ithink

More Pre-modernism

2010-03-27T12:22:00.002-05:00

It's about time for another installment in my series of explanations on 'pre-modernism'. Just to refresh some memories, it's not about going back to belief in a flat earth and blood-letting. There was an understanding of reality in the pre-modern, Judeo-Christian world, that was much more accurate than the modern world. Our views of things are so colored by the modern, or post-modern assumptions we make that we can't recognize our own biases.

What I'm about to say is going to ruffle some feathers. Some people definitely won't like it. That's ok. Let me hear about it.

I'm going to start by just coming out with the controversial part, then I'll go back and explain. That might take a little while. But here we go.

Conservative Christians have come to believe they are fighting against the modern world which tries to explain away the Bible. The modern world doesn't believe in miracles, so the miraculous parts of the Bible were obviously made up. So they say. The problem with the Christian response is that it often --usually-- relies on some of the same modern assumptions that are used to criticize the Bible. What happens is that the Christian ends up defending the Bible on the grounds that, "God can get His facts straight."

That is just simply not acceptable. There are good arguments on both sides of debates about which passages in scripture are historical and which are literary. Both certainly exist, which can be easily demonstrated. The historical truth of the existence of King David, the accuracy of the gospel of Luke, etc, and many other points on which the historical facts do back up the Bible. Then there are parts of the Bible that are obviously poetic or symbolic. In the Psalms, and by Jesus in the N.T., God is described as a chicken who cares for her chicks. And in Psalm 57 David says, "In the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge." Does that mean God is a great big Chicken?

Then there are cases that are more difficult to determine. Genesis, Jonah, Job, Daniel, Revelation, just to name a few. I believe there are good arguments for why different passages may be historical/literal or more 'literary', on both sides. And I don't have all those points figured out. Even if I did, it is often of less importance than applying the passages to our lives. But nevertheless, it is a mistake to use the argument, either directly or as a hidden premise, that "God can get his facts straight."

As I explain myself I'll be covering some ground we've covered before. As we went from predominantly pre-modern to modern, the meaning of 'fact' changed. There was also a corresponding change in the meaning of 'objective.' The original meaning of 'objective' was that something had it's origin outside of an individual's mind. For example, it is 'objectively' true that adultery is wrong. This is something determined by God, who is the law giver, the one who decides right and wrong. It isn't something I think is true because I happen to prefer it to be true. It really is. But the modern understanding of 'objective' is different. The word now means that something is true, "and I can show it to you." The modern world only accepts as 'objective' those things that can be demonstrated empirically, through the senses.

The same thing happened to the word 'fact.' Facts today deal with only material and measurable things. So, it may be a 'fact' that the earth goes around the sun, but it cannot be a 'fact' that adultery is wrong. It can be a preference or an opinion, but not a fact. To a modern mind many of the realities of life are optional opinions because of the way 'fact' as been defined.

This is also tied together with the modern misunderstanding of cause and effect. I've pointed out before that to really understand something you have to understand it in 4 different ways. Things have formal, final, material, and efficient causes, not just one cause. In the modern way of understanding there is only 1 category of causes, and it's a hybrid cause, a combination of the material and efficient. The modern world has done away with formal and final causes, that is, design, meaning, and purpose.

What happens when conservatives go to interpret the Bible, all too often, is we start with the unspoken premise that "God can get his facts straight." But it involves a modern mindset, that puts the entire emphasis on material causes. This limits our ability to understand what God is telling us. I don't know for sure whether creation happened in 6 days, billions of years, or somewhere in between. I tend to think it took a long time. I also think there are some good arguments both ways. But I also think that God was not writing/inspiring with the modern misconception of the word fact. Ironically, sometimes as we try to prove the modern world wrong, by the argument we use we end up agreeing with them.

More to come.

2010-02-11T09:10:00.003-06:00

Chuck,

Those are good questions. I'm afraid I don't have a great explanation of 'circular' thought processes as it relates to ancient Hebrew thought or Native American thought. That's partly why I said, "Please don't dwell on that analogy too long, or try to take it to far." But it is probably worth exploring.

I'm not sure that type of 'circular' as opposed to 'linear' thought is the same thing as 'circular' reasoning, but they may be related, so I think we can start there. Circular reasoning is basically when you assume your conclusion is true in one of your premises, and use that to prove your conclusion. As an informal logical fallacy it is known as 'begging the question.' But we think of circular arguments as 'fallacious' and don't give them the credit they are due. It isn't without merit, sometimes, to have a circular argument because it can show that your position is consistent, or it can help you restate your conclusion in another way, which might help someone else understand your position better. Where a circular argument falls short is when you are claiming to 'prove' that your position is true by way of a circular argument.

Here's a real life example of circular reasoning:

"The healthcare system in the US is not as good as in other countries because it is not socialized. Therefore, since socialized medicine is better, the US should change it's healthcare system to be more like other countries."

The World Health Organization actually does this. They rate the US low for it's health care and claim to show the US needs to become more socialized. But the rating process is designed to give high marks for socialized systems and low marks for those that aren't. So are they are really saying is, "We like socialized medicine!"

I'm not so sure the Greeks were purely linear in their thinking. I think they were more comprehensive than that. The fact that they consider 4 causes instead of 1 or 2 is an example. Linear thinking shows up both in logical progressions and cause and effect relationships. An example in cause and effect is 'cue stick strikes cue ball, which strikes another ball, which gets to a pocket, then is acted on by gravity...' The more comprehensive explanation of cause and effect would mention the intentions and purposes of an agent with a mind and a cue stick who has in mind some strategy (why did he hit that ball that direction), along with things like 'entertainment.'

So, a linear thought process is like a chain. Each proposition (in logic) or each event(physics) is just connected to the next like links in a chain. It's just 1-dimensional. Circular reasoning (whatever that is) might be like the chain looping around back on itself. It's 2-dimensional. But a more comprehensive process wouldn't involve just a chain with links, but each link being attached to links above and below it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Chain mail is a whole fabric made of links that support each other in many directions, and the fabric can be wrapped around and connected together to be 3D.

Here's an example using the ontological argument. Some people claim there is a circular nature to the argument because, so the argument goes, the only people who would agree that "It is possible that a greatest possible being exists," are people who are already prone to believe there is a God. So you are assuming what you are proving. But that's not true. There are an enormous number of other things in life that support the idea that God is at least possible. There are other arguments based on natural theology like the cosmological arguments, design arguments, moral law arguments, personal experiences of many people, historical arguments, etc, etc. All these things, and more, point to the fact that the existent of God is 'possible' at a minimum. So the ontological argument isn't really circular after all. The first premise is just one ring in the chain mail shirt that has support from several other rings.

There is no one point of view of reality that removes all doubt or all mystery. Whether you are a Christian, an atheist, a Hindu, Muslim, or whatever, there are going to be some difficulties at some level. For a Christian, the Trinity is a mystery and difficult to understand. As David Stove, the atheist who wrote Darwinian Fairytales, says, "Or rather, to tell the truth, it's "triune" God has been its Achilles' heel all along, and a perpetual source of scandal, ... to the countless sensible Christians who cannot help thinking that 3 and 1 are different numbers." The problem is that rejecting the Trinity causes countless other problems, and at the end of the day accepting that as a location of mystery, and recognizing that "3 in 1" is just a metaphor, answers far more than it brings into question. So the point isn't to have a system of thought that removes all doubt and questions, but one that answers things better than all the rest. Christian thought is a shirt of mail that has far fewer weak spots than any other. Besides, a good shirt has a few holes it for your head and arms. (Maybe that's what God means by 'holy'. Sorry, just a bad joke.)

I know my explanation of circular thought leaves something to be desired. If anyone else can explain that better please post it. Michal gave me a book for Christmas about a Norwegian commando who was hunted by the Nazis in WWII. He ended up escaping with the help of the Lapps, the reindeer herders in northern Scandinavia. They apparently also have a sort of circular way of thinking. When I get a chance I'll go back and look at that.

The more I think about it, maybe circular in this case just means, "not linear."

2010-02-11T08:51:00.001-06:00

Cory,

I'm not sure I get the chain mail shirt, but I get the idea of looking at things in 3D. That's simply reality. That's seeing things as they really are.

I've always had trouble with the linear vs cyclical thought patterns that I hear about. Some say, Hebrew, is a circular or cyclical thought process unlike Greek. But I don't understand that. Can you pretend that I'm an 8th grader, no wait, a 4th grader, and give me an illustration of linear Vs Circular thought. What would linear thought look like on a particular issue or subject, verse how it would look in a circular one. Does this make sense?

Chuck

More Pre-Modernism

2010-02-08T12:24:00.004-06:00

More than once I've mentioned that I'm more 'pre-modern' than 'modern' or 'post-modern.' The last post about the ontological argument provided a good example of what pre-modern thought might look like. I've thought of a couple more examples of what pre-modern thought is like. Just so you don't think I'm planning on going back to horses and wagons, or that I believe the earth is flat, I want to share another example.

It has been said that westerners think linearly, with thoughts moving from one to another like a chain, and other people, like American Indians, think in a circular path. Some people think this explains why our cultures are so different. There may be something to that, I don't know, but the analogy works for our purposes. In light of the last post, I believe both the linear and the circular paths are incomplete. The best way of thinking is in 3-D. I mean that our ideas should fit together like that chain mail shirt mentioned in the last post.

Please don't dwell on that analogy too long, or try to take it too far. It's just that the chain mail shirt is still coming in handy for descriptive purposes. One of the most prominent characteristics of modern thought is it's linear nature, and this carries over into modern descriptions of cause and effect. This has significant influence on many aspects of our lives, including politics, religion, medicine, ethics, etc.

The pre-modern understanding was that to understand the cause of something you had to know 4 different causes. These are the material, efficient, formal, and final causes. An easy example of this is to consider a statue. The material cause is the marble or wood, or whatever it is made out of. The efficient cause is the sculptor. The formal cause is the design or plan in the sculptor's mind. And finally, (no pun intended) the final cause is the purpose of the statue (ie to beautify the city, or whatever).

The problem with the modern way of thinking is that it only deals with the first 1 or 2 of those causes. Usually, all there is to know from a modern perspective is the material the thing is made of. As far as science goes, the interaction of matter is all that is needed to explain cause and effect, or so we are told. Modern science sometimes allows for efficient causes, and sometimes not. Often the material world is considered explanation enough, as the material universe is the efficient cause.

Here's why it matters. That is what Darwinism, among other things, is all about. There is no design, purpose, or final plan for anything in biology, to a Darwinist. Once in a while you'll here someone in medical school take Darwinism to it's logical end and deny, for instance, that the purpose of the heart is to pump blood. It just happens to be a muscle that contracts in such a way to pump blood. But it really all happened as an accident. Fortunately, few people can continue thinking this way, even if they don't understand where the faulty thinking is. It is clear to most people that the reason we have cardiologists is because some people's heart don't behave the way the ought to.

Another way of saying this is that the modern way of viewing things is reductionistic. The explanation of everything is just an explanation of the material parts. If you understand the physics and chemistry of a human body you've explained all there is to explain. In medical school reductionism rears it's ugly head all the time. Fortunately, in my experience most people in medicine have at least some understanding that people are more than the sum of their parts. But they still have a tainted view of people and their souls. The most obvious example I can think of reductionism in medicine is in the way abortion is handled. An unborn baby is just 'products of conception'. Also, in neuroscience reductionism plays a big role. The standard view in neuroscience is that all you are as far as your identity goes is your brain. The chemistry in your brain is what you are. Your thoughts are really just chemical reactions. And of course there is no soul. Souls are immaterial and don't neatly cooperate with the view that material explanations are all that are needed. In reality, souls and the mental activity they engage in are immaterial. Looking into a brain and thinking you have found the thought is like tearing apart a radio trying to find the voice (that's an illustration from CS Lewis). The brain is a thought processing organ, but a bunch of neurons don't exhaustively explain the thought.

Wendell Berry is a Christian writer who explains it like this: modern, reductionistic science is useful and has value, but in terms of really explaining things it is 'more like a bucket than a well.' When you leave out design and purpose and anything immaterial you end up with less ability to explain reality, not more.

Historically, Descartes is the one is given credit with this focus on material causes. I don't think he intended all the consequences of that. And it wasn't all bad. Science does work. It just isn't the complete answer it is made out to be. In the first 100 or 200 years after Descartes scientists were obviously Christian, and they did their science from the point of view that the universe and been created by a God who had put it in order, and therefore the material universe could be explored and understood. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton were all like this.

A curious thing happened with Newton, however. In one of his scientific works he said, in Latin, "Hypothesis non fingo." In English that means, "I feign no hypothesis." In other words, he wasn't pretending that his physics provided a complete understanding of reality. He was merely describing the physical universe without reference to purpose or design. That doesn't mean the purpose and design weren't there. It is interesting that Newton came up with most of his discoveries in math and science in a very short period of time. Most of it happened in 1 year. He spent a far greater amount of time investigating things like numerology in scripture, and contemplating spiritual things. The volume of his writings on such things greatly outnumbers his writing in math and science that we remember him for today. His religious views were a little odd, and he wasn't a Christian as we understand it because he didn't believe in the Trinity. But he understood the bigger picture was there.

Compare that to a century or so later when LaPlace was giving an explanation of his work to Napoleon. LaPlace had written a book on the solar system and planetary motion. Napoleon asked him how God fit into his explanation. "I have no need of that hypothesis, Sir," was LaPlace's response. What a change! Now, I don't know about LaPlace's spiritual life, but he was apparently a practicing Catholic. Christians will sometimes defend LaPlace because math and physics had progressed to a point where that really was all that was needed to explain the solar system. Or was it? He could have at least said that, "Well, God designed the solar system and it works according to his purposes," or something like that. We are back to the bucket vs the well. Even if a description of the solar system seems of little consequence, the schism had happened. The formal and final causes were removed. The consequences are more dramatic when one considers this same materialism led to Karl Marx, Darwin, etc.

The Ontological Argument

2010-02-05T11:17:00.002-06:00

I've been reading a really good book recently, called Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution. It was written by David Stove, an atheistic philosopher from Australia. He was an expert on David Hume, the 18th century philosopher known for his skepticism. David Stove applied this skepticism well in criticizing Darwin and all the neo-Darwinists. It can be very useful when arguing against atheists if you can quote another atheist.

I could go on for a while about this book, but that's not why I'm writing. A while back we were talking about the 'ontological argument' for the existence of God, and Chuck brought up the objection that it is not at all clear that 'existence' is a property of things. Well, while reading David Stove's book I ran across a passage in which he criticizes Richard Dawkins 'discovery' of something called 'memes'. (That subject deserves a discussion of it's own.) Stove called Dawkin's discovery a pseudo-discovery, then gave a couple of examples of other philosophical 'pseudo-discoveries'. One of them is Kant's 'discovery' that 'existence' is not a property. It goes like this:

"Any property that a real x had, an imaginary x could have, and any property that an imaginary x could have, a real x could have.

So,

Existence is not a property."

Stove doesn't elaborate any further, he just threw it out there as an example. There a probably several ways to object to Kant's idea here. The first thing that comes to my mind is that one reason some people are prone to dislike the the ontological argument is that it seems so simple and child-like that it can't possibly be true. And if evidence of God's existence is so simple, doesn't that trivialize faith a little bit? To the first objection I would say that a) we are supposed to be child-like as Christians, and b) it would be very ironic for serious, grown-ups to claim to have easily dismissed such a childish notion with such a childish notion of their own. To the second objection I would say that, a) in addition to the admirable quality of being child-like, we find in Romans 1 that reality shows us clearly that God exists, and that not to see this is to suppress what we should naturally understand, and the ontological argument is an example of that, and b) it is a misunderstanding of faith (a subject we've already covered before).

The truth is that both the ontological argument and the 'existence' objection are simple on one level, yet you can spend a lot of time thinking them through. Not all Christian thinkers agree with the ontological argument, for various reasons, but some of it stems from Kant. But many, such as the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, do think it is sound. And there is the old story of Bertrand Russell walking across the yard at Cambridge mumbling to himself, "Great God in boots, the ontological argument is valid!"

To me, the 'existence' objection reveals a certain, modernist, bias. Remember that I've said before that I'm more pre-modern than modern or post-modern. But Kant was a modernist, and there are a few things it would have been good for him to remember. Ancient philosophers, and this would have included the church fathers, understood that there were up to 12 different ways in which something can be said to exist. I don't know most of them, but Caleb and I are going to learn them next year in his logic class. But the two different senses of existence that stand out to me are to exist 'in the mind' or to exist 'independent of the mind'. Take the example of a child's imaginary friend. If a child comes into the house and says that their friend has just been hit by a car, it is appropriate to respond differently if this is a real friend who lives down the street, or if it is an imaginary friend. Both friends exist, but one only exists in the child's mind, whereas the real friend who lives down the street has an existence independent of the child's mind. Clearly, there is a sense in which one of the friends 'exists' and the other doesn't. The friend who lives down the street has a property that the other one doesn't.

There is an objection to the ontological argument that I think is a lot more powerful. In a deductive argument, if the premise(s) is true, and the conclusion follows from the premise(s), then the conclusion is true. It is a slam dunk. In this case the premise, "It is possible that a being greater than which no being could be exists," (or however you want to formulate it) is not going to be readily accepted by everyone. In simpler form it be simply, "It is possible that God exists" or "It is possible that a necessary being exists." I accept those premises, and it seems an agnostic would too, but some atheists won't.

