DOCSLIB.ORG

Part ⅰ. the Evolutionary Theology of John Haught

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Part ⅰ. the Evolutionary Theology of John Haught This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. The Doctrine of Theodicy in a Scientific Age: Examining the Evolutionary Theology of John Haught and the Daoist Philosophy of Zhuangzi Jaeho Jang PhD in Systematic Theology The University of Edinburgh 2017 Declaration I, Jaeho Jang, declare that this thesis has been composed solely by myself and that it has not been submitted, in whole or in part, in any previous application for a degree. Except where states otherwise by reference or acknowledgment, the work presented is entirely my own. Date________________ Signature _____________________ ii Abstract Modern evolutionary science has brought a sharp focus to bear on the problem of evil, and especially of natural evil and suffering in the natural world. Moreover, I believe that contemporary theodicy may benefit from engagement with the East Asian religion, Daoism. Therefore, I will comparatively examine the work of the evolutionary theodicy of Haught and the Daoist philosophy of Zhuangzi. I will not cover all of the thought of Haught and Zhuangzi, but instead I will focus on their ideas concerning the problem of evil, and develop them in harmony with evolutionary science. In order to do this comparative study, I will suggest the necessity of a new methodology, and propose five steps for the comparative work between religion and science and between Christianity and Daoism: description, comparison, generalisation, differentiation and supplementation. Based on this methodology, I will generalise the ideas of Haught and Zhuangzi on evil into seven different theodicies (the natural state defence, the free action defence, the suffering God defence, the hidden God defence, the harmony defence, the progress defence, and the final fulfilment defence). I will then supplement the evolutionary theodicy of Haught with the Daoist ideas of Zhuangzi on the basis of their differences. The main aim of this study is to develop Christian theodicies to inform both the West and the East in a scientific age by comparing the evolutionary theology of Haught and the Daoist philosophy of Zhuangzi. I will suggest that Western evolutionary theodicies would benefit from engagement with the Daoist philosophy of Zhuangzi, and that the evolutionary theodicy of John Haught might be of benefit in an Asian Christian context. I also expect that the Daoist philosophy of Zhuangzi can be seen in a new light through conversation with the evolutionary theology of Haught and evolutionary science generally. I hope that this thesis can be a catalyst for comparative study between religion and science and between Christianity and Daoism. iii This thesis is dedicated to my loving and supportive parents, Yongun Jang & Junghee Lim iv Acknowledgement In completing this thesis, I owe many people my heartfelt thanks. My primary supervisor, Dr. Mark Harris, the best supervisor a doctoral student could ask for, has supported and encouraged me in my work and life, offering much inspiration in my entering into science and religion scholarship. It was because of Dr. Harris that I could win the ‘Peacocke Prize’ in the Science and Religion Forum in 2015, publish my academic pieces in the book Issues in Science and Theology: Are We Special? (2017) and the journals Theology in Scotland (Autumn 2016) and Korean Journal of Christian Studies (2016), and present papers at the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology (2016) and the Theology and Ethics Seminar at New College (2017). It was truly an honour to translate his book The Nature of Creation: Examining the Bible and Science into Korean (2016). I also give thanks to Prof. Joachim Gentz, my secondary supervisor, who provided guidance concerning Daoist philosophy as featured in this thesis. Former President Jongcheon Park and Prof. Jeongbae Lee of Methodist Theological University in Korea, Prof. Jongseo Kim and Prof. Cheolhyeon Bae of Seoul National University, Prof. Sehyeong Lee of Hyeopseong University, and Prof. David Fergusson, Dr. Alexander Chow and Dr. David Grumett of New College, University of Edinburgh, all provided useful insights for the benefit of my thesis and for which I am grateful. The examiners present at my viva voce, Dr. Michael Fuller and Prof. Christopher Southgate, undoubtedly made this thesis stronger with their great recommendations. Besides academic thanks, I want to express my gratitude to Rev. Sun-Kyun Lee and Ahyun Jungang Church, the Korean Students Association at New College and also the Korean Church (Ross Chapel) in Edinburgh. Most of all, I could not finish this without the support of my parents Youngun Jang, Junghee Lim, my sisters, and my parents-in-law, Youngbae Jun, Soonjo Kwon. My loving wife Soeun Jun and upcoming baby (who is expected to arrive in this world on Christmas eve) has been the reason and motivation of my study. Glory to God in the highest. v Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 (1) The Necessity and Purpose of This Study ....................................................... 