Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division: Satire Und Theology Version

Blogliasco, Italy:People&countries, Facebook

Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division

Preface

Originally published 20160609, slight revisions and additions 20251213.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Composition Fallacy

'The fallacy of composition occurs when it is claimed that what is true for individual members of a class is also true for the class considered as a unit.' (62).

'It is fallacious to suppose that what is true of the parts must also be true of the new entity they collectively make up.' (62).

'This must be a good orchestra because each of its members is a talented musician.' (62).

Pirie explains this is fallacious as members in the orchestra might not play and perform well in unison with others. (62).

For clarity with this weighty material:

Individual to corporate

I t C (My add)

Each member is a talented musician, therefore it must be a good orchestra. (My add)

I would opine that it can take less than each member to not be a good 'team player' to cause an orchestra not to be considered good sounding, it may simply take one or so 'bad apples.'

Pirie then uses the European football example of a club transferring in top players, that are soon transferred out because they do not fit in well with the team. (62).

Therefore I would not merely state:

As it has the best individual talent, therefore, Team Canada will win the 2016, World Cup of Hockey.

Consider:

According to experts and commentators, Team Canada has had the best individual talent almost every 'best on best' tournament, but wins most of the tournaments, not all of them.

In my view, other propositions are required to strengthen a related argument, although with changes in terminology.

Team Canada has excellent individual talent.

Team Canada has excellent individual skill.

Team Canada has players that have won together as a team.

Team Canada has several Stanley Cup champions.

Team Canada has several Olympic Gold Medalists in Ice Hockey.

Team Canada will have home ice advantage.

Therefore:

Team Canada could reasonably win the 2016 World Cup of Hockey in Toronto.

(Team Canada did win, 2025 note)

Blackburn defines this fallacy similarly:

'...arguing because something is true of members of a group or collection, it is true of the group as a whole. (71).

The following example is provided:

'J.S. Mill appears to argue that since each person desires just their own happiness, people together desire the common happiness.  (71).

Blackburn is contrast explains that nobody desires the common happiness. (71). Blackburn means based on Mill's philosophy, and that is reasonable.

My own view would be that almost all persons desire their own happiness (some mentally ill as possible exceptions), and some persons desire the common happiness.
--------------

The Fallacy of Division

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
 
Blackburn helpfully explains the converse fallacy...

The fallacy of division is therefore stating:

Corporate to individual

C t I (my add)

'If something is true of a group, then it is also true of individuals belonging to it.' (71).

Example of fallacy:

Real Madrid won the UEFA Champions League, 2016, therefore it must have all the best players.

Logically Fallacious: Bo Bennett, PhD

References:

GOODMAN, M. F. (1993) First Logic. University Press of America.

Logically Fallacious: Fallacy of Division

(also known as: false division, faulty deduction, division fallacy) 

Description: Inferring that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of composition 

Example

His house is about half the size of most houses in the neighborhood. Therefore, his doors must all be about 3 1/2 feet high. 

Explanation: The size of one’s house almost certainly does not mean that the doors will be smaller, especially by the same proportions. The size of the whole (the house) is not directly related to the size of every part of the house.

Logically Fallacious also explains the compositional fallacy

Logically Fallacious: Fallacy of Composition

(also known as: composition fallacy, exception fallacy, faulty induction) 

Description: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of division.

Example

'Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound.'

------------

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

MILL, J. S. (1863) Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn. 

MILL, J. S. (1972) Letter to Henry Jones (13 June 1868). In John M. Robson (ed.), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill vol. XVI. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1413–4.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Irenaeus and John Hick (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Irenaeus and John Hick (PhD Edit)

Preface

Photo: Notre-Dame, Lyon France (trekearth)

Irenaeus was a Priest in Lyon, France

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

A section from my PhD thesis. Slight edits and revision for an article on academia.edu 20251206.

