Why Do 76% of College Walk Away During College?

 " 3. Hebrews 11 defines faith: Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence (elenchus) of things not seen. What is interesting is the use of the term 'elenchus' in this passage.

"Elenchus in Homer (8th century) is variously: to put to shame, to treat with contempt, to question with the aim of disproving, with the aim of censure, accusation, to accuse someone and perhaps to convict them –oftentimes in uses we are superior officers dress down rank-and file-soldiers. In courts of law, the term is also used: to bring charges, to bring accusations, but also to bring proofs, evidence, to offer convincing proofs. Pre-Socrates, like Parmenides (early 5th century), uses it as Socrates does: an argument, scrutiny, cross-examination for the purpose of refutation or disproof.

 In Koine, the verb elencho is "I accuse, rebuke, reprove" and also "I expose, I showed it be guilty, I prove" (in the same sense of putting the lie to a public statement), it's in John 3:20, first Corinthians 14:24, Ephesians 5: 11, 13; James 2:9. Souter's Lexicon of the New Testament lists elenchus as "proof, possibly a persuasion" (Souter 1917). The evidence points to a straightforward fact: in the Apostolic Age, the word elenchus expanded in an important new context to take on the sense that is on the stage in Hebrews 11, that is, in a new way. They advocated, practiced, and helped make a success of using the word elenchus. Socrates used this term to indicate a rigorous process of argumentation or persuasion, or some other species of willing and satisfied affirmation - without argument - without going through the Socratic process of rigorous argumentation."

Socrates earned the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination. The anonymous author of Hebrews writes. instead, that faith is the substance of things hoped, for, and the conviction (elencus) or persuasion of things not seen. If Socrates were to hear this phrase, I imagine he would say, ", this may be conviction, But it is not an argument, not a cross examination and testify scrutiny, but is a jump without any justification – without proof, and without earning it. Where is the virtue in this?"

After reading this the first time, I was confused. Am I too dumb to understand college material? Eventually, I understood that it was scattered and incoherent. He is supposed to be writing about faith but gives a 2,800-year history of some word I've never heard of: elenchus. He makes up a word, elencho, that Chrome can't find and displays great faith in his imagination, four verses in the Bible not related to faith, uses a 1917 edition of a Greek dictionary, packs in four Bible verses not related to faith, and displays his unique imagination.  

Argument by gibberish. The purpose of gibberish is to give you the idea that he is putting forth really complicated material you can't understand. 

He started with faith but switched to elenchus. He mentions one verse on faith but switches to unrelated verses. The word faith is a safe, pleasant word, but elenchus, on the other hand, means to put to shame, to treat with contempt, to question with the aim of disproving, with the aim of censure, accusation, to accuse someone, and perhaps to convict them –oftentimes,— in uses, where superior officers dress down rank-and-file soldiers. If not cautious, you might think faith meant "to put to shame."

Guess what? The meaning of words changes over time. Why use the definition of a word today when the meaning 2,800 years ago better makes your case? 

Just because a man lived thousands of years ago doesn't give them great wisdom, but that is what the author is attempting. Perhaps "Socrates earned the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination," but the guy didn't bathe or change clothes. Lume only works for 72 hours, so let me know how that spices up romance.

Our professor makes fun of people who gain knowledge through faith, but he uses imagination to gain knowledge. The only problem is that he fools himself. His entire book is based on Socrates' method of acquiring knowledge. But how did Socrates, a theist, gain knowledge about God? 

.  Had the professor read Plato's "Apology of Socrates" (33c), he would have found that his epistemology failed him.

Plato, in court, said, "I have told you already, Athenians, the whole truth [alēthēs] about this: they like to hear the cross-examination of the pretenders to wisdom [sophiā]; there is amusement in this. And this is a duty which the God has imposed upon me, as I am assured by oracles [manteia], visions, and in every sort of way in which the will of divine power was ever signified to anyone. This is true [alēthēs], O Athenians; or, if not true, would be soon refuted."

Religion is indeed a poor epistemology if studying calculus, but imagination can always make you look dumb.