Beechwood Blog

Atheism's Appraisals of Theism

2011-05-16T18:32:00.009-04:00

Kai Nielson received his Ph.D. from Duke University. He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. He has written authoritatively on the subject of the philosophy of religion for many years and published books on the subject in legion. A text version of a debate between him and William Lane Craig can be viewed here: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen0.html

While no atheist can speak for all atheists I do believe he offers a fair summery of religion from a naturalist's perspective. I would be surprised if any atheist could disagree with him. In this post I will be evaluating his contribution to the Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Religion entitled: "Naturalistic Explanations of Theistic Belief" as well as offering a response. The astute observer, or the philosophically adept, may find this latter statement an odd thing to attempt to do. Why would atheism's explanation of religion require a response? After all, worldviews are attempting to make sense of the world around them, why would we expect less from naturalism? Does not Christianity attempt to explain atheism? Well, if an explanation is anything at all it needs to be adequate. It doesn't need to be absolutely perfect, there can be gray areas and unresolved questions. What one ought to demand is that it is consistent with the assumption of the distributor. The consequences, or at least an attempt to offer a conclusion of aptness, will be forthcoming at the end of my post. For now I am going to summarize his article.

What is Theistic Belief in a World with no God?

Anything that falls under the category of existing must be composed of physical components according to Nielson. There are, at the very least, no good reasons to believe that there is anything spiritual or transcendent (burden of proof implied). Nielson warns that there are two extremes that the atheist should avoid: extreme reductionism and hyper scientism. Nielson deserves credit for his tempered approach and I think a lot of wasted debate time could be avoided if other atheists would follow his lead here. There are many propositions that are not anti-scientific, but rather non-scientific. These propositions are promoted by both the religious and the non-religious. This is not a problem, actually, it is essential to make existential sense of the human condition. All of the realities that are postulated by all people involve the physical and since, given naturalistic assumptions, we all do this we may conclude that it is fitting to see the world as equal to nature. What is natural is the world and there is nothing that is not part of nature. There are no purely mental realities. The mental relies on the physical. Religion, as defined by Nielson, is any supernaturalism whether it addresses a deity or not. Atheism need not be militant nor dogmatic for certitude in regard to supernaturalism's falseness or coherence is not ensured. Rather, states Nielson, the atheist should maintain a postmodern skepticism that presupposes or argues that supernaturalism is false (remember: he claims that the burden of proof is on the religious so all that needs to happen is a maintenance of skepticism). Atheism's critical side has a long tradition of great thinkers and philosophers (I could not agree more with him on this point, some of them are my favorite philosophers). They give grounds for rejecting supernaturalism (and thus maintaining the burden of proof in the religious camp). If the critique of religion has been effective, then what atheism has to say about why religion is or what it is becomes very important. Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud have accounts, but they are only effective if religion is defused.

I find this to be a significant statement. It renders Plantinga's critique sterile. Let me explain. And I apologize if I have covered this in a previous post. In Warranted Christian Belief Plantinga divides concern over atheistic arguments as de jure or "concerning the law" and de facto "concerning fact." Marx and Freud have similar arguments in that they claim theism to be the result of some need. It's genesis can be found in the desires and needs of the individual, not in fact. As de jure arguments the Christian need not be too concerned with them for the need of an individual is not synonymous with the genesis of belief for that is to fall into the genetic fallacy. How is this so? Well, given the circular nature of the offerings of Marx and Freud one need not go very far to offer a counter interpretation and be logically consistent with the critique. Perhaps God put the desires there to begin with? Could there not be a need for God that arose from circumstances common to believers and there still be a God? Of course! The theist is not saying this is the case, they are merely demonstrating the flaw of the argument. But, I believe that Nielson's parsing is a very good strategy. It moves Freud's and Marx's appraisals in a unilateral path behind naturalism's arguments against supernaturalism thus shielding them from this criticism. They may be able to stand simply as descriptions of theism and support for them is conducted by other arguments which will all be negative. There are no arguments for atheism do to its equivocative posture presuppositionally. This is why Nielson stresses the need for burden of proof to remain on the supernaturalist. But just in case you do not believe me click on this link and hit the "play video" button and evaluate for yourself how well Daniel Dennett does achieving a positive argument for atheism. Keep in mind, the moderator is in no way pressing him on the issue yet Dennett asserts that it is the burden of proof that matters http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Arguments-for-Atheism-Daniel-Dennett-/33 this is highly illustrative of the logical reality atheism is faced with when positing its own position. If Dennett could have answered the question he would deserve a Nobel Prize but, it was not to be. Instead he spends almost no time on the question and moves into a negative apologetic. This is because he is a very good philosopher, why should he waste his time on a question he cannot logically sustain? This should give pause to the atheist who believes that evolution is a good argument against theism, in fact all appeals to science or nature is simply to stack ontology on top of more ontology. Christian ontology comes from the bible and general revelation, if the christian were to appeal only to the bible for arguments it would be no different than an atheist that only appeals to nature. Atheists are being reasonable when they demand more from the theist than memorizing bible versus and regurgitating them, but the same is true of the atheist who throws out scientific facts as well. There is simply no truth to the postulate that science is a bifurcation from theism or religion in general.

Nielson continues: the Enlightenment has spawned the peppering of arguments through history that, after much development, have been devastating to supernaturalism. Hume and Kant have had reconstructed forms reborn in Mackie and Martin. This refutation has been so thorough that defenders of religion have had to appeal to ever increasing erroneous, or at least, ineffective apologetics. Appeals to the emotive, faith (stacking the deck), meaninglessness, and amorality are hallmark signs of a worldview in trouble.

(Part II, if I get to it, will summarize the rest of the article, and I will offer a critique. I may be lucky enough to get a response from an opponent of my view)

Romans 3:1-8 How to Understand the Relationship Between the Gospel and Jewish History

2010-11-14T21:47:00.004-05:00

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

"That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged."

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? ( I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

If God's purposes were brought about apart from the law of Moses then does this not render Judaism arbitrary? This was the false assumption many had brought against the message Paul was bringing. They had assumptions about the purpose of the law that were incompatible with its intended purpose. The law was not a means to an end. Many today still stumble over the notion that they will be right with God through the law or any good works. This is not how the bible frames the law, humanity, and God.

In versus 1-4 Paul challenges his audience to live out the circumcision that is concomitant to the law. He knows they can't do it. If anyone should know it was Paul, he was a Pharisee himself. He was a rising star in his ranks. Yet, he turned away from it. Realizing that it was not law that was going to make man right before God. If one wanted to be justified through observance of the law they must be circumcised and keep the law. Again, Paul knew this was not possible as demonstrated in 2:21-24. This being the case, then how could circumcision (and all of Jewish history, circumcision is a proxy for Judaism here) have value? First, despite the well documented failings of Israel God preserved a faithful remnant, this would constitute an advantage. The Oracles Paul is referring to would include salvation (according to Tom Schreiner among other commentaries). This salvation is found in Christ due to faith as Paul will lay out in Chapter 4 when dealing with Abraham. Secondly, God was glorified and prevailed when judged. Finally, had the old covenant only served to glorify God and nothing else it would have been enough, but he did more. So we see that the gospel in no way makes Jewish history meaning less, rather it is the fulfillment of Jewish history. This leads to an ironic twist. In the old covenant if one wanted to be faithful one must be circumcised. In the new covenant circumcision was now a vestigial doctrine and a sign of faithlessness for the new had come.

Paul had been preaching for around twenty years by the time he wrote Romans and was very familiar with Jewish objections. In versus 5-8 we see a response to some criticism. First, I would like to cross over a point I have been making concerning Velvet Elvis. There seems to be an Americanized version of Christianity that I am witnessing in that book and in my conversations. This view of Christianity is summed up by the words of a conversation I had with someone Friday, they told me, "I love Jesus and Jesus loves me and that's all I need to get where I am going." This is far from the gauntlet thrown down to us by the authors of scripture. We are to think. We are to combat the ideas of our time, if for no other reason for the benefit of others. It was C.S. Lewis that said that good philosophy must exist if for no other reason than to combat bad philosophy. Paul was not content to let bad ideas go unchallenged and these versus are an example. If God demonstrates his righteousness through the wrongdoing then on what grounds could he judge? After all, his purposes were fulfilled. If this is the argument that Paul's contemporaries were bringing then Paul has a question for them, how could God then judge anyone? For the whole world has done wrong. He is taking their argument to their teleological realization. And if this is the case why are Paul's enemies saying that God will condemn him for the gospel he preaches? Should not his detractors just be happy that God is being glorified? But God does judge and inflict wrath on all who violate the law. So circumcision is not enough. We must be justified and we are not doing a very good job of doing that on our own. Some had told Paul that by the logic of his gospel one ought to do evil so that more good would come. The more God justifies evil the more good comes of it. But those being justified were showing God to be just. As we witnessed in the latter portion of chapter 2, verse 27 "Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law." So Paul responds to this argument with "Their condemnation is just." For they are left with their hypocrisy before God while the church shows the righteousnesses of God by his overlooking past sins and the faithful life they now live by his power. Think of it this way, when Jesus was forgiving sins it was a sign of his divinity for only God could forgive sin. So if the church is forgiven then God has revealed his righteousness in his people. This life of faithfulness will be like a lamp in a dark world. Some will come to it and some will hate it. That is why Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword.

Romans 2:17-29 The Demonstration of the Impartiality of God

2010-10-18T17:53:00.005-04:00

Because God shows no partiality (in regard to gentiles and Jews which about sums up everyone) Paul decides to demonstrate this truth with a bit of irony at the end. Paul had been preaching the gospel for about 20 years at this point and knew what type of objections he would be facing. The judgment was one based on obedience not on privilege. The Jews had seriously underestimated the breadth of God's judgment. I remember a movie called "Ike: Countdown to D-Day." It was based on the actual events of the planning. The movie was not that popular, probably because it was about the planning of D-Day rather than the execution. But I though it was pretty good. Anywho, one of his generals was in a bar and was drunk while trying to impress a friend and some women they were dining with. He had said they would be drinking good Paris wine by June 8th then said it would only take about four days to fight through the Germans. The place was packed. He was turned in by a paratrooper who thought his chances of survival were much better if the generals were not blurting out sensitive data in crowded public areas. When Ike confronted the general we find out that they went to West Point together and the general said, "I'm part of the inner circle, that's got to count for something." Ike looked at him and said, "That's just about the worst thing you could have said, there is no inner circle. There is just the men who live and the men who die." There was something just way too serious to be mitigated by a history. This is a bit like the attitude the Jews had. Clearly it was the gentiles that were in trouble, not them. Look at the things God had done for them and their forefathers, had God not demonstrated a favoritism that was due them? No, when it comes to sin God's judgment is absolute. Later Paul will reflect on the obvious objection: Then what was the purpose of God's oracles?

God's gifts should have led to an attitude of thankfulness and worship. Sound familiar? This was the same thing that should have happened when the Gentiles noticed the created things. So, God revealed himself in two different ways but the results were the same. There was only two ways in which to respond to God, praise or sin, both sinned.

Isaiah 2:1-4

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
and many peoples shall come, and say:
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths."
For out of Zion shall go the law,
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide disputes for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war anymore.

Romans 2:19-20

And if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor for the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth.

The Gentiles were to come to the Jews for instruction. The virtues of God were to be clearly manifested in his people. That is one of the purposes of the nation, to be carved out, a people for himself, clearly distinct and set apart for God. How was that working for them in Paul's day? Not too good. The teaching was meant to be a guide, but what if the teachers were not following the instruction they were dishing out? That would be a problem. By their hypocrisy the Jews, rather than fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy, were doing the exact opposite: they were shaming the name of God in the midst of the Gentiles. What of Isaiah's prophecy? Is it now mistaken if this is the case? I will get there momentarily. As it turns out, it was a really good thing the Gentiles had the law written on their hearts because they sure weren't going to learn it from the Jews!

Paul lists some of the hypocritical practices of the Jews, it is controversial today. They were preaching against stealing, but Paul asks if they themselves were stealing. The same with adultery and idolatry. The problem modern scholars are having is that the list would not encompass all Jews. This is a fair criticism, certainly all Jewish teachers were not committing these atrocities. So was Paul wrong? No. There are two distinct features that must be kept in mind when reading Romans.

1) The didactic method of citing extreme cases were meant to matriculate into smaller cases. I don't need to murder to be a murder, hate is enough. It is the spirit of the law that matters, so Paul does not have to list every single thing that one could do to displease God. The message would clearly have gotten home. We still do this today, if we were to use mundane expressions to teach lessons we would lose the impact of our teaching and Paul would have known this.

2) When I was introducing Romans to the class I made mention of an error Martin Luther made when he interpreted the epistle. He had thought the letter was talking to individuals. It isn't. Certainly it applies to individuals, but the letter is addressed to two people groups: Jews and Gentiles. The teachers that made the errors Paul is referring to represented Judaism at large. In fact, there is sin that is not in Paul's immediate preview that is a problem. To clarify my point, let me take you back to the book of Judges where the author expresses concern over the corruption within the government. So much was going on that was not being brought into order, why? Because sin was a national problem. The people were apostate and as a result there was no one to reign in the corrupt teaching that was taking place. All the people were responsible for ensuring that these atrocities did not take place. If there were corrupt teachers it was due to a corrupt nation. Everyone was responsible for the fidelity of the community. Paul is addressing the Jews in a broad sense in Romans and that needs to be taken seriously to interpret it correctly. One can see why he goes through painstaking effort to defend the truth. So, if the teachers are corrupt, how much corruption was above and below them? Since this is one of the most ubiquitous themes of the Old Testament it is not hard to believe that God's Apostles would be delivering the same message his prophets had always been giving. So, none are able to escape the need for the gospel. The covenant between God and the Jews did not lead to salvation, rather, it lead to judgment. Therefore the Jews needed the cross as well.

Romans 2:25-27

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.

Note that he mentions the "written code." No doubt this was meant to emphasize the unwritten code and therefore that touch of irony that I had mentioned that Paul was using as part of his teaching arsenal. If it were the Jews that were given the law, and supposed to be teachers to the Gentiles, then it is quite odd that it is now the Gentiles that are condemning them. Not vocally but in their fellowship with Christ. See James for further details.

1 Samuel 15:22

And Samuel said,

Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,

as in obeying the voice of the Lord?

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,

and to listen than the fat of rams.

The Gentiles are taking the intended better way, and it doesn't have to be this way if the Jews will submit to Christ. It is clear that Paul's strategy to make the Jews jealous would have been very effective to anyone that truly loved God. Circumcision is not detached from the law so if a Gentile meets the requirements without it, where does it leave those who think circumcision is part of a privileged position? This is why Paul sees circumcision as a vestige of the old covenant.

What of the fulfillment of the Isaiah passage? The passage applies to the remnant, also known as "Faithful Israel." Romans 2:28-29a "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly." Faithful Israel is anyone who is part of the new covenant and the gospel meets the requirement for Isaiah's forecast to be fulfilled.

