Arguing for Atonement?

Richard Brian Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.63473

2022-02-28

Abstract:According to William Lane Craig, to avoid compromising God’s aseity we must embrace nominalism with respect to mathematical and logical objects. There are no numbers, propositions, possible worlds, properties, or relations. In this paper I argue that Craig’s nominalism threatens to undermine his theological stance on the atonement.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Atonement Problem for Contradictory Christology

Drew Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v9i1.78863

2024-06-24

Abstract:Recently, Jc Beall has advanced a model of the incarnation according to which one can reconcile the apparently incompatible attributes attributed to Christ by taking them as true contradictions. In this paper, I argue that Contradictory Christology proves incompatible with a central class of atonement theories. I begin by expositing Beall’s model in contrast to two models operating upon the assumption of classical logic. Next, I demonstrate the incompatibility between Beall’s theory and theories of the atonement on which Christ’s suffering was a necessary condition of salvation. Finally, provide a brief survey of three prominent atonement theories, highlighting their endorsement of this principle.
Anselm'S Ontological Argument And Grades Of Being

CHARLES McCARTY

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755020324000133

2024-09-15

The Review of Symbolic Logic

Abstract:Anselm described god as "something than which nothing greater can be thought" [1, p. 93], and Descartes viewed him as "a supreme being" [7, p. 122]. I first capture those characterizations formally in a simple language for monadic predicate logic. Next, I construct a model class inspired by Stoic and medieval doctrines of grades of being [8, 20]. Third, I prove the models sufficient for recovering, as internal mathematics, the famous ontological argument of Anselm, and show that argument to be, on this formalization, valid. Fourth, I extend the models to incorporate a modality fit for proving that any item than which necessarily no greater can be thought is also necessarily real. Lastly, with the present approach, I blunt the sharp edges of notable objections to ontological arguments by Gaunilo and by Grant. A trigger warning: every page of this writing flouts the old saw "Existence is not a predicate" and flagrantly.

mathematics, applied,logic
Voluntarism, Atonement, and Duns Scotus

Thomas M. Ward

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.12315

2015-12-14

The Heythrop Journal

Abstract:The two most important concepts in Duns Scotus's (1265/6‐1308) theology of the Atonement are satisfaction and merit. Just what these amount to and how they function in his theory are heavily conditioned by two more general commitments: Scotus's voluntarism, which includes the claim that nearly all of God's relations with the created order are contingent; and his formulation of the Franciscan Thesis, which holds that fixing the sin problem is not the primary purpose of God's Incarnation in Christ and that if Adam hadn't sinned God would have become incarnate anyway. In this essay I will discuss the theoretical background of Scotus's atonement theology—his voluntarism and his version of the Franciscan Thesis—before moving on to discuss his understanding of merit and satisfaction, how these are related, and how they relate to the theoretical background. I will engage some important recent scholarly attempts to position Scotus's Atonement theology as not quite as anti‐Anselmian as history has characterized it, arguing that one of these attributes to Scotus an understanding of merit which cannot be Scotus's in fact, since it entails a restriction on divine freedom that Scotus certainly would reject.

English Else
The Doctrine of the Atonement: Response to Michael Rea, Trent Dougherty, and Brandon Warmke

Eleonore Stump

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v11i1.2710

2019-03-17

European Journal for Philosophy of Religion

Abstract:--
The Logic of Reparative Substitution: Contemporary Restitution Models of Atonement, Divine Justice, and Somatic Death

Joshua Farris,S. Mark Hamilton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0021140017742804

2017-12-07

Irish Theological Quarterly

Abstract:The doctrine of Christ’s atonement is a subject of recurrent interest to contemporary philosophical-theologians. The Penal Substitution theory of atonement, in particular, has precipitated a great deal of interest. In this article, we offer several reasons—reasons related to the nature of divine justice and somatic death—for thinking that a version of Anselm’s Satisfaction theory of atonement is not only a viable, but preferable, Protestant theory of atonement to penal substitution.
Reparative Substitution and the ‘Efficacy Objection’: Toward a Modified Satisfaction Theory of Atonement

Joshua R. Farris,S. Mark Hamilton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/perc-2017-0018

2017-10-01

Perichoresis

Abstract:Abstract The doctrine of the atonement is a subject of perpetual curiosity for a number of contemporary theologians. The penal substitution theory of atonement in particular has precipitated a great deal of recent interest, being held up by many (mostly evangelical) Protestants as ‘the’ doctrine of atonement. In this essay, we make a defense against the objection to the Anselmian theory of atonement that is often leveled against it by exponents of the Penal Substitution theory, namely, that Christ’s work does not accomplish anything for those whom it appears he undertakes his atoning work, but merely makes provision for salvation.