Irenaeus

It is widely accepted that Hick is writing a theodicy within the Irenean tradition.[1] To Hick, Irenaeus believed God’s creation of humanity was the initial stage in a process that would lead to persons ultimately possessing the likeness of God.[2] Hick quotes Irenaeus in Against Heresies where humanity, in its original state is called immature.[3] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005) in Against Heresies deduces that God could have made humanity originally perfect, but the newness and immaturity of his actual creation made it impossible to grant.[4]

In Proof of Apostolic Preaching (c185)(2005), Irenaeus notes that human beings were as children in the beginning and were easily led astray by the deceiver.[5] A child as such is immature and needs to grow towards perfection.[6] Hick agrees with these concepts and suggests that the approach of Irenaeus is a rejection of the Augustinian idea of a fall in which human beings are viewed as morally perfect beings who rebelled against God.[7] Instead, humanity in a child-like way wandered away from the rule of their creator in a rather innocent fashion.[8] According to Hick, for Irenaeus the breaking away of God’s children from their creator was not so much a crime, but a youthful error,[9] and Hick views this process as a divinely appointed situation for human beings to develop towards the ultimate likeness of God.[10]

It seems clear that Hick and Irenaeus are in agreement that original humanity was spiritually and morally immature.[11] There does, however, appear in Ireneaus’ writings the idea of a loss of moral right standing with God due to an initial disobedience. Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998) writes, that the disobedience of one man caused many to become sinners and forfeit life, so it was needed for one man to justify and provide salvation to all.[12] This seems to support the possibility Irenaeus believed in original sin that occurred as human beings disobeyed God for the first time.[13] Original sin historically views persons as being born alienated from God,[14] assuming that the sin nature of the literal and historical Adam and Eve has spread to all descendents.[15] Calvin reasonably claims solidarity with Augustine’s view,[16] and indicates that the consequences of original sin means persons do not have the power to resist, as the will is in bondage until set free.[17] Augustine writes there is a ‘chain of original sin’ by which persons die in Adam.[18] He adds that in this condition, persons were born into misery.[19] Erickson suggests that due to Adam’s sin, all human beings received a corrupted nature,[20] and this is viewed as the imputation of original sin to persons.[21] All persons are not personally responsible for Adam’s sin, but all have inherited a corrupt nature.[22]

The doctrine of original sin is related to the fall concept and is viewed by many traditionalists as being a result of the fall.[23] The fall has already been discussed within Chapters Two and Three and therefore an extended discussion of the subject would be redundant. Gebara has a non-traditional perspective and cautiously suggests that original sin could be the somber experience of the transcendence and immanence of evil permeating through existence.[24] With this view evil could be the sin that engulfs all of God’s creation.[25] F.R. Tennant (1906) rejects a traditional doctrine of original sin[26] as he writes that the doctrine is self-condemned as the idea involves original guilt.[27] He reasons that guilt is only applicable to someone who has willingly committed an act,[28] and I would agree. I do not think that all human beings are guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve, or if one prefers, the first persons that disobeyed God.[29] I accept the doctrine of original sin in that the corrupted nature of humanity will inevitably lead to the human choice to commit wrong actions.[30] Tennant’s concept is to reject hypothetical prior causes of ‘sin’[31] and instead views human evil as the normal process of development that takes place in the human race.[32] Moral law would need to be established as humanity gradually develops over centuries.[33]

If Adam and Eve (my view), or the first human beings, disobeyed God and humanity became sinful in Irenaeus’ theology,[34] this means previously persons were not sinful and had been acceptable in the presence of God.[35] In Proof of Apostolic Preaching as previously noted, humanity is described in terms of children that were led astray by the deceiver.[36] They were influenced and transformed from a position of being right with God morally, to a position of being at a wrong place morally with God.[37] This indicates that Irenaeus believed human beings lost their original glorious place of stature and fellowship with God, although not a fall from a perfect, mature righteousness, but rather a departure from living in obedience to God.[38] For Irenaeus, through human disobedience, Adam and Eve were no longer acceptable to live in God’s Eden and were cast out.[39] If Irenaeus did not agree with the Augustinian position concerning the original perfect sinless nature of humanity,[40] he at least seemingly would agree that human beings had lost their moral position and right standing with their maker.[41] Harvard Professor, Everett Ferguson (1996) in his article ‘Irenaeus’ claims Irenaeus believed that what was lost in the disobedience because of the first Adam, was restored through the second Adam, Jesus Christ.[42] This again appears to make it possible that although Irenaeus and Hick have a similar view on the original immaturity of humanity,[43] that to Irenaeus the first human beings lost a right standing with God because of disobedience,[44] forfeiting a life of abundance with God.[45] Clearly it is plausible that Irenaeus would view this as some type of fall or departure from grace.[46] This does not mean that Irenaeus held to an Augustinian view of the fall,[47] but it appears Irenaeus understood human beings as being morally inferior to what they were previous to their initial sin against God.[48]