Velvet Bell 3: The Need for Innerancy and Conversations Surrounding it

2010-10-14T17:01:00.037-04:00

In Bell's chapter entitled "Jump" he is trying to establish that the experience of following Christ is more important than the doctrines of Christ, this is helpful to his central theme that theology can be "repainted" because there are things that are more important. He concludes that the doctrines are not Jesus and worshiping the doctrines is faulty. I consider this a slight of hand. The doctrines should not be dismissed or changed in light of other Christian truths such as virtuous behavior. Consequently, Bell chooses doctrine that seems existentially inconsequential. Later, we will see that Bell forecasts an objection in which he calls "Brickianity." What is "Brickianity?" It is any attempt to systematize Christian doctrine. I will deal with the failure of this hypotheses later. Without doctrine how do we follow Christ? He says they are important, but he implies that they are not necessary to follow him: "The springs (doctrines) help make sense of these deeper realities that drive how we live every day. The springs aren't God. The springs aren't Jesus. The springs are statements and beliefs about (emphasis original) our faith that help give words to the depth to the experience in our jumping (experience) [pg.22]." So the experience precedes the doctrine which are descriptive of human experience, not truths about God. He explains that some doctrines, such as the trinity, are all well and good but people experienced Christianity just fine before they were developed. See? It's a mere formulation, we don't actually need it, we just need to jump. Interesting that he chose one of the more difficult doctrines to grasp as opposed to doctrines that have a greater clarity to the weight of his argument and how it would affect the Christian faith. Also, he chose a doctrine that appears to have little baring on our daily lives, but, once one begins to think systemically about it then it has a great deal to do with how we live, but that's "Brickianity" and ought to be rejected (Captain Ad Hominem rears his head again amidst other fallacious arguments against systematics). So the springs (doctrine) we are told are not the point, but it does not follow from this that they are dispensable, which is the inference he is attempting to carry over. The truth is we can't "jump" without them AND we must "jump." It is important that we live the life we are called to in light of the truth about who God is, the doctrines are the conclusions from the revelation God has given us. They are not mere words. They are indispensable, otherwise even our best efforts will fail in regard to how we ought to live as it relates to humanity, Christianity, Jesus, God, and the truth. In some sense the doctrines are God, they are Jesus. God is a trinitarian being and since we are commanded to worship him in spirit and in truth we need not shy away from what is revealed. By the way, is there a more poignant existential process prescribed in scripture other than worship? How is this done properly without true doctrine?

On pg.26 Bell begins his attack on systematics. He chooses an obscure preacher (I commend Bell for not using his name) who claims that not taking the Genesis account of the six days of creation literally meant one could not believe in the cross. I agree with Bell that the connection seems vague. What did this guy mean? Was he saying that foisting your own interpretation on one text gives allowance for one to do it to all portions of scripture? Perhaps. Anyone would have to agree that this is, by its self, an unclear argument at best (like much of Velvet Elvis) and a bad argument at worst (like much of Velvet Elvis). Bell continues, undaunted, using what most, even from the Evangelical tradition, would agree is a bad argument. Why would Bell choose a bad argument as the foundation for his opposition to the side that argument represents? Let's think about this... Maybe he has a weak argument himself? If you have a bad argument it would shine much brighter compared to an even worse one. Let's see if this is the case. He claims that systematic theology is like a brick wall and that if you even question part of it the wall begins to collapse. This is very far from the truth, there is no doctrine within historic Christianity that cannot be "questioned." I respect his fear of this being the case, but it just isn't so. There is no problem with asking questions and having doubts, as I have stated earlier. But there is a place for convictions. We hold to doctrine we struggle with even if we have doubts because we are being honest with ourselves. We have to be this way. Ephesian 4:14 "So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."

So eventually we have to come down on a position instead of a perpetual Cartesian evaluation like the one endorsed by Bell. In fact, my warning to Christians that may be influenced by him is that he is the kind of deceiver Paul is talking about. He is subtly, yet assuredly, eroding foundational truths in hope to gain an audience. Should I believe what he said on the back cover of his book that he is only contributing to the conversation? It seems to me that he is trying to replace it. He is substituting a version of Christianity that is incompatible with the tenants of scripture. He has his qualifications, but they are contradictory afterthoughts that are attempts at masking his epistemological Post-Modernistic thought. In the current argument he is trying to displace the need for epistemic chains that are necessary in a progressive revelation which is what the bible is. How would Bell reconcile Genesis with John 1? If I say, "denying that all things were created through Jesus is robbing Genesis of its completed message?" would I then be a "Brickianity" proponent? If that is so then the Apostle John was a proponent of "Brickianity" as well. The truth is Bell is just out of touch with the bible because of the synthetic process in which he approaches it. He wants to find a synthesis between modern American attitudes and Christianity, even the essential parts of it, rather than questioning the mode of thought that is against the truth of the message of the bible. I find it interesting that he does not want modern culture to change at all, it is only the bible that must take the heat. This is a clear cut case of needing to be very careful when others approve of us, for it can be a gauge for sinful compromise. Some compromises are acceptable and debatable but if those who are spreading the message are not being persecuted in some form, even in a small way, the bigger danger to be concerned with is that the true message is not getting through. A Christian can not live the life God has commanded and not be persecuted in some form from great to small and if we are not being persecuted we are in danger of a compromise that is an abandonment of the gospel, an abandonment of Jesus. Yes, I embrace "Brickianity" despite the fact that there are those on my side that have bad arguments, but Bell has more in common with bad argumentation and abandonment of the faith. I will gladly be bad at arguing as long as I uphold the faith. I mentioned in the introduction that the reviews of Bell's book that were negative were unfair. The reason for this is because Bell presents an argument against the virgin birth as an example of his problem with approaching the bible and Christianity systematically. The reviewers would attribute this argument to Bell directly without mentioning the fact that he says later that he actually believes and affirms the virgin birth. It was not fair to approach this section of the book this way. Bell can question the virgin birth because he has already established that he does not find doctrine necessary to begin with. Since the virgin birth is only doctrine, then it does not matter if it is incorrect. So what the reviewers should have been picking up on is that Bell offers an argument against a historical claim and then never offers a response, even though there are very good responses to the argument he supposedly does not believe. Although, I must admit that one writing a book for the cause of Christianity and then not defending an attack on it strikes me as very peculiar. I can only speculate on his motives, but I think he thinks the argument is persuasive. In fact, he goes much further in his example than he needs to to make his point. He questions the strength of the Christian message because of what he considers a weak tenant. He asks how Christianity can really be strong if by needing to defend a single notion of it the whole thing hangs in the balance. If one does not systematize (or to put it another way "be logical") then one does not need to worry about defending it. This is a catch-all apologetic, the claims are merely doctrinal, not historical, doctrine is subservient to the experience of being in touch with "the depth of reality." Reality, for Bell, is now pure transcendental and esoteric. History is irrelevant, doctrine is benign. Christianity is secure in the truths of raw reality after one begins to follow and the rest can be "repainted" as it were, for the sake of a culture that is rejecting the message. There is no need for logic in Bell's Post-modern version of Christianity. Let me offer an illustration from my side of the theological fence to give an idea of Bell's perspective. I do not doubt that some who embrace a Young Earth perspective, do so because they see it as apologetically advantageous in regard to evolution. If there is not enough time then evolution could not take root. As a result, they begin to attack dating methods and marshal evidence from Genesis for theological support and so on. As I have stated many times on this blog, I love apologetics, but it never precedes theology. If our apologetic ideas are in conflict with our theological convictions then they are potential answers at best but we should be honest that we think that they are not likely answers. Even that last sentence has me unnerved a little and were it not for John Feinberge making a convincing case of "defense versus theodicy" I would go all the way and say flat out reject apologetics that are in conflict with theology. But, nevertheless, this is what Bell is doing, if Christianity is about a "deep" or "mysterious" or any other word one can conjure for "too much for words and reason" then one needs no defense for historic errors. This is similar to those who reject inerrancy: "a perfect God spoke to us about his perfection through a book full of errors and contradictions, but he's perfect. You'll see if you just read it. All the big stuff that could be errors, no, God will work through it. Sure everything in it could be an error, but don't think about that, the deeper reality will somehow be revealed." This is the kind of thinking prevalent in Theosophy, Ariosophy, and other views that spawned all kinds of problems in world history because good, well-intentioned people chose not to think, they just committed. It was the commitment that mattered, the intent, not the results. Even if they did think, their better reason was overridden by their commitment. And here we arrive at an irony, by committing without critical thought one ends up making ANY commitment valuable. If there is no inerrancy but it is still the word of God, well then, what other errors could be deeply true? Just do them and they will make themselves clearly perceived as true. Don't think, just commit. Commit to acting out Christianity without the doctrine you will get in touch with a deeper reality; just commit to reading the bible it will be true despite logical errors, just commit to following Teutonic principles you will live them out to be true, just commit. There is no line of demarcation! Why? Because that is what the bible is: God's line of demarcation for humanity. That is where we find our definitions not in some mysterious nexus of truth that goes beyond reason. Otherwise, humanity is the line of demarcation, what has history demonstrated is good about that? If God has not spoken, and done so clearly, then do we need God for anything more than a backup plan? Why should we believe anything about God or a god if he has not made himself known and set boundaries for us? G.K. Chesterton said, "The problem with not believing that there is a God is not that people will believe in nothing- it is that they will end up believing anything." I would take that a step further and say that if God has not revealed himself, in history, in doctrine, and in consistency, then we are free to believe in anything as well. It is not just a matter of if there is a God, it is a matter of if one can know God. I'm really not talking about agnosticism here, I am talking about God being everything he is and at least being everything he has revealed himself to be. And if he is perfect then he was perfect in revelation and in history where he has acted. These people fear making the evidence testable, so they stack the deck because they think God has failed even though they would never put it in those words. They think their weak arguments are his arguments, they are sorely mistaken. Is it me, or do the promises of the deep realties of the universe, or Jesus showing reality at its rawest, and all the promises about God really speaking to us even through contradictions and stacked dismissals of historical claims starting to sound like hollow, anthropomorphic babble? This gets me to the two problems with Bell and the fulfillment of a promise I made in the introduction: 1) The need for historical fidelity from God's revelation per his impeccable attributes and 2) the rejection of inerrancy leading to the collapse of the Christian worldview, as its clarity is marginalized amidst a plurality of alternatives that can compete for emotive commitment. Notice that all of this is testable, one does not have to resort to stacking the deck if one is willing to be honest in their pursuit of truth.

Historical Fidelity: A Prerequisite

Despite the ad hominem attack on systematic theology I will show that if the virgin birth did not happen in history it would have a catastrophic consequence for the Christian worldview. If one could prove that Jesus was not born of a virgin Christianity would collapse. Bell infers that Christianity could not be very strong if it relied so heavily on a proposition to be true. I don't mean this to be a put-down but, NO DUH! No truth claim is strong if it's false. Christianity is not claiming to be the best option among many, or even the strongest one among many, its claiming to be the only one. It is a truth claim about the way the world is. If its claims are false then it is false. Since when was truth measured in strength? Truth tests may be able to fall under this category, but not truth itself, unless he is assuming it is strong in regard to equal (in the ontological sense) yet competing truth claims. Truth claims are only as strong as the truth they represent, which is to say that they also have no real strength unless they correspond with what is actually true. If the claim is false then there is another singular truth and no strength hides behind the falsehood to defend it it is just a falsehood that goes down with the ship. If the claims of Christianity are false then there is another singular truth and Christianity is just a falsehood. The thing is that God is the truth according to Christianity. He cannot lie, in him is no deceit. His word is truth. If what is written about him is false, then he has not effected the supposed revelation concerning him. If he has not affected a truth claim then it is false, all of it. Even if it were to happen to brush against some truths. Why? Because God cannot deceive, he is not going to allow something that is the revelation about himself to contain falsehoods concerning him. How could it claim to be his word? At best, it could only be man's word and all claims, no matter what feeling we get when we read them, could be false. It follows logically from his attributes that the bible is either his truth and all facets are true and not a human construct. If any of it is a human error or otherwise all of it could not be the word of God, it could only be claiming to be, and a false claim at that; for in God there is no error. Bell says what if the virgin birth was put there for the benefit of Pagan beliefs of the time [pg.26]. Then reject it and go involve yourself in what ever pleasure you want and call that searching for the deeper realities of the universe because Accommodation Theory (information to make a proposition desirable rather than stating what is true) is still lying. The bible says God cannot lie, what cult was that put in there for? What can I possibly believe about it if it has lies and errors? How can I even know he does not lie? I can't, because the potential for error equates to probable agnosticism. You see, if it is possible that it is mistaken then it is possible that it is a lie despite mystical claims about feeling its the word of God, if its possible its mistaken then it is more rational to remain agnostic toward its claims rather than being emotionally committed to them despite reason (for more on this fallacy read my post "House on Faith"). One area where I will happily concede to Bell's point: Christianity is weak if its truth claims are false, so weak that the whole thing would be a lie and we are the most pathetic, pitiable people on the planet if its false. I have studied the bible a long time and I am confident that this is not the case. The good news is that the apostles didn't need a one-size-fits-all apologetic to placate public opinion in their day, they were brave and willing to die for the truth that has been preserved for us today. God in his perfection has given us his inerrant word. His perfection ensures its historical authenticity, (it does not prove it, that's a different claim) that if it is his word then it is true for it is the manifestation of his will for humanity to know. So I conclude that Bell's attempt to marginalize historical truth claims of scripture is unsuccessful, and at worst it could leave some to intellectually abandon the faith. Christianity is either the truth or it collapses under the weight of its own postulates. It boils down to this, the bible forces us to either reject it and accept any or maybe all other truth claims or accept it and reject everything else, there is no middle ground nor need for "repainting."

The Vitality of Innerancy

One criticism that has been levied at Evangelicals is that we are guilty of an "I'm right your wrong" theology. That our theology is without the life that Christ commands us to live. I see several problems with this approach to our position(s). Each individual is accountable to God for their behavior, and each leader of the church is at a higher level of accountability. I fear that this criticism is made by many who have virtually no contact with Evangelicals. Behaving as a Christian, if we are honest with what we read in scripture, should lead all of us to grieve at our lack of action. In Fact, James commands us to grieve, to humble ourselves from our lack of action. No Christian, liberal or otherwise, can truly say they are doing enough, and are further we are being arrogant to point the finger at anyone in this regard. Indeed, they are condemning/judging in a way that the bible explicitly prohibits. Many of them criticize us for not siding with one theologian or another, E.P. Sanders vs N.T. Wright for example. And we sometimes do the same, are we not all one in Christ? This question leads me to a reflection that I am forced to make, does not the bible set boundaries for what a Christian is? And if this is the case and my liberal friends reject the core of the gospel, then I am forced to judge (in the discerning sense not the condemning sense) that only those who are in Christ are one in Christ. For a different gospel is no gospel at all. So where do we need to logically do battle? At the existential level of living the love of Christ which no man can measure and each must face God on his or her own? Or at the scriptural level which is our guide for determining what God has revealed to us? I think the latter. Is it not now reasonable to ask the question, who is right and who is wrong in their approach to scripture? This is far from the "I'm right your wrong" accusation that is foisted onto the debate. Rather, it is the most reasonable course of action. And if some of us, like Bell, wish to say that it is not inerrant, or imply that inerrancy is trivial (his position is hard to know even though he commits to the virgin birth he undermines) then the acts of scripture demanded of us are logically trivial and irrelevant as well. So, inerrancy is too important to not investigate. And therefore I will endeavorer to flesh out the issue as it stands today in light of Bell's attempt to trivialize it for the sake of action. It is not a matter of whether I or any Evangelical is right, it is a matter of whether the revelation we are conforming our lives to is what it claims to be.

