of determining how to punish the perpetrator without wrongfully punishing an innocent party has been contemplated by legal experts around the world. It is not overly challenging when considering a relatively minor crime (e.g., petty theft). Although the crime prosecuted is not necessarily easily resolved - such a scenario does not constitute deprivation of either party of their freedom or life. However, even a fine assessed against an innocent party would constitute, if not cruel,  at least unusual punishment.

What would you do if tasked with deciding a case in which only one of the conjoined twins committed murder? Would you be justified in assigning, at a minimum, a charge of co-conspiracy against the conjoined twin for merely being present at the time of the murder? Mere presence, absent some indicia of either aiding or abetting, to include encouragement, what justifies the filing of criminal charges against both parties?

Further complicating the matter is a consideration of rights against self-incrimination. The 5th Amendment, in addition to other things, protects against self-incrimination. In light of the fact that the innocent twin is innocently linked to the guilty twin and would undoubtedly suffer any punishment imposed upon that guilty twin, does the 5th Amendment vitiate the duty of the innocent party to assist in prosecuting the crime?

If the prosecution were to pursue both twins and circumstances were such that the trials should be severed, how could this occur? Judicial economy does not necessarily trump the right/demand that individuals be tried separately. Even a charge of either co-conspiracy or accessory to a crime may not preclude the propriety of separate trials. What safeguards may be reasonably employed to avoid having the jury impute the guilt of one to the other?

One of the best known examples involving conjoined twins Lazarus and Joannes (“John”) Baptista (named after John the Baptist) Colloredo. The twins were employed in a carnival sideshow in the 1600s. The account is related as one in which Lazarus killed a drunken man who accosted the twins.

The matter is further compounded by the following: (1) John was a “parasitic” twin (i.e., this occurs when an embryo begins to split, but does not complete the process - one sibling stops growing, resulting in a part of the twin parasitizing the other); (2) John did not speak, kept his eyes closed and mouth open all the time. John’s head, upper body and left leg protruded from his brother’s belly. 

The complete disposition of this case is not known. However, historians inform us that the courts, having found Lazarus guilty of murder, were unwilling to execute him because this would inexorably result in John’s execution, as well. The exact dates of death are unknown.

There is another case involving Chang and Eng Bunker. Although this case involves an incident that allegedly occurred in America, the twins were from Siam. They gave rise to the term “Siamese” twins. The incident apparently involved an incident in which a spectator attending one of their exhibitions too-forcefully squeezed Chang’s hand. In response to this affront, Chang punched the spectator.

Chang was charged with assault. However, the presiding judge ruled that although Chang should be sentenced to jail, doing so would be cruel and unusual punishment imposed upon Eng.

Eng enjoyed robust health toward the end of his life. Chang, on the other hand, suffered a stroke, paralyzing the right side of his body. For the remainder of his life, his right leg needed to be suspended in a sling.

Historians tell us : “Early in the morning of January 17, one of Eng’s sons checked on the sleeping twins. ‘Uncle Chang is dead,’ the boy reportedly told Eng, who responded, ‘Then I am going!’” Eng died within a few hours of his brother’s death.

Chang’s and Eng’s deaths demonstrate how inexorably linked such twins are. In reflecting upon this, a fair arbiter must tread carefully when analyzing cases involving two very closely linked parties, only one of whom is directly involved in the commission of the crime under consideration.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL/MURDER

 Pastor:

Your sermon today dealt with, according to your numbering, the 5th Commandment (i.e., “You shall not murder.”) In recalling quite a discussion that arose during a Bible Study at St. Paul’s in Concordia, I began researching Exodus 20:13 in the Hebrew text. However, my confusion was compounded when I found the following:

(1) Exodus 20:13: לא תרצח (Lo tirtzach) “(You[sing.]) No murder”

and

‎(2) Exodus 20:13: רָצַח (ratsach) “to murder, slay, kill”

Would you be willing to shed some light on which of the foregoing terms appears most accurate? Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Good Morning!

Thanks for the message.  Not every day that I get to dust off my Hebrew syntax and morphology!  