---

[1] Badham (2003: 27).

[2] Hick (1970: 218). Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[3] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[4] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[5] Irenaeus (c 185)(2005: 14).

[6] Irenaeus (c 185)(2005: 14).

[7] Hick in Davis (2001: 40).

[8] Hick (1970: 220-221).

[9] Hick (1970: 220-221).

[10] Hick in Davis (2001: 41).

[11] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2). Hick (1970: 218).

[12] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[13] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[14] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 87).

[15] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 87).

[16] Calvin (1543)(1996: 105).

[17] Calvin (1543)(1996: 105).

[18] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 82).

[19] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 197).

[20] Erickson (1994: 638).

[21] Erickson (1994: 638).

[22] Erickson (1994: 638).

[23] Erickson (1994: 915). Thiessen (1956: 253).

[24] Gebara (2002: 58-59).

[25] Gebara (2002: 58-59).

[26] Tennant (1906: 20).

[27] Tennant (1906: 20).

[28] Tennant (1906: 20).

[29] Tennant (1906: 20).

[30] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 82). Erickson (1994: 638).

[31] Tennant (1906: 20).

[32] Tennant (1906: 81).

[33] Tennant (1906: 81).

[34] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[35] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[36] Irenaeus (c.185-2005: 14).

[37] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[38] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[39] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[40] Hick’s conjecture.

[41] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[42] Ferguson (1996: 569).

[43] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2). Hick (1970: 218).

[44] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[45] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[46] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[47] It may be closer to an Augustinian view than John Hick would be willing to admit.

[48] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

---

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BADHAM, PAUL (2003) ‘Profile: John Hick’, in Epworth Review, Volume 30, Number 1, pp. 24-31. Peterborough, England, Methodist Publishing House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FERGUSON, EVERETT (1996) ‘Irenaeus’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(1998) ‘Against Heresies’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(2005) Against Heresies, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS (c 185)(2005) Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Translated by J. Armitage Robinson, London, The Macmillan CO.

TENNANT, F.R. (1906) The Origin and Propagation of Sin, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

TENNANT, F.R. (1930)(1956) Philosophical Theology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

---

Website work 

Photo: Saint Nizier d Azergues, Lyon

New Advent

St. Irenaeus: New Advent

'Bishop of Lyons, and Father of the Church.

Information as to his life is scarce, and in some measure inexact. He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142. It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna. During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the Faith, sent him (177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning Montanism, and on that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons. During the religious peace which followed the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the new bishop divided his activities between the duties of a pastor and of a missionary (as to which we have but brief data, late and not very certain) and his writings, almost all of which were directed against Gnosticism, the heresy then spreading in Gaul and elsewhere. In 190 or 191 he interceded with Pope Victor to lift the sentence of excommunication laid by that pontiff upon the Christian communities of Asia Minor which persevered in the practice of the Quartodecimans in regard to the celebration of Easter. Nothing is known of the date of his death, which must have occurred at the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. In spite of some isolated and later testimony to that effect, it is not very probable that he ended his career with martyrdom. His feast is celebrated on 28 June in the Latin Church, and on 23 August in the Greek.' 

End citation

New Advent sources

Poncelet, A. (1910). St. Irenaeus. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm 

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. 