Preconditions

In Norman Geisler's first entry in his systematic theology series he does an excellent job highlighting the specifics that need to be discussed before engaging in good theology. Other theological writings are excellent as well, Erickson and Grudem come to mind, but they don't put the same level of detail on the preconditions, although I'm fairly sure they would agree with most of Geisler's positions concerning preconditions. I will keep this chain of thought brief, but we need to go through it to see the reasoning behind the value of inerrancy. I will not be offering a defense of these positions, my aim is purely descriptive and light on polemics.

-God

All things that begin to exist have a cause. The universe began to exist. The best explination for the cause is God. There is a God. This God interacts with our universe in which he created. Otherwise we have left Theism and adopted Deism. Is this "Brickianity?" Based on Bell's problems with the Young Earth creationist's postulates I imagine he would have to say yes. But if God does not interact with his creation then how does he communicate with it? The act of communication constitutes interaction in the world. So the logical links once denied, no matter how moral one may claim doing so is, leads us to a theological and existential impasse. Lest we deny logic and enter into Nihilism (ironically one could make the case that this is where Post-Modernity should lead) we must conclude that this God does interact or all bets are off. At that point any statement about God is as viable or detestable as any other statement because no matter what the case, if he has not made himself known, there is no legitimate claim to what he is like. Remember when I talked about a misguided pluralism? But is pluralism the best induction from Deistic claims? Perhaps Atheism makes more sense than pluralism? Perhaps Agnosticism is a more reasonable option? But if God has spoken, then we have very clear lines of demarcation, we have a distinctive God.

-The Bible

If the bible is God communicating to man in a more specific way than nature then it needs to be internally consistent. Why would this be? Aside from the fact that contradiction is a rational way to conclude falsehood, the claims about God in the bible must be presented to us in this logical consistency that all humans need. There is nothing wrong with desiring a reasonable account of God. This does not mean that there are not matters that are difficult to understand or even accept. If the scripture says that God is good, then we see passages that say he is evil, then we would have a very good reason for questioning what we could know about this God from the text that claims to represent him. If it says he is good and we see events that appear evil, does it follow that God is evil? Well, that depends on the specific text doesn't it. It is not enough to conclude contradiction based on a surface view of the text. Context and hermeneutics is where the real battle for inerrancy is fought. So, there is no real reason to believe that the bible is the word of God if there are real contradictions unless we appeal to some circular argument like "when people read it they conclude that it is the word of God!" I have bad news for people that say that, Muslims, Jews, and a host of other religious perspectives could make the same claim. That's the way circular arguments work, just plug in your favorite proposition and presto! Your argument sounds valid even though it isn't. What if scripture talks about itself? What should we conclude. If God cannot lie, and scripture explicitly states that his word is truth, then do we have to have the actual word "inerrancy" for that to be a reasonable conclusion that the bible is indeed inerrant? No more than the trinity I would say. So as it turns out, if the virgin birth is not true there is a lot more on the line than Bell would have us believe.

- A Common Error

One thing the opponents of inerrancy mistake is the difference between inerrancy and dictation method. It is not the best conclusion that God takes over an author and uses them as a robot to dictate what he wants. This misunderstanding has led many to have much higher expectations of the scripture than is logically necessary. What we demand of any text is the kind of innocent-until-proven-guilty approach to scripture that is fair. Shelby Spong in his writings critiques the bible by saying that the sun is referred to as "rising." But the earth rotates around the sun, why would the bible report it as "rising?" Because the bible uses everyday, common language. In fact, we today still say that the sun "rises." Demanding that the bible be a scientific text is coming from an assumption of Dictation Theory and is being used to diffuse inerrancy. God did not deny the authors their perspectives nor their personalities. If the scripture had said that the sun rotated around the earth then they would have a case because it would be the author's perspective misleading the reader and therefore could not possibly be considered inerrant. However, it is my contention that there is no such instance in scripture. So, the bible uses common verbiage and there are estimations and round numbers. A plenary model of dictation allows for the author to retain their own personalities and speak at a human level to others in everyday language. This fits the data better and given that God uses agencies (angels, natural forces, humans, big fish) often it should not be a surprise that this is the case in regard to the dictation of scripture. So inerrancy is retained even if scripture describes an army with round numbers or a bowl without using pi. As long as the measuring method worked (which is the case in the latter example, a skeptic could do what is instructed and find that it works) who cares if the number uses modern measuring methods, there is still no real error. Another fallacy is that inerrancy is a reaction to modern liberalism, incorrectamundo. It can be dated, in a formulaic sense, as far back as Augustine event though he didn't use the actual word. In fact, there is a historical lineage that can be traced in church history that are still great defenses of inerrancy. Has it been a hotter issue due to recent developments in biblical criticism? I would concede that, but that is far from being the hasty dogmatism our opponents would have us believe. Some say that inerrancy as being applied to the original manuscripts is a retreat in light of problems in the bible. Not true. The earliest manuscripts do reveal that there have been late additions to our copies, however, it is curious to me that there has been no evidence of subtractions or significant divergence. What best explains that? Certainly not the retreat and regroup method we are accused of. It seems that copyists did make errors, but as earlier MSS is uncovered the more confident we become in autograph inerrancy. But is that really so hard to believe? That the originals contained no errors? The only hard part to believe is the concomitance between the texts and miracles. The study of scripture will clear up the former and the denial of the later seems odd for one who embraces Theism. For Deists I would submit that your wasting your time claiming the bible teaches you anything about God, your more logical conclusion is at the feet of Atheism for their is no significant difference between the two other than vacuous postulates.

Some Examples of Attacks on Scripture to Infer the Falsehood of Inerrancy

I am going to deal with some "problem passages," as our opponents refer to them, to show how far they will go to imply that the doctrine of innerancy is not viable or valid. In almost all cases, and, in fact, none come to mind otherwise, the problem does not lay simply on inerrancy but on hermeneutics. The most extreme attacks are usually a case of very poor interpretive efforts. Although, it must be said that some objections are reasonable, albeit still faulty in their conclusions, but, nevertheless, one could see why even someone who is committed to inerrancy could scratch their head wondering how to justify it in light of difficult passages. Keep in mind that when I say "difficult" I don't mean "problem passages" which is a pseudonym for falsehood (in the camp that attacks inerrancy, they do not want to say "incorrect" or "false" they say "problem passages," this is fairly gutless in my opinion, if its false be honest and call it that); I mean interpretively difficult to understand. The justification for these difficulties are not "stretches" to fit the inerrancy paradigm. Rather, they are the best way to understand difficult passages. I will demonstrate that it is more reasonable to hold to inerrancy than otherwise and that its opponents are in danger of being false teachers. And if this should be the case, whether it be the position of a self proclaimed prophet, pastor, denomination, or anyone in a teaching/authoritative position, then one should consider a change despite the hardships that could result. I am not saying that in order to be a Christian one must embrace inerrancy (I'm certain the thief on the cross had not developed any doctrine in this regard), although I think eventually they would, rather a person in a position of authority in the church is held to a higher level of accountability. In regard to eventually embracing inerrancy, I would remind the skeptic that within the epistemic chain that logically leads to inerrancy from scripture that Luke 8, the parable of the seed, is about believing the word of God and being saved. This passage itself is not about inerrancy but it is part of the broad understanding of the word of God and Evangelicals have a duty to warn other Christians, regardless of denomination, to embrace it. One of the arguments against Christians in regard to the study of science is that if we presume a God it will smother material inquiry. I think that this is a false accusation. In fact, I think one could make the case that the opposite is true, but for the sake of argument I will say that it is obvious that it is not necessary for a Christian to stop all inquiry as a result of faith. I would like to ask the skeptic of inerrancy, do you inquire further when interpreting "problem passages?" Or do you have a defense already built in that necessarily limits your hermeneutical efforts? I very rarely hear a critique of the defense of passages that the skeptic will point out. It seems their perspective prevents them from good hermeneutical depth. Another problem that keeps the skeptic from looking harder at the text is a pragmatism that claims that inerrancy is dangerous because it may cause a person to fall from the faith once they discover the "problem passages." Fist off, it is far more dangerous to stop our inquiry or efforts to harmonize seemingly conflicting passages for we would not arrive at correct understanding, I need not go on in regard to just how dangerous that can be but there are plenty of examples from history to support me here. Second, the doctrine of inerrancy is not central to the faith in the same way as affirming the virgin birth or the resurrection. I believe that a person can go their whole life not completely comprehending the book of Revelation and still hold to inerrancy. The pragmatic concern is that the minister should advance a proper perspective of the doctrine of inerrancy trusting God to work things together for good, rather than appealing to a mysticism that an omniscient God speaks through contradiction, and then concluding inerrancy as false for the sake of the sensitivities of the saints. Lastly (and this will add to my point):

2 Peter 3:15-18

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

We are to take care and to grow with confidence in the word of God. If we are not trying to twist it and we are trying to understand it, although it is difficult, we will grow in grace and knowledge. Peter does not claim that the difficulties of understanding tough passages absolves us from our responsibilities to understand them, rather we are to do the work required to understand, not fret that difficulty will lead to departure from the faith. We are personally accountable for our efforts in this regard. Am I saying that being a Christian requires the hard work of study? Absolutely, we should meditate on the law of God night and day, we must conform our minds despite what the Rob Bells would have us believe.

I have now set us up for a demonstration of the types of passages that are being used to show contradiction when actually there is no problem. Again, I can see that some cases are tough to wade through, but we have no excuse for ignoring and dismissing them. I will pick from the most famous "problem passages" and offer hermeneutical commentary.

-The Death of Saul

1Samuel 31:4-5

Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and mistreat me." But his armor-bearer would not, for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died with him.

2Samuel 1:1-10

After the death of Saul, when David had returned from striking down the Amalekites, David remained two days in Ziklag. And on the third day, behold, a man came from Saul’s camp, with his clothes torn and dirt on his head. And when he came to David, he fell to the ground and paid homage. David said to him, "Where do you come from?" And he said to him, "I have escaped from the camp of Israel." And David said to him, "How did it go? Tell me." And he answered, "The people fled from the battle, and also many of the people have fallen and are dead, and Saul and his son Jonathan are also dead." Then David said to the young man who told him, "How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?" And the young man who told him said, "By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and there was Saul leaning on his spear, and behold, the chariots and the horsemen were close upon him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. And I answered, 'Here I am.' And he said to me, 'Who are you?' I answered him, 'I am an Amalekite.' And he said to me 'Stand beside me and kill me, for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still lingers.' So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown that was on his head and the armlet that was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord."

Do these two passages constitute the end of inerrancy as we know it? Let me ask a question, does something seem different between the two passages? First, what is the genre of 1Sam ? History. What is the genre of 2Sam? History. What is the history of 1Sam? It is an account of the death of Saul. What is the history of 2Sam? It is an account of an account of the death of Saul. That is why verse one says "After the death of Saul..." furthermore, the account is from an Amalekite, could this be problematic? I remember the first time I read this and thought, "If this guy turns out to be a trouble maker his testimony about the death of Saul could be questionable." I was giving the opponents of inerrancy way too much credit because only 3 verses later we see this:

2Samuel 1:13-16

And David said to the young man who told him, "Where do you come from?" And he answered, "I am the son of a sojourner, an Amalekite." David said to him, "How is it you were not afraid to put out your hand to destroy the LORD’s anointed?" Then David called one of the young men and said, "Go, execute him." And he struck him down so that he died. And David said to him,"Your blood be on your head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the LORD’s anointed.'"

In 1Sam Saul's armor-bearer feared killing God's anointed (despite Saul's flaws) in 2Sam the Amalekite should have had the same reaction but did not and this tipped his hand to David. So 2Sam is a historical account of a false account. Negative correlation: 1Samuel's account is correct about Saul's death. There is no contradiction between the texts.

-The Death if Judas

This and the angels at the tomb are probably the most famous.

Mathew 27:5

And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:17-19

For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry."(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

This is a passage where I would not blame a Christian to scratch their head in bewilderment. This is not a simple matter of hermeneutics, but that and trying to achieve harmony between the texts. It is important to keep in mind that we do not attempt to arrive at harmony despite the text unless we want to be eisegetical in our approach and that would be a big problem. An example of this is that some may have speculated that someone came by and cut Judas's stomach open while he hung. This is foisting something onto the text that is not there. It comes from being too hasty to exonerate the text in the name of inerrancy. Falling headlong is too closely related to his bowels gushing out for this to be the best case. The best way to approach these two texts is to employ an abductive methodology and ask which scenario best fits the data we have.

1) Is it possible that this is a contradiction? Sure it is. I'm willing to admit that. It is a possibility. One says he hung and one reports a fall then him bursting open. But let us ask another question, is contradiction the only possible answer to the problem? The Greek makes it clear that Judas indeed hung himself in the traditional sense of the word, however, it does not say that he was successful in that endeavor. It may be assumed by the author that he died unless there were other factors like: not needing full disclosure of the events for they may have already been principally known by the author's audience (more on this in a moment). The Acts account doesn't explicitly say that he died either. I'm not saying he lived and is hiding with Elvis and Michael Jackson in the basement of a Free Mason lodge in Prattville, AL or anything like that. What I am arguing for is that it is possible, given the vague nature in regard to the death in both accounts, that one could be focused on his death while the other is focused on how his blood spilled out and is not attempting to be comprehensive in regard to how he died. Or, as I alluded to earlier, one may not give the full account with the expectations that the receiver would have been able to fill in the blanks that were needed to be fleshed out in the other report. So "Hanged himself" would assume he died and perhaps in the Acts account his body was found after fallen from the branch and Luke was focused on the fulfillment of the prophecy because he had been found with his middle burst and his bowls exposed. Is this approach just as possible as the one that screams contradiction? Sure it is, due to the vague nature of the accounts in regard to his death the one desiring to find a contradiction has no advantage over the one who holds to inerrancy. Because inerrancy is not the most central doctrine then we are within our right to hold to it even though it is possible that this is a contradiction.

2) But we are not done yet. I believe that through use of abductive technique (primary axiom of western scientific methodology) we can show that not only is it possible that it is not a contradiction, but that harmony is the best explanation for the data we have on hand and that appealing to contradiction falls short of explaining all of our available information. D.A. Carson, not exactly a liberal scholar, says that Mathew was written to Jews and that the purpose is unclear. The destination is also unclear. The best guess seems to be to equip Jews for evangelical purposes. But Carson concludes that this is a guess, the only thing that is certain is that it is intended for Jews who were perhaps living in the area where Mathew wrote it, or for a collective of Jews. I wonder if they would have been ignorant of the events that took place in Jerusalem. I find that to be very hard to believe. Mathew and Acts were written around the same time plus or minus five years. Now, focus in on the Lucan account in Acts, "And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem." So the event of Judas's death was famous. "Everyone knew about it" was probably hyperbole for "this was famous." If Mathew was written to Jews who would have traveled to Jerusalem every year (Acts and Luke written by AD 90 at the latest) and likely had family living there and it would not be outlandish to assume that some may have even come from there, just exactly how descriptive does Mathew have to be for an event of such magnitude? Even if Judas didn't die due to the hanging it would not have mattered. Perhaps he went to hang himself and the branch gave and he split open, then dies. Whatever the case, given that the event was well known and likely well known among those Mathew was writing to, they would have detected that Mathew had a conflicting account. Yet, if you know anything about the canonization process, we are sitting here with a copy that spread very quickly through the early church along with Acts. Why would they do this if they had a contradiction? They likely wouldn't. They didn't have a contradiction they had a vague account from Mathew because everyone knew the gory details. Who was Luke writing to? Theophilus, for a more orderly account to supplement what he had been taught. Luke was showing how the process of replacing Judas took place and explained, in my opinion, what made the event famous: A grizzly scene that fulfilled prophecy in reference to the account Luke was giving which was the replacement of Judas. So I ask, is contradiction the most plausible conclusion based on the available data? I would say no. The scenario I laid out seems to fit the data with a higher level of plausibility than contradiction; for the early spread of the letters that eventually became the bible we have is best explained by a degree of present knowledge of those receiving the letters. It is likely they would have rejected one of the accounts if they were false, or at least edited one to make the well known event more clear, but that wasn't necessary as an allusion to the event was enough to bring the memory of the event to mind, therefore it is far more plausible that the harmony between the two texts is indeed the case and contradiction is simply not warranted. When it comes to the two death accounts it is possible that there is a contradiction, but given the context and our understanding of transmission of the texts in the early church, the abductive method does not favor a conclusion of contradiction. The data is best understood in a harmonious manner.