This brings up another pre-modern idea. "I believe in order to understand." Ancient thinkers understood that we all do this. We see it in real life all the time. Someone who believes in global warming believes all the evidence points to the conclusion that man-made global warming is real. And the global warming skeptics do it as well. We all do. Evolutionists, creationists, whatever. It looks a little bit circular, doesn't it? The ironic thing here is that the ancients and medievals understood logic better than anyone, and to them this was ok. It doesn't mean that a circular argument by itself proves anything. But, for moderns a logical chain of thoughts was just that, a chain. One thought follows from another like links in a linear chain. But to the ancients it was more like chain mail armor. It isn't just a chain of links but a whole, 3-dimensional shirt. So, if we take the ontological arugment by itself, there is some room for doubt about that premise. But when we take into consideration everything else we know about reality, and all the other reasons that we have to believe that the existence of God is at least possible, the ontological argument become quite strong.

2010-01-05T07:55:00.000-06:00

Cory,
I enjoy reading your posts and their responses. I cannot enter into you conversations at the level you men are, but am challenged by how you all think. I may be making myself vulnerable to your knowledge and study with this, however Iconsider your use of 'postmodernism' as a generalization. I'm not defending postmodernism any more than I would condemn modernism. Both have characteristics of value as well as areas of concern.
This document that I've attached describes the difference and the reason for the apparent shift. Agree or disagree, it is interesting. I'm just concerned of generalizing statements that 'write off' an entire thought process by only citing the areas that align with existentialism.
The 'emergent' church, in the strictest sense, is loosing ground to the more favorable 'missional' church. Both 'emergent' and 'postmodernism' (both of which many say we've moved beyond) were corrective measures and a reaction to bring balance to strict modernism which they would say elevated knowledge without regard to the experience and outworking of that knowledge alongside it.
Anyway. Like I said, it's the generalization that hit me of center more than anything else. Otherwise, great discussion and admire the knowledge and history your guys bring to it.

Vito

Existentialism and Postmodernism

2009-12-15T09:53:00.006-06:00

Existentialism and postmodernism are not the same thing, but there are some very strong connections between them. Chuck brought up existentialism as we were discussing postmodernism, and off it went. Two things that strike me as important in both are the values placed on 'authenticity' and 'passion'. The church in Kierkegaard's time had lost it's passion because it didn't really have a reason to believe anymore. The postmodern church, or 'emergent church' as it is called, is very interested in authenticity and passion, too. The issue is perhaps a little different now than in Kierkegaard's time, but the emergent church fights against strict, doctrinal belief systems that demand unquestioning allegiance. They view the traditional church as something that people tend to conform to outwardly without any change of heart.

That's all well and good, to a point. There is nothing wrong with trying to be 'authentic' and 'passionate' about your faith. You should be. The problem with existentialism and postmodernism is that their respective adherents think they have found the solution when they haven't. Neither one provides a good foundation on which build faith. You can't evangelize the world be saying, "take a leap into the absurd with me!" And you can't take away doctrinal truth without sliding away from the truth on a slippery slope.

Therefore, I have a proposition for anyone with existentialist or postmodern tendencies. Get yourself a good, strong dose of George MacDonald. He lived at roughly the same time as Kierkegaard, and dealt with some of the same issues, but with a more healthy response. The environment he lived in was a little different, but there were many similarities. MacDonald lived in Presbyterian, Calvinist Scotland. He reacted to the cold, mechanical, impersonal church as well. It was more of a demand for unquestioning, doctrinal purity that affected the church there. It didn't matter so much what was in your heart, as long as you said and did the right things, and didn't rock the boat. In the Lutheran Church in Denmark it was more a result of a full, frontal assault from modernism. (a huge generalization, I admit)

But MacDonald's solution was much different from Kierkegaard's. He wanted a faith that was both personal and authentic, but was still consistent with sound doctrine. I'm afraid I can't really describe it to you, at least not quickly. In my next post I'll give an example from MacDonald to try to explain how he balances all these issues. Better yet, read some MacDonald for yourself!

For now, suffice it to say, MacDonald had a large impact on later Christian writers such as Chesterton and CS Lewis. Lewis said of MacDonald, "I know hardly any other writer who seems to be closer, or more continually close, to the Spirit of Christ Himself!" MacDonald has many different styles of writing. He wrote many novels, some theology, some fantasy. His Unspoken Sermons are supposed to be very good. I've only read one of his novels myself, but it was very good. It had a lot to do with living the Christian life and how to discern God's will. That's what I will try to summarize in my next post.

2009-12-05T17:04:00.002-06:00

I just put a new link on the blog site. It's an interview of Dr John Patrick from the Christian Medical and Dental Association website. John is a friend of ours from Canada. Just to warn you, this is about 43 minutes long. But well worth it. There are a few things in there that touch on some things we've talked about.

Faith

2009-12-05T11:28:00.001-06:00

What is faith, if it isn't a leap into the absurd? Modern minds have a hard time understanding what faith is, I think, because the idea that faith is opposed to reason has permeated society. Most people think of faith along the lines of 'belief in something against all the evidence.' If you look up 'faith' in an English dictionary you will get something along those lines, too. But that doesn't express at all the biblical meaning of 'faith.' The beginning of Hebrews 11 is good place to look for help with the definition of faith. And Hebrews 11 is a good place to look when studying faith anyway, with its 'Faith Hall of Fame.' But a simple definition for the biblical idea of faith is this: the ability to behave according to what we say we believe, or, a believe held at a deep enough level that we can act on it.

I've heard examples given with things like parachutes and bullet-proof vests. Sure, it's easy to say that you know a bullet-proof vest will protect you, but do you believe it enough to put one on and let me shoot you in the chest? Let's make it even more mundane. When you get up in the morning and go out to the kitchen table, you exercise faith when you sit in the chair. You have faith that you can sit down and won't fall. You believe at such a deep level you don't even think about it, and you behave accordingly. You sit. You don't fall. The next time you are even more sure to drop down with complete confidence that you won't fall. You have faith in that chair.

Now, some people might object that such a mundane example doesn't do justice to the idea of religious faith. Believing in things we can't see, touch, hear, etc, is altogether different, they would say. But I would say that the point of religious faith is to grow enough so that you have the same type of faith in Christ as you do in the chair at the kitchen table. Let's look at an example from the Bible.

Take Peter. When Peter first met Jesus he didn't have much faith. He played along when Jesus instructed him to drop his net on the other side of the boat, but he didn't really believe. When the nets were found to be overloaded he was very astonished. But his faith grew. He learned as he lived with Jesus day-to-day that what Jesus said made sense and could be trusted. He was there when the 5000 were fed, and when the 4000 were fed. So when Jesus started talking about how He was the bread that came down out of heaven, and those who eat of Him, and drink His blood will have everlasting life, he could believe in that. As many of those who had been following Jesus decided to turn away Peter said, "where else would we go, you have words of eternal life." Peters belief in Jesus had strengthened to the point where he could act on it. He didn't get wishy washy and fall away.

But growth in our faith isn't a straight line up. Peter still had faith when he the guards came to the Garden of Gethsemane, even if it was misdirected. But before the cock crowed three times he had denied Jesus. At that point I suspect Peter saw the absurdity of the situation and it led him away from faith, not to a leap of faith. The one he thought was the Messiah was being beaten and close to being killed. How can you have faith in that? Of course, we know part of his problem was that he didn't believe, and therefore couldn't behave accordingly, what Jesus had tried to tell him on more than one occasion about what had to happen to Him.

He still had his doubts Sunday morning at the tomb. But he was able to see the resurrected Christ for himself. From then on, and particularly after Pentecost, Peter's faith was great. It still wasn't a straight line up. Paul still had to correct him at one point. But by the end of his life he was willing to suffer and die for Christ's sake. It wasn't a leap into the absurd, he was behaving according to what he knew to be true.

I've spoken before, following Kierkegaard's famous example, of Abraham's similar path. When God called him to sacrifice Isaac he knew God would keep his promise somehow, even if he didn't understand it, and he proceeded to behave accordingly. There are many other example's in the Bible of course, but they all show the same thing. Look through Hebrews 11 and think about each one of the examples there. And what about Joseph (both the son of Jacob and Mary's husband), Mary, Moses, Shadrack, Meshack, Abednego, Thomas, and on and on. All of these people came to a place where acting in faith was as much a part of them as sitting in the chair is for you in the morning.

Is that trivializing faith? Perhaps it could be taken that way, and I want to be careful that I'm not misunderstood. Most of the biblical examples had their struggles along the way. Doesn't it seem like it should be much harder to go deep into the jungle to preach to cannibals than to sit on the kitchen chair? Sure, it isn't exactly the same thing. Some examples of faith may require more courage than others. But we should all desire to grow to the point that when the Lord calls us we go, and it is as second nature as sitting in a chair, because we know that what the Lord says is reliable and He is to be trusted, not in spite of what we assume we know.

Fortunately, we have a gracious God. Sometimes, abandoning the wrong things we think we know isn't that easy. As C.S. Lewis said in The Screwtape Letters, God is at times even pleased with our stumbles. I suppose that depends on how we learn from them. At times our knowledge may be more sure than others.

But there is one area of life in which our faith truly can improve to the point where we can have faith as easily as we sit in a chair. In his book How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil, DA Carson talks about helping people 'die well.' Part of his point is that when faced with life and death, too many Christians are unable to face reality without a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety. It shouldn't be that way. We have every reason to know that what happens to us after we die, as Christians, is a very good thing. Some people say they fear the process of dying, not the actual death. But too many Christians have enormous anxiety about death itself. This is just speculation on my part (I just thought about it) but I think part of the blame for this can left with Kierkegaard. Maybe his faith was passionate and authentic enough that he really knew he was going to heaven. I don't know. But I don't think that a 'leap of faith' into the absurd gives many people much real confidence.

2009-12-04T13:05:00.003-06:00

Thanks, Chuck. The article you scanned to my email was a little hard to read, but I got most of it. Likewise, sorry your note that I posted ended up the way it did on the blog. I'm not sure why it does that. It wasn't like that when I composed it. But it will have to do.

Anyway, as far as the atheists' new approach, been there done that. But it could be worse. In the past I've talked about Nietzsche and how I disagree with him, but in some ways he was honest in his appraisal of where morality was at without God. In terms of ethics, the Enlightenment was about providing a basis for 'good without God,' through human reason alone. From Hume, to Kant, to Hegel, that is what it was about. Then there was Mill and Bentham. But it didn't work. Nietzsche understood that at the end of the day no appeal to reason could hide the fact that what passed as morality was just sentimentality and arbitrary, personal opinion. So he looked out into the abyss with despair. God was dead, so all that was left was nihilism. But he called out for the 'uberman', the 'higher man' who would establish his own order and decide right and wrong. This would in effect be the next step in the evolution of man.

I guess the best way to explain it is that people just don't know the history of ideas, so they are doomed to repeat them. This kind of debate is refreshing in a way, at least. Having atheists post signs like that is better than outlawing nativity scenes, etc. But I wonder if they have any new approaches to deciding how to decide between different views of 'the good.' What would they say to Mulsims, especially the ones to whom jihad is 'good'? One of the things Nietzsche realized was that the 'good' that the Enlightenment thinkers were trying to justify were things parasitized from Christianity. Kant felt there was a categorical imperative not to lie. But how did he know in the first place that lying was an ethical concern except by inheriting it from Christianity.

Does that answer the question? Anyone else have any thoughts? I put a link on the right hand side of the web page with a link to a First Things article from a while back about the very subject of 'Good without God.' I haven't read it for a while, but it is good, written by a guy from Wheaton.

2009-12-04T12:52:00.002-06:00

Cory,

This was excellent reading. I'm not sure I get it all, but I think
you nailed Kierkegaard and his "Christian Existentialism." I thought
your reality check in the first paragraph regarding economics was
good too.

I was reading the paper last night and came across the attached
article about atheists who are promiting the idea of "goodness
without god." The christmas phrase "be good for goodness sake" is
being used in creative ways to speak to atheists about celebrating
holidays without the need for god. I've attached the article, but you
might not be able to read it.

You say in one paragraph "But Hegel was just working out the ideas of
those before him, such as Kant. Human reason was elevated to the
highest good in the universe, and what was good could actually be
determined by human reason." My question to you, regardint this
comment and the article in the paper is, "can a person really know
what's good and what's bad without God?" Also, if he were to truly
know it, can anyone really be "good" without the concept of God?

What are your thoughts on that?

Chuck

What was Kierkegaard thinking?

2009-12-01T17:20:00.005-06:00

What was he thinking? What made him tick, and what about his experience made him come to the conclusions he did? I mentioned some things about his biography initially, then followed his ideas forward. It's time to back up a little.

One thing about heresies is that they have a hint of truth in them. Marx thought that everything in life is determined by economic factors. He was wrong. That ignores that fact that God has a purpose in history, and he's the one in control. Economic factors might not be as important to Him, or might be irrelevant to His purposes. God is usually more concerned with what kind of stewards we are with what He has provided for us, how we develop our minds, how that affects our actions, and our love for others, and our place in eternity, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that some things in life are determined by economic factors. Ask any parent getting ready to send their kids to college, missionaries trying to raise support, a Christian charity, or anyone who is out of a job. Economics matter. But economic factores are not the only factors.

So, where's the hint of truth in Kierkegaard? Remember back when I proposed we follow Alasdair MacIntyre and broke history up into three time periods? There's the Judeo-Christian period, followed by the modern and postmodern. Kierkegaard agreed with me that the modern world had gone wrong. The Enlightenment had created an atmosphere that elevated human reason so high that they thought they could do anything, and they were in control of their own destiny. Newton's laws had come to be interpreted to mean the universe could survive on it's own, and as LaPlace famously stated, "I have no need of that [God] hypothesis." The result on the church was a dead, lifeless, mechanical church, as we have discussed.

One of the philosophers responsible for the decay of the church was Hegel, and Kierkegaard probably reacted against him more than anything else. But Hegel was just working out the ideas of those before him, such as Kant. Human reason was elevated to the highest good in the universe, and what was good could actually be determined by human reason. Kierkegaard saw the results of that in the church, and he reacted. He didn't want the mechanical, meaningless church. He wanted passionate and authentic people in the church, people who really lived out what they said they believed.

He was right in his recognition of a problem, and partially right in his diagnosis, but totally wrong in his solution. Where his diagnosis started to go wrong was in not reaassesing the role of human reason. He found that human reason couldn't take you to a vibrant, passionate faith. So he proposed a leap of faith, to get him beyond reason.

That's the problem. Human reason by itself is not enough, that is true. But the Christian response through the centuries had always involved an interplay between reason of faith, not the abandonment of reason to leap into the absurd. Aquinas had started to separate faith and reason many centuries before, to be sure, but the distinction wasn't so stark until the Enlightenment. The Christian response prior to the Enlightenment had been captured in the phrase, "Faith seeking understanding," or "I believe in order to understand." They realized human reason wasn't enough. But faith informed reason and reason informed faith. At some point there may have to be a leap, but as Pascal said, it's a leap in the light, not a leap in the dark.

In Surprised by Joy CS Lewis talked about a fellow student, an atheist, who announced to his friends that after looking into it, it appeared to him that the Christian story of God becoming a man really happened. With his reason he had found the truth, but he never combined that with faith. That student went mad. If I remember the story correctly he died (suicide?) soon after discovering the truth, but never became a Christian. Contrast that with Lewis. He had similar experiences in what he discovered about the historical truth, but this eventually informed his faith. His faith then led him to a better understanding of what his reason was telling him. It wasn't just a one way street, or a one way leap. What resulted was a set of coherent thoughts. In contrast, existentialism leads you to statments like Barth's, "It isn't true as a matter of history, but it is true as a matter of doctrine." In reality that is very incoherent.

The incoherence isn't necessary. It is possible to humble human reason without having to free yourself from it altogether. In fact, you can't. It is after all part of how God made us, "In His image." It also allows us to maintain some mystery in our faith, but helps us locate those mysteries more appropriately. God's ways are inscrutable (Isaiah). His ways are higher than our ways (Psalms). It only makes sense that God's ways are not going to be easy for us to grasp, and at times impossible to fully grasp. But usually we can at least say we know that something (like the resurrection) is true, even if we can't explain exactly how it happened.

The bottom line is that the existential turn is not necessary. You don't have to follow Kierkegaard to have passion or authenticity. But more importantly, he didn't provide a foundation for a strong faith.

Remember the meaning of logos. It is more than just "word". "In the beginning was the Reason, and the Reason was with God, and the Reason was God."

Finally, many Christians have recognized as their walk with God matures that faith isn't something they do. It is something that happens to them. Whatever you think about predestination, you have to admit that left on your own you never would have come to faith. C.S. Lewis' account of his conversion demonstrates this. Over a period of time he had encounters with something outside of himself that penetrated his heart. He recalls sitting on a bus and having the feeling that something, or someone, was stripping away the facades of his personage, layer by layer, and getting down to his heart. This was before he was a Christian. Later, he and his brother took a trip to the zoo. Lewis was riding in the sidecar of his brother's motorcycle. He says he doesn't remember making a conscious decision to trust the Lord, he just knows that on the way to the zoo he was not a Christian, but on the way back he was. His life had been given over to Christ, and he was committed to the truth. He says this was the freest thing he had ever done, and yet he could do no other. He elsewhere says that the idea of truth 'seekers' is really false. As sinners, seeking for God is like the mouse seeking the cat. Without God stirring the heart no one will seek.