6 (2) Methods of Study .......................................................................................... 15 PART Ⅰ. THE EVOLUTIONARY THEOLOGY OF JOHN HAUGHT ........... 24 2. Evolutionary Science and Christian Theology in Haught ............................... 25 (1) What are ‘Evolution’ and ‘Evolutionary Theology’? ................................... 26 (2) The Evolution of Life and a Creator God ..................................................... 35 (3) Natural Selection and Divine Providence ..................................................... 38 (4) Contingency, Law, Time and a Transcendent Personal God ........................ 41 (5) Cosmic Evolution and Divine Promise ......................................................... 46 (6) Evolutionary Science and Ecotheology ......................................................... 50 (7) Summary ....................................................................................................... 52 3. The Problem of Evil and Theodicy in Haught .................................................. 55 (1) Christian Theodicies related to Haught ......................................................... 59 (2) Haught on Evil .............................................................................................. 64 (3) The Evolutionary Theodicy of Haught .......................................................... 70 (4) Summary ....................................................................................................... 85 PART Ⅱ. THE DAOIST PHILOSOPHY OF ZHUANGZI ................................ 87 4. Daoism and Zhuangzi’s Philosophy .................................................................. 88 (1) What are ‘Dao’ and ‘Daoism’? ..................................................................... 89 (2) The Daoist Philosophy of Zhuangzi .............................................................. 95 (3) Dao in Daoism and God in Christianity ...................................................... 102 (4) Summary ..................................................................................................... 112 5. Zhuangzi on Evil ............................................................................................... 114 (1) East Asian Religions on Evil: Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism ............. 114 (2) Zhuangzi on Evil ......................................................................................... 131 (3) Summary ..................................................................................................... 144 vi PART Ⅲ. COMPARISON ..................................................................................................... 146 6. Evolution and Natural/Moral Evil .................................................................. 148 (1) Evolution and the Emergence of Life: Information and Qi (氣, vital energy) ......................................................... 148 (2) The Natural State Defence: The Grace of God and Ziran (自然, spontaneity) ....................................... 159 (3) The Free Action Defence: Free Will and Wuwei (無爲, non-action) .................................................... 172 7. Continuous Creation and the Theodicy of Harmony .................................... 182 (1) The Suffering God Defence: The Kenotic God and Dao’s Omnipresence ............................................... 183 (2) The Hidden God Defence: The Self-Absenting of God and the Hiddenness of Dao ............................. 192 (3) The Harmony Defence: The ‘Dark Side’ and Yin (陰, the shadow side) .......................................... 203 8. New Creation and the Theodicy of the Metaphysical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Extinction, Natural Evil, and the Cosmic Cross
    Evolutionary Theodicy with Denis Edwards, “Christopher Southgate’s Compound Theodicy: Parallel Searchings”; Ted Peters, “Extinction, Natural Evil, and the Cosmic Cross”; Robert John Russell, “Southgate’s Compound Only-Way Evolutionary Theodicy: Deep Appreciation and Further Directions”; Bethany Sollereder, “Exploring Old and New Paths in Theodicy”; Holmes Rolston, III, “Redeeming a Cruciform Nature”; Ernst M. Conradie, “On Social Evil and Natural Evil: In Conversation with Christopher Southgate”; Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp, “Evolution, Contingency, and Christology”; John F. Haught, “Faith and Compassion in an Unfinished Universe”; Celia Deane-Drummond, “Perceiving Natural Evil through the Lens of Divine