I will deal with the angels at the tomb and finish up my discussion on inerrancy in the next post.

Sermon: The Eternal Sabbath John 5:1-18

2010-10-05T16:41:00.004-04:00

John 5:1-18 "The Eternal Sabbath" from Travis Sheehan on Vimeo.

Anything you can do to help me improve is appreciated. If there is something I didn't mention or you felt should have been emphasized more please mention. Thanks. I hope you enjoy.

Velvet Bell 2

2010-09-22T18:49:00.027-04:00

Post Modernists like to cover their bases, but in the end they contradict themselves and cause confusion. If you call them on it, they will appeal to a mysticism, or deny the veracity of logic, while they use it in the midst of their denial. Bell has covered his bases and contradicted himself repeatedly. He has also engaged in multiple fallacies. He tried to make it sound like the changes he wants to bring to Christianity are not critical and within orthodoxy, however, his admission that his changes are to be theological must still be considered to be his effort since it is the clearest position he has. I am clearing up enigmatic passages in light of clear ones in this regard (funny, when trying to interpret an ancient text it would seem like something someone would have to do frequently, but a text written in 2005? It just shows how poor his argumentation is). His example of art was a false analogy rendering his argument of the importance of change hallow. Of course, even if he had a good analogy it would have made little difference; someone that uses analogies as their primary argumentation is probably coming from a weak position to begin with. He has yet to establish why Christianity needs to change (sound like Shelby Spong?) His attempt at using the Reformation as warrant for change displayed a lack of historical knowledge at best or deception at worst. Chapter One of Velvet Elvis, entitled "Jump," is enlightening. We learn a lot about Bell's thought process and convictions. Another element of his Post Modern thought comes to light and, as expected, it is a tour de force in contradictions. If the air campaign of WWI represented thought and the Germans are contradictions and logical fallacies, then Rob Bell is the Red Baron. Okay, I probably shouldn't poke fun at the guy but the whole book is so absurd I can't bring myself to respect the work. He is not a dumb guy, that's obvious, he is just blinded by his own agenda. This is not meant to be a put down to people who have followed his teaching, but they must know he has fooled them, he is a false teacher. They should not let pride keep them from rejecting such false teaching.

Bell goes through the effort of explaining that faith is something that all people have. We are all following some kind of teaching which means we are following "somebody." He implies that those who approach someone of faith in God in a cool, rational way is implicitly denying that they have faith. This is a false dichotomy. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive propositions. Also, Bell is dismissing the rationality of the opponent in an ipso facto manner, the person of faith is not absolved of defending it rationally just because the person arguing with them has some form of faith of their own. Again, the question is about internal consistency of a given belief because beliefs require a different criterion to be deemed warranted than knowledge. There is no logical problem with a person having issues with faith, even if they don't a faith of their own. Additionally, someone may reject what they were taught and actually go in the opposite direction, not in the equivocal sense or even in an analogously direct sense, but just live a life different from which those who would seem to have been influential. For example, some who were raised in Christian households may have great respect for their parents but are tripped up by theodicy and thus answer the question with Atheism, their overall life experience is contributing, and sometimes even internally competing, for answers to questions. I agree that everyone adopts assumptions and beliefs, but faith is not always about following someone, they have experiences and thoughts as well. Are they now following their parents teaching? You may be able to make a case that they are indirectly, but for Bell, to follow is implying faith and not rationality, this is not entirely the case. As my illustration demonstrates, it may be rationality that actually contributes to their beliefs more than those one would expect them to follow. So, Bell's effort to dismiss rationality, or at least minimize it, from the conversation over faith is unfounded and it will become more clear why he wants this to be the case in short order. He does explain that some have a perspective that they are following their own ideas, but concludes that they are wrong, they are following someone or something no matter what they say. It is typical for him to tip his hat to "something" late in the conversation, his premise has been about following someone. Remember: he has to cover his bases. Some people are following ideas and I assume he would say those ideas are formed by consensus. My question would be, then what is Christianity? Is it not more than ideas? Is it not more than a communal commitment passed down to condition others? If not, then it is one of several options, then, by all means, repaint away, for it could not be the truth, at best it could be a possible truth. But if it is the truth, then argue for it as the truth. I believe it was Jesus who said he was the truth (which Bell quotes shortly). By the way, he was completely different from those who should have conditioned him. The fact is, ideas are far more complex than mere communal contribution and conditioning, they involve static, a priori logic, and sometimes there indeed is a give and take involving culture and community, as bell says himself, but does not see fit to apply to his own arguments, "there is more." Post-modernists don't believe in truth, so in this regard Bell has been consistent. Bell makes the question "Who is living rightly?" and puts it against the question of "who is right?" The real question, the one Bell is avoiding at all costs, is: what is the truth? This is the only question that really matters. Christianity is not merely an existential philosophy as Bell supposes. It is an answer to the ultimate question, it is the truth, because he is the truth. Which do you want, a way to live a good life, or the truth? If Christianity is only a way to be "in sync with the universe at its deepest levels [pg.21]." and not the truth, then what are we doing here? To be fair to Bell, perhaps he is trying, in his own way, to say its the truth, but there is a rational element which he is dismissing (again, he has his reasons which he will make clear). When I was an agnostic I was looking for answers, not a new lifestyle, the answers would determine my lifestyle. This nominalizing of reason is typical of faith leaders who come from a weak position. I believe he recognizes that his position is weak in the face of skeptics, and he's right, so he does what someone in a compromised position usually does, he obfuscates by appealing to a enigmatic mysticism and uses question laden verbiage ("universe at its deepest levels," what in Jar Jar Binks does that mean?), additionally, as he has done already and will do again in the next section, I'll be discussing his attempts at red herring by padding his side of the argument with moral fervor to make opponents seem morally misguided when attempting to critique his position. These are the attributes of a weak argument and the summit of Bell's reasoning. A point that I will make continually in my critique is this, does Rob Bell's attempts to convey the Christian message that is reflective of the authors of the bible? Is he really biblical? Does he have an apostolic attitude toward matters of faith? I will quote one verse here and let you decide for yourself if Velvet Elvis is of a godly effort, Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool."

He attempts to say that the way in which one lives is not a matter of rationality or blind faith, it is just an existential reality that one must deal with. One must ask how he has arrived at the conclusion that there is a way in which one ought to live? I can tell you one thing, it is not merely a way and that is all, he got there by reason, and don't look now, but he is offering a cool, calm rationality about the way in which one should live. He expects his list to be self evident in regard to this being the way in which one ought to live: generously, forgivingly, compassionately, peacefully, wisely, and honestly. Of course these are admirable qualities. With his red herring deployed he can effectively shut down conversation as one is distracted by avoiding looking like a barbarian. The idea is that if you can be the first to be on the side of these attributes then your opponents may have to appear to be opposed to them. Who wants to be opposed to that list? Not me, I want to take part in all of those things as well. So do many Atheists that I know. In fact, many can take part in them even if they don't follow Jesus, so why include the list? It is advantageous to his argument. Bell claims that this is not about being superior to any other religion, rather it is part of a process that makes one more in tuned with reality. Cannot anyone say that they have done these things? At least at some point and to some degree? And is not a legitimate question from the skeptic at this point something along the lines of, "I don't believe that there is a God or Jesus and I do these things as part of my lifestyle, so, of what advantage is Jesus to me?" Bell's argument seems to be a refurbished version of "Only Christians can do good things." He just doesn't say it in so many words. Without a teleological or eschatological direction to good works they are fairly benign, Jesus offers us something beyond good works, they are good works with purpose. If there is no God one can do preferable works, how is Christianity any better if there is no way to actually do good works in the eyes of God? So Bell has gotten the cart in front of the horse. In light of the holiness of God no works are considered good, there must be a payment for sin before one can offer a good work that leads to an ultimate good conclusion, salvation is tethered to good works and reveals God's righteousness. Is this the position of the bible?

-Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."

Salvation is found in belief, not in works. This serves as a good caution for trying to change or "repaint", as it were, what is expressed so clearly.

-1 John 1:8-10 "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleans us of all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

If we deceive ourselves in regard to sin, then we make him out to be a liar. How is this possible? If we lie then he is not in us so how is it possible that we would make him out to be a liar if he is not in us? Is that not a contradiction? No one can come to saving faith unless he fist confesses he has sinned. No amount of good works can replace that. So all of Bell's moralizing doesn't replace the problem of sin. A believer, one who is truly saved, must logically confess that they are a sinner to begin with. They would not dismiss this fact if they were a believer, for their hope is based on a need, the need of salvation from an outside source: God's righteousness. So, if they have come to that understanding then why would they say they don't sin? They wouldn't and that is John's point: they wouldn't. If they ever do they have not known what God has offered on the cross.

-Psalm 14:3 "They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does goo, not even one."

-Isaiah 64:6 "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment."

Paul picks up on Psalms and demonstrates that no one can say they are really doing good. They may do things one would call good, but nothing good enough to warrant righteousness in the eyes of God who is the perfect judge. So what of Bell's contention that Jesus' ministry was meant to be followed to be in tune with the universe? It seems painfully short of what the bible actually teaches. We are in tune with our natures which is to sin and when we see that, then we can become in tune with God, until then we deceive ourselves. I am always leery about the prophets of altruism because while it is possible to do things that can be seen as good, if we say we are doing good enough, then we become the judge and we are dismissing our own sin. Experience tells me that all sin and as one I consider a mentor says, "It speaks to the bible's authenticity." (if your interested in looking at the bible's analysis on sin as revealed in the world read Romans 1 and I offer a commentary on this in my Faith Class section called "Faith Class: Already and Not Yet").

-Romans 5:6-11 "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

This passage basically says it all. I believe that Rob Bell is misguided and distorts the beauty of the gospel when he says that the virtuous acts of Jesus are meant to bring us into harmony with the deepest levels of the universe without mentioning sin. He offers an incomplete picture that could easily lead one to believe that it is the virtuous behavior itself that accomplishes the goal he is setting out. Only after one comes to Christ can a virtuous life be properly lived out. Keep in mind the word "proper" anyone can and has done the virtuous thing Rob Bell listed, but not anyone can do them with the correct teleology, that can only be done by someone who knows they are not good to begin with. I find it ironic, like many truths.

So I must disagree with Bell that the question is "Who is living rightly?" Because the skeptic will raise his hand and say "Me," or even maybe, "By faith I believe its me." Remeber in the introduction I mentioned that if you start trying to refine the foundations of a worldview those changes make it suseptable to attack? Now that Bell has changed the question to one of how one ought to live rather than God's demands (which is the question the bible is more concerned i.e. Nicodemus) someone could say "Well, it seems a dictatorship could make one live this way," or, "Islam seems to get pretty good results in this regard." Remember when I mentioned a misguided plurality? A better question would be, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" or "Compared to God's holiness can anyone be good?" And, as predicted, Bell appeals to a mysticism, "Over time when you purposely try to live the way of Jesus, you start noticing something deeper going on... [you live] more in tune with ultimate reality. You are more and more in sync with how the universe is at its deepest levels [pg. 21]." Try to argue that one! This is the fallacy of stacking the deck (recurring theme), no matter what you do you will prove him right, deny what he is saying and the enigmatic "deeper" goings ons don't happen and the ultimate reality is locked away so you prove him right, Live the way he is saying and what ever happens is the "deeper" happenings of the universe being realized. What separates his argument from Buddhist enlightenment? Was this really the focus of Jesus' ministry? Ahh, yes, remember when Nicodemus came to Jesus and said, "'Rabbi, we know you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.' Jesus answered him, 'Truly truly I say to you unless one is convinced of being generous, forgiving, compassionate, and what not, one will not be in sync with how the universe is at its deepest levels.'" If that sounds ridiculous then good, it means you know your bible well, what he actually said was completely different from Bell's teaching (Bell did not misquote this passage I am demonstrating the absurdity of his claim),

John 3:1-3

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus , a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.' Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.'"

Wait, what about the being in sync with the universe? Well, the truth is, Jesus and Bell are at odd ends. They do not offer the same message to an unbelieving world. Bell has more in common with Descartes than Jesus. Sure, he talks about Jesus, but as Bell will point out later in Velvet Elvis many will come saying that and it won't be true. At this point I imagine Bell's defense would be that change is necessary for this generation and I would respond that if the arguments he provided in the introduction are exemplary of the foundations for the need to change, I'll stick with the bible. Ironically the bible speaks of sin offering a revelation about God as well. So if coming in tune with the deepest nature of the universe is what is so important could not sin accomplish this? Revelation for its own sake is not as important as what revelation says about us as we are related to God, not uncovering the "deep" happenings for the sake of doing so. So while I find the list of virtues compelling they are being misused in their representation of Jesus. Did he do these good things, yes. Should we take part in them, yes. But they are not a means to an end. In fact my idea for a dissertation topic (although it could be more sociological history rather than philosophy) has to do with eudaimonia and its subconscious resurgence among American Christians and their leaders. Velvet Elvis would be a fantastic case study about this subject. Eudaimonia was about having the objectively best human life (human is mentioned specifically because of the gods in the Socratic era). The debate of the time predated Christ by about 400 years during the time of Socrates. The question was whether the best life required virtue (among which Rob Bell lists as if they were exclusive to Jesus teaching, they weren't, he exclusively embodied these virtues showing us that we cannot live up to them on our own) or if virtue was a hindrance to a best human life. In the midst of the debate were these gods whom were disengaged, morally, and left humans to figure this out for themselves. Modern Christians who are now becoming more and more ignorant to biblical truth claims have engaged in a similar debate. How is the best way to have the best life as a human? Has God spoke in this regard? I have listed versus in which he has and the eudaimonistic question becomes a non sequitur in light of biblical revelation, but when elements are deemphasized (like sin and God's intimate response) God appears disconnected. Almost like Deism. Humans, in turn, must determine for themselves what is the best way to live. With vestiges of the Christian ethic remaining in the American conscience they begin to appeal to them, without God's revelation concerning sin and/0r his intimacy in our lives, as the best way in which to live as opposed to seeing them as a mirror for who we are compared to God, which is what Jesus' ethics were intended to do (Mark 12:28-31 "And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."). And so you end up with modern pithy sayings like this, "we are all living a 'way'."; "Perhaps a better question than who's right, is who lives rightly?"[pages 20 and 21 respectively] So Bell bookends his argument with the eudaimonistic question. But the bible isn't interested in getting you to live rightly before you recognize that you can't live rightly and as a result you must repent to an intimate God. American Christians are now debating how to live, not for God, but for themselves. They don't include morality to honor God they do it to live a good life (if you have read Socrates that question should sound familiar, its the essence of his eudaimonistic stance compared to the Stoics and Sophists right around the time he pwnes them, in my opinion anyway) or to get to heaven or to get in tune with the universe at its deepest levels. I used to think this way myself so I have no room to judge others in this regard but I'll take a page from Paul's play book and quote one of our contemporary artists, "I did my time, and I want out..."