What we see in Lewis' life is contrary to what Kierkegaard told us. Lewis didn't make a 'leap of faith' in which he abandoned the rational and embraced the absurd. There was an interplay between what was happening in his mind, intellectually, and his faith. And what happened to Lewis was, in a significant way, done to him. The existential catch-phrase, "reality viewed from the perspective of the actor," does not come close to explaining how we live our lives in reality. True faith is not a matter of us conjuring up our own feelings, and establishing meaning and purpose for ourselves. We have to come to rely on God. We don't do the work ourselves.

The connections between existentialism and postmodernism become clear at this point. One of the marks of postmodernism is a distrust of metanarratives. Postmoderns love narratives. Everyone has their own story. Everyone has their own adventure. But they disbelieve in any over-arching story that controls all of reality. They have no use for the meaning and purpose God designed into the universe, or for God's story of creation-fall-redemption. If everything is always about 'the actor', they'll never be able to submit to God.

Beyond Kierkegaard II

2009-12-01T09:47:00.002-06:00

The other general brand of existentialists are the theists. Some of the names here include Karl Barth, Rudolph Bultman, Paul Tillich, and the Niebuhr brothers, Reinhold and Richard. A label stuck for these guys: neo-orthodoxy. They didn't necessarily like the label, but it stuck, and it is useful. This is, of course, related to 'orthodoxy' not 'Eastern Orthodoxy'. It is the basic, creedal, historic Christianity that unites all true believers throughout time, regardless of denomination. And 'neo-' refers to that same basic Christianity, with a twist. I've already spoken about Barth previously, so I'm going to use him as an example. That doesn't mean he represents all neo-orthodoxy. And I'm not trying to judge the faith of any of these men. That is between them and God. Barth appears to me to be a sincere believer. (What an existential, even post modern thing to say, huh.) Some of those other guys I'm less sure about. That being said, I think they leave the Christian faith without a firm foundation.

Barth's history is a lot like Kierkegaard's. He grew up in the liberal church of the time, and in time he rejected it. There was nothing left to believe in. If it was shown that miracles don't happen, dead men don't rise from the dead, and no prophecy in the Bible can be taken seriously, then all that is left is a lot of out-dated traditions and doctrines. Barth wanted to believe in the those doctrines. He couldn't ever really divorce himself from some of the premises of the liberal church, however. As a matter of historical fact Jesus didn't rise from the dead. But as a matter of doctrine, and of faith, he did. And that is all that matters.

If you study Barth, and I'm not saying I have thoroughly, he seems to believe in all the right doctrines. But the Bible is clear (I Cor 15) that the resurrection, etc, as an historical fact, happened. And if it didn't, "we are to be most pitied..." Barth's position, somewhat unwittingly, leaves future generations to decide for themselves whether or not to take that 'leap of faith,' without any clear reason why they should.

As an aside, Barth does have more interesting things in his history. He was German, rejected the Nazis, and fled to Switzerland. He was involved with a group of theologians in opposition to the Nazis that also included Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I have a lot of respect for Bonhoeffer. His book The Cost of Discipleship is definitely worth reading. Bonhoeffer was executed after the failed plot to kill Hitler.

Beyond Kierkegaard

2009-11-29T09:15:00.002-06:00

This discussion will get back to Kierkegaard, but existentialism is a little hard to sum up quickly, so I'd like to elaborate a little. There are little catchphrases that help explain certain aspects of it, such as "reality viewed from the perspective of the actor,' 'existence precedes essence,' and the like. But it might help to look at the history of existentialism since Kierkegaard. This little sketch is, of course, incredibly brief. But it should help.

There were two main groups that followed Kierkegaard: theistic existentialists and atheistic existentialists. The existence of the atheistic existentialists, sometimes called the 'Black existentialists' is one small part of why I disagree with Kierkegaard. C.S. Lewis said somewhere that people who champion certain ideas or philosophies should follow those ideas down the road to the 'ruddy end' (paraphrased). Ideas do have consequences (I don't know what Lewis thought about Kierkegaard specifically, but that would be interesting to find out). And these ideas often have more than a grain of truth in them. But the consequences of some ideas are difficult to anticipate. Unfortunately, an idea may seem appropriate at the time, under certain conditions, but then other people start to live them out. The 'ruddy end' of the existential road is the atheistic existentialist. It actually doesn't stop there, because there are trails that lead from existentialism to postmodernism, etc.

Two of the most well known existentialists in this camp are the French philosophers Camus and Sartre. They wrote novels such as The Stranger and Nausea, respectively. The gist of these books is that humans are alienated from the universe we live in because it is a meaningless place. So people have to create their own meaning, and it really doesn't matter what meaning you decide to create. Physical pleasures can be indulged in wantonly. If that doesn't do it for you try whatever you want. But at the end of the day all that is left is a sickness, or nausea, that is the meaningless human condition. The only question that is left is, when to commit suicide.

Sartre is an interesting case because he was very active in the French resistance during WWII. There is a story that someone once asked him why he was so vehemently against the Nazis. If his philosophy was true and things were meaningless it shouldn't matter whether the Nazis were in charge or not. Why not be one of the Vichy French who cooperated with the Nazis. His response was that sometimes you just need to take a 'leap of faith.'

The link between this brand of existentialism and Kierkegaard is clear. Please pardon the quick reference from the Wikipedia page on existentialism, but this is what it says (compare this to Jeremiah 29, for example, "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord..."):

"The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, posthumously regarded as the father of existentialism,^[5]^[6] maintained that the individual solely has the responsibilities of giving one's own life meaning and living that life passionately and sincerely,^[7]^[8] in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom.^[9]

2009-11-26T10:31:00.003-06:00

The following comment was left on my previous post. I'm posting it this way since those who read the posts are getting them by email mostly and haven't seen the comments.

"You've got it wrong, Kierkegaard didn't mean the leap of faith as you described it. It's not that faith is to believe things that are not true. Kierkegard does NOT say you should have faith that 1+1=3.

A leap of faith is a sign of authenticity; in other words, our actions are an honest manifestation of our beliefs, rational thinking, personality, etc. Faith is the highest passion, passion to believe in ourselves, not in irrational things.

We've got to kill the mis-interpretation of Kierkegaard once and for all."

November 16, 2009 6:13 PM

The comment was left anonymously, but I welcome it. The more discussion the better. There is something in this comment that I definitely agree with. Our actions are manifestations of our beliefs, etc. In fact, that fits precisely with what I think is a good definition of faith: the ability to behave according to what we say we believe. Or, to believe something at a level that we can act on it.

But that is also why I disagree with Kierkegaard. In Fear and Trembling he is quite emphatic, many times over, that faith is a belief in the absurd. Abraham is, of course, his object of study there. He assiduously proclaims that what Abraham did, and the faith he had, was absurd. He might as well have said Abraham believed that 1 + 1 = 3. But he disregards what else we know about Abraham. Paul said in Romans 4:20 - 21 (ESV), "No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised." Abraham had come a long way in his relationship with God. He followed God's direction to Canaan, had personally received the covenants (Gen 12, 15, 17). He entertained and challenged angels and the Lord Himself (Sodom and Gomorrah). Yet we see him fail on occasion. He disowned his wife twice out of fear, once in Egypt and once with Abimelech king of Gerar (he was a slow learner at times). Hagar bore Ishmael because of Abrahams lack of faith. But by the time God called him to sacrifice Isaac Abraham had learned a lot. The knowledge that God would keep his promises and could bring Isaac back from the dead was no longer an absurd idea. It may seem absurd to you and me, and Kierkegaard, but we haven't had the same relationship with God that Abraham did.

That's my main point. What Abraham did wasn't absurd from the perspective of someone who could see things more and more from God's perspective, and less and less from our everyday experience. It is more accurate to say that it was more absurd for Abraham to follow God's first direction and leave the land of his fathers than it was to follow God's direction in regard to Isaac, from Abraham's perspective at that point in his life.

This can be demonstrated also in the life of Karl Barth, who is a descendant of Kierkegaard's in terms of his ideas. Friends of mine have commented that they think Barth was the greatest Protestant theologian in the 20th century. I have to disagree. There is of course much to admire in Barth, and I'm not claiming to be an expert on him. But he made the comment, both in regard to The Fall and the Incarnation/Resurrection, that it is not true as a matter of history, but it is true as a matter of faith/doctrine. Now, that is as clear as you can get. Actually believing in an historical resurrection is as absurd as 1 + 1 = 3, to Barth. But he's going to believe anyway. Not that it really happened, but in his faith.

In my view it is important to believe that the resurrection happened as a matter of fact. See 1 Cor 15. But that's not the point here. The point is that to Kierkegaard, to make that 'leap of faith' is indeed to believe in something absurd. That is not what our faith is supposed to be.

It seems that Kierkegaard wasn't the first to talk about a 'leap of faith'. Pascal, at least, had used the phrase before him. But Pascal was clear that it is a 'leap in the light, not a leap in the dark.' In that sense I have no problem with leaps. But I've seen nothing that changes my view that Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an irrational belief in the absurd.

Finally, the commentator said that faith is the passion to believe in ourselves. Kierkegaard very well may have thought that. It is a very existentialist thing to say. But that is my problem with existentialism. Faith isn't a belief that we just conjure up, and it isn't a belief in ourselves. Properly understood, in my view, it is the object of our faith that is important, and our ability to behave according to what we say we believe.

Kierkegaard

2009-11-16T08:42:00.002-06:00

It's been over a month since I posted anything. Just to refresh memories, we were talking about the 'fathers' of existentialism. Dostoevsky is called the 'father' by some, and we finished talking about him. I personally like Dostoevsky, but I don't think he was an existentialist. He did deal with some existential themes, but his conclusions were not those of the existentialists.

Now Kierkegaard. What to do with Kierkegaard? Did he start something new, or was he just a victim of the times? Maybe he's just a poor, misunderstood man. Well, I don't want to say that everything he thought was wrong, but he can be credited with creating a lot of misunderstanding about religion and faith. At least that's my view.

For now I'm just going to briefly introduce a little of Kiekegaard's biography, then come back later for discussion. Soren Kierkegaard was born into a wealthy Danish family with a strong Lutheran background. As Soren grew up he developed a disdain for the church because it was so mechanical and rigid. It wasn't that it was legalistic, although that may have been part of it, so much as it was just very formulaic. People just went to church because that is what was expected. They followed the liturgy and the church calendar and did what was expected of them. But they were just going through the motions. The church was lifeless and dead.

Kierkegaard was correct in recognizing that this was a problem, and perhaps even correct in understanding why. The modern world, with its focus on science and reason, was marginalizing religion and faith. In short, the church was becoming liberal. The Lutheran Church was ingrained in the culture, so it wasn't going anywhere, at least not going away quickly. But it was becoming meaningless, and it wasn't having an effect on anyone's life.

The problem was that the modern world was adopting new ideas that weren't compatible with the Bible. The Christian story was just a myth. Dead men don't ever rise from the dead in the real world, and no one can predict the future. So the Bible was just a man made story. A man made story can't have a supernatural effect on someone's heart.

If Kierkegaard was right about the diagnosis, he was very wrong about the solution. His solution was to take an existential 'leap of faith.' That term wasn't new with Kierkegaard, but he gave it new meaning, and he further refined that distinction between the world of reason and the world of faith that started back with Aquinas. So Kierkegaard agreed with modernism, on the one hand, that dead men don't rise from the dead and no one can predict the future. But on the other hand, faith can bring the Christian story to life, and we can live as though it were true. That is the 'leap of faith.'

Phillip Johnson, in his book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, gives an example of what it is like to live as though things of faith are true in one area of life, but things of reason in another area. (I've adapted this a little.) It is as though a young girl was distressed when her friends told her that Santa Claus isn't real. So she did an experiment. She stayed up late and snuck out to see her parents filling the stockings, and realized her friends were right. Year after year the same thing happened. But for the rest of her life she continued to insist that Santa Claus is real. On the one hand her reason told her there was no Santa Claus, but she took that 'leap of faith' and continued to believe with all of her might. So for her it was true.

That's what making deals with modernism does to your faith. The reality is that our reason and our faith, when used properly, complement one another. We can't maintain such blatant contradictions and keep a vibrant spiritual life at the same time. It is incoherent. All healthy little girls eventually give up on Santa Claus. And if you believe the modern world has discounted the basis for the Christian faith, just a 'leap of faith' is a very poor foundation from which to spread the gospel. Kierkegaard may have invigorated the church to a point, and for a while, but in the end the 'leap of faith,' at least as he understood it, was a losing proposition.

Dostoevsky and Existentialism

2009-10-14T19:42:00.002-05:00

Just so you know, I edited the previous post a little. One paragraph in particular needed a little work.

I mentioned previously that two different people have been called 'the father of existentialism.' One of them is Soren Kierkegaard, and he's probably the one I would give the credit to. But old Soren will take longer to discuss, so I want to say something about Dostoevsky first.

Fyodor Dostoevsky was the son of a Russian military officer. In young adulthood he ran with the young liberals in Europe that would end up changing the world. His ideas were not that much different from those that led to Marxism, etc. But somewhere along the way he became serious about his Christian faith. If I remember right it was about the same time he was in prison. He spent time in prison both for his associations with one of the underground, liberal, political groups, but also ended up in debtors' prison (he had a gambling problem). I don't want to say too much about his faith because I don't want to misrepresent it, but he was a Christian, and very much Russian Orthodox.

Much of his writing is specifically aimed at those young liberal intellectuals that he hung around with for a while. In The Brothers Karamozov he addresses the issues of what life is like without God. (Please forgive that very brief summary.) In Crime and Punishment he ridicules the liberal intellectuals quite severely, and I think successfully. In that book Raskolnikov, the main character, is a young intellectual who brutally murdered an old woman who owned a pawn shop because he needed her money. It was the working out of his own philosophy. There was no god, and no right or wrong, so why not kill a worthless, crotchety, old woman. But it didn't work out so well for Raskolnikov. He thought he had beaten the system, but the real significance of what he did was constantly invading into reality, and it drove him mad.

I think the reason some people consider Dostoevsky the 'father of existentialism' was because he dealt with some issues of interest to those who would later be called existentialists. He was one of the first novelists/thinkers to address the issues. He did deal with the point of view of individuals, and he certainly dealt with the alienation of individuals from society, which is a big existential topic. But I find it hard to call him an existentialist, or even the father of existentialism, because his conclusions are so different from existentialism. As can be seen with Rakolnikov, he couldn't really determine his own essence. Reality was always crashing in on him and spoiling his illusion.

Another way he may seem a little existential can be seen in The Brothers Karamozov. Without getting into too much detail, that is where the famous line is, "If there is no God, all things are permissible." Dostoevsky's conclusion is that of course there is a God, because all things are not permissible. But in typical Orthodox fashion, he seems to leave the issue as a mystery. Yes, it is mysterious that there is a God and yet he allows innocent people to suffer intensely sometimes. But yet I know there is a God. It is just an existential 'leap of faith' to accept God. (That's not Dostoevsky's phrase, but an existentialist could say it fits here).

Personally, I think that is the wrong way to take Dostoevsky. To him it isn't a 'leap of faith'. I think he did the logic. "I know that all things are not permissible. So there must be a God. If I torture or murder someone, that is very wrong. Why God allows it is a mystery. But mystery is ok."

That is actually one thing I like about the Eastern Orthodox churches. They can accept mystery. Yes, at times they take it a little far. But part of the problem with the western Protestant churches is the division that results over trying to 'pin down' theological issues that are really beyond our grasp. I happen to believe that exploring all those theological mysteries can be very profitable. But you have to humble about it.

So, that's what I have to say about Dostoevsky. Anyone else have anything to add?

Existentialism

2009-10-08T11:19:00.004-05:00

First things first, so let's talk about what existentialism is. It is one of those things difficult to define in one sentence. Some catch phrases used to explain it are things like 'reality viewed from the perspective of the actor' and 'existence precedes essence.' Basically, the individual person decides what is right and wrong, and decides for himself what meaning and purpose is attached to reality.

In the ancient and medieval worlds man was compared to things higher than himself, ie, God/gods and angels, etc. There was a reality that transcended the physical universe. Mankind had a place of authority on earth, but understood there were laws, authorities, and reality that were greater that man was subject to.

Francis Schaeffer wrote a short little book on the history of the decline of western thought called Escape From Reason. It might be something worth exploring for us, as it is so short. He points out that starting with Thomas Aquinas, a schism was introduced into reality. Now, Aquinas was a smart guy, and I admire him a lot. So I had a hard time accepting what Schaeffer said at first. It is still true that there is a lot to admire about Aquinas, but in the end I saw that Schaeffer was right. Whereas prior to Aquinas there was one reality that involved both our everyday experience in the physical world and with 'higher' or 'heavenly' things, after Aquinas there was a separation. Although I think scripture itself does make a distinction between the two in some way, I think a lot of that has to do with the Fall. Although there are some distinctions, they are both aspects of one reality. Paul talks in Ephesians 6, for example, about spiritual realities that definitely are to be considered part of our everyday reality. But Aquinas separated reality into a 'higher story' and a 'lower story.' The rules were different if you were discussing 'things of faith' or 'things of reason.' This distinction was highlighted when it came to Kant, who called the two stories noumena and phenomena.