Glory? A Conversation with Christopher Southgate”; Nicola Hoggard Creegan, “Theodicy: A Response to Christopher Southgate”; and Neil Messer, “Evolution and Theodicy: How (Not) to Do Science and Theology.” EXTINCTION, NATURAL EVIL, AND THE COSMIC CROSS by Ted Peters Abstract. Did the God of the Bible create a Darwinian world in which violence and suffering (disvalue) are the means by which the good (value) is realized? This is Christopher Southgate’s insightful and dramatic formulation of the theodicy problem. In addressing this problem, the Exeter theologian rightly invokes the Theology of the Cross in its second manifestation, that is, we learn from the cross of Jesus Christ that God is present to nonhuman as well as human victims of predation and extinction. God co-suffers with creatures in their despair, abandonment, physical suffering, and death. What I will add with more force than Southgate is this: the Easter resurrection is a prolepsis of the eschatological new creation, and it is God’s new creation which retroactively determines past creation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil S2
    Theodicy Episode 190 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL S2 I. KEY THOUGHTS S3 1. The existence of evil is the greatest challenge for theism. S4 1. “There is little doubt that the problem of evil is the most serious intellectual difficulty for theism.” Stephen Davis, Encountering Evil (Knox Press, 1981), 2 THE PROBLEM S5 IF God is all-knowing, THEN he must know about evil IF God is all-loving, THEN he must want to abolish evil IF God is all-powerful, THEN he must be able to abolish evil BUT evil exists THEREFORE God is not all-loving & not all-powerful OR God does not exist THE SOLUTION S6 Theodicy èåïò (theos) God äéêç (dikç) justice DEF: arguments justifying the existence of evil in a world created by an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God 2. ALL theodicies include the notion of “Greater Good” S7 God allows evil because it serves an ultimate purpose in bringing overall good into the world º EG selling of Joseph by his brothers he ends up in Egypt & his family is saved from famine S8 2. “You [his brothers] intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” Gen 50:20 3. Christian Theodicies have been intimately connected to Gen 3 & the Fall S9 K especially the COSMIC FALL Protestant Reformer John Calvin S10 3. “The earth was cursed on account of Adam [Gen 3:18] ... the whole order of nature was subverted by the sin of man ... Moses does not enumerate all the disadvantages in which man, by sin, has involved himself; for it appears that all the evils of the present life, which experience proves to be innumerable, have proceeded from the same fountain.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I
    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas. Adolf Hitler Until the habit of thinking is well formed, facing the situation to discover the facts requires an effort. For the mind tends to dislike what is unpleasant and so to sheer off from an adequate notice of that which is especially annoying. John Dewey, How We Think Introduction In everyday speech you may have heard someone refer to a commonly accepted belief as a fallacy. What is usually meant is that the belief is false, although widely accepted. In logic, a fallacy refers to logically weak argument appeal (not a belief or statement) that is widely used and successful. Here is our definition: A logical fallacy is an argument that is usually psychologically persuasive but logically weak. By this definition we mean that fallacious arguments work in getting many people to accept conclusions, that they make bad arguments appear good even though a little commonsense reflection will reveal that people ought not to accept the conclusions of these arguments as strongly supported. Although logicians distinguish between formal and informal fallacies, our focus in this chapter and the next one will be on traditional informal fallacies.1 For our purposes, we can think of these fallacies as "informal" because they are most often found in the everyday exchanges of ideas, such as newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, political speeches, advertisements, conversational disagreements between people in social networking sites and Internet discussion boards, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Thinking, with Heidegger, the Religion-Science-Theology Relation