In the midst of this, Bell offers scraps of scripture as proof text. In the process, he embodies hypocrisy. In chapter 2 he will talk about a conference about the male being the head of the household and then criticize them for taking the scripture out of context (which he offers no evidence for being the case, I will deal with this further when I get there). In his argument from virtue he takes two passages of scripture out of context. Let us see Bell's hermeneutical process, hope you like Conventionalism (Reader Response Criticism). This is Bell's exposition of John 14, from page 21 of Velvet Elvis (VE):

"Jesus' intention was, and is, to call people to live in tune with reality. He said at one point that if you had seen him, you had 'seen the Father'. He claimed to be showing us what God is like. In his compassion, peace, truth telling, and generosity, he was showing us God [pg21]."

Later:

"Jesus at one point claimed to be 'the way, the truth, and the life'... he was telling those who were following him that his way is the way to the depth of reality [pg.21]."

Let us now look at the text and I will be taking Bell's criticism of using context from chapter 2, which he failed to deploy here, as it would have applied to himself.

John 14:1-11

"'Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.' Thomas said to him, 'Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?' Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.'Philip said to him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves."

Where is the list of virtues that were showing us what God is like? Looks like the last thing Jesus is concerned with here is his display of goodness as it reflects God. Rather, he seems interested in letting his disciples know that he is the one preparing the way. Of course I am using that ancient practice of actually discovering the author's intentions. Not in vogue in Bell's world, but the only way to arrive at the meaning of the text in the real world. This passage is infused with eschatological realities that should be trusted. It is not a text intended to show how one should live "in tune with reality" as much as its about how the return of Christ should shape our understanding of our current reality for the one that is coming. Not following x list of virtues as a "better way to live". I want to reiterate that the virtues Bell lists are good but they are not the means to the end in which Jesus was primarily concerned, Jesus is the means to an end and in that we will find good living, not good living to follow Jesus. Again, Bell has "put the cart before the horse."

Velvet Bell: Repainting Cartesian Anxiety

2010-09-20T18:33:00.025-04:00

As the title implies I will be looking at Rob Bell and some of his statements in his book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. But first I want to establish some lines of thought. In too many mediums there is very little time to make a point. Fortunately, blogging allows for much more time and space to think things through so I ask for some latitude before I get to my critique.

"I think therefore I am," was the famous revelation of Rene Descartes after he decided to stuff himself into a stove to cut off his senses. I cannot doubt that I am thinking without first positing an "I" to begin with. From this axiom he set out his defense for Theism and other postulates. Not long after his declaration came a startling revelation from some in the philosophical community: There is no good reason to assume that thinking requires a thinker. What? In a note of irony, after I wrote that sentence, my daughter asked me what time it was and when I told her, she said, "Oh good that means it's time to take my watch off." The irony was lost on her. I wonder if it was lost on those who who said thinking requires no thinker. Their point was not that thinking was not CAUSED by a thinker, but rather that in order for there to be substance there must actually be something there that was material, some "datum" (As Frederick Copleston puts it in his History of Philosophy Vol. 4). If this required thinking then Descartes must have been assuming a substantive, materialistic existence. How does it follow that he need a material body for this to be the case? I can point to things in the world and question whether they exist, but what happens when I point at "I"? Would I not have to say "it" like every other object that can be doubted? "I" comprises much more than "it" so thinking is not a necessary component for existence, the "I" could be an illusion and therefore is not necessarily a self referential object. Perhaps humans could be an apparatus for which thoughts from another occur. Regardless of the viability of these claims the point is that the methodological doubt of Descartes, known as Cartesian Anxiety, demonstrates that what it takes to establish warranted knowledge is far more rigorous than what it takes to establish warranted belief.

In fact, beliefs/worldviews commonly precede knowledge (although there are occasions where they are lateral). If a Materialist and a Buddhist are having a conversation the Materialist could present a cup of water the Buddhist could claim it is an illusion. The Materialist could say that it was actually hydrogen and oxygen molecules. The Buddhist could then retort that they also were illusions. No matter where the discussion leads from there, the history of scientific progress, feelings, what ever, there must come a point where the conditions and the constituent components of the worldview are examined and determined to be internally consistent to tell us if it is an accurate summation of what it claims to represent as the truth. Does it have sufficient explanatory power? Is it logically coherent? Can one live consistently with the view they claim is true (existential consistency)? At some point some things must be assumed to be true, even if it can't be proven to be true. The question will have to be if it is a warranted belief. It is my contention that historical Christianity meets the above criterion with satisfaction better than any other worldview. I do not believe that it is in need of retooling or a Cartesian process. Rob Bell disagrees with this assertion. To repaint a worldview is to bring challenges to the consistencies of its assumptions. The assumptions are its foundations, its doctrines. If the doctrines are off the worldview is in jeopardy. If its foundations are contradictory it is a false worldview. I love the example of Ravi Zacharias who said that if you go to a border patrol agent and give him contradictory answers about where you are going you can expect him to believe you have falsified your destination and he would be right to think so. Worldviews do not get a pass and this includes Christianity. Contradictions imply falsehood and when we challenge our doctrines we need to have good reasons. This does not mean that we can answer every question or that we can't have doubts. What I am arguing for is that we can assume our position to be true while we explore the validity of its assertions. Is this not expected of all who love thought? This is what Rob Bell is claiming that he is doing, I disagree. I believe he is whittling away foundational components to the Christian worldview. I am not guessing what his motives are. I may guess at them if I feel he has tipped his hand or I'm confused in some way, but to guess at his motives and not dealing with his thoughts is ad hominem; don't mistake some of my musings on his motives as a substitute or even a supplement to his arguments, unless I give a reason why I think it is important.

In "Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith," Rob Bell does not explicitly come down on a side opposite of historic Christianity. I believe that this is the net effect. His thoughts are exoteric so I'm confident that even if you have not read his book you may still gain from reading this post. I do recommend reading it though, it is well written and entertaining. I would like to mention that I have read other reviews of this book and I think much of the criticisms levied are unfair. I will try to show when he qualifies a statement and why I think it does or does not work.

If you doubt the validity of my diatribe about Rob Bell's Cartesian efforts just read the back of the book, "We have to test everything." He won't test everything in this work, from the title of the book one can tell what he'll be testing, rather he is appealing to the need to doubt. Why? What do we gain from this? I'm not saying he's wrong, but he gives no reason for why this should be. Does he mean we should be cynics? Cautious? What? Forgive me for critiquing what he has chosen to put on the back of his book, but this is an apologetic for his work and I think very informative. He goes on, "I thank God for anybody anywhere who is pointing people to the mysteries of God. But those people would all tell you to think long and hard about what they are saying and doing and creating." Obviously, fallacious comments in defense of a treatise does not give one confidence that the content will be stellar. There is no group of people where all will do the same thing, even if that thing is good. There are plenty who would not invite critical thought. I wish Rob Bell was right here, but he is not. The list at the end makes one wonder: What are these people creating? Are we creating doctrine? Doctrine that might not even be true about God until we establish it as humans? Even if it is true doctrine, perhaps we can live without it just like people who lived without it before. I'm not assuming here, I am summing up some of his thought in the early pages, and it seems to fit in his defense. He goes on to tell us to think critically about his book (we should be doing that for all books anyway) and that he is simply contributing to a conversation. I wonder if he thinks, and of course I don't know, that our culture is so touchy about Christianity that it requires him to convince his reader that he is not like what our culture is rejecting: Christians who think they can know about God. Sound Post-Modern? Again, these are the foundations of our worldview and are substantiated within the view (if it has sufficient explanatory power), not by social opinion. There is some ground that once given up moves from Christian to Post-Christian. Sure you can call it Christian, but once investigated it cannot be factually consistent with biblical or historical Christianity once its roots are denied. I will further demonstrate that once its fundamentals are disturbed it is subject to attacks from other views and is thus synthesized into an illogical pluralism as the Hegelian assumptions are inserted to retain a misplaced notion that it can somehow be valuable among a myriad of options. Finally, in a hallmark move for Bell he states, "God has spoken, and the rest is commentary, right?" So, we must test everything, does this include the statement that God has spoken? He assumes God's existence and that he has spoken. Is he trying to appeal to the unbeliever that they will find answers or to Christians that he has not abandoned to faith. I don't know, however, I believe that neither is true. One cannot maintain the Christian worldview and undermine it at the same time. It is so subtle I can imagine a believing Christian not having one problem with anything he writes, which is what led me to write this. There is certain ground that worldviews cannot give up on. They must maintain the assumptions. They can be attacked and defended, but to reinterpret them is another ballgame. It is a subtle attack with potentially good intentions and yet damaging, thus requiring a defense (despite Bell's objections to defending the faith in chapter 1). I will be spending most of my analysis on the introduction for the rest of his argument is founded there and builds upon the premise he attempts to establish. I believe it finds no cerebral purchase and appeals to emotion.

INDOCTRODUCTION

In his indoctrination/introduction Bell seems quite interested in the mystery of God, but Bell himself is a mystery. What are his goals in this work? To be honest, this is what makes him such an engaging writer. He captures your interest. The problem is that the subject is so important that one wonders whether he is being cryptic as a writing style or if he wants to keep his cards close to his vest. I will explore this more as we proceed. Sometimes he uses cult tactics. What do I mean by "cult tactics." Cults are the masters of ambiguity. Ever have a talk with a Mormon missionary? One may think they believe the exact same thing about God as any Christian. But they don't. They believe in something radically different, and they have fooled many in the process. Let me give an example of how Bell does this:

"The challenge for Christians then is to live with great passion and conviction, remaining open and flexible, aware that this life is not the last painting [pg.11]."

Why should this be a challenge? I am flexible as a Christian parent, but I have convictions as well. Not too hard to separate the wheat from the shaft there. But maybe he is talking about something else, maybe he is talking about what it means to have convictions in the first place, say, oh, I don't know... doctrinal convictions? This would be a challenge, especially if your going to have to reinterpret what you once thought God was all about or, more to the point, if you thought the bible presented sufficient information and now were going to have to reinterpret some of those things. And maybe if your not willing to let some of these historical interpretations go, well then, maybe your not what it really means to be a Christian. But I digress, let Bell speak for himself.

"The Christian faith tradition is filled with change and growth and transformation [pg.11]." He is picking up on a question that few have challenged. Because we see progress in some areas does it follow that all aspects in human life engage in progress? I was talking to a friend who said that the Old Testament violates all of our modern notions of ethics. Anyone who can be quoted as saying "modern notions of ethics" knows very little about ethics. One of the challenges of ethics is trying to find a static rule by which ethics may engage. Obviously Christianity has no problem there, but secular ethics are trying hard to get out of forms of relativism because it cannot deliver the authoritative goods that ethics demands. The evidence for my friends progress? Human knowledge. So if there is progress in one part of the human experience there must be progress in all parts? This is a violation of the law of the excluded middle. Just because things are similar in some ways, human experience, it does not follow that they are the same in all ways, progress. More to the point, because the Christian life is filled with some changes it does not follow that there are broader changes required. This is the language of the cults. Get one hooked on some ideas and if the masses nod their head in agreement, then maybe they will follow the rest of your ideas, even if it leads to places one would normally consider mistaken. For the record, I don't believe that Mars Hill is a cult, but Bell's argumentation are full of the same rhetorical tactics that cults use and I need to be honest about that.

This next section in the introduction is well worth taking note of because it will be a guiding principle for the rest of Bell's book. "Times change... and the Christian faith is alive only when it is listening, morphing, innovating, letting go of whatever has gotten in the way of Jesus [pg.11]" Its funny, I recall a time when Christianity WAS the agent for change, now, in our time, it is not a world tainted by sin that needs to change, now IT is our barometer for how Christianity should be. And notice how he carefully weaves a dichotomy for us that if we don't change, then we are not really following Jesus. Again, on the surface, this could be a true statement, but the question is, what? What is it that needs to change? After all, I don't want anything to get in my way when it comes to Jesus. If one allows the direction the book is already going to be how one should think, one will end up worshiping something completely different than what the bible prescribes. You will change, but the greatest change the world has ever seen will be moving on the direction it has been for the last 2,000 years and it will be you that is left behind.

IN CHURCH HISTORY THERE HAS BEEN CHANGE

THEREFORE CHANGE IS WHAT GOD WANTS

So Bell continues his Cartesian Anxiety (excuse the hyperbole) toward Christian doctrine. On the Reformation, "Shedding unnecessary layers and at the same time rediscovering essentials that had been lost [pg.11]." What were the "unnecessary layers?" And what was he "rediscovering?" Conveniently, Bell doesn't say so I will tell you. He equates the reformation with doctrinal change which it wasn't, this was about ecclesiastical change and doctrinal RECONSTITUTION. There was doctrine that had been instituted that Luther was obviously opposed to, but he didn't progress doctrine, he reestablished it. It is a very important distinction. One that he glosses over and hopes you will forget about as he continues to establish his methodological doubt. Was there doctrinal change at the reformation? You bet. Was it progressive? Absolutely not! Given his assumptions in this section of the book one would think that Bell thought that the doctrine was right when it was the doctrine that was being enforced at the time. But Bell is a smart guy, he must know that this type of induction is absurd. Maybe he doesn't actually believe that the Reformation was about God's doctrines at all, maybe he thinks they are all man made. Was Luther wrong? Bell doesn't say, Luther was just a part of change and change is what really matters. Even if the supposed change was actually reconstituting biblical doctrine, this is nonsense. What Bell really wants is for us to think that change is more important than doctrine, if doctrine changes so what? At least there was change and change is our guide for determining if we are close or far from Jesus. On the heels of the Reformation he puts his cards on the table and admits that the changes he wants to make are theological and that they will be about the bible, salvation, Jesus, and the future. What happened to his admission that the reformation was "rediscovering what had been lost?" It is missing in the rest of his argument. Should we not be making sure that we also preserve what the reformers had rediscovered? Apparently that is not as important as change. Has he established that this is actually what God wants from us? Is there warrant in church history, no. Has he given good philosophical reasons, no. Biblical, no. Soteriological, no. Theological, no. All he gave us was a partial version of the Reformation that should have actually been an example for honoring and preserving the bible and a Velvet Elvis in his basement. I have all kinds of worthless crap in my basement too, can I write a book about that? So, Bell's introduction is really a seminal effort to indoctrinate into a mind set that change=following Jesus, and his argument is that there have been changes and that means change may be the single most important thing within Christendom. This is based on a violation of the law of the excluded middle: because there have been changes (historical and existential) it does not mean that change is what matters. Additionally, he appeals to emotion by pitting the act of following Christ against static doctrine. This, of course, is not necessarily the case. If he can get you to feel that this is the error your making then perhaps you will change your mind about things you otherwise wouldn't. See why I think this has cult elements to it? The bible as a guide is not even a secondary thought even though he quotes from it throughout Velvet Elvis. Why not change to the point of ignoring what is quoted? Perhaps that is a little too Cartesian.