So, after looking at what you have asked about, לא תרצח (lo tirzach)doesn't seem, at least as I look at the root for  תרצח being רָצַח (ratsach), to have any kind of reference to singing.  So, what we have, then, in Exodus 20:13 is לא (lo) which means "not, no, un-, without, -less; northing" (according to BDB, and of course, it depends on what kind of word לא is attached to i.e. noun, verb, adjective, etc.). When connected to the Qal, imperfect, second person, masculine singular of רָצַח (which then becomes תרצח), the phrase becomes "You shall not murder."  So, basically, any time (and that may be painting with a broad brush a bit)that the word לא is added to a verb, that verb is negated.  In other words, it becomes a prohibition or command to not do what the verb does...if that makes sense.  And, of course, you have to take into consideration the tense, gender, and person of the verb too.

I think that drives at your question, but If I'm missing the mark, let me know!

Pastor:

I appreciate your response. My question was apparently unclear.

I don’t know how a reference to “singing” emerged. Additionally, my query was not intended to express confusion regarding the negation (viz., “lo”) of “tirtzach.” It was confusion regarding the variances in the use of “tirtzach” vis-a-vis “ratsach.” Please note that the bracketed “sing.” referenced the singularity of the pronoun “you,” not “singing.”

The discussion included Luther’s comment that we should not “hurt or harm our neighbor in his body.” The semantic domain for “lo tirtzach” would appear to be much broader than “hurt or harm [to] our neighbor in his body.”

I would draw your attention to Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Exodus 20:13: 1: Murder. Whether physically or by your speech--by lying, gossiping, deliberately giving fatal advice, or failing to reveal a secret that might save a life. If you do not reveal it, you are like a murderer. (Emphasis added.)

This, in my estimation, lends credence to the following order of The Ten Commandments: (1) Commandments 1-5 deal with man’s relationship to God, the 5th having to do with the parents as God’s earthly representation to their offspring; and (2) Commandments 6-10 representing man’s relationship to man. This of course obviates the need to uncouple the Commandment regarding covetousness.

 

Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra was one of the most distinguished Jewish biblical commentators and philosophers of the Middle Ages. If the reference to speech is accurate, this suggests a much greater scope of life to which the Commandment applies. This would suggest an incorporation of the 8th/9th Commandment (i.e., You shall not bear false witness).

The inquiry was to determine which of the two terms, “tirtzach” or “ratsach,” is the most accurate. Are you able to offer guidance as to when we are to use these terms?

Thank you once again for your consideration.

JENNA ELLIS IN THE MORNING

 Jenna,

I’ve admired you for your courageous stands on both Christianity and Conservatism for quite some time. I did watch and listen to your tearful-plea of guilty in Fulton County, Ga. Although I was saddened to learn of this, it is certainly understandable that you would not want to risk being found guilty of various felonies in such a blue-county.

In light of the fact that you stated, had you performed your due-diligence, you would not have undertaken representation of President Trump, you may have unnecessarily alienated a large swath of your audience.

I have been a practicing attorney for 30+ years. I closely watched and listened to sworn testimony presented before various state legislators. There was certainly ample evidence of voter fraud. Naturally, the evidence a judge will review, if any evidence whatsoever is admitted, determines, at least to a great extent, the outcome of a bench trial. Whether the fraud was sufficient to overturn the results of the election will never be known.

I have not understood why the assertions of voter-fraud have been deemed invalid by those who formerly represented President Trump.

Do you think that your intro. for the AFR “Jenna Ellis in the Morning” show should be changed to no longer include either President Trump’s endorsement or reference to your representation of President Trump?

I would also encourage you to address, to the extent possible and in accordance with your plea-agreement, why you stated that you would have declined representation. Furthermore, in light of your conviction, I would suggest that you owe it to your Christian audience to express remorse for your conduct.

Some questions about the Bidens’ 1977 Catholic wedding

 NB: This article was published at the link identified below. It has been reproduced in its entirety.