In addition, in the late medieval world, art (as an expression of the thought of the time) started to have less to do with strictly religious or heavenly things, and more about man in a more realistic setting. And then in the Renaissance man become less of an object of art altogether. The 'real' word became the focus, and things like landscapes began to show up in art.

These changes in focus were not necessarily bad in and of themselves. It reminds me a little of what happened in the 50's. There wasn't really anything wrong with rock 'n roll music, per se. But there was an attitude of rebellion that did come with it that was wrong. There is nothing wrong with the painting of landscapes. And some artists actually did try to present landscapes as a celebration of God's creation. But there was also a misguided sense of freedom from the reality of that 'upper story.'

Man's view of his relationship to the world went from an upward view, to a downward view. He stopped comparing himself to things above, and started comparing himself to things below. In particular man started comparing himself to the animals. This is particularly evident in Darwinism.

More or less at the same time this transition from the upward comparisons to downward comparisons was happening, the scientific revolution came along. We've talked about the birth of modern science before, but it is relevant here as well. Descartes' statement, 'I think, therefore I am,' is considered by some to be the start of modern science. Descartes' thought there shows the tendency to rely on yourself and your own observations of the world. Not that it was totally new or totally bad, but that thought allowed science to flourish. Not that science is bad, if it is kept humble, but there is an aspect of science that involves human self-reliance.

So as man's focus went from upward to downward, it also started going inward. The 'higher things,' the things of God and angels were no longer as important, and were started to be seen by many as irrelevant altogether. All that is left is man. Man doesn't have an essence determined for him any more, and there is no purpose or meaning presupposed in creation. But once man comes on the scene and develops this self-awareness, he is able to determine meaning and purpose for himself. Thus, 'existence precedes essence.'

This is a very brief overview. There is much more that could be said. So please do. Some similarities to other things we've talked about, like Nietzsche, can certainly be seen. But hopefully this helps with an understanding of what existentialism is. Then I think talking about Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky will make more sense.

Existentialism

2009-09-29T08:35:00.002-05:00

Chuck brought up the issue of existentialism, and thought that would be a good direction to take the discussion. Soon I plan on talking a little about Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky. Both of them have been called the 'father of existentialism'. Interestingly, both of them were Christians. For now, I'm just bringing them up, and if anyone wants to start by defining what existentialism is, go ahead.

2009-09-08T08:29:00.002-05:00

Is anyone interested in meeting next Wednesday, the 16th? There is a lot going on at the church that night, but we could meet at someone's house. Rustin has said his place is open in the past, or my house. Just let me know.

I am using a book for some of Caleb's homeschooling called Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. It is a supplement to his logic course. I just read a section that spoke to some things we've been talking about recently and I thought I'd share it with you. Here he they are talking about getting back to a more traditional, Aristotelian, view of logic.

Restoring the Older Notion of Reason
To make this restoration possible, another restoration is necessary: a restoration of the older, larger notion of reason itself. This means essentially two things:
1. seeing our subjective, psychological, human processes of reasoning as participation in and reflections of an objective rational order, a logos, a "Reason" with a capital R; and

2. seeing reason not as confined to reasoning, calculating--what scholastic logic calls "the third act of the mind"--but as including "the first act of the mind": apprehension, intellectual intuition, understanding, "seeing," insight, contemplation.

Using Aristotelian Logic
These two positions we take concerning the nature of reason lie behind our use of Aristotelian logic. This is a logic of (linguistic) terms, which express (mental) concepts, which represent (real) essences, or the natures of things. (The Greek word logos has all three of these meanings.) Many modern philosophers are suspicious and skeptical of the venerable and commonsense notion of things having real essences or natures and of our ability to know them. Aristotelian logic assumes the existence of essences and our ability to know them, for its basic units are terms, which express concepts, which express essences. But modern symbolic logic does not assume what philosophers call metaphysical realism (that essences are real), but implicitly assumes instead metaphysical nominalism (that essences are only nomina, names, human labels), since its basic units are not terms but propositions. Then it relates these propositions in argumentative structures just as a computer can do: if p, then q; p; therefore q.

The human mind is indeed a computer--we do compute, after all--but it is much more than that. We can also "see," or understand. Behind our use of Aristotelian logic is our hope that all our arguing will begin and end with seeing, with insight. Thus, we usually begin by defining terms and end by trying to bring the reader to the point of seeing objective reality as it is.

2009-09-04T09:31:00.001-05:00

Cory,

This is really fascinating. That the spoken word, linquistics, are
the basis and substance of all reality seems absurd to us. It is
absurd of course when we think our words for our reality and define
it for us. I loved your final paragraph about "God's Word" being the
substance that forms our reality.

Reality is only subjective to the "subject" that performed the action
of the verb "created." It's objective to every other entity that can
perceive it.

Thank you for these thoughts. Wittgenstein might be worth some future
study sometime.

Chuck

2009-09-04T09:30:00.001-05:00

Yes, I think this is great advice for dealing with Post-Modern
people. If they can come to accept the presence of evil, they must
recognize a standard by which it can be measured. That brings them
back to the possibility of an "objective" truth appropriate for all
humanity. That's what God gave us in the 10 commandments (or the
whole corpus of scripture!)

Thanks again Cory for your thinking in these areas.

Chuck

Wittgenstein

2009-09-04T06:13:00.002-05:00

The other day at church Chuck brought up Wittgenstein, the German philosopher. That is another subject I passed over in regard to postmodernism, but I just wanted to make a comment about Wittgenstein.

I'm obviously not an expert, but I've always wanted to study up on him a little bit. It is hard to pin him down, because there is a lot of disagreement about him. His early views are different from his later views. And some people think his later views were kind of an argumentum ad absurdum and didn't reflect what he really thought. I think that might be the case. Or maybe he was just brain storming. During WWI he was actually somewhat of an evangelist. But I get the feeling he later lost his faith.

But the postmoderns picked up on his later thoughts having to do with language. What they take from him is that all of creation is just a linguistic construction. Both personally and in community we create our own reality. This gets to a really deep level for some people. Some people with more extreme views would say that the computer I'm using, the house I'm in, and the food I'm eating also only has existence as we create that existence with our words. Is there really an objective reality of an apple apart from the language I've used to talk about it. Those are extremes, and it gets kind of weird, but when it comes to morality it is easy to see how some people would say that those ideas are just linguistic creations.

I've thought about this a lot, and as with any good deception, I think there at least a hint of truth in that idea. I think all of creation is linguistically created. But we aren't the creators. "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD as with God, and the WORD was God."

How to deal with postmodern people

2009-09-04T05:29:00.002-05:00

The best way to wrap up postmodernism is to talk about how to approach a postmodern person. Talking to a postmodern person can be very frustrating. Sometimes they will be hostile to talking about Christianity, but often you can have an interesting conversation. Interesting, that is, until you realize you are going nowhere. Postmodern people love to dialogue. But the goal of dialogue is not to come to a conclusion, or to really evaluate what was said. The goal is just the dialogue. If right and wrong are just whatever my community and I want it to be, then there is nothing wrong with sharing each others' views. But if, for instance, you are talking about the resurrection and all the evidence for it and how that has an effect on what you believe, they won't follow you. They'll be interested in you experience, maybe, but they won't follow the reasoning, because they don't care.

So what do you do? Probably the best place to start is understanding sin. To a postmodern there is no such thing, and getting them to see that they are a sinner and need a savior can be quite difficult. But every once in a while a teachable moment shows up. Don Carson tells a story of how a friend of his witnessed to a very liberal lady in Washington D.C. (I'm paraphrasing here) She didn't believe in sin, or evil. Right and wrong was truly up for interpretation to her. Ideas of right and wrong are just local or personal constructions. So this Christian asked her if she thought evil existed and she of course said, no. So he tried to paint a picture of some brutal crime to see how she would react. She was of course aghast, but she really thought that this crime wasn't really wrong, it just happened to offend her own personal sensibilities, or maybe her instincts. But deep down it wasn't really wrong, or evil. But he kept at it. Every time he saw on the news that a little girl had been raped he got in her face and said, "Well, is it evil?" But she wouldn't crack. Until one day when she heard about a particularly heinous crime. I don't remember the details. But something got to her. And deep down inside she new that what had happened was wrong. It was evil. And the measure by which she judged this act wasn't just her own personal sensibility. Deep down in the heart of reality, what happened was wrong. But where did this come from? The only place these rules could come from would be from an eternal, infinite lawgiver. Today this lady is a mature Christian.

I tried this tactic once. A college student was working as a receptionist at the ER desk in Council Bluffs, and he was showing off some of what he'd learned in philosophy class. So I asked him if he thought there was such a thing as evil. Then I challenged him. Anyone can think up examples of terrible crimes. And to find real situations all you have to do is watch the news. And working in the ER provides plenty of opportunity to see sin and evil face-to-face, too. It got to him, and he got the point. I don't know exactly where he's at with his relationship with the Lord, but he's not an atheist any more. His girlfriend at the time was Catholic and they have since married and go to church. But that was at least a start.

2009-09-01T20:23:00.006-05:00

Chuck suggested some discussion on existentialism, and I think that's a good idea. But first I want to wrap up some things in regard to post-modernism. Following are the beginning and ending of a paper by Arthur Leff in the Duke Law Journal from 1979. Leff was a law professor at Yale, and from what I understand, he never gave another lecture on the philosophy of justice. Could it have been that he was confused, in a Nietzschean sort of way.

Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law

I want to believe--and so do you--in a complete, transcendent, and immanent set of propositions about right and wrong, findable rules that authoritatively and unambiguously direct us how to live righteously. I also want to believe--and so do you--in no such thing, but rather that we are wholly free, not only to choose for ourselves what we ought to do, but to decide for ourselves, individually and as a species, what we ought to be. What we want, Heaven help us, is simultaneously to be perfectly ruled and perfectly free, that is, at the same time to discover the right and the good and to create it.

skip to end of article

All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have. Given what we know about ourselves and each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing prospect; looking around the world, it appears that if all men are brothers, the ruling model is Cain and Abel. Neither reason, nor love, nor even terror, seems to have worked to make us "good," and worse than that, there is no reason why anything should. Only if ethics were something unspeakable to us, could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs.

Nevertheless:

Napalming babies is bad.

Starving the poor is wicked.

Buying and selling each other is depraved.

Those who stood up to and died resisting Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and Pol Pot--and General Custer too--have earned salvation.

Those who acquiesced deserve to be damned.

There is in the world such a thing as evil.

[All together now:] Sez who?

God help us.

Wow. That just goes to show you, or me anyway, that if you reason well enough you can hardly miss the truth. Unless your heart is hardened. Which unfortunately is the condition of most people.

Remember the syllogisms?

If God does not exist, then morality cannot be justified.

God does not exist.

Morality cannot be justified.

But morality exists.

Heaven help us. (Leff's words)

One of the first things you learn when you study logic is that if your conclusion (that morality cannot be justified) is truly unacceptable, but it follows from your premises, you have to go back and examine your premises. But Leff, and the rest of the modern/postmodern world, is committed to those first two premises. That leads to quite a conundrum. That was Nietzsche's conundrum, too. But in his more brazen moments Nietzsche thought we, or at least one of us, would evolve past it. It should be fairly obvious we can't, and won't. (Unless you count becoming like Christ a type of 'evolution.' Thanks be to God, huh? But I digress.)

In the body of that article from Leff above, he discusses some options that could plausibly explain how legitimate ethical systems develop, assuming there is no God all the while. One option is that each individual decides what is right and wrong for himself. But, what governs the interactions between two 'Godlets' [Leff's word] when they disagree and conflict with one another? There still would have to have some lawgiver (ie God) who could govern those interactions, or there would be no ethical system. This is obviously a problem. Whoever the lawgiver is it would have to be eternal and infinite (ie God). This is one of the problems with Nietzsche. How could Man evolve into something transcendent, something that is eternal and infinite? Leff recognizes all this.

Another of Leff's options, the postmodern option, is that whatever is right is what is right for me AND my group or community. Leff doesn't name it postmodern, but that is one of the characteristics of postmodernism, that what is right is determined by me and my community. This allows for some coherence between members of the community. But the problem is that you have just the problems mentioned in the last paragraph back a little farther. But who is going to decide what laws govern the interactions between the different groups? Who is going to decide who wins in conflict, for instance, between homosexuals, Christians, and Muslims? Again, we need an eternal, infinite law giver, or else all we have is power, political, military, or otherwise.

Thus the current dilemma created by postmodernism. The one solution remaining for a postmodern is constant, interminable 'dialogue'. It is for exactly this reason that the UN opts for constant dialogue, diplomacy, compromise, and negotiation. That is why they balk at enforcing any resolutions they come up with. The use of force is bad, though they can never say why, and all they have is dialogue. Over time this dialogue will get us all to see eye-to-eye. Or so they say. There is a lot of Marxist/Hegelian dialectic in there, too, but it is definitely postmodern.

Thus, modernism itself led to a lot of bloodshed in the bloodiest century ever. It looks as though postmodernism will likely lead to more of the same. Man's attempts to create Utopia always end up creating a place you don't want to live.

So what is left when postmodernism runs its course? There is an article written several years ago by David Hart in First Things called "Christ and Nothing." Those are the two options left. Either go back to Christ or embrace total nihilism. If anyone wants to read that article I can find a link for you.

2009-08-31T12:53:00.005-05:00

Absolutely. Maybe existentialism should be the next topic we talk about. I didn't mention it directly just because I was trying to be succinct, but you are right.

Cory

Sorry, Chuck, I tried to edit the format of the email you sent but it didn't work.

2009-08-31T12:53:00.004-05:00

Cory,

This is great. I enjoyed reading it and will talk with Kevin today
sometime to see when we can set up our iThink group on the new
software at CBC.

I'm wondering if "Existentialism" doesn't fit into your discussion
somewhere. I'm not sure where that would be, but it seems that when
man found he could not legislate morality without God, there was a
movement that said nothing is of higher value than anything else we
just all exist = existentialism. If you see an old woman on the
street corner, stopping to help her cross the street or running her
over has the same moral value. Didn't this lead to nihilism and I
think Neitzschke had something to do with this.

It just seems that a pessimism about standards of living and purpose,
meaning and significance were lost to many souls and that opened the
door to the "God is dead" movement.

Does existentialism fit in the movement from modernism to
post-modernism?

Chuck

Postmodernism

2009-08-31T09:24:00.004-05:00

Ok, this discussion of the transition from modernism to postmodernism has taken a while. In the last few hundred years changes in ideas have been fast and furious, so there is a lot to talk about. Another reason is that the transition here is a little difficult to follow. One way to look at it is that postmodernism isn't really a distinct way of thought, it is just the natural outcome of modernism. I think there is a lot of truth in that.

More about that in a bit, but first, let's talk a little about what 'postmodernism' is. Do these characteristics sound familiar?

1. No single world view captures reality. There is no master story or meta-narrative that underlies humanity.

2. Reason is to be distrusted because there is no way of knowing which individual's reason is reliable.

3. There is no such thing as objectivity.

4. There is no 'truth' to appeal to for understanding history and culture.

5. There are no moral absolutes.

6. The West, with it's colonial heritage, deserves ridicule.

7. Texts, whether religious or philosophical or literary or legal, do not have intrinsic meaning.

8. Ideas are cultural creations.

9. Everything is relative.

10. We need to be deeply suspicious of all ideas, given the way ideas are used as tools to oppress and confuse people.

Looks a lot like the culture we live in now, doesn't it? Well, this isn't the first time this has happened. This is the same basic description of the presocratic world. Remember, it is hard to talk about 'what the Greeks thought' because there were Greeks who thought just about everything. Before Socrates there was Protagoras, who was the first to say, "Man is the measure of all things." It was also a very relativistic culture. The sophists (from whom we get the words sophistry and sophisticated) were intellectual guns for hire, who really believed in nothing, but would take any side in a debate. The more skilled at it they were the more money they made. But it was all just a game, a way to coerce as many people as possible. It is no wonder reason was distrusted and truth was viewed as relative.

Then came Socrates. Socrates said, "God is the measure of all things," and stood up for truth. His 'God' was an unknown god to him (see Acts 17), but he made a remarkable stand for a pagan.

Socrates' ideas and those of other Greeks contributed significantly to Judeo-Christian thought. Then the modern thought came along seeking to have "Good without God." Human reason alone was supposed to supply us with all we needed to govern ourselves. The problem there, as we've discussed already, was the 'good' we were trying to demonstrate through reason was largely imported in from the Judeo-Christian ethic. Nietzsche and others showed there was no foundation for right and wrong if the Judeo-Christian God was dead. We tried to be our own gods.

The fruits of that endeavor were clear enough. WWI and WWII, and numerous other atrocities. In short, the bloodiest century in history. Next time someone tries to tell you that all wars are the result of religion, and religion is therefore bad, remind them of the legacy of humanism.

It was obvious that the goal of "Good without God" was untenable. This brings us back to the syllogisms we talked about:

If God does not exist, then morality cannot be justified

But morality can be justified

Therefore, God must exist

(modus tollens)

If God does not exist, then morality cannot be justified

God does not exist

Therefore, morality cannot be justified

(modus ponens)

Remember that it was the end of modernism when thinkers started to realize the truth of the first premise. What if they had then gone back to examine if there really could be "Good without God"? Finding the answer to be, no, why didn't they go back and embrace Christianity? Why didn't they realize they were wrong to dismiss Him and run back to Him? If only they had. A few did of course, but the overwhelming response was just to look into the abyss and try to be our own gods.

But what happened is just what we should expect, isn't it? Mankind couldn't resist the temptation to be his own god.