My last comment on the introduction covers some important ground.

"I don't mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music... I mean theology [pg.12]."

"The painting works for their parents ... it is no longer relevant... it doesn't have anything to say to the world they live in every day. It's not that there isn't any truth in it or that all the people before them were misguided or missed the point. It's just that every generation has to ask the difficult questions of what it means to be a Christian here and now, in this place, in this time. And if this... isn't done, where does the painting end up? In the basement [pg.13]." Oh no! That's where the Velvet Elvis is! Anywhere but there! Since he is not talking about cosmetic changes, why does he use an example from aesthetics? What is the painting in this scenario? Theology? Doctrine? He has already established that it was not aesthetic. He contradicts himself when he states that their parents are not misguided, if the doctrine needs to change then how could it have been right at any time? For example, the Trinity. How will this change today? I think it is possible that by being a synthetic theologian (common among post modern thinkers) that he has a hard time recognizing that contradiction is highlighting falsehood. If God is perfect then it means there is no potentiality in him, he is actual. If he is actual then he cannot change for perfection does not lead to the possibility for change. I have used this illustration before, but it will help here. If you are painting my house and I said you did a perfect job and then began to paint over the house or remove paint, then the reality of perfection was never realized, there was some potential for change remaining. Since God is perfect there is no such potential. So what was true for my parents was true for them and true for their parents and so on. And since the change is not cosmetic then he is left with the change he said he was gunning for which is doctrinal, like the trinity or virgin birth. Truth is not relative, otherwise its just opinion. "If it is true, then it isn't new [pg.14]." So the contradictions are clear. Also, he is using a false analogy. Doctrine is not the same as art. Doctrine is about what is true, art is about aesthetics. Art can very much be a product of its own time and become outdated. Doctrine cannot. It is either true or false. There is no room for change. What may express those truths could change, but that is not what he's talking about. He tried to make his example as malleable as possible which in turn makes it very deceptive, but the example is not an effective smoke screen, his claim is that doctrine is true when it is declared true for its own generation. This would mean that God changes and is not perfect and in turn makes him a God far from worthiness of worship. He is like the Mormon god or a pantheistic god that is subject to fault. If doctrine is true in its own time then the churches that abandoned the Jews in the 1930's Germany were not at fault, they just changed with the tide. Can Rob Bell really stand for this to be our conclusion, that doctrine is true in its own time? Too bad Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn't have a Velvet Elves to teach him how to fit in with the times. Why won't he just say that he thinks the bible has false doctrine? I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say it is due to his irrational postmodernism, but I'm tempted to believe that he thinks this will discredit him among Christians, but take that with a grain of salt, I can't know his motives for sure.

A Postmodernist always needs a handful of contradictions to qualify their statements, to cover their tracks as it were. He thanks God for those churches that don't want to change and then basically says that its only true for them, this book is for a fresh look at Jesus. What will that fresh look be? It will be doctrinal disguised as arbitrary jostling for a new time and a new people. Frankly, I think that this is not biblical Christianity. I think to believe that the bible is the word of God, his revelation and truth, is in conflict with the teaching of Rob Bell. It is well disguised no doubt, but it is not biblical Christianity. As we move on I will have to demonstrate the value of infallibility and innerancy of scripture and the logical consequences of rejecting these positions. You can bet it will entail a collapse of a worldview. It's really not even methodological doubt so much as it is an effort to be open even if it means rejecting what is true. Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith is a light, implicit, pseudo-Cartesian methodological doubt, with the fatally flawed Hegelian Dialectic as his apparatus. It is about rejecting doctrine on the one hand and replacing it in the other, then, claiming that your honoring it all. Welcome to Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis, an experiment in Postmodern Christianity.

Faith Class: The Already and Not Yet

2010-09-12T23:03:00.016-04:00

Revelation 20:6

"Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years."

Romans 1:16-32 can be confusing. It may seem unlikely that one can clear it up by appealing to the book of Revelation. However, there is an apostolic theme that runs through the New Testament that is called "The Already and Not Yet" by scholars. There is an eschatological (the end) reality that is coming, but there are many things that are described in the present tense and are just as real now. If we attribute these spiritual realities only to the end times then we have made an error because the apostles did not always do that. They saw many of these things as just as real today as at the end. For example (pay strict attention to the past tense which is meant to implicate the present):

Colossians 3:1-4

"If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory."

Christ is already our life in one sense and not yet in another. So there is a contemporary reality that has yet to come to fruition but never the less is true and real right now. So real, it is worthy of setting our current thoughts on, over and above the things of this world. It is already and not yet.

So the Revelation passage is about those who are raised with Christ now, resurrected now. They have believed on the person of Christ to have accomplished the payment of their sin on the cross. They are resurrected now. Why? Because the second death, which is a spiritual reality that is yet to come has no power over those who's sin has been paid for by the sacrificial lamb. In fact, he was the only lamb that actually ever paid for sin, Hebrews tells us that the blood of no animal ever actually paid for sin. So why the animal sacrifices? In their time they were the sign of a reality yet to come by way of the cross. If they believed that God was going to pay for their sins then God did, but he did it on the cross. But they believed his promise and demonstrated it in the sacrificial system. So the Old Testament has a sense in which the already and not yet may apply. It may seem that I have chased a rabbit here, but I have not, the lamb is how John refers to Jesus in Revelation much of the time. What is interesting, and instructive about this particular Revelation passage is how the 1st resurrection implies the 2nd and 2nd death implies the first. The spiritual and physical are being clearly itemized. The short of it is: 1st resurrection=salvation (already), 2nd resurrection=physical (not yet), 1st death=physical (already), 2nd death=spiritual (not yet). One could make an argument for spiritual death being already, but I would say that given the eschatological impetus of the Lake of Fire we are better off, hermeneutically, to categorize it as not yet within this context, but certainly it is a reality now for those who will not believe, but that would be chasing a huge rabbit way outside of the purpose of this post. So Revelation teases out this principle pretty well and I think we should have it in mind as we look at the Romans passage.

Okay, so what in the Lake of Fire does this have to do with Romans 1:16-32?

Romans 1:16-17

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

So God reveals his righteousness in the salvation of his people today. Salvation is a spiritual reality that demonstrates a moral attribute of God (his righteousness) that can be perceived in the physical world, presumably by unbelievers.

Psalm 98:2

"The LORD has made known his salvation;
he has revealed his righteousness in the sight of the nations."

Concomitant to Paul's thought are the following versus, 18-23:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

You want to know another reason I can't stand faith healers? Because they do not understand that the natural punishment that accompanies sin reveals something about God. It reveals his wrath against sin. It reveals it already and not yet. The punishment that is with sin also reveals that there is still wrath yet to come, a second death. So the church is to show the righteousness of God in the salvation he offers for we are no better than those who do not believe, yet we are confident in the mercy offered at the cross. The righteousness revealed "already" is effective for what is required "not yet." The world shows its own unrighteousness because of their suppression of what is made so manifestly clear. If one rejects what is clear then one must side with what is foolish. So as they continue this reorganizing of God's revelation, sin will continue to reveal what is to come and so will the church.

Here we enter a commonly misunderstood section of Paul's writing. He is accused of "gay bashing." Writing this section off as gay bashing demonstrates an ignorance to Paul's point. It would be better to understand Paul then critique him rather than dismissing him 1st and then misunderstanding him or dismissing him due to misunderstanding.

vs. 26-27

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty." The parallels between this and Sodom and Gomorrah are striking. Note that he makes mention of the penalty that is a result of error against the natural order. What should have been obvious (compatibility of opposite reproductive organs) was ignored and was allowed by God to continue in earnest and , like all sin, one should expect a penalty. So, homosexual activity is an example of a mind that does not recognize what is obviously contrary to the natural order. The natural order should have led to thankfulness and worship, but it did not.

Those opposed to the message of scripture misunderstand and wrongly criticize Paul rather than wrestling intellectually with the text. On the other side, many who claim to love the text misunderstand and think of themselves as better (contrary to what scripture explicitly commands) than those described here, this is also to their shame, for they are no better than the homosexual activity described, for all sin is going against the natural order, we have all made this mistake in some sense. Homosexual activity is an EXAMPLE of God's revelation of wrath and an autocratic anthropological revelation tainted by sin. Otherwise we have to take th list at the end of this section and say it applies to all homosexuals and that is simply not true, that list encompasses everyone. Additionally, in verse 18, he says ALL UNGODLINESS. Paul is far from "gay bashing." I suspect that those who say this are engaging in ad hominem.

These passages should not lead to hatred for homosexuals. There is no place in Christianity for signs that read "God hates fags" or other forms of vulgar intolerance. If we believe what Paul is saying then this should lead to outreach and compassion (despite the fact that this may not be well received). A complaint about Muslims is not being more aggressive in condemning terrorism done in the name of god, maybe we should be more vocal about the hatred and the attempt to terrorize homosexuals by those who claim to follow the teachings of Christ. There is a judgment going on here that Jesus clearly condemned. Paul was not judging, he was discerning (which is a healthy form of judgment as opposed to the judgment which condemns in which we are commanded to avoid) and his point was that God reveals his righteousness in his salvation and in his wrath. What else do these people think is being accomplished by holding these signs? God's wrath against evil is already being displayed. Perhaps we are allowing politics to take a more prominent stage in our thinking and are applying our political objections of the corporate homosexual movement to the individual instead. This is wrong, we should have compassion for the individual (even if our compassion would be considered an offense) despite our political opinions. Yes it is true that those who hold these signs are so far removed from the Christian message that they cannot even be considered fringe, one could then say we are being corporately as well. My response to this is to love your enemies, we should not respond in kind.

So what is Paul's point here? It's interesting, Paul is linking incorrect worship with homosexual activity because, like the obvious compatibility between the reproductive organs, God is obviously supposed to be worshiped rather than what he has created, worshiping the creature is functionally incorrect because the creature is naturaly supposed to lead one to the creator. But he gave them over to a debased mind (not just homosexuals, they are merely an example of ignoring what is supposed to be, all who suppress the truth are ignoring what is clear) so they do not do what is obvious, similar to the obvious compatibility between male and female as revealed in nature, "the dishonoring of their bodies." vs.24. Paul, then, offers a list of further examples of what ought not to be and it is doubtless that any of us can escape being included. If you doubt this, the one that says "disobedient to parents" should cover all of us. So, wrath revealed from heaven against sin, righteousness revealed in the power of his salvation for those who faithfully believe. Paul adds later, also, that God does not condemn "not yet" (for the time being), but rather "already" because that reveals his patience, which also is meant to lead one to belief; this is exemplified well in the story of the Prodigal Son where there is only one clear place to go and one clear person to be made right with. When one gets to this point they have a loving Father eager to be reconciled, so eager is he that he gave his only son. You think this attitude is well attested to by signs that say "God hates fags?" Sounds closer to the lesser known brother of the Prodigal son who could not help but disdain others and condemn.

So none of us can say we are doing things right, but the mercy of God's goodness is demonstrated clearly at the cross, and his righteousness in his people: a large group of Prodigal sons (and daughters).

As a side note, notice the difference from the dogmatic theonomy and divine command theory of Islam.

Let us remember Paul's main point. There is an already and not yet present in the church in regard to God's righteousness, and in contrast to this an already and not yet present in the unbelieving world in regard to God's punishment of sin; "Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them," all are unable to tell God that they were given the short end of the stick and would have done better if they knew better. No one can do better and we know it, the hope that God offers is in his Son and in him alone.

Richard Dawkins Falls into the Partition Fallacy

2010-09-05T03:42:00.009-04:00

Of all the so-called "New Atheists" the one I have the most respect for is Richard Dawkins. Harris and Hitchens have their moments as well, but Dawkins is brilliant in his field of study, like him or not it's only fair to admit that. Which made me all the more surprised when I heard an answer he gave to a challenge from a caller on a call-in radio show. The question was concerning ethics and his answer was well within the framework of sociobiological behavior. This was not surprising given his expertise. However, when defending Atheism one needs to know how to supply a good philosophical answer to philosophical questions. That's not to say that he could never use his own views to defend his position but one should never present a rebutting defeater before an undercutting defeater (a defeater is what it sounds like: a sufficient response to give good cause to reject an argument or position. Undercutting defeaters attack the presupposition upon which the argument rests and rebutting defeaters deal with the superstructure). Despite how brilliant he is, he leaves much lacking in this area.

Like most atheistic scientists of our age he simply does not have the goods to defend Atheism philosophically, nor does he demonstrate that he thinks that he needs to. Of the "New Atheists" Hitchens (some may say Dennet) probably does this the best despite how rhetorically laden his arguments are. You will find none of these "New Atheists" positing the Law of Identity as the axiomatic principle of the universe (Rand). No "New Atheist" will present a posteriori inductive logic to suggest a vicious infinite regress applied to theistic causality (Russell). These Atheists were the big guns and they were philosophers. Their arguments were so well thought out you have to describe them with vocabulary packed with meaning to even come close to summarizing what they actually meant, otherwise your stuck with inaccurate, moronic versions of their arguments like "who created God?" (truncated version of Russell who's real version can give nightmares) or "Everybody's selfish and that's where your god came from: yourself" (troglodytic hunch back version of Rand who's real version is brilliant). You would have considered it your lucky day to catch them in the philosophical error Dawkins made. It was like he just had a biologically based argument and ran through a proverbial wall leaving a Dawkins shaped hole behind him. And yet, the caller nor the host could challenge him, they just bought his assumptions and ran with them. There is a reason why the Rands, Russells, and Nietzsches labored over their arguments: the subject requires it. And yet, the most popular Atheists are the ones that can package their arguments in a nifty sound bite to feed to the masses to throw in the face of Christians who, sadly, don't know what to do with it. The Atheist can pat themselves on the back as being smarter and go on his or her way wondering why the Christian doesn't change their mind when they can't answer the tough question of who created God. Perhaps the Christian doesn't change their mind because the fallacy of the assumptions bleed through implicitly like a picture game where there are two pictures and one has slight differences for the observer to point out: a quick glance won't make the difference clear but the errors are there one just needs to take the time to find them.

Okay, I'm done teasing you, now to Dawkin's error. To understand the problem with what he said you must first know some things about ethics. What is the goal of ethics? When we talk about ethics are we trying to find the best ways to catalog activity that falls under the branch of ethics philosophically or is there more going on? What one hopes to accomplish with ethics is not just lists of behavior but also one hopes to learn a proper way to behave. There is no partition between behavior, knowledge and authority to have a viable ethical system, anything short of this is to be in error. The goal of ethics is to describe as well as prescribe behavior, and in order for there to be prescription there must be authority. If there is no force to ethics then how one ought to act is irrelevant if there is no authority then there is no enforcement of the "ought." And if ethics cannot tell one how to behave then I ask why we engage in the study of ethics at all. Let me give an example, the argument for emotive ethics is that our feelings tell us what is bad, but we OUGHT to follow those feelings. The utilitarian version of ethics will describe the best outcome for any number of reasons (the most popular being for the most people, think Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"), but it will also point out that we ought to behave a certain way to achieve that result. Pragmatic ethics will tell us what works is what is ethical, but it will say that we need to do what works in order to actually be moral. What is the force behind these oughts? Some say a good functioning society while others would say personal pleasure, etc. We could systematically defuse any of these systems but that would be chasing too long of a rabbit hole (but it is tempting). For the purposes of this post I am simply establishing that ethics requires a telos or an outcome, a behavior, a prescription. If you went to the doctor and he said that you had a fatal illness, but offered no solution, just a diagnosis, you would not think him to be much of a doctor. To go a step further, if he described the treatment needed but could not apply it you still would not think of him to be much of a doctor. The same is true of all ethical systems they are nothing if they only describe they must prescribe or they are not ethics, they would only be facts.