English Else
Defense Semantics of Argumentation: Encoding Reasons for Accepting Arguments.

Beishui Liao,Leendert van der Torre

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1705.00303

2017-01-01

Abstract:In this paper we show how the defense relation among abstract arguments can be used to encode the reasons for accepting arguments. After introducing a novel notion of defenses and defense graphs, we propose a defense semantics together with a new notion of defense equivalence of argument graphs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence, respectively. Then, based on defense semantics, we define two kinds of reasons for accepting arguments, i.e., direct reasons and root reasons, and a notion of root equivalence of argument graphs. Finally, we show how the notion of root equivalence can be used in argumentation summarization.
Defeasible deontic logic: arguing about permission and obligation

Huimin Dong,Beishui Liao,Reka Markovich,Leendert van der Torre

2022-01-01

Abstract:Defeasible deontic logic uses techniques from non-monotonic logic to address various challenges in normative reasoning, such as prima facie permissions and obligations, moral dilemmas, deontic detachment, contrary-to-duty reasoning and legal interpretation. In this article, we use formal argumentation to design defeasible deontic logics, based on two classical deontic logics. In particular, we use the ASPIC(+) structured argumentation theory to define non-monotonic variants of well-understood monotonic modal logics. We illustrate the ASPIC(+)based approach and the resulting defeasible deontic logics using argumentation about strong permission.
Prioritized Norms in Formal Argumentation

Beishui Liao,Nir Oren,Leendert van der Torre,Serena Villata

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exy009

2018-01-01

Journal of Logic and Computation

Abstract:Deontic logic sentences define what an agent ought to do when faced with a set of norms. These norms may come into conflict such that a priority ordering over them is necessary to resolve these conflicts. Dung’s seminal paper raises the still open challenge to use formal argumentation to represent non monotonic logics, highlight- ing its value to exchange, communicate and resolve possibly conflicting viewpoints in distributed scenarios. In this paper, we propose a formal framework to study various properties of prioritized non monotonic reasoning in formal argumentation, in line with this idea. More precisely, we show how a version of prioritized default logic and Brewka-Eiter’s construction in answer set programming can be obtained in argumentation via the weakest and last link principles. We also show how to represent Hansen’s recent construction for prioritized normative reasoning by adding arguments using weak contraposition via permissive norms, and their relationship to Caminada’s “hang yourself” arguments.
Anxiety, Guilt, and Shame in the Atonement

Paul W. Pruyser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/004057366402100104

1964-04-01

Theology Today

Abstract:“If mental health is a Christian value and mental hygiene one practical concern of the church (as many churchmen now hold), Christian education in the churches must be enlightened, among other things, by the data of religious psychopathology and the psychology of religion. If man's redemption is to be proclaimed, it is important that not only the positive symbol values, but also the limitations and even the dangers of each of the [three] atonement theories be made clear.... I would be inclined to advocate a broad representation of all the atonement models.... not only [to] help revitalize many now antiquated and quaint, but in principle crucial Christian propositions, but also [to] aid people in overcoming the crude, unnecessarily primitive and un-biblical supernaturalisms which abound in yesterday's and today's Christianity.”
The Noonday Argument: Fine-Graining, Indexicals, and the Nature of Copernican Reasoning

Brian C. Lacki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1473550423000071