The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight

---

20251206

The late John Hick (1922-2012) was a major exemplar I used for my PhD thesis and is known for writing a Soul-Making Theodicy, which in my opinion, is also a Soul-Building Theodicy. Hick's approach is a liberal theistic approach. It is widely accepted that Hick was writing a theodicy within the Irenean tradition.[1] Badham (2003: 27). 

It seems clear that Hick and Irenaeus were in agreement with each other that original humanity was spiritually and morally immature.[11] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2). Hick (1970: 218). Irenaeus and John Hick both believed that original humanity had immaturity, were inexperienced, and had a child-like nature. I can agree with the immaturity and lack of experience from Adam and Eve from my Reformed theological perspective and I reason it did play a part in their sinning and therefore falling from their standing with God. I would not use the term child-like, as they were created by God as fully adult, as implied from Scripture. I will presume they had adult brain function and processing, but still lacked maturity and experience. 

However, John Hick did not believe in the theology of original sin, while Irenaeus, although widely considered as not being from an Augustinian perceptive, did hold to a belief in original sin. Irenaeus reasoned that the human fall from God's presence from sin, did occur, which would be in agreement with biblical and Augustinian perspectives. John Hick disagreed with original sin theology, which is within biblical, Augustinian and Irenean perspectives. 

The Truth of the Proposition: Satire Und Theology Version

Macintosh

The Truth of the Proposition

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

Preface

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation
---

Previously

Langer explains that a proposition can only be known via another proposition. (183). Implication is a relation that only holds among propositions. (183). Propositions are regarded as postulates. (185). A postulate needs to belong to the system, in the language of that system. A postulate should imply further propositions of that system. A postulate should not contradict any other accepted postulate, or any other proposition implied by another postulate. (185).

In other words, symbolic logic requires non-contradiction within its system in a universe of discourse.

Requirements

Coherence: Every proposition in the system must cohere to the established conceptual structure. (185). It must be in coherence with the rest.

Contributiveness : A postulate should contribute and have implication. (185-186).

Consistency: Most important states Langer (186). Two contradictory propositions (or premises) cannot contradict each other in a system. (186). The inconsistent is logically impossible. It is a fatal condition. (186). It is not logic at all. (186).

Independence: Postulates should be independent from each other. (186). If a proposition is deductible from a postulate already provided, then it is a theorem, a necessary fact, not another assumption. (186). Something provable in a theorem would be error to include as a postulate. (186). I would reason that within philosophy there would be plenty of debate on what is a proposition/premise within systems and what would be a theorem. Langer explains that when a theorem needs elucidation, any proposition implied by another proposition as granted and proved within a system is a theorem. (186-187).
---

The Truth of the Proposition

Philosopher Langer writes that in the book, so far, nothing had been mentioned in regard to the truth of a proposition. (188). An implied proposition is true if all the premises are true. (188). The implied proposition could also be defined as the conclusion. If the premises are false, she opines that the proposition may or may not be true. (188).

There can be false premises and a true conclusion for a valid argument, but there cannot be true premise (s) and false conclusion with validity.

Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33).

Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (FT)

False premises and a false conclusion (FF)

True premises and a true conclusion (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid.

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. These include a true conclusion.

Langer explains

Brutus killed Caesar ⊃ Caesar is dead. (188). (⊃ is means the same as).

Since the implied premise is true the proposition is also true (consequent). (188). Blackburn explains 'Any proposition of the form 'if p then q'. The condition hypothesized, p, is called the antecedent of the conditional, and q the consequent'. Blackburn (1996: 73).

If

Brutus killed Caesar ˜ ⊃ (Brutus did not kill Caesar) Caesar is dead  (my equation using not the same)

This would not change the implication that Caesar was dead. (188). Brutus did not kill Caesar; Caesar died in another way.

Brutus fatally stabbed Caesar ∴ (therefore) Caesar is dead

Brutus murdered Caesar ⊨ (entails) Caesar is dead

---

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

---

An entry was placed on academia.edu with additions on 20251128