So, Dawkins is taking phone calls and someone brings up a point now made popular by the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The long and short of the argument is that if man is an evolved being he is no more or less animalistic than what is observed in nature. Atheism must then support, or at the very least, allow, some form of racism; for nature benefits those who want to survive. If there is a weaker species then one should be racist. Being against racism is arbitrary in a system where behavior is informed by natural selection. But perhaps its more than merely arbitrary, perhaps if one does not act out in suppressing the weaker then the weaker cries "racism" to overcome the stronger. If the stronger bend the weaker have now become the stronger, the king of the jungle does not fight back and allows rats to overcome his prowess as the lion. The error comes in Dawkin's response where he says that all humans come from a common ancestry therefor we OUGHT to not be racist. Did you catch that? Let me ask you a question, why OUGHT we not be racist given Dawkin's DESCRIPTION of a monolithic genealogy? Because he says so? Because that's really cool? Where is the force that's going to prescribe that I not be a racist? When did we find out that racism was wrong, after the Human Genome Project? Are we going to have a special force that fights hate crimes with a double helix for their symbol? Let us pretend that I was a committed Nietzschean Atheist. It would entail that I believe that racism is a guiding principle for making the world a better place. Along comes Richard Dawkins who says that I come from the same ancestry as my enemy whom I believe to be inferior. Let us go further and say I believe Dawkins, but I start thinking teleologically (outcome and purpose) and I say that we may come from common ancestry but we are not going toward common conclusions and along the path of history some of us have gotten weaker therefore they should be illuminated for the sake of better conclusions. What will Dawkins do? Continue to PRESCRIBE common ancestry? Common ancestry is a description and nothing more. In an Atheistic system nature is our example for ethics and all the illusions of progress won't change that. There can be no prescriptions with force in any Atheistic ethical system. All the ethical descriptions in the world doesn't amount to one prescription and all the descriptions that Atheism has conjured cannot satisfy the prescriptions that the study of ethics logically demands. This is what I have named The Partition Fallacy and it is replete throughout atheistic writings on ethics (including the Utilitarian, Pragmatic, Subjective, Emotive and the Neo-Categorical Imperative). Dawkins is not alone.

Dawkins is the most accomplished and most brilliant of the "New Atheists" but the area he needs to be the strongest in is the area he lacks the most. In this regard he is way behind the discarded atheists of the past. Perhaps it does not matter because they also never overcame the Partition Fallacy.

House on Faith

2010-09-02T17:26:00.006-04:00

I was recently watching an episode of House entitled House Versus God. It was about a faith healer that seemed to have extraordinary abilities. He seemed to know people's problems through revelation not observation, he seemed to actually heal others. House would not be deterred. "There is always an answer," he proclaimed. What he really meant was: There is always a naturalistic answer.

I have no desire to defend faith healers. I would want to defend them as much as any other thief or con. What interested me was something I have seen a lot of in my many years of watching television, and that is television's defense of faith.

I have noticed that it is usually presented in a roughly similar dichotomy. There is one who is bent on science and one who is unmovable in their faith. If you don't believe me, see my earlier post on Friends where Ross is defeated by Phoebe by presenting plausible doubt (although I really don't think she actually establishes that, but that's already been covered).

At the end of the day, I think that television is actually attacking faith. They present faith more as a virtue than anything worthy of our intellectual attention. What is that virtue? I think it is bravery coupled with ignorance. So where is the attack? Is not bravery a good thing? Sure it is, but in this case one has to be ignorant in order to be brave. It really is a subtle attack. They make the person of faith seem virtuous but utterly wrong. The one of science is the one who is usually the strongest and the more intelligent. The one of faith really only has one argument which is the fallacy of stacking the deck. No matter what one would try they could never prove the person of faith wrong because they have made ignorance a necessity for having their position. This is usually indicated by statements such as the sin of "challenging faith." The more ignorant one is the more faith they have and therefore even more virtuous.

The good news for the person of faith is that this is a straw man argument. Faith does not have to be opposed to science. It has to be opposed to Verificationism, which is what is really being promoted on the science side of the argument. What is being said is that faith is of no value for knowing the way the world is, only science can do that. Verificationism is the belief that only what one can verify with one's senses is meaningful or of value. If you ask Richard Dawkins how the world is he will tell you "we are working on it." No Verificationist can tell you how the world really is or why there is something rather than nothing. They can only say we are working on it. Verificationism has a fundamental contradiction at its core (among many other problems) which caused philosophers to reject it a long time ago (verificationism cannot verify itself). Nominalistic assumptions of Verificationism are also a problem, but that will be covered in my conclusion to Christianity and Ontology.

One may say that Theism cannot tell us the way the world is. I would argue that Theism offers a negative corollary to the assumptions that underpin Verificationism-as-science and therefore is internally more consistent and therefore offers a more plausible explanation (much to the chagrin of the faith healers). The only defense of the Neoverificationists is the rejection of logic and not very safe footing. In fact, I would even say that would be a brave position to have.

Science is not a problem for a person of faith. Philosophy, however, is offering hurtles that I believe the Neoverificationists cannot logically withstand.

Faith Class: Romans

2010-08-26T17:00:00.003-04:00

We will be covering a lot of material, however, there is much that never makes it to the classroom. I will try to keep this blog posted as frequently as I can.

I am not done with Ontology and God, Time, and Eternity and hope that it will not be too long before I get back to those issues. I will probably revisit those topics in a more brief format (which I am finding is the normal structure for most blogs).

Two issues from last week that were not covered:

1)The New Perspective:
Moo has a brief discussion concerning this in the EBS text. It questions the assumption that the Jews of Paul's day really thought that they were justified by works. Rather, they were a people saved by a covenant with God. So what about Paul's stress on the law? They were being saved by the covenant and it was conditioned on their obedience to the law. Their efforts were to maintain their covenantal status. Where did this leave Gentiles? This is the hypothetical resolution to Paul's motives for stressing that one is not saved by works. At the time of the publication of Moo's work this view had gained favor with scholars; There have been challenges to this view since, in fact, I have met someone doing a dissertation on just this subject and he believes that the New Perspective is in a grave situation in regard to its sustenance as a viable approach to studying Romans as well as history.

2) Why did Paul want to bring the gospel to Rome if there was already a predominantly Gentile church already in place?
Some have speculated that Paul did not see it as a true church because it was not founded by an apostle. I think we are all in trouble if this were the case! Fortunately, Paul used the term "ecclesia" which means "church" so I think we are safe. So what did Paul mean? He said he feared building on another's foundation, so why did he want to bring them the gospel? As it turns out, he could have been talking about the gentiles at large (in Rome) since most Jews had been kicked out of Rome by AD 49. That seems to be the simplest conclusion and I favor it unless there are good reasons to doubt it, I am aware of none but I could be wrong. Another possibility is that Paul makes it clear in a large portion of his writings that those who persevere until the end will be saved, he could be bring them the gospel to produce faithfulness and encourage them, which is what he says he wishes to do at the beginning of Romans. What ever the case I do not believe Paul contradicted himself and this can be well established within the text.

Christianity and the Study of Ontolotgy

2009-08-22T19:20:00.011-04:00

What is Ontology and why should it concern Christians?
As many of you know my area of study is geared mainly towards philosophy in so much as it concerns Atheism. However, I have discovered that this endeavor requires a great deal of proficiency in general philosophy and all of its constituent branches. The branch I find myself focusing on the most is epistemology and I have enjoyed this focus with little regrets. It has even helped me to understand core doctrines and theology. I have come to enjoy the question "How can I know that there is a God?" Always a fascinating conversation even if my argument is not accepted. In the midst of all of these tedious issues is another branch of philosophy that is replete with assumptions and cavalier attitudes. In many ways it is foundational and there is high stakes for the Christian here. In fact, if more people would study ontology we could communicate matters of faith with a lot less baggage. I can assure you of this, the more one studies ontology, christian or otherwise, the quicker you can get to very important questions and answers.
...and ontology is?
the effort to explain the nature of existence and to describe features that are true of all entities. I should be able to clear these questions up in one post. Okay, maybe not. I think we can at least see why this is a worthy area of study for Christians; but truthfully if everyone studied it we wouldn't have the politicians in office we have now because they would have to be a lot more honest. I believe this study would help anyone. One thing is for sure: the person who studies ontology does not come out the other side the same. It will change your entire thought process. You will not be impressed easily by so called "academics" or "scholars". Why? Because, sadly, many of them have never studied ontology either. These are the same people who believe philosophy to be a synonym for "opinion", that is incorrect. Ask this same person what an opinion is and they will try to give you a philosophically objective answer. These are the type of self defeating thinkers we breed in the academic world. C.S. Lewis in his book "A Pilgrims Regress" speaks of a horse called "Reason" that picked him up and he rode it away from the lies, let us join him.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE?
Have you ever thought about dieing? I am going to assume that it is safe to think you have. What is the scariest element of death? I think it is the idea of nonexistence. I almost do not even care about how I die or whether it will be painful, although these are worthy concerns. Until I became a Christian this idea haunted me. The funny thing is is that I can't even conceive nonexistence. Maybe my fear was really the unknown. What is it for something to exist? Let us do a thought experiment. Imagine something real, say, a bike. Now, let us imagine something not real like a leprechaun. What may be most important to realize, in the study of ontology, is that the bike is real. That is one characteristic the bike has. So the most important difference between the bike and the leprechaun is that the bike exists. Is not this difference as real as any other difference in the world? For example, a red crayon and a blue crayon. David Hume wrote that all things imagined are made up of things that actually do exist. Yet, we still recognize that there are things that are made up and do not exist. The Theist should begin to recognize the importance of this question already. Ask a committed Atheist why he or she does not embrace Agnosticism and you may hear this limerick, "I do not have to know everything about the universe to know there is no Easter Bunny that exists so why do I have to know everything about the universe to know there is no God that exists?" (the answer has to do with necessity and contingency but no room on this post to digress) This is being postulated as warrant for the knowledge that the status of God is that he is made up and does not exist as opposed to other things the Atheist will say does exist(notice how epistemology and ontology are closely related here). Existence is important and brash answers won't due for tough questions. Let us ask deeper questions about the nature of existence.
WHAT IS GENUS?
Similar to the biological use; logic is a branch of philosophy and we find its meaning for our purposes here. A class of individuals or a subgroup having similar attributes. An example may be a group of particulars with univocal essential properties. If you do not study philosophy that may have made no sense so let us say "tables" could be a genus. Everything that is not a table would not share its genus. Is existence a genus all to its self? Do all things exist in the same sense? The answers to these questions are very important. Would you say that a table has a different form of existence to a chair? If simply existence is a genus than it appears not. What about a table compared to the number 6? Is the existence of these two things the same? I am inclined to say no. One exists in a completely different relationship to the other and in a completely different way. Not all are inclined to agree that simple existence is a genus. For example, that table has a multitude of parts. We will use an Aristotelian dichotomy to understand this; these multiple parts should be called "accidental properties". So does the table exist or does the sum of all its parts exist and the table only has the appearance of existence? The accidental properties are there and together they make up what we CALL a table. So the table has existence as long as it has its parts, but once the parts are removed the table ceases to exist and yet the parts continue to have existence. Perhaps there are two different types of existence, or maybe there are different kinds of things that have existence. Is it possible that the two things share in one type of existence and that there is only one type of existence in which all things share? Or are there other options? We will come back to this later.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF ONTOLOGICALLY EXISTENTIAL POSTULATES
Many dismiss ancient thinkers because it is assumed that scientific progress will answer all our questions. I have read, with great amusement, Carl Sagan who is very impressed with science and scientists. If I were a Buddhist I would probably be tempted to believe that Richard Dawkins is Sagan reincarnated. However the assumptions that go on unquestioned never cease to amaze me. Gary Gutting, professor at Notre Dame and an expert in philosophy of science, religion and European philosophy states, "Since the ancient Greeks, people reflecting on science have been strongly attracted to the idea that there is a single comprehensive method employed in any genuinely scientific work. We will begin with this idealizing assumption, although we will later encounter ways in which it might be doubted." (pg 423, Blackwell, A Companion to the Philosophy of Science) There is now a gap between the philosopher and the scientist. It has not always been this way, but today it is the state in which we find science. Gutting also points out that the a priori sociological assumptions of scientific inquiry are almost always reflective in the result, making true objectivity questionable. Earlier thinkers were better at investigating scientific methodology because they were also philosophers. My main point is that to dismiss ancient thinkers due to how long ago they were positing their claims amounts to ad hominem (Aaron Sorkin, producer of the West Wing, would do well to take note since this comprised a great portion of his argumentation).
...and what about the history of ontological inquiry?
1)Monism
Parmenides argued for the oneness of all reality. The syllogism for his argument can be summed up:
-Reality can be either one or many.
-If reality is many, then many things must differ from each other.
-However, there are only two ways in which things may differ: by being (something) or non-being (nothing).
-How can something differ by nothing? Either something is something or nothing is nothing, but something cannot be nothing and nothing cannot be something.
-Can something differ by something or being? Being seems to be the only thing that all things have in common, things cannot differ in the very same thing they have in common.
-Things cannot differ at all; everything is one.

Ontological Pluralists do have objections and those will be investigated, but lets continue with our chronological survey. The most famous disciple of Parmenides is Zeno (of Zeno's Paradox). He had further proofs to support Monism.
-If reality is many, then absurdities and impossibilities will follow.
-An example of Zeno's meaning is found in his famous arguments. The most famous is "The Achilles and the Tortoise": The Achilles and the Tortoise are having a race and the Achilles gives the tortoise a head start. After the Tortoise is given a bit of time the Achilles starts and one would expect him to pass the Tortoise and win easily (not so in Zeno land). The Achilles must first pass the half way point in order to pass the Tortoise. Then the Achilles must go to the next half way point, then the next, and the next and so on ad infinitum. The Achilles would never catch the Tortoise because there would always be a mid point to traverse and if reality was many there could never be a singular midway point, but this is an absurdity.
-Given Zeno's proof that there is no such thing as an actual infinite mid point then one can safely conclude that the postulate that "reality is many" is a contradiction and should be considered false.
-Reality must be one.

Is all reality mathematically divisible (further on we will explore the notion of the difference between the "world" and the "universe" so if you have questions after this you may find answers there)? Perhaps some things that one would, and could sustain logically, consider "real" can not be divided at all, say propositions; Can I divide a sphere from a ball? If I divide a body of a human have I also divided the person (again, we will look at in more depth later)? Perhaps there is a point in which things may no longer be split or division reaches its finitude (in math it could not, but that would be a POTENTIAL infinite, we are talking about an ACTUAL infinite)?
In response to Parmenides, some have insisted that non-being is a real difference to being and that Parmenides's point needs further substantiation. Some also think that things can differ in being as well. Both entities can be said to posses being while have a different type of being (hold your questions these objections may become more clear later). The most condemning argument against Parmenides is a logical fallacy in his 5th premise; "things cannot differ in the very same thing they have in common" assumes that all things are the same and begs the question. He may as well said "All things are the same because they are the same and that is what they have in common and therefore cannot differ." This is Circular Reasoning.