2024-05-08

Abstract:Typicality arguments attempt to use the Copernican Principle to draw conclusions about the cosmos and presently unknown conscious beings within it, including extraterrestrial intelligences (ETI). The most notorious is the Doomsday Argument, which purports to constrain humanity's future from its current lifespan alone. These arguments rest on a likelihood calculation that penalizes models in proportion to the number of distinguishable observers. I argue that such reasoning leads to solipsism, the belief that one is the only being in the world, and is therefore unacceptable. Using variants of the "Sleeping Beauty" thought experiment as a guide, I present a framework for evaluating observations in a large cosmos: Weighted Fine Graining (WFG). WFG requires the construction of specific models of physical outcomes and observations. Valid typicality arguments then emerge from the combinatorial properties of third-person physical microhypotheses. Indexical (observer-relative) facts do not directly constrain physical theories, but instead weight different provisional evaluations of credence. As indexical knowledge changes, the weights shift. I show that the self-applied Doomsday Argument fails in WFG, even though it can work for an external observer. I argue that the Copernican Principle does not let us apply self-observations to constrain ETIs.

History and Philosophy of Physics,Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics
Problems of Inconsistency and Argumentation Logics

Liao Beishui,Huang Huaxin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19862/j.cnki.xsyk.2013.06.007

2013-01-01

Abstract:As a development of classical nonmonotonic logic,argumentation logic(also called abstract argumentation theory,and formal argumentation,etc.) provides a general mechanism to handle the problems of inconsistency in various situations.It captures the common properties of various reasoning systems in a context of disagreement by using abstract arguments and attack relations,and defines the acceptability of arguments by establishing general evaluation criteria(called argumentation semantics).This makes argumentation logic generally applicable to various situations.First,since the evaluation of the status of arguments is only related to the attack relations among them,the types,origins,representation languages and methods,of underlying knowledge,are allowed to be diverse.Second,the evaluation criteria corresponding to certain argumentation semantics are suitable to various applications.Third,argumentation logic not only supports the epistemic reasoning and the practical reasoning of individual agents,but also supports the reasoning in the process of multiagent interaction(e.g.,persuasion,disputation,negotiation,etc).Currently,the emphasis of the research of argumentation logic is on the definitions and computational methods of argumentation semantics,the instantiation approaches of argumentation semantics,and the applications of argumentation semantics,etc.
A Logical Analysis of Ontological Arguments of God's Existence

Zhang Lifeng,Sun Xiaodong

2009-01-01

Abstract:St.Anselm proposed two versions of ontological argument for God's existence.The first is well known.But it is confronted with Kant's notorious criticism,i.e."existence is not a predicate".In a modern logical perspective,this version of ontological argument is not even qualified as a well-formed inference,for its premise is not a proposition or sentence but a propositional function.So there is no question of its being valid or sound.The second or modal version of Anselm's ontological argument was "discovered" by Charles Hartshorne and Norman Malcolm.Hartshorne's modal version of ontological argument is doubtful in its two premises,one of which looks upon "exist necessarily" as a predicate,while the other explicates possibility with conceivability.We do not think the first premise could get round the Kantian criticism.As to the second premise,ontological possibility cannot be confused with logical possibility,and with too thick psychological character,conceivability is not fit for explaining ontological possibility.Malcolm's version of the modal argument gives a justification for the second premise,i.e.Anselm's Principle.Malcolm's strategy is interpreting modality in terms of tense.But in our opinion,modality and tense each fall into different philosophical categories.The study of ontological arguments shows the application of modern logic playing a key role therein.The key role manifests itself in the shift of linguistic paradigms in the study of philosophy of religion and the selection of logical inference rules.All in all,the logical analysis of ontological arguments indicates that both construction and development of ontological arguments depend on the correct application of logical techniques and means very much,and as to whether logic can be applied correctly in the study of religious philosophy,it lies on whether one has true knowledge of some important philosophical problems of logic or not.
Conceptualizing the Atonement

Kathryn Pogin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848844.003.0008

2020-07-01

Abstract:If belief in the redemptive nature of the life and death of Christ is to be intellectually defensible, Christian philosophers must have an account of it that is not only philosophically coherent, but also morally unobjectionable. Drawing on feminist theology, this chapter explores the epistemological and gendered implications of traditional approaches to the atonement; namely, the normalization of submission to violence and the idealization of suffering. Conceiving of redemption as arising out of sacrificial submission to violence has corrupted the shared hermeneutical resources through which Christian communities conceptualize ethical conduct, love, and virtue. Borrowing in part from those who have suggested a moral influence view, like Abelard, this chapter argues that Christian philosophers should pursue a new kind of exemplarist model. That is, perhaps death has no central role in what redeems us, nor sacrificial love, but rather resisting injustice, even when the risks of doing so may be fatal.
Non-monotonic Reasoning and Argumentation System