This brings to mind some Chesterton said somewhere (paraphrased): "The doctrine of original sin is the only doctrine of the church that can be empirically proved." The truth of original sin is staring everyone in the face, but no one wants to see it.

While on the subject, here's another quote from Chesterton:

“Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.” - Christendom in Dublin, 1933

2009-08-16T18:08:00.004-05:00

Over on the right hand column of the blog I added another link to an article by Doug Groothius. This article is on the Christian Research Institute's website, equip.org. Groothius is (or at least was) a prof at Denver Seminary, and I heard him speak at our Sunday School class once when I was in med school. This article on relativism is short, but speaks to some of the things we've been talking about.

The Christian Research Institute is the home of Hand Hanegraaff, The Bible Answer Man. Another good website to check out is Stand to Reason, www.str.org.

2009-08-15T11:16:00.002-05:00

Here's some more about the 'existence' issue Chuck brought up. This link should get you to a forum that discusses some of the points
http://memoriapress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27&highlight=existence

But this paragraph make the main point:

"The reason for this would involve a more complicated discussion of set theory’s acceptance of the possibility of an empty set, but the fundamental reason goes back to the fact that, in traditional logic, predicates refer to concepts (where the nature or essence of a thing is known), whereas in modern logic predicates are sets that are defined by their members. All of which is just another way of saying that traditional logic assumes that words have meaning apart from the actual existence of their objects and modern logic does not."

This ties into several other issues. The modern idea that "words don't really have meaning" is where the idea comes from that the constitution, or the Bible for that matter, doesn't have any meaning apart from the meaning the reader wants to put into it. So things can mean whatever you want them to mean. But more to the point is that the traditional approach assumes that essence precedes existence, whereas the modern approach assumes that existence precedes essence.

This all incredibly brief, but it seems to me the "existence" contention assumes a modern instead of a Judeo-Christian perspective. We know the Bible assumes that our essence precedes our essence. God had us in His mind, and what we were supposed to be, before we were born. God had right and wrong, and meaning and purpose, all figured out before people came along to decide those things.

That seems a long way from the Ontological Argument, but it's all part of the discussion of whether 'existence' is really an attribute.

There have been other rebuttals of the Ontological Argument. One is that the argument is really a tautology. That is to say it is just a redundant statement with the conclusion just restating the premise. But that doesn't refute anything, because tautologies are valid. If the premises are true a tautology is sound. And some people argue that all deductive arguments are tautologies because the conclusion is really contained in the premises. But that is a little convoluted, because it is like complaining that a conclusion really does follow from the premises. The thing about tautologies is that sometimes they are useful to unpack or restate something in a way that shed's more light on the subject, and I think the Ontological Argument clearly does.

2009-08-12T07:25:00.003-05:00

Thanks Chuck,

Good question. My short response is that if 'existence' is not an attribute, or quality, or property, then there is no qualitative
difference between a child's imaginary friends and real friends.

Cory

2009-08-12T07:22:00.000-05:00

Cory,

One struggle I've heard with the ontological argument is that idea of "existence" itself. Is that really an attribute? I'm not sure I understand all this, but it sure was fun to read your blog. I enjoyed it a lot. If I get a chance I'm gonna look into the ontological argument when I get a chance and see what else I can find.

Chuck

2009-08-11T12:06:00.003-05:00

One reason to encourage the teaching of proper reasoning is that properly interpreting the Consititution demands it. Legal reasoning is a little unique, but you have to know how to reason properly to apply the law correctly, and also to defend a strict constructionist view of the constitution. That's why some Catholics are great people to have as judges. If you have ever heard Judge Scalia debate a liberal, it is really impressive. (For the record, the right wing of the Supreme Court is all Catholic, and I include Kennedy here. Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia are all Catholic.)

Chuck, more to your question about logic/reason leading us to a Judeo-Christian ethic, it is interesting that the Chinese have realized they have a problem, in that the Marxist/materialist foundation of their thinking really leaves no room for ethical behavior. In their system it is definitely true that the only reason to follow the rules is because of what happens to you if you get caught. They also realized that as they move to somewhat of a more free market system this will cause a problem, as there will be little incentive to be ethical. It is a misunderstanding of capitalism that it is based on pure selfishness. If the system doesn't have an ethical system much like the Judeo-Christian system, it won't work. Interestingly, at least in some places the way the Chinese have attempted to remedy this problem is to teach the Bible. At least the Bible stories we learned as a kid. They could have chosen just Aesop's fables or some other stories, but they chose Bible stories. It wasn't a wholesale adoption of Christian faith, but they could see that ethical conduct within a capitalist system naturally followed from the Judeo-Christian ethic. Insightful on their part.

As far as reasoning toward faith goes, I disagree with the commonly held belief that idea that you can't prove the existence of God. Now, true faith is more than just rational proof. But the rational proof is there. The modus tollens syllogism I wrote about recently is one example, but here is another one. I fully expect this to cause some dissent, so feel free to argue with me. Rustin and I talked about the ontological argument when we got together a few weeks ago. I'm going to present the syllogism a little differently this time.

It is possible that a being than which no greater being can be conceived exists.
Therefore, a being than which no greater being can be conceived exists.

OK. Let's unpack that a little. This is Anselm's form of the argument. I once heard of a student in a philosophy class writing a little satire of this, proving that he could find a date. Because he could conceive of a date, a date must exist. When I first heard this myself I thought it was absurd. I can conceive of a giant, green slime monster. That doesn't mean a giant, greem slime monster exists.

But the difference between dates and giant, green slime monsters and this being Anselm spoke of is that the idea of 'existence' entails itself in Anselm's being in a way that it doesn't in the other cases. If you can conceive of the greatest possible being, but it doesn't exist, then it isn't the greatest possible being. A being that is just like it but actually exists would be greater.

On the surface this seems almost childish, yet after you have thought about it for a while it is quite elegant. Remember what deductive logic tells you. If an argument has a conclusion that follows from the premises, it is valid. If an argument is valid and has true premises, it is sound. That means the truth of the argument is guaranteed. In this case there is only one premise. The conclusion clearly follows. And the premise is clearly true. There you have it.

Things like this give me a deeper appreciation for God, and a deeper understanding. I don't need this proof for my faith. But does help me understand that God has engrained all of creation, including our rational minds, with clear evidence of Him. To me, the ontological argument for God's existence is just as beautiful as seeing a spectacular sunset and marveling at God's creation.

There is a story that one time Bertrand Russell, the great atheist philosophy, was walking down some steps and out into the yard at Cambridge (I'm pretty sure it was Cambridge). He was over heard saying, "Great God in boots! The Ontological Argument is valid!" Apparently he went on his way thinking other things and never pondered that. Our hearts need to follow our minds, and without God stirring our hearts we are blinded and won't come to true faith. But for those of us who have been so stirred, things like sunsets and the Ontological Argument are some of God's little gifts.

2009-08-11T11:34:00.002-05:00

Chuck,

More or less, yes. My immediate point was just to point out the irony in avoiding reason in the age of reason. But what you say is more or less true, too. I don't think you can use logic/reason to bring a person to faith, not all the way anyway, but it can be a big part of the process. And if you reason correctly you can hardly avoid it. It takes an amazing spiritual blindness not to see the implications.

But I do think teaching logic/reason is avoided in public education. To some extent this is just by passive neglect, and in some cases it is deliberate. Remember Obama's friend Bill Ayers (I think that is his name) in the education department at the U of Chicago. Some liberals have infiltrated education departments for a reason (pun not intended). And they don't want people learning to think rationally for themselves. At the end of the day they don't believe in right or wrong, only power to control. So they want you to do what you are told, not think for yourself. I know I'm walking on thin ice a little, because there are a lot of good people in public education working hard, some of them doing great work, but most unwittingly going along within the system. And the system isn't designed for free thinkers.

One example of what happens when they try to promote proper thinking in public education is when they try to teach what they call 'critical thinking.' They don't teach proper reasoning, they just take a pet project, like global warming, and make sure the students are all indoctinated and emotionally charged against anyone who doubts it.

A friend of mine who is a retired prof from the U of Ottawa was in a debate with a feminist one time. He trounced her in the debate, and her only response was, "I don't accept your phallo-centric logic." It's the old, "your dead, white man way of thinking doesn't work for me" tactic.

But the bottom line is, if they want you to think what they want you to think about feminism, environmentalism, abortion, oil rigs, global warming, 'undocumented workers', homosexuals/AIDS, socialized medicine, evolution, and on and on, they can't allow you to reason for yourselves.

"Come, let use reason together..." Isaiah 1:18

2009-08-10T08:59:00.001-05:00

Cory,

wow! I loved this stuff. I wish I had more time to pursue it.

Do you suggest that we don't teach logic anymore (or emphasize it) because it might lead us back to the judeo-christian ethic? We are thus able to foster upon the people our own codes of conduct and sexual mores, etc?

chuck

2009-08-08T20:48:00.002-05:00

This is just a correction. In the last post I called the syllogisms 'categorical syllogisms'. Then I thought about it. Modus ponens and modus tollens are not 'categorical' but just simple syllogisms, and also established rules of inference.

Modernism to Postmodernism

2009-08-08T09:22:00.003-05:00

In the article I gave you the link to in the last post, http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Tortured-Logic.html,
he gives you a couple of syllogisms.

If God does not exist, then morality cannot be justified
But morality can be justified
Therefore God must exist

and

If God does not exist, then morality cannot be justified
God does not exist
Therefore, morality cannot be justified

These are both categorical syllogisms. It is deductive logic, which briefly means that if the premises are true, and the conclusion really does follow from the premises, then the conclusion is 100% guaranteed. In logic there are rules to follow to make sure the conclusion really does follow from the premises. (Incidentally, traditional logic is mostly concerned with proper reasoning from a given set of premises, not necessarily having to do with whether the premises are true.)

The first of the above syllogisms has a form called modus tollens.

If p, then q
Not q
Therefore, not p

The other is modus ponens.

If p, then q
p
Therefore, q

Both of these are examples of proper reasoning, i.e., they are both valid. However, those of us with a Judeo-Christian ethic recognize the first example here of having all true premises. Therefore it is not only valid, but sound. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.

The problem the enlightenment thinkers ran into is that they hadn't thought this through. They were trying to show you can have 'Good without God,' and it hadn't quite hit them that, "If there is no God, then everything is permissible," as Ivan Karamzov says in Dostoevsky's book. From about the time of Dostoevsky on people realized, as did Nietzche, that the major premise of the above syllogisms was true. So then one must decide whether the minor premise of the modus tollens or the modus ponens form is true.

If one accepts the modus tollens form, it seems to me one must reject much of what the Enlightenment accepted. Again, I'd be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. (see previous post) Although much of the Enlightenment was mistaken, not all of it. But generally speaking, if the Enlightenment was wrong, it seems prudent to back track and make sure we haven't thrown the baby out with the bath water in rejecting the Judeo-Christian view of reality. Unfortunately, that is what the major thrust of modernism has done.

So, it seems modernism embraced the modus ponens argument. What you end up with is the cognitive dissonance that most people find now. They want to say nothing is right and wrong, all the while telling you you're wrong for being a Christian. There is no right or wrong, only power.

That will lead us into some discussion of postmodernism. But one more quick point. Another name for the Enlightenment, or modernism, is the 'Age of Reason.' Supposedly we rejected Judeo-Christian thought for something more rational, and we are now at least inheritors of the 'age of reason,' if not still in it. Isn't it odd that we don't teach reason, ie logic, in the schools. I think it is that at the end of the day, the rejection of the Judeo-Christian worldview and adoption of modernism wasn't really all that 'logical'. To accept the modernist (and postmodernist) view of things we have to avoid logic, and just accept what we are told. Odd, isn't it.

So, the Ancient and Medievil thinkers embraced logic and reason much more than descendants of the 'age of reason.' It is important to understand that reality is not merely logical or rational. There is more to faith than that. But it is not irrational or illogical. Logic is important. Remember what we have talked about before, John 1:1 could just as well have been translated "In the beginning was the logic (logos), and the logic was with God, and the logic was God."

Modernism

2009-08-03T18:27:00.003-05:00

This afternoon I just read an article from the Classical Teacher magazine. It just happens to be apropos. You can read it here http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Tortured-Logic.html.

To start with, if you look back a ways in the blog I brought up Nietzsche, and how he is so misunderstood. He was an atheist, and he was wrong in the big picture, but there were a lot correctly insightful things in his ideas. He is a complicated character.

But for the moment let me get back to the idea of objectivity. I recently heard someone say that if something is objectively true, that means I can show it to you. If something is subjectively true it is based on my personal opinions and feelings, and I can't necessarily demonstrate it to you. Now, that is probably close to what the dictionary would say. But my point is that is a decidedly modern definition, not a Judeo-Christian definition. Up until the Enlightenment objectivity had to do with something coming from outside of ourselves, verses coming from our own tastes, desires, feelings, and opinions. Take, for example, the Ten Commandments. Are those truths objective or subjective? The Judeo-Christian perspective is that they are objective. They don't change based on our personal preferences, and they are imposed on us from outside us. They aren't a creation of our own.

The modern definition of objectivity is a little different. Things are objective only if they can be demonstrated through the senses. If you can see it, touch it, hear it, smell it, or taste it then it can be shown to be objective (another name for that is empiricism). This presents a problem for anything of a moral or religious nature. This is why at the end of modernity some people have been trying so hard to marginalize Judeo-Christian ideas which put so much stake in objective morality.

But there was a transition period in the early modern period. People like David Hume and Immanuel Kant believed in a 6th sense. It was not the same as the 6th sense in the Bruce Willis movie, but it was more or less the conscience. The conscience was a moral sense of knowing right and wrong, and it was objective in their view.

But here is where Nietzsche comes in with some profound insight. One of the goals of the Enlightenment was to establish good without God (Hume was an atheist, Kant was probably a practical atheist although a practicing Lutheran). If the Enlightenment was to throw off religious superstition they would have to show that they could prove things through reason and/or empiricism alone, without direct reference to God. The problem exposed by Nietzsche was that this 6th sense, or conscience, that was claimed to sense what was right and wrong, was really just a collection of personal tastes and opinions. The reason that people could generally agree early on in the Enlightenment about what the conscience said was because they were still recovering Christians, holding on to the old morality.

He was right. They said they wanted to prove what was 'good' without reference to God, but their ideas of 'good' were really ideas they inherited from their ancestors, who got them from God. Nietzsche realized that if God didn't exist some 'uberman' or 'higher man' would have to come along to show what was really right and wrong, and enforce it. It wasn't that he believed that whatever anyone powerful enough to enforce what he believed was ok. He believed, like the ancient Greco-Romans who he had a lot of respect for, that there was a certain way that lead to a vibrant and flourishing human life. There was some design or purpose, if you will. But it had to lead to a really powerful human life. His quote 'will to power' was kind of a mocking of Schleiermacher's (I think) quote 'will to live'. The 'will to live' was weak and pathetic in itself. Just a desire to live, to get by, was nothing. The 'will to power', to a vibrant and healthy and robust life was what was really needed. (Incidentally, that's partly why Nietzsche didn't like Darwin. 'Survival of the fittest' meant nothing to him. Mere survival, like the 'will to live' was weak.) But Nietzsche himself could not see exactly where to turn to find this Uberman. That's why he ended up speaking of an abyss.

That's about enough about Nietzsche. I just want to add that part of the reason he rejected Christianity was that to him, dying to yourself is weak and could not lead to that robust, vibrant life. Overall, I think Nietzsche was a confused and conflicted man. He knew the Enlightenment had failed, but he was left without anything to really turn to. To back up what I said a little, here's a quote from Dinesh D'Souza, a Christian writer. http://finchesandsparrows.blogspot.com/2009/04/nietzsches-abyss.html

I have more to say about the failure of the Enlightenment and Modernism, but I'll close this post for now. But before I digressed, part of my initial point was that all too often we Christians don't think with a Judeo-Christian mindset, but a modern one. This is dramatically evident in the difference between the Judeo-Christian and Modern definitions of objectivity. When discussing morality and justice, for instance, with non-Christians we don't have to assume the modern view of objectivity and we have every right to claim God's morality as objective and true.

2009-08-02T06:11:00.002-05:00

Rustin and I had a really good chat back on the 22nd. I can't really summarize everything we talked about, we didn't follow the book exactly. Hopefully we can get together sometime in Sept. again, and Chuck and Paul, and whoever else, can join us again. Right now between work, Caleb's baseball, and a trip to Colorado (unless Caleb's team makes it to the World Series) I'm not going to have time. But September should open up a little bit.

About the time Rustin and I were leaving the church on the 22nd we were talking about postmodernism. Rustin made a comment that perhaps 'postmodernism' is going to run its course and lead to a 'neomodernism'. I've actually had a lot of thoughts sort of along those lines, but I prefer to call it a return to 'premodernism'.

This is something I've more or less adapted from what I've learned from studying the Christian philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre. A helpful way to view the history of western thought is to break it down into 3 basic time periods: 1) Judeo-Christian, which includes a significant amount of modified Greco-Roman ideas, up until the 18th century 2) Modern, from the 18th to mid 20th century, and 3) Premodern. Of course this is an over-simplification, but it is useful. And it is understood that you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. Not everything about modern and postmodern thought is wrong. Modern science, for instance, can't just disregarded. That's the thing about heresy; it has a hint of truth in it.