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 3-1-2013 Thinking, with Heidegger, the Religion-Science-Theology Relation David L. Carlson University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Carlson, David L., "Thinking, with Heidegger, the Religion-Science-Theology Relation" (2013). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 112. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/112 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. THINKING, WITH HEIDEGGER, THE RELIGION-SCIENCE-THEOLOGY RELATION ____________ A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the University of Denver and the Iliff School of Theology Joint PhD Program University of Denver ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy ____________ by David L. Carlson March 2013 Advisor: Dr. Francis Seeburger ©David L. Carlson 2013 All Rights Reserved Author: David L. Carlson Title: THINKING, WITH HEIDEGGER, THE RELIGION-SCIENCE- THEOLOGY RELATION Advisor: Dr. Francis Seeburger Degree Date: March 2013 ABSTRACT This work is an attempt to think the essential nature of the interrelationships among religion, science, and
    [Show full text]
  • The Lions Seek Their Prey from God: a Commentary on the Boyle Lecture
    S & CB (2005), 17, 41–56 0954–4194 R.J. BERRY The Lions Seek Their Prey from God: a Commentary on the Boyle Lecture John Haught asks how we can reconcile evolution with the idea of divine prov- idence: ‘The major question for theology, now as in the years immediately sub- sequent to the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, is how to reconcile the brute impersonality and blindness … in evolution’s recipe with trust in divine providence.’ In his book Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Michael Ruse1 focuses on the same point. He identifies as ‘the biggest question of all for the Christian believer is the “theodicy” problem. If, as the Christian believes, God is omnipotent and all-loving, then why evil? If He is all-powerful, He could pre- vent evil, and if he is all-loving, then He would prevent evil. Yet evil exists.’ For some this is a definitive proof against the sort of God revealed in the Bible. David Hull2 has written, The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror … Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural selection may be like, he is not the Protes- tant God of waste not, want not. He is also not the loving God who cares about his productions. He is not even the awful God pictured in the Book of Job. [He] is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray. This is the sort of interpretation which led to the notorious conclusion of Richard Dawkins3, that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually ful- filled atheist’.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation and Theodicy: Protological Presuppositions in Evolutionary Theodicy
    Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 25/2 (2014): 3-28. Article copyright © 2014 by Adriani Milli Rodrigues. Creation and Theodicy: Protological Presuppositions in Evolutionary Theodicy Adriani Milli Rodrigues Adventist University of Sao Paulo, Brazil There are different positions regarding the understanding of the doctrine of creation in the face of the challenge of the evolutionary concept of origins. In broad terms, while some deny the theory of evolution1 in favor of a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, many scholars attempt to comprehend this doctrine in certain consonance with that theory.2 1 The present study acknowledges the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. The references to evolution in this text imply the concept of macroevolution. While microevolution refers to small changes within one species, macroevolution describes “the evolution of major new characteristics that make organisms recognizable as a new species, genus, family, or higher taxon.” Stanley A. Rice, Encyclopedia of Evolution (New York: Infobase, 2009), 253. This distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is used, for example, by Stephen Jay Gould. See S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History, reissued ed. (New York: Norton, 1992), 187-192. 2 Edward B. Davis indicates “four main patterns” that “govern most religious responses to evolution today: complementary” (“theological truths exist in a higher realm apart from scientific truths”), conflict against evolution (“rejection of evolution”), conflict against Christianity (“rejection of Christianity”), and “doctrinal reformulation” (“rejection of divine transcendence and the wholesale reformulation of traditional Christian doctrine”). Edward B. Davis, “The Word and the Works: Concordism and American Evangelicals,” in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Discourse: a Way Forward for Theistic Evolutionism?