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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

Plato and the decay of democracy

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

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

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

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."

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

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?

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.

   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.

     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

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

“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.