PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Preface
This short Blogger article is from my entry by entry review of the Pirie text, 20170602. Revised on Blogger for a version of academia.edu, 20250524.
My photo 20250420, Milano.
Lazarum, arguementum ad
The poor person may be blessed, but is not always right. (140). A reference to the poor man, Lazarus, in the New Testament.
Luke 16:19-31
English Standard Version (ESV)
19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[a] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
Footnotes: Luke 16:22 Greek bosom; also verse 23
Note: Theologically, Martin Luther's view here on Luke 16: 19-31:
'Martin Luther taught that the story was a parable about rich and poor in this life and the details of the afterlife not to be taken literally:
Therefore we conclude that the bosom of Abraham signifies nothing else than the Word of God, ... the hell here mentioned cannot be the true hell that will begin on the day of judgment. For the corpse of the rich man is without doubt not in hell, but buried in the earth; it must however be a place where the soul can be and has no peace, and it cannot be corporeal. Therefore it seems to me, this hell is the conscience, which is without faith and without the Word of God, in which the soul is buried and held until the day of judgment, when they are cast down body and soul into the true and real hell. (Church Postil 1522–23)[17]'
(17) 'volume IV: pp. 17–32 Archived 2010-10-11 at the Wayback Machine, The Sermons of Martin Luther Baker Book House Grand Rapids, MI'
---
Non-Wikipedia version
Non-Wikipedia version
'Therefore we conclude that the bosom of Abraham signifies nothing else than the Word of God,…. the hell here mentioned cannot be the true hell that will begin on the day of judgment. For the corpse of the rich man is without doubt not in hell, but buried in the earth; it must however be a place where the soul can be and has no peace, and it cannot be corporeal. Therefore it seems to me, this hell is the conscience, which is without faith and without the Word of God, in which the soul is buried and held until the day of judgment, when they are cast down body and soul into the true and real hell. (Church Postil 1522-23)'
Website: About
'Whole Reason is the theological teaching site for Associate Pastor Daniel G. Sinclair, living and working in the Nashville, Tennessee area. I recently completed a Masters in Theology at Williamson College.'
---
I agree with Martin Luther that this a non-plain literal, parable. I do reason that the unregenerate (as opposed to the regenerate through the Holy Spirit, John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) soul/spirit, post-mortem goes to Hades (Hell1), but that this is a non-corporeal spiritual existence. A spiritual existence of non-peace outside of common grace which existed in the temporal realm. The conscience, mind, soul/spirit in Luke 16 is facing pure justice as this person, post-mortem, is not covered by the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ for sin (s) provided to believers by grace through faith. The 'true hell' (Hell2) according to Martin Luther is that of the lake of fire (Revelation 20) where both resurrected body and soul are cast in the lake of fire. I reason that the lake of fire too is non-plain literal, and death and Hades are cast in Revelation 20: 14, which describes the second death. But, I agree with Luther that this is culminated hell, with a physical/spiritual aspect. The dead outside of Christ are cast into Hell2.
---
Pirie opines that poverty does not enhance an argument. (140). In other words, if someone is poor, it does not enhance his/her argument and make it true. Perhaps for some, human sympathy in regard to a poor person, influences a lack of objectivity in evaluating premises and conclusions.
'Poverty does not contribute to the soundness of an argument.' (141). Of course being in the middle-class or wealthy, does not contribute to the soundness of an argument.
The author's point is technically correct, but then again the status of any person does not make his/her argument true; the correctness of premises and conclusions make an argument true.
If I opine on theology, bible or philosophy of religion, the argument is not necessarily true because I have a related PhD, but if my premises and conclusions are true, my argument is sound. As Pirie notes this fallacy is due to giving attention to the source of argumentation, instead of to the contentions made. (141).
Status does not make an argument true
An argument can be embraced from a type of celebrity or authority, without reasonable, in-depth evaluation of premises and conclusions made.
An argument can have logical premises, but not all premises are reasonable and the argument is false.
Premise 1: Canada has existed since 1867
Premise 2: Dr. Russ is a Canadian
Premise 3: Dr. Russ is a noted 19th Century scholar (Dr. Russ did not exist until the 20th Century)
Conclusion: He earned his Canadian PhD in 1890 (He earned his PhD in the 21st Century, in Wales, not Canada. It may have been reasonable for me to have earned a Canadian PhD, but not reasonable in the 19th Century)
Premise 1: Logical, reasonable, true
Premise 2: Logical, reasonable, true
Premise 3: Logical, not reasonable, not true
Conclusion: Logical, but not reasonable or true.
---
An argument can have premises that are logical and reasonable, but not true as an argument.
Premise 1: Dr. Russ is a Canadian
Premise 2: He lived in the 20th-21st Centuries
Premise 3: Dr. Russ is not a radical conservative
Conclusion: He votes federally for the Liberal Party
Premise 1: Logical, reasonable, true
Premise 2: Logical, reasonable, true
Premise 3: Logical, reasonable, true
Premise 2: Logical, reasonable, true
Premise 3: Logical, reasonable, true
Conclusion: Logical and reasonable, but not true. I have never voted for the federal Liberal Party.
Valid arguments cannot have a true premise (s) and false conclusion.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Eternity’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FINKBEINER, DOUGLASE (2004) Interpreting Luke 16: Abraham, Lazarus, and the Rich Man-Parable or History?, Lansdale, PA , Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary.
PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.
MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
STRONG, J. (1986)
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