For quite some time, I have been puzzled about the relative silence regarding the nuptials of Joe and Jill Biden, especially since President Biden has told us repeatedly that he is a devout, practicing Catholic.

In Where the Light Enters: Building a Family, Discovering Myself (2019), Jill’s autobiography, we learn that she and Joe were married at the UN Chapel on June 17, 1977—and, she says, “by a Catholic priest.”

That factoid caused further puzzlement: Why get married at the UN? Neither of the Bidens had any apparent connection to that institution. Given that Joe has been a “priest-collector” his whole life, why go to New York to be married by an anonymous priest? Was he even a priest in good standing? After all, some ex-priests make a handsome living out of performing weddings.

Online searches for information on the UN Chapel turns up an article about it in the New York Times from May 9, 1976 (“UN Chapel Weddings: Ecumenical Spirit”). The chaplain was a Rev. Dr. Melvin Hawthorne, a minister of the United Methodist Church. He says that the chapel does not have an actual relationship with the United Nations, but that many people associated with the UN do opt for his chapel. In 1976, the chapel was the site of over 400 weddings, 60% of which were for couples of different faiths, many of whom had “run into snags elsewhere.”

So, what might the “snags” have been for the devout Catholic Joe Biden and his fiancee? A number of permissions would have been needed (e.g., mixed marriage since Jill is not Catholic; permission to marry outside a church or oratory). Did they participate in the required pre-nuptial investigation, which should have uncovered that Jill was previously married in February 1970 and divorced in March 1975?

An article in the July 24, 1977 edition of Wilmington, Delaware newspaper The Morning News, titled “‘Catholic’ Joe Biden avoids telling the press his wife is a divorcee,” reports Biden saying, “I thought the fact that Jill was married before had no relevance.”

If they did participate in the pre-nuptial investigation, was Jill willing to submit that union to a diocesan tribunal for a possible decree of nullity? If she engaged that process, was such a decree issued? What about the couple’s participation in marriage preparation, known as pre-Cana instructions? Admittedly, some of these matters are more serious than others.

The next step in consideration was to ascertain if the Biden wedding was indeed approved by the Catholic Church. If that ceremony was recognized by the Church, it should have been entered into the marriage register of the parish church in whose boundaries the UN Chapel sits, which is Holy Family Church. The pastor, Father Gerald Murray (coincidentally, a canon lawyer) and well-known member of Raymond Arroyo’s “Papal Posse” on EWTN, stated clearly that no such ceremony or any file for that event is to be found at Holy Family Church. Father Murray went on to mention that several weddings of Catholics at the UN Chapel are, in fact, registered at his church.

So, why not that of the Bidens?

In a call to the chancellor of the Diocese of Wilmington (where Biden’s domicile is), I asked this question of the chancellor’s secretary (since the chancellor was not in the office): In the knowledge of the Diocese, did the wedding take place according to canonical form?

Within an hour, the diocesan director of communications called me back to say that the Diocese cannot comment on the sacramental life of parishioners. When reminded that we are not asking about sins confessed in the Sacrament of Penance but about the reality or non-reality of a public act and sacrament, very politely but firmly, he repeated that the Diocese would not comment on the situation.

The facts of the case, then, appear to be: No Catholic wedding is recorded in the usual places for the Bidens in the Archdiocese of New York, where the ceremony took place. The Diocese of his canonical domicile would not answer a very simple question. If Joe and Jill are truly married in the eyes of Christ’s Church, the answer would likely have been forthcoming as simply: “Yes, of course, they are validly married.”

Absent that declaration, one may suppose that something is seriously amiss.

Again, this is not a private matter between Joe, Jill, family members, and priest. Marriage is public by its nature; it affects the entire community of the Church, and the People of God have a right to know the truth.

From his years in Catholic schools (about which he always reminds us), President Biden should have recalled Our Lord’s warning: “For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open” (Lk 8:17).

(Editor’s note: As of this posting, the White House has not responded to a CWR request for information about the Bidens’ 1977 wedding.)

(https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/01/27/some-questions-about-the-bidens-1977-catholic-wedding/)