Sticky: Philosophical Schooling of Fallacy by Roger Olson

[Benjamin]

As per our new sticky:

Originally Posted by RSR

:
I'm passing along a blog by my favorite Arminian, Roger Olson, who holds that a principle of debate should be "do not impute to others beliefs you regard as logically entailed by their beliefs but that they explicitly deny."

"There is no logical fallacy in saying that a person's belief logically entails a belief they do not hold. Logical fallacy only appears when it is said that because the person holds belief A he or she must also hold belief B which is explicitly denied."

A New Name for an Old Fallacy: "Assailment-by-Entailment"

I got a few things I'd like to point out about this post.

I'm passing along a blog by my favorite Arminian, Roger Olson,...

Roger Olson occasionally makes some good points but if one reads him much it is very obvious his logic resorts to Open Theism to maintain many of his conclusions. In the past he has gone to great lengths to defend OT and for good cause - he logically depends on it. In Arminian circles there has been much debate about Olson even claiming to be an Arminian because of his views - which are very often not considered inline with how Arminians reach their conclusions.

The fact is Olson has been strongly rejected as an Arminian by many Arminians! So for a Calvinist to say Olson is his favorite Arminian is equivalent to me picking out a heretical hyper-Calvinist and saying he is my favorite Calvinist before praising his arguments.

"There is no logical fallacy in saying that a person's belief logically entails a belief they do not hold. Logical fallacy only appears when it is said that because the person holds belief A he or she must also hold belief B which is explicitly denied."

This explanation avoids the very purpose of science of philosophical study - which is to draw out the truth in a philosophical argument through logic. Note the first sentence includes the premise "logically entails a belief they do not hold." as not a fallacy. The second premise removes the word logically in order to weasel out of logic from being a factor in reaching the conclusion and in doing so it removes the purpose of logically drawing out the truth while trying to project a Reverse Ad hominem. IOWs tries to claim a fallacy after excluding logic from the equation. Total Nonsense!

Typical Roger Olson thinking or should I say "double-thinking" and it reaches a false conclusion. Just because one denies that if they take 2 apples and 2 more apples that they don't necessary have to have 4 apples doesn't make it any less true if one is attempting to maintain the argument in a logical sense. Obviously the argument above has tried to remove it [logic] to form a rebuttal to his many critics. - fallaciously so...

 

[Benjamin]

...Roger Olson, who holds that a principle of debate should be "do not impute to others beliefs you regard as logically entailed by their beliefs but that they explicitly deny."

Reminds me of the liberal belief that "your truth" is whatever YOU want it to be. Never mind that there is a valid logically true conclusion against your belief if the truth offends it shouldn't be a "principle of debate". Boohoo find a puppy and stay out of debates then...

 

[Benjamin]

It has long been the Agenda of Roger Olson to draw Open Theism into Arminianism. Now he tries to silence his opposition by introducing new age philosophical “principles of debate” that exclude the use of logic in determining the truth of the roots of one’s belief system. Seriously! Like catching someone with his hand in the cookie jar, a piece of cookie hanging from his mouth and crumbs on his face but not being allowed to say he ate the cookies as long as if he denies it. How convenient!

 

[Van]

Gee, I know nothing of Roger Olson, but I did agree, it is not an argument against the person to say their view logically entails a bogus result. But OTOH, to say someone holds to the bogus result (which is based on mind reading because the person disavows the result) is an argument against the man.

Lets look at an assertion like: If God is not the author of sin then God did not predestine us to sin, which is of course partially open theism. Now if I claimed a person that disavows open theism, really believes in it because they claim God is not the author of sin, is that not using the logical fallacy of arguing against the man, rather than the position or view.

What did I miss?

 

[Benjamin]

Gee, I know nothing of Roger Olson, but I did agree, it is not an argument against the person to say their view logically entails a bogus result. But OTOH, to say someone holds to the bogus result (which is based on mind reading because the person disavows the result) is an argument against the man.

Lets look at an assertion like: If God is not the author of sin then God did not predestine us to sin, which is of course partially open theism. Now if I claimed a person that disavows open theism, really believes in it because they claim God is not the author of sin, is that not using the logical fallacy of arguing against the man, rather than the position or view.