XIE Kai-bo,LIAO Bei-shui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-8425(s).2013.09.007

2013-01-01

Abstract:As first-order logic alone cannot depict the non-monotony in the human reasoning process,logicians try to establish new logic systems to deal with this problem,and these new systems are called non-monotonic logic.Traditionally,they adopt the way of consistency and unprovability.However,since the late 1980s and early 1990s,more and more logicians have begun to use a new way to realize the non-monotony of reasoning,which is argumentation.This paper will expound argumentation system and how argumentation framework is used to depict non-monotonic reasoning,and analyze the connections between them.
A Principle-Based Robustness Analysis of Admissibility-Based Argumentation Semantics

Tjitze Rienstra,Chiaki Sakama,Leendert van der Torre,Beishui Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/aac-200520

2020-01-01

Argument & Computation

Abstract:The principle-based approach is a methodology to classify and analyse argumentation semantics. In this paper we classify seven of the main alternatives for argumentation semantics using a set of new robustness principles. These principles complement Baroni and Giacomin’s original classification and deal with the behaviour of a semantics when the argumentation framework changes due to the addition or removal of an attack between two arguments. We distinguish so-called persistence principles and monotonicity principles, where the former deal with the question of whether a labelling or extension of an argumentation framework under a given semantics persists after a change, and the latter with the question of whether new labellings or extensions are created after a change. We furthermore show in which sense labelling-based and extension-based semantics lead to subtly different principles and results. Our results can be used for choosing a semantics for a particular application, or to guide the search for new argumentation semantics, but they have been used also in the design of algorithms.
Arguing About Dynamic Meaning

Martin Stokhof

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06025-5_28

2014-01-01

Abstract:Whether, and if so in what sense, dynamic semantics establishes the need to move away from standard truth-conditional semantics, is a question that has been discussed in the literature on and off. This paper does not attempt to answer it, it merely wants to draw attention to an aspect that has hitherto received little attention in the discussion, viz., the question what role we assign to the use of formal systems in doing natural language semantics.
Discussion: On Arguments Concerning Statistical Principles

D. A. S. Fraser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1411.0809

2014-11-04

Methodology

Abstract:Discussion of "On the Birnbaum Argument for the Strong Likelihood Principle" by Deborah G. Mayo [arXiv:1302.7021].
A Simple Notion of Validity for Alethic Pluralism

Andrea Strollo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1280-0

IF: 1.595

2018-01-01

Synthese

Abstract:Alethic pluralism holds that there are many truth properties. The view has been challenged to make sense of the notion of logical validity, understood as necessary truth preservation, when inferences involving different areas of discourse are concerned. I argue that the solution proposed by Edwards to solve the analogous problem of mixed compounds can straightforwardly be adapted to give alethic pluralists also a viable account of validity.

Arguing for Atonement?

Atonement Problem for Contradictory Christology

Anselm'S Ontological Argument And Grades Of Being

Voluntarism, Atonement, and Duns Scotus

The Doctrine of the Atonement: Response to Michael Rea, Trent Dougherty, and Brandon Warmke

The Logic of Reparative Substitution: Contemporary Restitution Models of Atonement, Divine Justice, and Somatic Death

Reparative Substitution and the ‘Efficacy Objection’: Toward a Modified Satisfaction Theory of Atonement

Defense Semantics of Argumentation: Encoding Reasons for Accepting Arguments.

Defeasible deontic logic: arguing about permission and obligation

Prioritized Norms in Formal Argumentation

Anxiety, Guilt, and Shame in the Atonement

The Noonday Argument: Fine-Graining, Indexicals, and the Nature of Copernican Reasoning

Problems of Inconsistency and Argumentation Logics

A Logical Analysis of Ontological Arguments of God's Existence

Conceptualizing the Atonement

Non-monotonic Reasoning and Argumentation System

A Principle-Based Robustness Analysis of Admissibility-Based Argumentation Semantics

Arguing About Dynamic Meaning

Discussion: On Arguments Concerning Statistical Principles

A Simple Notion of Validity for Alethic Pluralism