A major concept that defined the Judeo-Christian period was the idea of teleology, or design/purpose. Things were designed for a purpose by a designer. The consequences of this are particularly striking in ethics. If you understand the proper purpose and meaning of man, and that he is created in the image of God, certain ideas of right and wrong will follow. God has established reality such that there is a certain way things ought to go. He has revealed many of these things to us, including the fact that we are created in His image, through the prophets, Christ, the Apostles, and Scripture. And an important point here is that the Judeo-Christian view recognizes the truth that has been revealed to us as objectively true.

The change in the definition of "objectivity" marks an important distinction between the Judeo-Christian and the modern worldviews. In the next couple of days I'll post something more about the modern and postmodern views of things, and about objectivity. In the meantime feel free to post your own thoughts.

Meeting tonight

2009-07-22T17:51:00.001-05:00

Cory,

If you are trying to contact me, I'm home now and plan to meet you and others, (if any) at church at 7:00 tonight. Please try to call again. :-)

Rustin (aka Foxpup)

2009-07-13T15:49:00.002-05:00

OK, Wed night, July 22, at the church, 7 PM. We'll have some coffee and dessert, etc. Let's plan on discussing up through ch. 5, or whatever comes up.

2009-07-07T14:13:00.004-05:00

Wednesday evening looks best for me. I could meet 15, 22, 29th. If more were available on Monday, I could rearrange some things to make that work also.

Chuck

ithink dates?

2009-07-05T15:48:00.003-05:00

Hey everyone, I'd like to try again to get ithink together. We just went to 12 hour shifts at the hospital, and it is going to make my schedule a lot different, but also more flexible as far as ithink is concerned. Here are some dates coming up that I can meet, and whenever we can get the most people together we'll try and do it.

Monday evening July 13
Wed. evening july 15
Mon. evening July 20
Wed. evening July22
Sat. evening July 25
Mon evening July 27
Wed eveingin July 29
Sat. evening Aug 1
Mon evening Aug 3
Wed evening Aug 5
Mon evening Aug 10
Wed evening Aug 12
Sat evening Aug 15

Hopefully at least one of those days will work. I was thinking we could just catch up a little, and maybe discuss the first 5 chapters of Colin Brown's book. Chapter 5 finishes the ancient world with From Greeks to Gospel. It's a good summary of why understanding the ancient world is important for Christians.

So, let me know what you think, and maybe we can get together soon.

Cory

Audio Link

2009-05-07T09:52:00.001-05:00

In the column on the right, above the painting of Plato and Aristotle, is the audio link that I put in the earlier post. Try it out.

Epicureans, Stoics, Skeptics, and Cynics

2009-05-07T09:01:00.004-05:00

Chapter 5 in the book is a a good one, and addresses what we started the group for. That chapter is 'From Greeks to Gospel.' But we haven't covered chapter 4 yet, and there are a few things to say about that.

In the opening paragraph Brown mentions "...the interaction of Greek and Jewish culture and religion which provided the milieu for the rise of Christianity." We have talked about that, and the next chapter elaborates the point. On page 54 in the section of Stoicism he says, "...Zeus, the universal Word or 'logos' which sustains all things." I don't think it is a coincidence that John starts the book of John, "In the beginning was the 'logos', and the 'logos' was with God, and the 'logos' was God."

Chuck and I had a talk recently about that word 'logos'. We can talk more about this later, but I think that language (words) is more fundamental to reality than numbers. That seems counter-intuitive today when everything seems to boil down to math and science. And there are certainly some similarities between language and mathematical equations. But they aren't the same. I think there is a reason the Bible doesn't say, "In the beginning was the equation for the unified theory, and the equation for the unified theory was with God, and the equation for the unified theory was God."

On page 59 we see a link between empiricism and skepticism. I think this is interesting because David Hume, in the 18th century, was an empiricist and a skeptic as well. I think the two things go hand in hand. Modern science is closely tied to empiricism, and a certain type of skepticism, too. David Hume, and others like him, have not exactly furthered God's kingdom. As for science, there is a lot of good in science, but it definitely needs a little more humility. It's purported claims upon reality are much more grandiose than what is warranted. In that audio link in the previous post, JP Moreland talks about Hume and his effect upon our modern world.

I'd like to hear any comments anyone has about that. When I know more about my July schedule I'll let you know, and we'll try to set up another meeting.

Happiness

2009-05-07T08:57:00.004-05:00

http://www.cmda.org/media/CDD_Interviews/May09CDD_moreland.mp3

In previous posts we have discussed the difference between the ancient and modern understanding of 'happiness.'' The Christian Medical and Dental Associations have the audio of an interview with JP Moreland about that very subject. The link is above. I think the link will work. If not I'll figure out another to get the audio to you. JP Moreland is a Christian philosopher who teaches at the Talbot School of Theology.

2009-05-07T08:48:00.004-05:00

I am hoping to be able to have a more flexible schedule at work soon, and I hope that means being able to set up some times when the group can get together. Starting in July I will be working 12 hour shifts instead of 24 hour shifts. I'll have to be at the hospital more days each week, but the schedule is going to vary. My fixed schedule in the past hasn't allowed me to meet at a time when most people can do it. So, stay tuned and we'll see what we can do.

2009-03-20T21:13:00.000-05:00

Thanks Cory, I was wondering where we were. Your post reminded me of one of my favorite poems (oh boy here he goes again!). The last two lines are one of my favorites to quote.

Paul

ULYSSES

Alfred, Lord Tennyson

It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Matched with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
I cannot rest from travel; I will drink
life to the lees. All times I have enjoyed
Greatly, have suffered greatly, both with those
that loved me, and alone; on shore, and when
Through scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vexed the dim sea. I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart
Much have I seen and known---cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honored of them all---
And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
I am part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethrough
Gleams that untraveled world whose margin fades
Forever and forever when I move.
How dull it is to pause, to make an end.
To rust unburnished, not to shine in use!
As though to breathe were life! Life piled on life
Were all too little, and of one to me
Little remains; but every hour is saved
From that eternal silence, something more,
A bringer of new things; and vile it were
For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
And this gray spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.
This is my son, my own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the scepter and the isle---
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfill
This labor, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and through soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centered in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.

There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail;
There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toiled, and wrought, and thought with me---
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads---you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honor and his toil.
Death closes all; but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks;
The long day wanes; the slow moon climbs; the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends.
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
the sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
It may be that we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are---
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

1842

2009-03-20T21:10:00.000-05:00

The pursuit of happiness outside of God's purpose and plans for our lives is hedonism. It's a life focused completely on maximizing pleasure in all it's facets without regard for God's directions and purpose. Such a life style alienates others and leaves us deeply empty and unfulfilled. Ie, dead! I might share some of these ideas this Sunday when Jesus' life is compared with Adam's life in my resurrecton passage.... hm?? Something to think about.

Chuck

Modern or Classical Happiness

2009-03-20T10:05:00.004-05:00

It has been a while since I have posted anything, but I haven't forgotten about ithink. I still don't know when to plan on getting together, the calendar is full. But I have been planning on getting back to some posting. Posts from anyone else are welcome, too.

Back on Dec 30 there was a post about Aristotle and the idea of happiness, and how it relates to virtue. I just received a monthly ministry update from a friend who is the western regional director for the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. He spends much of his time touring the western region of the US speaking to physicians, dentists, and students. Recently he spoke about 'The Counter-Intuitive Pursuit of Happiness," and he shared some of this in his letter:

"...And we had a wonderful interactive discussion trying to define and identify modern 'happiness,' it's fleeting yet addictive attributes that create a false self, nurtured only by self-indulging narcissism. Contrast this with classical 'happiness,' which is more enduring, liberating, completely integrated, produced only be self-denying apprenticeships. And you can see the attraction as they had never heard anything like it before.

...We are all so able and apt to justify our sin, not recognizing that our heavenly Father has our best interest at heart. Many resist his principles as they seem so difficult, yet we invite such pain, regret and heartache when we insist on finding 'happiness' in our own way. Fidelity, forgiveness, fortitude, and forthrightness keep us in good stead with each other and with God. Are you hiding and rationalizing something you know to be sin? Share it with a trusted friend who will help you make good choices: an unforgiving heart, constant negative thoughts toward someone, lustful thoughts, an ungrateful spirit, greed, lying or deceit?

The 'happiness' we seek is only to be found in following the principles written in the "operators manual...""

On our recent trip to Colorado, Michal and I listened in the car to a lecture we had heard before about virtue, happiness, and having an abundant life. (Perhaps we are odd, but that's a great way to pass the time.) The lecture, of course, leaned to a pre-modern vs a modern or post-modern perspective. The Greek myth about Ulysses was used as an example of how the ancients viewed life and happiness. At one point in the story Ulysses is trapped on an island by the goddess Calypso. In some ways he had it made. She offered him immortality if he would stay there on the island. He could live forever and have a beautiful goddess share her bed with him. To some people that would seem better than winning the lottery. What could make him 'happier.' Well, Ulysses couldn't stay there because it was killing him. If he could not be who is was, and if he could not fulfill his purpose, even if he lived forever it would be killing him. He was a king, a father, a husband, and a warrior. If he stayed there on the island with Calypso, the man could have lived there forever, but Ulysses would have died. He would not have had an 'abundant life.'

Michal made a great observation at that point. God told Adam to eat from any tree in the garden, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." Adam and Eve ended up eating, and they died. Physically they were alive, but the relationship with God was broken. They couldn't live any longer the way they had been designed to live, they could not fulfill their purpose, and they died. Pursuit of their own definition of happiness had cost them their lives.

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord, that now we can walk in the Spirit again, and wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. (Romans 7 and 8) We live!

Virtue vs Value Ethics

2009-01-17T12:55:00.005-06:00

In the post on virtue ethics I mentioned how 'values' are the common way of understanding ethics today. Have you ever heard someone say, "Oh, I'm a good person, I have values." People say things like that all the time, but it doesn't really say anything. All a value is in this way of speaking is a subjective, arbitrary moral judgement. We all make moral judgements, it's just that some people make bad ones. These subjective judgements are personal and don't hold true for anyone else. If someone says to you, "I have values, and I don't believe in killing animals, and I don't believe in eating meat," just say back,"OK. I have values, too, and I believe in killing animals whenever I need to and I eat as much meat as I can." There's nothing else either one of you can say if you really believe in 'values'. This exemplifies the incoherence of the modern way of looking at things. It all boils down to power. There is nothing right or wrong, only power, political or otherwise, to dictate which values win.

Christian philosophers have been paying a lot more attention to virtue ethics in the last few years because of this. That means going back to Aristotle, and has led to more study of Thomas Aquinas. Interestingly, the ancients had no word for 'value' in this moral sense at all. They had a word for value in the sense of, "the value of this loaf of bread in $2." But 'value' as in 'family values' is a very new word. The Oxford English dictionary didn't have an entry for the word value in this sense until a supplement in 1986. It seems the first use of the word in English is found in a sociology paper from 1918. But it goes just a little farther back in German to about the 1880's and Nietzsche, and was eventually just absorbed into common language. Nietzsche talked a lot about values and 'transvaluation', getting people to change their values. (I need to check this, but I think the word was used in this way by some others in the 19th century before Nietzche, like Karl Marx, but some people have said Nietzsche basically coined the term.)

Now, a discussion of Nietzsche is premature, but I would like to say that Nietzsche isn't as bad as he is sometimes made out. He is attributed with creating Hitler and killing God, and all sorts of things that are really unfair. His philosophy was bad, certainly, and he did reject Christianity, but he was a lot more complicated most people know. Not all of what he said was wrong. And he was not a nihilist or a relativist. In fact, he had the sense to know that if the world no longer believed in God, existence really was like looking out over a great abyss. But enough of Nietzsche for now. Suffice it for the moment to say that he coined a new term, and it stuck.

It is important to realize that there is more to morality than a set of 'values.' Even if they are 'family values.' If someone says to you,"well, your family values aren't my values," there is really nothing you can say to them." Instead of saying, "that's against my family values," say, "that's not right," then explain why.

Aristotle's Four Causes

2009-01-17T11:26:00.004-06:00

On page 43 of the book Colin Brown talks about Aristotle's four causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. Brown uses the example of a statue. The material cause is the marble or bronze, etc. The formal cause is the idea or plan of the statue in the mind of the sculptor. The efficient cause is the sculptor. And the final cause is the purpose of the statue, to beautify the city, etc. As Brown points out on page 45, however, Aristotle identifies the Unmoved Mover as the final cause of all things. (This reminds me of the Shorter Westminster Catechism: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.")

It is interested that the modern world has essentially reduced the four to only 2, and sometimes 1 cause. Only the material and efficient causes are necessary to the modern way of viewing things. People do things with materials, but there is not a 'way things ought to be,' etc. When it comes to things like evolution there is only one cause, because the material and efficient are melded into one cause. The material is the efficient cause in that case. In fact, many Darwinists refuse to accept that the heart as a purpose, or final cause. It just accidentally happens to behave in a way that facilitates the circulation of blood for living people.

Some people think that Aristotle was closer to the Biblical God with his Unmoved Mover than Plato with his Demiurge, and some people the way around. What Brown says about the Unmoved Mover is worthwhile reading. As with Plato, Aristotle didn't know the true God, but his description of the attributes he gives his Unmoved Mover is pretty amazing.

Virtue Ethics

2009-01-17T09:46:00.003-06:00

As I mentioned in a previous post, Aristotle was responsible for the understanding of the relationship between virtue and happiness that dominated until it was slowly eroded by the Enlightenment. (Not that the Enlightenment was all bad, either, but it certainly wasn't all good.) In short, he was responsible for the way people thought about ethics/morality. The result of the Enlightenment was that we didn't end up with a more coherent way of looking at morality, but a much less coherent way. There was Kant's 'categorical imperative', utilitarianism, and later 'situational ethics', and the ubiquitous 'value ethics' that describes so much of what we call ethics today, just to name a few schools of thought. All of those deserve individual consideration at some point, but I'm going to give a separate post to 'value ethics' after this one.

Aristotle thought that goodness and happiness had to do with things that promoted an 'actualization of what human beings are capable of.' That's from page 48 in Colin Brown's book. Aristotle believed in design and purpose in nature, and moral goodness in people derived from fulfilling your purpose, what you were designed to do. The virtues weren't desired merely for their own sake, but they were instrumental in allowing one to achieve the designed purpose. To Aristotle the virtues were habits that needed to be developed by training.

Aristotle was consistent with the Bible in that respect. In Ephesians 5:1 we are told to be 'imitators of God' and in Hebrews 13:7 we are told to look to those who have been good witnesses before us and imitate their faith. If we imitate them and turn their habits into our habits it will show up in our walk with God.

As far as purpose and design, the Bible declares that God has created everything, and there is a purpose in creation and history. That is pretty clear. There are a couple of passages in particular I can think of that relate to our discussion of Aristotle. Proverbs 22:6 says "Train up a child in the way he should go..." The passage is well know, but perhaps a little misunderstood. Certainly raising our kids to be Christian is part of that, but as I understand it the passage literally means to 'train up a child according to his bent, or tendency or character.' This involves the idea that the child was created with a purpose in mind, and our job as parents is to help foster the development of that child into the person God wants them to be, taking into account their particular gifts, etc. (Chuck, any input here on the Hebrew would be welcome.)

Also, in Matthew 21 and Mark 11 Jesus curses a fig tree that was not bearing fruit. That tree represented Israel, who was not bearing fruit. Israel had been given a purpose by God and it was not fulfilling that purpose.

Jan 9

2009-01-05T11:44:00.002-06:00

Here's the link to the directions to Rustin's house for the ithink meeting Friday night. http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Blair&state=NE&address=1365+Voss+Drive&zipcode=68008

His address is 1365 Voss Drive, in the subdivision next to the new school. 7 PM is the time. I can't make, but that's ok. Email me if you plan on being there. If that day doesn't work out for everyone else we'll reschedule.

Meet tomorrow?

2009-01-03T08:57:00.002-06:00

We had to reschedule our shifts at work and I have to work this Friday, when we were planning on meeting. Is anyone interested in getting together tomorrow night? Jan 4? Email me, or put up a post if you want to get together then. Cory

"...in Hooker or Aquinas..."

2008-12-31T07:15:00.002-06:00

It looks like Hooker was probably Richard Hooker, a 16th century Anglican theologian who had some influence on John Locke. Hooker was influenced by Aquinas, and thus Aristotle.

Aquinas is responsible for much of the influence of Aristotle on the church at that time. This is actually an important part of the history of Christianity and western thought, and one of the reasons I became so interested in philosophy. Many of the theologians/philosophers in Europe at the time were actually greatly influenced by a muslim philosopher named Averroes. (Averroes lived in the 12th century, Aquinas in the 13th.) At that time the muslims had a much more intellectual side than they do now. Besides being involved in the develop of algebra (the word is an arabic word) muslims were responsible for saving many works of antiquity, particularly Greek works, including Aristotle's. Averroes had written what was essentially muslim apologetical material using the ideas of Aristotle. This had a significant influence on the thinkers in Europe. So much so, in fact, that Christianity itself was being doubted by people in the universities and they were turning from it. So, Thomas Aquinas came along to refute this. To do so he had basically two options, either show that Aristotle was wrong, or show that Aristotle was not really consistent with islam, but with Christianity. He did the latter, and did it so convincingly that he put an end to the influence of Averroes in Europe. In fact, my own opinion is that he did it so convincingly he destroyed any intellectual effort within islam. That is why Islam doesn't have any substantial intellectual influence any more, they just have jihad. But my main point is, Aquinas basically turned the tide intellectually in Europe, and I think rightly so.