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto NZSTh 2018; 60(3): 435–451 Erkki Vesa Rope Kojonen* Design Discourse: A Way Forward for Theistic Evolutionism? https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2018-0025 Summary: It is usually supposed that biological design arguments (where biologi- cal complex order is seen as evidence of a Creator) are made obsolete by Darwi- nian evolutionary theory. However, philosopher Alvin Plantinga and others have defended the continued possibility of a rational “design discourse”, in which biological order is taken as a sign of God’s purposeful action. In this article, I consider two objections to design discourse: (1) a theological objection to biologi- cal design based on the problem of natural evil, and (2) the evolutionary objec- tion, according to which evolutionary theory removes the justification for any biological design perception. Whereas Plantinga’s own response utilizes the arguments of the Intelligent Design movement, I argue in favor of utilizing “de- sign discourse” as part of a theistic evolutionist view. Keywords: theistic evolutionism, teleology, design argument, problem of natural evil, Alvin Plantinga Zusammenfassung: Es wird gemeinhin angenommen, dass biologische Design Argumente (welche die komplexe biologische Ordnung als Beweis für einen Schöpfer erachten) durch Darwins Evolutionstheorie obsolet werden. Der Philo- soph Alvin Plantinga und andere haben jedoch die Möglichkeit eines fortgeführ- ten rationalen „Design Diskurses“ verteidigt, der die biologische Ordnung als ein Zeichen Gottes zielgerichteter Handlung begreift. In diesem Artikel betrachte ich zwei Einwände gegen den Design Diskurs: (1) einen theologischen Einwand zum biologischen Design basierend auf dem Problem der natürlichen Übel und (2) den evolutionären Einwand, nach dem die Evolutionstheorie die Berechtigung jeder biologischen Design Vorstellung aufhebt.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Dissertation
    Animal Suffering in an Unfallen World: A Theodicy of Non-Human Evolution Submitted by Bethany Noël Sollereder to the University of Exeter as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology In October 2014 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: ………………………………………………………….. !2 Abstract The publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 raised a host of theological issues. Chief amongst them is the question of how a good, loving, and powerful God could create through an evolutionary process that involved so much suffering, pain, and violence. The traditional Christian answers for suffering in the natural world are not plausible in an evolutionary world. We cannot blame natural evil on human sin, since earth history shows that non- human suffering long preceded humans. Nor can we say that God allows suffering because it allows opportunity for moral choice, spiritual closeness with God, and the development of virtue, as none of these apply to the non-human realm. A new approach is needed to address the question of suffering and violence amongst non-human animals. In this dissertation, I address the question of evolutionary suffering with a multi-disciplinary approach of biblical studies, philosophical theology, and systematic theology to build a compound theodicy.
    [Show full text]
  • Catherine A. Wright
    In the Darkness Grows the Green: The Promise of a New Cosmological Horizon of Meaning Within a Critical Inquiry of Human Suffering and the Cross by Catherine A. Wright A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Regis College and the Theology Department of the Toronto School of Theology in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College © Copyright by Catherine A. Wright 2015 In The Darkness Grows the Green: The Promise of a New Cosmological Horizon of Meaning Within a Critical Inquiry of Human Suffering and the Cross Catherine A. Wright Doctor of Philosophy in Theology Regis College and the University of St. Michael’s College 2015 Abstract Humans have been called “mud of the earth,”i organic stardust animated by the Ruah of our Creator,ii and microcosms of the macrocosm.iii Since we now understand in captivating detail how humanity has emerged from the cosmos, then we must awaken to how humanity is “of the earth” in all the magnificence and brokenness that this entails. This thesis will demonstrate that there are no easy answers nor complete theological systems to derive satisfying answers to the mystery of human suffering. Rather, this thesis will uncover aspects of sacred revelation offered in and through creation that could mould distinct biospiritual human imaginations and cultivate the Earth literacy required to construct an ecological theological anthropology (ETA). It is this ecocentric interpretive framework that could serve as vital sustenance and a vision of hope for transformation when suffering befalls us.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death Preppers Guide Book the Fine Art of Stating the Obvious
