"...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