This emphasis did not set well with everyone in the church, however. In 1277, shortly after Aquinas died, the bishop of France issued a condemnation and forbid the teaching of Aristotelian logic in the universities (Aristotle is basically the 'father of logic'). He was probably thinking that Aquinas should have attacked Averroes by attacking Aristotle, but he was certainly concerned that people understand that God's absolute power transcends any rules of logic that Aristotle had discovered. So what appears to have happened was the teachers in the universities had their hands tied. But Aristotle's logic was deductive logic. He knew of inductive logic but didn't trust it. But since inductive logic hadn't been part of Aristotle, it wasn't condemned by the church, and it seems inductive logic made its way into the university at that time. That makes 1277 an important date in the history of modern science, because inductive logic is what allows for experimentation. (Scientists use both deduction and induction, but without induction we wouldn't have science.)

In the end, however, the Aristotelians in the church won. This was both good and bad, because Aristotle was right about many things, but not everything. The church became so Aristotelian that what he said was almost Gospel for a while. Understanding that is important for understanding what happened between Galileo and the church a few centuries later.

Aristotle

2008-12-30T20:17:00.003-06:00

I'm not intending to close the discussion of Plato, but I wanted to say some things to introduce Aristotle. When we meet on Jan 9 we can discuss either or both, or whatever works out.

Back around the 4th of July Chuck gave a really good sermon demonstrating the biblical influence on the founding of our country. But there were other influences as well, such as the political system of republican Rome, Magna Carta, etc, and Aristotle. This is a personal opinion of mine, but I think we benefited from some wonderful timing. As I've said before, I agree with Churchill, that democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the rest that have been tried by men (paraphrased, of course). In the new heaven and new earth there isn't going to be democracy. It is going to be Christ ruling over his kingdom, as king. But human kings left a lot to be desired. The American revolution benefited from the Enlightenment and the ideas that came along with it that did away with things like the divine right of kings. But modernity hadn't fully taken over yet either. Just a few years later in France they had a revolution that was very different from ours. They were fully modern and rejected God.

Part of the heritage of the western world that the Enlightenment had not yet swept away, at least in this country, was Aristotle. George Washington said in his first inaugural address, "there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness." Back then it was obvious, but today needs to be pointed out, that 'virtue' and 'happiness' are words closely associated with Aristotle. This next quote is from Harry Jaffa, as quoted in a post on the Liberal Fascism blog at nationalreview.com. It is in regard to that quote from Washington above:

"The pursuit of happiness is thus understood as the pursuit of virtue. It is difficult to imagine a more forthright Aristotelianism in Hooker or Aquinas..."

There is more to quote, but I think that makes the point. Honestly, I don't know who Hooker is, but I'll look it up. But the link between Aquinas and Aristotle deserves a post all its own. Later.

A major influence of Aristotle on our founding fathers was the idea that happiness is related to goodness. That is consistent with a Biblical view of real freedom as well. When we are really free we are not free to do what we want, but free to do what we ought. It is not just freedom from something (although freedom from tyranny is part of it) but freedom for something. True freedom is to be a slave of Christ. That is different from the way the world views freedom, ie freedom to do whatever I fancy or fancy to do it with at the time. Aristotle didn't know Christ, but he did know that we were created for a certain end or purpose.

Peter Kreeft sums this up well:

Making Sense Out of Suffering, Peter Kreeft (Servant Books, Ann Arbor, MI) 1986

P64

“But the meaning of the word happiness has changed since Aristotle’s time. We usually mean by it today something wholly subjective, a feeling. If you feel happy, you are happy. But Aristotle, and nearly all premodern writers, meant that happiness was an objective state first of all, not merely a subjective feeling. The Greek word for happiness, eudaimonia, literally means good spirit, or good soul. To be happy is to be good. By definition, Job on his dung heap is happy. Socrates unjustly condemned to die is happy. Hitler exulting over the conquest of France is not happy. Happiness is not a warm puppy. Happiness is goodness.

At issue here is more than the use of a word. At issue is the most important question in the world. What is the greatest good? What gives our lives meaning? What is our end? Modernity answers, feeling good. The ancients answer, being good. Feeling good is not compatible with suffering; being good is. Therefore the fact of suffering threatens modernity much more than it threatened the ancients.”

Divine Command

2008-12-24T11:23:00.003-06:00

On page 36 of the book Colin Brown brings up an interesting subject. If something is right, is it right because the gods commanded it, or did they command it because it is right? This is one version of what is called the Euthyphro dilemma, named for Plato's dialogue in which it first appeared. The subject is interesting because theologians and philosophers still debate the issue, and it overlaps to some degree with the 'problem of evil,' which is commonly asserted by atheists as proving that God does not exist. Different theories to explain this paradox, or dilemma, can broadly be called 'Divine Command' theories.

The issue is basically this: If something is right because God commands it absolute morality becomes trivialized and is even tainted by a bit of relativism, but if God commands it because it is right that means there is some other ruler besides God that determines what right. In the former case moral wrongs such as murder, stealing, lying, adultery, and even idolatry lose some of their authority because they were just arbitray decisions by God and he could have made things another way. Adultery could be ok if only God had made the decision to allow it in the beginning. In the latter case right and wrong are determined by some system of criteria above God. God is then no longer infinite or omnipotent, and doesn't even really have the attributes of God.

These ideas are worth thinking about, because athiest philosophers are using these ideas, believing they have disproven God, and they are influencing people all the time. These ideas really are not new or ingenious, but have been around for a long, long time. I'll tell you what I think the solution to the so called 'dilemma' is, but first there is something about these arguments that I think is important to remember. To have a really strong case, you have to be able to argue both the negative and positive aspects of your position. You have to explain why your case is a good one, and also why your opponents solution is a bad one. In the case of the Euthyphro dilemma and the problem of evil, the atheists position is only negative. He can attack the Christian and say that a good God could not possibly allow evil, or he isn't really good or not omnipotent (ie, not God). Thus, since there is evil, there is no God. But then the atheist has given up any chance of making a positive argument that there is no God, because he has to admit to the existence of evil to make his point. Some people are content at that point to say that neither good nor evil exist; things we think are right or wrong are just social constructs and opionions. But it is at this point that every once in a while someone starts down the path to belief in God. Everyone knows that some things are wrong. When a little girl is raped, tortured, and murdered, no one can really believe there is no evil in the world without really trying to suppress the truth. Where does this moral truth come from?

So the 'dilemma' is that saying that God commands things because they are right, or that things are right because God commands it are both insufficient. There are several answers that have been proposed, but 2 I'll mention here. The first is that it is ok to live with the fact that things are right because God commands it, and that's it. There is some Biblical support for this in Romans. Paul questions how a pot can question the potter, "why did you make me like this?" God can create some vessels for noble use and some for ignoble, that's His prerogative. And he can make some acts good and some evil, that's His prerogative. He happens to think adultery and killing little girls is bad, and that's the way it is.

Now, I think there is some merit to that argument, but I think there is a better one. God could not have decided adultery is ok, but it is not because he is not powerful enough or underneath some other authority. The answer that Thomas Aquinas gave was to the effect that moral laws are things that flow from God's character. He makes the law that adultery is wrong because it is consistent with His character, with who he is. Some would counter that this doesn't solve the dilemma but only restates it. For now you have to ask the question, "Is adultery opposed to God's character because adultery is not good, or is adultery opposed to God's character because God is good?"

But we can give an explanation by way of analogy which is perhaps better. Most everyone agrees, whether they like classical music or not, that Mozart was a musical genious and his music is beautiful. I heard a man once explain that he wasn't an expert in classical music, but he could pick out Mozart's music, even if it was a piece he had never heard before, and it is always beautiful. You could even say that Mozart never composed anything that wasn't beautiful music. So, did Mozart composed a piece of music because it was beautiful, or was the music beautiful because he composed it? The answer is, both.

Of course, that leaves a little bit of mystery. That doesn't bother me at all. It answers a lot more than any other solution, and it is consistent with other experiences in life. If you are uncomfortable with mystery it seems to me you'll never find any satisfactory solutions to anything. It is just a matter of finding the appropriate place for the mystery.

BTW, that's why I like Paul's poem on the previous post.

Mystical Mysteries

2008-12-18T16:13:00.002-06:00

Mystical Mysteries

All things to me are mystical mysteries.

All things I understand and see,

But all to me is mystery.

What is a man? What is to be?

Each time my questions answer me,

And all I see is mystery.

Yes I can touch, and I can feel,

And I can say that this is real,

But each time my question answers me,

And all I see is mystery.

As so did Pilate ask the man,

"Explain the truth as well you can,"

And even though the man was God,

He answered not for fools can't see,

That all on earth is mystery.

So when I die, I still will be,

And all I know will be explained to me,

That all in life was meant to be,

And all is mystical mystery.

Paul Bershon

Jan 9

2008-12-18T10:21:00.002-06:00

The next time we are planning on meeting is Friday Jan 9. 7 Pm at Rustin's again. We'll explore some other meeting times, too, maybe mix it up a little. But for now that's the plan.

Nature of reality, etc

2008-12-18T07:32:00.003-06:00

This discussion Rustin and I started might seem out in left field, but I think it is just an expansion of the things the book talks about with Plato. That's what I've been looking for. What is the nature of reality? The book brings up the issues like the fact that Plato believed in the existence of souls, and the forms, etc. Although he was obviously wrong on some points (at least I think), like reincarnation, and the idea of the forms has some problems, he was on to something.

Rustin, in regard to your second paragraph, about causal loops, etc, I've never viewed "alpha and omega" as suggesting a causal loop. I just think it means that God started the whole thing and he's in control. He is as in control of the end as he was the beginning. There will be a new beginning for sure, but it's not a restart from the old beginning. Maybe I'm going somewhere else with this than you were, but the new creation will be better than Eden. Eden was a good place, but it was corruptible. As someone somewhere has said, a world that has fallen and been redeemed is better than a world that has never fallen. My understanding of how the Jews have interpreted the idea of the new creation, the new covenant, etc, from an OT perspective, is that the new creation will be "Eden PLUS". And the whole idea of loops, or cycles, reminds me of the ancient fertility religions that really were repeating cycles over and over. Christ kind of put an end to that. More on that later perhaps.

The things you said about the Trinity I largely agree with. There is a lot there for future discussion. Later in that paragraph you said "...suggest that I am a dualist but only until heaven comes to earth." It doesn't seem possible to leave eschatology out of this, but I think there is definitely going to be a physical aspect to the New Heaven and New Earth, or at least the New Earth.

In the last main paragraph you said, "I guess I regard it as merely a modeling tool and of no "true" existence." There is a lot of truth in that. Physicists even recognize that things like electrons, protons, etc, probably don't really exist, at least as we portray them. These things are models that explain the data better than any other model we currently have. But when you apply that too broadly to all the truths we think about, you are coming close to being a nominalist. That is to say, immaterial and/or conceptual things like truth, or like categories, don't exist. As advanced, sentient, rational beings we just invent categories and name things for our own purposes. Take, for instance, the category of 'cats'. A nominalist would say there really is nothing in reality that groups tigers and lions and cheetahs and house cats in the same group. We just do that for our own convenience. For that matter, any truths such as "husbands should be faithful to their wives" don't really exist, they are just creations of our own. There is certainly a lot to be said in regard to that, and it also brings us right back to Plato. The book talks about Plato's ideas of knowledge and belief being the opposite of what most people believe today. I think Plato was right. He thought true knowledge involved the immaterial world behind physical world. That is where truth lies (not that I know 'where' that is). Belief to him had to do with our ideas of the material world. Taking the material world alone doesn't give you a very robust understanding of all of reality.

BTW, the alternative to nominalism is the belief in universals. That is, there are concepts and ideas and truths that are 'universal' in the sense that they apply to everyone everywhere, all the time. That is how we can say that Hitler was wrong, and not just that we happened to be personally opposed to him. That also explains why categories such as fidelity/infidelity, courage/cowardice, honor/dishonor, exist in every culture. Those categories are sometimes defined a little differently (what do you expect in a fallen world), but they always exist.

Argue with me at will.

Potentially off subject discussion that started at last Friday's Meeting

2008-12-17T21:31:00.002-06:00

Hi y'all!! Cory and I decided that it would be good to share what we talked about last friday with the group. Discussions eventually resulted in emails and here is Cory's email and my response.

Enjoy!!

------------------------------
Hi Cory,

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
BEGIN QUOTE
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Thanks for hosting Friday night. While I was driving home I realized that if I understand what you were saying right in regard to how the universe is put together, etc, what you were talking about is some type of monism.

That's the idea that there is really just one type of substance in the universe. For instance, everything in the universe, is made of of physical, material stuff, and the spiritual or other immaterial things are really just different aspects of that same stuff. Other monists think that everything is really immaterial, and the physical stuff is just ideas in the mind of God. Some Christians have been on different sides of that over the years. For me, I'm a dualist on that issue and think there are both material and immaterial substances.

Just a thought. Does that kind of fit your position?

///////////////////////
END QUOTE
///////////////////////

I suppose I do tend to blur the separation between the world of spirit (heaven) and the physical world in my personal cosmology. Please keep in mind that my personal philosophy is precisely that, its personal. Over the years I have enjoyed hearing ideas from many sources on cosmology, but none of them have been authorities over me. I've had to make my own judgments. (and continue to make them as I go)

Generally, I'm sort of a dualist but not in a classical sense. Clearly there is the physical world with its causes and effects. I frequently comment that time and space are God's way of keeping everything that must happen from interfering with everything else that also must happen. The physical events where A causes B which causes C and so on are real. I argue however that we have events A, B, C, ... because that form was injected into the universe by divine will. (from Heaven) Whether the A to B to C and so on gets to Z and back to A is another subject I find fascinating. ..."I am the alpha and the omega"... Pure subjectiveness gives me the impression that this kind of causal loop may be how we end up with somthingness rather than nothingness.

When one talks of the trinity, (father, son, & holy ghost) you are actually talking about the same thing from 3 different perspective. God the father is up in heaven (outside the physical world we know - that’s why we can't see him) The Holy Spirit is God at work in the universe, speaking his Word into the world that we live in. The Spirit is present at the events where his will is injected into the universe. The Son is God (or his Word) already present in the universe. So there is a progression. (From God the father, through the Spirit, to the Son) (From the Speaker, through his Voice, gives us his Words) So Basicly there is the universe, and then there is God. The fact that I perceive separate worlds (Heaven & Earth) might suggest that I am a dualist but only until heaven comes to the earth. When I ask the question (where does truth reside?) I'd have to argue that it exists in heaven, to be imposed upon the world. Ultimately God's will will be fully imposed on the world and there will be no distinction between heaven and earth (earth meaning the universe as we know it, not the blue-green ball we live on)

As for the world of ideas that philosophers think about, I guess I regard it as merely a modeling tool and of no "true" existence. (sorry about the pun) Perhaps, being sons of God ourselves we have the tendency to create universes for ourselves in our minds. We give them form that mimics the "real" world so we can run simulations and predict what will happen when we do things. However skilled we may become in making our artificial realities (scientific paradigms and such), there is no guarantee that what goes on in the real world can be modeled in all instances. It is foolish to not make models and use them. It is also foolish to take our models so seriously that we become blind to the real world.

I suppose there are three worlds to me, the physical universe, heaven, and our model(s). I suppose many philosophers would put the realm of models into heaven but I so far haven't chosen to take that leap of faith.

Am I a monist, a dualist, a tri-ist? :-) I’m not sure yet.

I hope this cleared things up a bit, but I do fear I've simply muddled it further.

Shouldn't we have posted this on the blog? I'd love to hear opinions from the rest of the group.

Shall I do that?

Stay warm.

Rustin

Pray for Chuck

2008-11-28T10:49:00.002-06:00

Everyone remember to pray for Chuck. He gives his oral defense of his thesis Dec 3. I'm sure that's a little stressful, but I'm sure he'll feel good when it's all done.

I'm going to be out of town next week, but how about getting together Dec 12? I know this is a busy time of year, but we'll see who can make it. We'll meet at Rustin's house, if Rustin is available then.

More on Plato

2008-11-28T09:35:00.003-06:00

A few posts back I said I'd post some more details of CS Lewis' comments that Plato could have been a believer. Before I do that, though, I want to point out another option. Contrary to what Lewis said, it very well could be that God used people like Plato to demonstrate that truth is ultimately something that comes from God, and man cannot get there through his own powers. Taking the pursuit of truth as far as humanly possible is not far enough. As insightful as Plato might have been, it could be that God just used him the same way he used Roman roads to spread the gospel. Greek ideas contributed to the theology of the early church. If you doubt this, just think about the Trinity. But to take the pursuit of truth as far as humanly possible still falls short, and we find that the truth of the gospel really is "foolishness to the greeks."

But Lewis' argument, and a similar one from Peter Kreeft, deserves another look. Here is what Lewis said in Reflections on the Psalms, in the chapter "Nature":

"We do of course find in Plato a clear Theology of Creation in the Judaic and Christian sense; the whole universe -- the very conditions of time and space under which it exists -- are produced by the will of a perfect, timeless, unconditioned God who is above and outside all that he makes...; it is not ordinary Pagan religion."

Plato (and Socrates before him) recognized the failure of any of the Gods in the Greek Pantheon to meet the qualifications of the true God. The gods of mythology are themselves just created beings.