    The Death Preppers Guide Book The Fine Art of Stating the Obvious 1 ©By :Peter-James :Mitchell 20201207 CONTENTS Ponder – 0 - Intro Ponder – 1 - Dissapointment Ponder – 2 – Fool to Phool Ponder – 3 – Star Lore of our Species Ponder – 4 – Astrology = Star Lore Ponder – 5 – Brief Astrology Overview Ponder – 6 – Astrology as a Logic Puzzle Ponder – 7 - Philosophy Ponder – 8 – Separated-ego and Soul Centred Ego Ponder – 9 – Power Corrupts Absolute Power Corrups Absolutely Ponder – 10 – Pretensional Logic Puzzle Game Ponder – 11 – Gender Ponder Ponder – 12 – Psyche and Psychology Ponder – 13 – Pisces Grace Ponder – 14 – Attitude of Grace Ponder – 15 – Phool Astrology Ponder – 16 – Only a Phool Ponder – 17 - Namaste Ponder – 18 – Chiromancy the fine art of Divination Ponder – 19 – Testimony to our arrival to the Age of Aquarius Ponder – 20 – Back to Pisces Ponder – 21 - Kabal Ponder – 22 – Resolution of Conflict Ponder – 23 – For those not familiar with Astrology Ponder – 24 – Only Dead Ponder – 25 – Cannabis Contortions Ponder – 26 – Quantum Language Ponder – 27 – Token Gesture of the Phools Militia 2 ©By :Peter-James :Mitchell 20201207 Ponder – 28 – Courtesy Notice for Public Servants Ponder – 29 – NOTICE-OF-UNDERSTANDING-AND-INTENT-MANDATE-COUNTER-CLAIM-CONDITIONAL-ACCEPTANCE Ponder – 30 – FOR THE QUANTUM NOTICE All Jester Images in this book are from Rumpel the Worldly Fool of Comedy 3 ©By :Peter-James :Mitchell 20201207 Ponder Zero F Hello Everyone! I welcome you all, as fellow members of my jolly big, beautiful, human family... to this Phoolosophy Adventure. This adventure is like a side show of divine and utter madness... exploring totally ridiculous, optimistic notions of where we are at, as a collective body of fellow individuating cells, of an organism we call humanity guided by the star lore of white fella dreaming, the ancient wisdom of Western Astrology and Tarot.
    [Show full text]
  • So You Say: Demonstrated Facts V. Unsupported Assertions
    So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Prepared by: Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and W. Michael Gillette, Associate Justice (retired) Oregon Supreme Court Shareholder: Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Prepared for: 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Copyright © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications Wilsonville, Oregon So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Page 1 So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) W. Michael Gillette, Association Justice, Oregon Supreme Court (retired) I. Burdens of Proof A. “Burden of Proof” Defined: 1. Duty placed upon a party to a civil or criminal action to prove or disprove a disputed fact. 2. “Burden of Proof” is also used as a synonym for “Burden of Persuasion” which is the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed fact. B. Preponderance of the Evidence Defined: 1. Evidence, as a whole, shows fact to be proved is more probable than not. 2. The existence of the fact at issue is more likely than not. 3. The greater weight of the credible evidence. 4. More evidence or more credible evidence than evidence offered in opposition to it. C. Clear and Convincing Evidence Defined: The existence of a particular fact is highly probable or reasonably certain. This standard may be used in some jurisdictions when the issue is whether a person was guilty of deceit or fraud—a matter that had to be proved at common law by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a mere preponderance.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 a Great Big List of Fallacies
    Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense Appendix 1 A Great Big List of Fallacies To avoid falling for the "Intrinsic Value of Senseless Hard Work Fallacy" (see also "Reinventing the Wheel"), I began with Wikipedia's helpful divisions, list, and descriptions as a base (since Wikipedia articles aren't subject to copyright restrictions), but felt free to add new fallacies, and tweak a bit here and there if I felt further explanation was needed. If you don't understand a fallacy from the brief description below, consider Googling the name of the fallacy, or finding an article dedicated to the fallacy in Wikipedia. Consider the list representative rather than exhaustive. Informal fallacies These arguments are fallacious for reasons other than their structure or form (formal = the "form" of the argument). Thus, informal fallacies typically require an examination of the argument's content. • Argument from (personal) incredulity (aka - divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false. • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed so extensively that nobody cares to discuss it anymore. • Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct. • Argumentum verbosium – See proof by verbosity, below. • (Shifting the) burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false. • Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with (or assumes) what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
    [Show full text]