What did I miss?

People often consider an attack on their reasoning an attack on their person and then resort to a Reverse Ad Hominem fallacy which is pretty much what Olson attempts here with this made up weaseler gimmick of his.

Other than that I’d first see your premises more centered on begging the question that the only alternative to Determinism is Open Theism, but as you probably remember we’ve done a few rounds over this in issue in the past to which you probably also remember I strongly object to that notion. As per such a conclusion I'd say denying God's attribute of Omniscience is about as bad as attributing evil to Him as far as I'm concerned. FYI, IOM Roger Olson is pretty much similarly in the same closet as you on some of these issues …but I guess this subject would be another thread.

 

[Van]

Rather than denying the "all knowing" attribute of God, I like to think I hold to the biblically based "all knowing" attribute. But, as you observed, that is a subject to be tabled, because it would be ironic to sail into the waters of "Assailment-by-Entailment."

 

[Benjamin]

...because it would be ironic to sail into the waters of "Assailment-by-Entailment."

A person who attempts to fallaciously weasel on his position in a debate by claiming he has been personally attacked through “Assailment-by-Entailment” needs merely be schooled in the fundamental concept of “Logical Consequence” describing that if it logical follows that T+T=T all the whining in the world ain’t going to change that "T" (True conclusion) whether they want to take it as personal or not.

 

[Van]

If that is your understanding of the concept, I do not think anything I might say would be useful.

I did try to listen to Roger Olson, but he seemed to nibble around the edges, rather than simply present his view. So I still have no knowledge of his views. But as an Arminian, his views probably match my own in that God chooses those of faith for salvation, and Christ died for all mankind.

 

[Benjamin]

If that is your understanding of the concept, I do not think anything I might say would be useful.

I’m not sure what that means. I do think I could have articulated the problems with “new” approach of weaseling better though.

I did try to listen to Roger Olson, but he seemed to nibble around the edges, rather than simply present his view. So I still have no knowledge of his views. But as an Arminian, his views probably match my own in that God chooses those of faith for salvation, and Christ died for all mankind.

Roger Olson makes some excellent arguments against Determinists and defenses of free will. I read him quite a bit several years ago and was in a couple discussions with him through SEA. I would generally come to similar conclusion with him. What I don’t care for is when he injects Open Theism in to reach his results while defending OT yet saying he isn’t one (weaseling). I look at this “renaming a fallacy” as another weak defense of his actions. I don’t call myself an Arminian for several reasons but I come to many of the same conclusions with those that do.

 

[Van]

As I have said, I am a one point Calvinst (OSAS) and a two point Arminian (Christ died for all mankind and God chooses those whose faith in Christ He credits as righteousness.) I believe "total spiritual inability" is bogus, as I believe the lost have "Limited Spiritual Ability" able to understand the milk of the gospel. I believe in "Revealing Grace" through the call of the gospel, but see no support in scripture for "enabling" irresistible grace or prevenient grace.

Can you provide a link where Roger Olson presents his views in writing on the TULIP?

 

[Benjamin]

Can you provide a link where Roger Olson presents his views in writing on the TULIP?

It been too long and wouldn't know of one but he has a book, Against Calvinism that probably covers it pretty well.

 

[Van]

I did find a blurb in an online review of "Against Calvinism."

Using the famous acronym TULIP, Olson finds the middle three doctrines—unconditional election, limited atonement (many Calvinists would prefer “particular atonement”), and irresistible (or “effectual”) grace—particularly troubling. He is more comfortable with total depravity, in the sense that sin has corrupted all areas of human life, and seems to accept perseverance of the saints without question.
​

Thus we (Olson and I) agree on (1) conditional election, (2) Christ died for all mankind,(3) that "enabling grace" is bogus and (4) OSAS. We disagree on total spiritual inability, and I expect he thinks individuals were chosen before creation rather than during their lifetime.

 

[Benjamin]

...and I expect he thinks individuals were chosen before creation rather than during their lifetime.

I do not recall any position of his whereas I ever thought he was a Predestinarian, quite the opposite actually, as in what I was hearing was doctrines that limit God's knowledge to even know which I likened to being skirted with Open Theistic views.

 

[Van]

Thanks for the insight.