In the chapter "Second Meanings" Lewis also recounts Plato's talk of "...a perfectly righteous man treated by all around him as a monster of wickedness. We must picture him, still perfect, while he is bound, scourged, and finally impaled." Just a coincidence? Remember, Plato died about 350 years before Christ.

The test of whether or not Plato was really a believer is, what would he have done if he was confronted with Christ? Would he have bowed down in worship and said, "this is what I have been talking about." Who knows? I do know that people continued to believe in Plato's "Demiurge" well after the time of Christ. One of them, Galen, a Roman physician, seemed to believe in Plato's God, but didn't recognize Christ. To my knowledge Galen never became a Christian (he died about 200 AD).

But if Plato himself was as devoted to Truth as some people think, he very well might have recognized Christ for who he is. The intro to the book Socrates Meets Jesus by Peter Kreeft suggests that Socrates likely would have recognized Christ. (What one man says of Socrates another man says of Plato. Most, if not all, of what we know of Socrates comes to us from Plato. Socrates didn't write the way Plato did.) Again, who knows? But it is an interesting argument.

Email

2008-11-23T21:32:00.003-06:00

Sorry guys, but I thought every time I posted a blog it got emailed to you. Apparently not. I think it is set up that way now, so check out what is on there so far and feel free to post.

Next Gathering

2008-11-19T21:28:00.002-06:00

Hi! I'm up to having the group over to my house this Friday evening if anyone wants to come.

2008-11-18T08:36:00.002-06:00

Hi, Vito. Thanks for the comment. I didn't know you were following the blog. Rustin, I just noticed your comment on my post about meetings. For those of us signed up as contributors, let's always make our comments as new posts, they are more obvious that way and all the contributors should get an email about it. We can let anyone else who wants to follow along casually, or who happens to stumble on the blog, leave comments. But for the rest of us let's use new blog postings.

If any of you want to meet at Rustin's on Friday, do it. I won't be able to make it.

2008-11-16T18:27:00.002-06:00

ok, someone help me out here. Argue with me, agree with me, tell me I'm an idiot, or say something totally new, just say something. Where are you?

2008-11-16T18:23:00.003-06:00

I don't know why these links don't show up right. The Reflections on the Psalms google books link is http://books.google.com/books?id=v0_YGqdIIfwC&printsec=frontcover&client=safari#PPA67,M1

Part of the Nature chapter is there, but the Second Meanings chapter is not.

Plato in heaven?

2008-11-16T18:01:00.004-06:00

In one of my first postings I mentioned how CS Lewis had mentioned that he thought it could be possible that Plato was a believer. I don't really agree, I don't think, but I will not be surprised or offended if I see Plato when I get there. And I think Lewis' argument is fascinating. I don't think he is unbiblical at all, but that is certain to bother some people for obvious reasons. But if you want to read Lewis' explanation for yourself, it is in Reflections on the Psalms, in the chapter titled "Second Meanings." I thought I could send you to a google books link that had that chapter, but that chapter isn't included there. An earlier chapter in the book titled "Nature" has similar things to say about a Pharaoh named Akhenaten, and part of that chapter is on google books. Another time I might post some of the highlights on the blog from both of those chapters.

2008-11-16T18:00:00.000-06:00

Sorry, no link showed up. Try this: http://www.greatapeproject.org

Plato and the decay of democracy

2008-11-16T17:07:00.004-06:00

Just for a little more on Plato and democracy, try the link above just to get a glimpse of how 'human rights' are now spreading to other species. Peter Singer is the man who was a major inspiration, if not the founder, of the animal rights movement back in the 70's. He doesn't believe in harming animals, but abortion is ok. In fact, infanticide up to a certain age (and his age limit appears to change) is ok with him as well. The big problem with Singer is he is the Chair of the Philosophy Department at Princeton, and he is a media darling. They love to spread whatever he says. His books are interesting for the fact that it shows that if you don't begin with the right premises, you will get the wrong conclusions. His logic is actually quite valid, he just starts with the wrong premises. He does state somewhere that (paraphrased) the only way to hold to the sanctity of human life is if we indeed are created in the image of God. But one of his premises is that we are not created in the image of God.

Maybe I digress too far from Plato, but I think this is a worthwhile rabbit trail, and not unrelated. The decay of democracy on a world wide level started shortly after the American Revolution. It can be seen in the contrast between the US and French Revolutions. Have you ever noticed that the founding fathers didn't speak of 'human rights'? 'Rights' are discussed for sure. But the Declaration of Independence says that we are 'endowed by our creator' with these rights. The French Revolution was a much different thing. In France it was largely an atheistic, humanistic revolt. They had nothing to ground their belief in rights on, so they came up with an arbitrary criteria and just said, ok, if you are human you should have rights. But if that's just an arbitrary criteria, why can't it be changed to someone else's criteria? To PETA, any sentient organism has rights. Over time 'rights' and 'human rights' have become synonymous. But I think there is an important distinction there.

Another reason this makes a difference is looking at things like 'gay rights'. To gays, they should have rights. They speak easily of 'human rights'. It doesn't seem to occur to them at all that to exercise their 'rights' they infringe upon others rights. This is all too obvious recently in the way gays expect to be able to overturn a fair election if they don't get their way. But if 'rights' are not based on any solid ground (ie being endowed with them by God) the assertion of rights is just an exercise in political power. There is no right or wrong, only power. Thus, an election means nothing.

You have probably noticed that I'm using the term 'democracy' loosely. Technically we live in a representative republic, but I think the argument stays the same.

Plato

2008-11-12T18:58:00.002-06:00

Chapter 2 is all about Plato. There is a lot to say about Plato and Christianity, but for now I just wanted to point out one of the things Plato was wrong about. Colin Brown mentioned his theory of government. Now, if Plato's philosopher kings were truly wise and good the system might be plausible. But apart from having truly godly men run the place, they are just men and bound to make a mess of things. Even if godly men could pull it off for a while, it would be bound to fail. Churchill was right (paraphrased), "Democracy is the worse form of government there is, except for all the rest." I'm not aware that Karl Marx or any socialists have ever appealed to Plato to support their ideas. But what Plato believes in regard to government, the family and education, sounds just like Marxism.

But Plato was very prescient in recognizing some of the weaknesses of democracy. In Republic, he said:

"It makes its way into private households and in the end breeds anarchy even among the animals...I mean that a father accustoms himself to behave like a child and fear his sons, while the son behaves like a father, feeling neither shame nor fear in front of his parents, in order to be free. A resident alien or a foreign visitor is made equal to a citizen, and he is their equal...A teacher in such a community is afraid of his students and flatters them, while the students despise their teachers or tutors...What about the animals?...No one who hasn't experienced it would believe how much freer domestic animals are in a democratic city than anywhere else...horses and donkeys are accustomed to roam freely and proudly along the streets, bumping into anyone who doesn't get out of their way; and all the rest are equally full of freedom."

Can anyone say, children's rights, animal rights, open borders, constitutional rights for terrorists? Plato failed to recognize what Churchill said, but he was still right about his criticism of democracy. Have you heard how in Spain they have given rights equal to 'human rights' to all primates? I haven't heard the latest details, but that has been going on. Makes you wonder.

Aristotle, fortunately, championed the common sense of the common man. Aristotle had a significant amount of influence on the founding fathers of our country. But I'll have to finish that thought another time.

Next Meeting

2008-11-12T18:33:00.002-06:00

It was great to finally get together last Friday. Like we had talked about from the beginning, it is going to be hard to find time to meet regularly. I won't be able to for several weeks. I'm either going to be covering people on vacation or on vacation myself until the middle of December. But if everyone else wants to get together at Rustin's house, by all means do it. But I will continue to post on the blog as time allows. Let's move on to chapter 2, but if anyone has more on chapter 1, bring it up.

Dualism

2008-10-28T13:03:00.002-05:00

Although he doesn't call it this, the first chapter of the book brings up an issue that is very important even today. Dualism can mean different things depending on what you are talking about. When talking about good and evil, dualism is definitely false. Good and evil are not equal and opposite forces at work in the universe. Evil can't actually even exist apart from good, but good can exist without evil. Evil is like rust on metal. You can have metal without rust, but you can't have rust without the metal. Evil is a deterioration or perversion of something good. Maybe we'll talk about this more when we get to Augustine.

But the dualism this chapter deals with has to do with the soul and personhood. Many of the ancients believed in the existence of the soul. Philosophers today still deal with this as 'the mind-body problem'. My view is that dualism in this sense is true. Human beings have a dualistic nature to their being. We are part material (our body and brain) and part immaterial (our soul, mind, spirit, etc). What do you all think about this?

One of the objections some Christians have about this is that the Bible speaks of "body, soul, and spirit" which is a tripartite view, not the two part view of dualism. But to say you are a dualist in regard to the mind-body problem is not mutually exclusive to "body, soul, spirit." The point of dualism is that you are not just a body, not just a material substance. You are an immaterial substance as well. In fact, the immaterial substance is probably more important than the material part. The three aspects the Bible speaks of can be dividing into the two categories: body is material, soul and spirit are immaterial. Besides, there are several things in the NT that point to dualism. Romans talks about the flesh vs the spirit. Jesus talks about fearing the one who can destroy both the body and the soul, not just the body. Paul talks about "being absent from the body is to be with the Lord." Paul also talks about being caught up to the third heaven, whether in the body or outside of it he did not know. But that reflects that he at least thought it was possible he could exist without his body.

There are some Christians who reject this mind-body dualism on the basis that all we are is a brain and nervous system, and when the body dies, we die. This view is called physicalism, that is, we are only physical. They think Christians will be resurrected and be raised to life at the end of time, but when you are dead you are dead, there is no soul. I think there are a lot of problems with that view, but I'll leave that up for discussion.

So, why does it matter? Does it matter whether I believe in Jesus with my brain only, or with my brain and soul? In a sense, no it doesn't matter. If I believe in Jesus I believe in Jesus. I don't have to have the proper beliefs about my beliefs. But it does matter in regard to how we treat a lot of issues important to Christians, such as evolution and abortion. For instance, one evolutionist has said, "I know people don't have souls, because if evolution is true souls can't exist. I know evolution is true, therefore souls don't exist." As a Christian I agree that evolution is not consistent with the existence of souls. But I can turn that around on him. "If souls exist, evolution can't be true. I know souls exist, therefore evolution isn't true."

2008-10-28T12:25:00.002-05:00

Diogenes Laertius was more of a biographer or historian of philosophy than an actual philosopher. There were several philosophers in the ancient world named Diogenes. On page 22 of the book he mentions another one, Diogenes of Apollonia.

I think the most famous Diogenes was a guy that lived in the 4th century BC. He was kind of a kook (in my opinion) who thought that men should reject society and live without any more luxuries than were absolutely necessary. He lived in tub or barrel turned on its side. Sounds like some envrio wackos (another editorial opinion) today. Nevertheless, Alexander the Great is said to have respected him, and the two had a famous encounter.

Chuck, you are right that Pythagoras was originally from Greece. He was born on an island off the coast of what is now Turkey, then called Ionia. As book points out, we aren't sure what he exactly did or thought, but if what they say about him is true, he deserves a lot of credit. He thought that math one of the most fundamental things in the universe. Things do happen in rhythms and patterns. That's what modern physics is all about. He recognized the relationship between numbers and music, and thought music to be an integral part of reality as well. He took all this to a religious extreme, and his pantheistic religion was all wrong, but he does deserve credit for some insight.

Diogenes Laertisu

2008-10-27T11:43:00.002-05:00

Diogenes Laertius
According to chapter one of our study book, this guy is called the father of of philosopy. He divided the presocratic era into several sections. I think they are:1. Ionic or Mylesian school which consists primarily of three big named philosophers from Greece: thales, anaximander, and anaximenes.2. The Pthyagorus school - which was centered in Italy, but I believe he came from Greece. Does anyone know if this is correct? I understand that his school was more spiritually motivated. I can't remember the others and I don't have my book with me!Who knows what Thales is remembered for? I also think that Hippocrates was one of the later names.

I did some research on what Laertius said about Pythagorous and found this interesting tidbit that might tie him into the bible... Diogenes writes, "And as he was a young man, and devoted to learning, he quitted his country, and got initiated into all the Grecian and barbarian sacred mysteries. Accordingly, he went to Egypt, on which occasion Polycrates gave him a letter of introduction to Amasis; and he learnt the Egyptian language, as Antipho tells us, in his treatise on those men who have been conspicuous for virtue, and he associated with the Chaldaeans and with the Magi."

Cool, huh?

2008-10-17T12:06:00.002-05:00

We are going to get together, in person, Friday night November 7, at 7 PM, at the church. Hopefully that will kick start the group. We can start to discuss the group in general, the first chapter of the book, and get to know each other a little. I'll bring some snacks/dessert, and I'm sure there will be coffee, etc. Anyone who is interested is welcome. Hope to see you there.

2008-10-09T08:31:00.004-05:00

Colin Brown's description of the sophists was a little bit brief, and I think the subject needs a little bit more discussion. Understanding them helps us understand the importance of Socrates. The Greek word for sophist is the root of some English words like 'sophistry' and 'sophisticated'. Sophistry is a form of reasoning that sounds plausible, but is totally fallacious. I've heard Rush Limbaugh use the word to describe some political hacks before. The sophists were basically intellectual guns for hire in the ancient world. They could take any position and argue it convincingly. The better their rhetorical skill and power of persuasion the more they got paid. The problem was that they had no concept of truth. There was no gold standard by which to judge what they said. They essentially made up their own truth.

This relativism is what Socrates argued against. He understood that there some things are true and some things false, independently of what we think about them. Evaluating ideas in terms of this truth, in terms of some standard outside ourselves, was the starting place from which Plato, Aristotle, etc carried on. That is a lot different than "man is the measure of all things."

Here is a description of what the culture was like before Socrates:

1. there is no master story that underlies humanity (for a Christian this would involve the fall and the process of redemption)

2. no standard by which to judge another person's reasoning

3. there is no such thing as objectivity

4. no moral absolutes

5. deep suspicion of all ideas, because ideas are always manipulated for personal reasons

This is just a partial list, but does it look familiar? It isn't that much different than the postmodern, relativistic culture we live in. Once again, there is nothing new under the sun, but Christ.

2008-10-03T10:12:00.007-05:00

One of the things the first chapter of the book brings to mind is that there really is nothing new under the sun (see Ecclesiastes). Intelligent design is sometimes criticized as being just another attempt at the design argument for the origin of life, i.e., there is a design to nature, therefore there must be a designer (i.e. God). I don't think that is a cogent criticism anyway, but it turns out that evolution itself is a recycled argument to some extent. The belief in atoms is not entirely new. And modern humanists haven't really come up with something new either. Protagoras' quote, "Man is the measure of all things," is a fair approximation of modern secular humanism.

This can give us some confidence to say to modern skeptics of Christianity, whatever their pet philosophy may be, "Been there, done that." There is one thing that happened in the ancient world, however, that had never occurred before and is truly unique in history. That is Christ.

There is a lot more to say about Chapter 1. I'll post more later, and I'll look forward to hearing from everyone else.

Current ithink activity

2008-10-01T12:28:00.003-05:00

The ithink group is currently discussing the book Christianity and Western Thought: A History of Philosophers, Ideas, and Movements by Colin Brown. We'll be posting our own reviews and discussions of Chapter 1 soon.

ithink intro

2008-10-01T12:19:00.001-05:00

“But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His son…” Gal 4:4 (NASB)

What was it about the Mediterranean world two thousand years ago that made it the “fullness of time”? Why was that time ripe for the next stage in God’s plan of salvation? Part of the answer to that is the Greco-Roman culture that dominated the time. As Chesterton said (paraphrased), the Romans may have been pagans, but not all pagans were created equal. Rome’s defeat of Carthage is one the most important events in history. Carthage worshiped Moloch in what was probably a continuation of the Baal worshipping cults of the Old Testament, and the sacrifice of first born infants was a common ritual.
The Romans is many ways carried on where the Greeks left off. Certain Greeks had developed a strong desire for Truth, which they carried as far as they could without divine revelation. Salvation is certainly from the Jews, but the influence of Greek thought is pervasive throughout Christian thought. Even the doctrine of the Trinity, central to Christian theology yet never explicitly articulated in that way in the Bible, was developed using ideas that the Greek mind was comfortable with but were foreign to the Hebrew mind. I have heard it said that it is impossible to explain the Trinity to someone without invoking Plato’s idea of essences, whether you know you are doing it or not. Plato, in fact, was so good at the pursuit of truth that CS Lewis speculated that perhaps he was a believer, and Lewis would not have been surprised at all to see Plato in heaven. While I think that idea is certainly debatable, the Greeks do deserve credit for taking the pursuit of truth as far as possible without divine intervention.
We could go on with many more examples of ways in which the ancient Mediterranean world was “the fullness of time.” If anything is true it helps us understand more about God. Fortunately, God has given us direct, special revelation in the Bible. There are truths that no one can discover without that special revelation. That is why the things of Bible, namely the crucifixion, are ‘foolishness to the Greeks’. But that doesn’t change the fact that some of the Greeks had a way of understanding reality that was indispensable for the full development of Christian thought. What about after the Greeks and Romans? Alfred North Whitehead said that the history of philosophy is merely footnotes on Plato. The impact of the Greek thought on philosophy and Christian theology is indisputable. That is why I am looking forward to this group.