The next view is Pluralism or "reality is many". The atomists and the Platonists accepted this position.
Atomists felt that things differed by absolute non-being. Their argument was that reality is made up of innumerable and indivisible atoms which fill the void of space. The atoms differed in size, shape, and space. Each atom ontologically possessed its own position in space and the emptiness or non-being around each atom defined the atom by this non-being. The absolute nothingness around each atom defined each atoms difference by absolute non-being. Being could be recognized by non-being. How could nothing cause differentiation? When was the last time nothing caused anything. If my kid is quiet for too long and I ask what she is doing and she says nothing, I know something is going on. Nothing does not cause something and so differing by nothing is akin to not differing at all. We would be doing our selves a disservice not to recognize that indeed atoms have been split. We should also mention super string theory at this point as well.

God, Time, and Eternity X, Part 3

2009-08-16T22:25:00.003-04:00

As God takes action outside of time and corresponding action happens in time, how should we understand the many reactions that are performed in a monolithic, atemporal reality (if reaction is a theologically correct term in this case)? In other words, how could God act once to the many actions that an individual makes? After all, there is no time to make actions so there must be one singular deed, not multiple sequential actions. Feinberg admits that this is no problem for the advocates of Middle Knowledge by its self. However, could one hold to Atemporality and Middle Knowledge without problems?
Atemporality holds that God does all actions timelessly and plans all actions to occur at the time of his choosing. keep in mind that the Atemporalist is not saying that these "reactions" happen simply before the given event, time has no meaning here, there is a timeless "reaction" or simple action outside of time. God must do many things in response to every possible action that is going to take place (I fear that Feinberg is assuming that these "reactions" are taking place before a person's choices which is incorrect, but take this critique with a grain of salt). The first point Feinberg makes concerning this problem is that God would be left with a great many unused actions. I have to say that I am puzzled over Feinberg's criticism. I am on the fence as far as middle knowledge is concerned, but this seems like it misunderstands Middle Knowledge. The point isn't that God knows AND does all possible outcomes, it is that he KNOWS all possible outcomes and what would happen otherwise. But, to react to what does not happen is not omniscience, that would be divine speculation (some call Middle Knowledge "Divine Speculation", but I believe this leads to a false understanding of omniscience, the backer of Middle Knowledge is not in danger of the heresy of Open Theism) and that is not the postulate of Middle Knowledge. God knows whether a person would act favorably or unfavorably, say to the gospel, in every possible scenario. If the person would ultimately reject the gospel then God is in keeping with his own character to place this person in a position that seems far removed from the possibility of salvation. God did not DO every possible thing before this person was placed in a remote region outside of earshot of the gospel. God only did in "response" to what he KNEW the person would do. I believe, therefor, that the advocate of Middle Knowledge is in no danger logically to hold to atemporality and Middle Knowledge, Feinberg's critique finds no purchase here. It does not compromise Middle Knowledge, atemporality or a synthesis there of. Feinberg also notes that this problem's propensity increases when libertarian free will is introduced, but again, I believe that he has couched an incorrect definition of Middle Knowledge at the apex of his argument.
Feinberg moves on to the issue of personhood. The first thing he states is that the atemporalist may respond that the notion of personhood is not easily defined. A point well taken in my opinion. Then Feinberg refers to a theologian named William Mann who further appeals to Danial Dennet, yes the Atheist not the fire juggler, whom gives 6 criterion for personhood.
1) A is rational
2) A is a being which states of consciousness can be attributed
3) Others regard or can regard A as a being to which states of consciousness can be attributed
4) A is capable as regarding others as beings to which states of consciousness can be attributed
5) A is capable of verbal communication
6) A is self-conscience; i.e., A is capable or regarding him/her/its self as subject to states of consciousness
This is a list that Peter Singer and other abortion/euthanasia advocates would love to champion as the quintessential definition of personhood. This definition would serve any eugenics program well. I, however, have a much more liberal interpretation of personhood which includes bearing the image of God. But wait! Don't you have to assume the bible to be true in order to maintain this position? I never said I would use it as an isolated apologetic, but among Christian theists, I see no problem. Does one need to meet this criteria to achieve personhood? Not in my opinion. Does God need to meet this criteria to be a person. I think he does meet it, however I'm not sure that he needs to. Which brings me back to the point that Feinberg dismisses, are we ready to give rigid terms and conditions to personhood? In many cases I think not. But, I also have to admit that Feinberg's argument may still stand in light of the fact that certainly God meets these criteria even if the unborn does not. So I will grant him the argument to continue.
Feinberg is one of the most responsible scholars I have ever read, in fact he has inspired me to do likewise. He doesn't let me down here either, as he urges caution with this definition of personhood. However, God does meet this definition and except for provision 1 and 5 Feinberg sees no hope for the atemporalist to survive the critique of person in regard to numbers 2,3,4, and 6. An atemporal person should be able to do these things. The list Feinberg gives is as follows: intending, purposing, remembering, forgetting, responding to prayer, becoming angry, rejoicing, and being effected by actions of others. I am once again puzzled. Why does God have to do these things the same way man does? In fact, some of these things are simply anthropomorphisms despite Feinberg's attempts to say otherwise. Cannot God respond to prayer in perfection, rather than in reaction? I can't recall a time in scripture when remembering or forgetting, in reference to God, meant anything less than perfect forgetfulness. What does that mean? That God no longer counts sin against us AS IF he had forgotten something. What happens when someone forgets a date? They don't go on it. What happens when God forgets sin? He does not punish , as if it had never happened or as if there was a sin to remember in the first place. AND YET, God does indeed remember otherwise he would have no need for his covenants. We count on him remembering even when he so called "forgets" because we rely on his justice. I see no reason to give up the traditional understanding of God's relationship to time as atemporal because of what is clearly meant to be understood as analogies for the human cerebral palate. Additionally, it seems that Feinberg simply assumes that because there are things that require action in time for humans that this carries over for God because it is difficult to understand otherwise. Why should this bother us; we can not understand God exhaustively and there has been no readily ascertainable contradictions that are worthy of note.

God, Time, and Eternity X, Part 2

2009-05-12T19:20:00.005-04:00

How are we to understand God's ability to react to events in time or does God react? What do we make of God's person hood as we try to answer this question?

Can an atemporal being know what time it is in a time laden world? Feinberg seems to think that any answer that maintains atemporality will be dubious. Atmeporalists maintain that this question is not relevant because God's activities are timeless and then has the effects of his activity occur within time and with perfect precision. Feinberg insists that this answer makes no sense. I have to say that I think that this hardly constitutes throwing out the Atemporal position. There are many matters in Theism that I can not exhaustively understand, but I do not discount them. If Feinberg was sighting a contradiction then I would be more inclined to follow his position, but that is not what he is doing; he is saying that the atemporality doesn't make sense. But is this true? If God is not burdened by time, acts within time, yet remains outside of time, then while I must admit that I can't comprehend exhaustively the nature of this relationship it does not follow that the position is nonsensical. This may be a good discussion point, but I find this opening part of the argument unpersuasive. As we move along we will find that the argument does get better, but the foundation seems weak to me.
Does not God have to respond to things in time that affect him? Does this present a problem for the Atemporalist? The example used is 1 Kings 21. God responds to Ahab by telling Elijah to prophecy disaster. Ahab repents and God postpones the disaster. How does this make sense if God is outside of time? Feinberg quotes a theologian named Sturch who expresses concern that God has the ability to react to every possible decision man could make (anyone want Ritz Crackers with their Molinsim, anyone?). Feinberg expresses concern over the use of Anthropomorphism at this point, but I would like to stress that one can be an Atemporalist and not hold to Middle knowledge (for those who may not know Molinism and Middle Knowledge are the same thing, and assert that God reacts to every possible decision and scenario man is involved, so man is free to act and God is sovereign. Often times it is used as a theodicy to explain how God cold put someone in a place where they can not hear the gospel and still be held accountable for not accepting it. If God knows every possible decision, then he knows that they will use their freedom to reject the gospel. Thus, he can put them in a part of the world where they will not hear the gospel because they wouldn't believe even if they were in a part of the world where they could hear it. Clearly this is a inter mural controversy within Theism that is outside the scope of this post).
Feinberg does a good job picking up on Sturch's Molinism. My problem with Sturch and Feinberg is this assumption that God is a person in the temporal way that we are persons. Why must God react to be a person? Can his person hood be maintained without all the elements of person hood found in us? I think the answer is: of course. As I stated in the earlier post, we believe that zygotes are a collection of cells that constitute humanity and being and yet they do not have every characteristic sited for person hood in this section of Feinberg's book. The same goes for mentally handicapped. Being is simply not subject to a quantitative catalogue of attributes. I think God can be a being and do greater things than humanity such as create with his spoken word, interrupt cause and effect, and exist outside of time. If I have overlooked something please let me know, but I think these first and second sections of the first argument for God's temporality seem erroneous.

Philosophy and Theology

2009-05-11T18:34:00.005-04:00

I apologize for the short post. I was going to continue with God and Eternity but yet another curve ball has come my way, effectively cutting my time from an hour and twenty minutes to merely twenty minutes. This is not nearly enough time to tackle the issue the way I would like to so I will make another attempt tomorrow.

This is a basic question that I have been thinking of for a long time and am looking forward to some counter perspectives. I will frame the question based on Millard Erickson's "Christian Theology" text.

1)Revelation, rather than philosophy, determines our theology
2)Due to this our ontology is informed by revelation rather than philosophy (example: I don't believe in reincarnation because scripture clearly teaches otherwise. An Eastern philosopher may have many philosophical arguments to the contrary, but I do not consider them valid, even if the argument is good, because God has revealed the true nature of reality).
3)No commitment to one philosophical system is necessary even though philosophy is employed in systematic theology.
4)Erickson insists that theology is autonomous from philosophy.
(I highly recommend reading Erickson's text, especially in this section that starts on page 56.)

Even though there is no singular commitment to a philosophical system, does that mean that systematic theology is truly autonomous from philosophy?
Certainly we are not going to check with Sarte to see if we have it right. However, is there some sense where philosophy could fall under the heading of general revelation provided that it does not contradict scripture and that we do not except a philosophical system over a theological one that is rooted in scripture?
There can be no doubt that some of the discoveries of the Greeks were amazing in the sense that they confirmed what scripture had been teaching for thousands of years before them and they didn't have the benefit of scripture to influence them. In "Twilight of Idols" Frederich Nietzsche accuses Plato of going to Egypt and being trained by Rabbinic scholars because his thoughts were so close to what scripture teaches.
Your thoughts?

From the hit show Friends: an Empiricist/Rationalist VS. Postmodern/New Ager

2009-03-29T23:30:00.011-04:00

Before you read: copy and paste the link below to your browser and watch (great clip, pretty funny!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfcs3BBrRbU&feature=related

Who won the debate? It seems as if Ross gave up, and yet we are left feeling as if this issue is unresolved. Didn't Phoebe win; after all Ross was left with nothing to say. Didn't Ross present impenetrable evidence for his position? Let's take a closer look.
Ross represents the Empiricist and the Rationalist. What are these two positions exactly? I'm glad you asked.
Empiricism: Any view which bases our knowledge, or the materials from which it is constructed (such as gray matter, eyes, ears and the corresponding outside world being perceived)on experience through the traditional five senses(The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, pg.226).
Ross is also assuming Rationalism.
Rationalism: Stresses reason as the means of determining truth.
In some ways Rationalism is in conflict with Empiricism if Empiricism is taken in the classical sense in which the mind is a blank slate or a tabula rasa in which the world foists data onto the mind and determines what is believed. A strict Rationalist will give the mind authority over the senses or what is known as
"a priori" or rationality before what is sensed. Why is Ross both? Well, Ross has a synthesis that is assumed in his argumentation but it is interesting to note that Ross gives up the debate when Phoebe appeals to a possible flaw in Ross's Empiricism (not to mention the liberal producers of the show would probably not let a male win the debate over a female, although I question whether Ross is really a male throughout the course of the show). If all the data points to Ross's conclusion how could he possibly be wrong? Because the data does not necessarily affirm his Rationalism. Possibly his biggest flaw is not choosing one over the other, but the producers of the show are lay persons when it comes to philosophy so its not necessary to speculate too much on this. We will chew on this a bit later when I dissect the dialogue.
Phoebe represents the Postmodern New Ager.
Postmodernism: This is a view that is suspicious of any metanarratives or systemic worldviews. It emphasizes the inadequacy of the human mind to achieve true knowledge. It sees any truth claims or positions about the definition of the universe as culturally relative and nominal and suspects that the propagation of "reason" or "truth" or "science" is in fact a facade to suppress others for the cause of domination.
New Age Movement: For the most part this view emphasizes the influx of Eastern philosophy (Pantheism, Buddhism, Panentheism, etc.) into the Western Mind set. While it is not readily apparent from the dialogue or clip, Phoebe is well known for embracing a litany of eastern modes and tropes which fit very neatly into her Postmodern schematic. Why does it coalesce so well? Because much of Eastern thought rejects "Western Rationality".
Ahhh, don't you miss the 90's?!

PHOEBE: I'm sorry, but sometimes they need help. That's fine. Go ahead and scoff. You know, there're a lot of things that I don't believe in, but that doesn't mean they're not true.
JOEY: Such as?
PHOEBE: Like crop circles, or the Bermuda triangle, or evolution?
{Notice evolution is lobbed in with two well known conspiracy theories. I believe this is done for dramatic effect to contrast Ross's position more effectively.}
ROSS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, you don't, uh, you don't believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: Nah. Not really.
ROSS: You don't believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: I don't know, it's just, you know...monkeys, Darwin, you know, it's a, it's a nice story, I just think it's a little too easy.
{A nice story or metanarrative or worldview and because it is no more than this it is debatable according to Phoebe's postmodernism.}
ROSS: Too easy? Too...The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single-celled organisms, too easy?
{Not so much easy as it is too explanatory, while I believe that Ross's position is the wrong explanation Ross clearly is struggling with the notion that one would have the gall to disagree at all. For Phoebe, evolution is too easy because it claims to explain things which Postmodernists reject as culturally relative. Any explanation is too easy because this complex world is too much for puny human minds.}
PHOEBE: Yeah, I just don't buy it.
ROSS: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.
{I imagine even most full blown Darwin wanna be scientists like Richard Dawkins even scoffed at this one. For the lay person this argument may hold some water but for anyone studied on the issue it is no more than rhetorical posturing. First, what makes it scientific fact according to Ross? Water, gravity = empirical data = Empiricism. There is a logical fallacy here and that is the Law of the Excluded Middle. In no way is evolution similar to gravity or oxygen, these can be tested and observed (at least by proxy through effects). This may sound like splitting hairs, but I assure you not recognizing the difference is a critical error. Ross's argument is essentially: Gravity is affirmed by science and evolution is affirmed by science so it must be scientific fact. This is preposterous, in no way has evolution ever been confirmed in any remote sense the same way gravity has. This fallacy is similar to saying, Chickens have legs I have legs therefor I am a chicken. Additionally, I am giving Ross the benefit of the doubt to say that evolution is confirmed by science, it may be confirmed by scientists, but that is a whole other animal. Scientists are fallible humans with fallible agendas. There is a lot more that could be argued here but I must move on, suffice it to say evolution is a contested theory and nothing more and for you the reader if this is not enough please post a response or rebuttal and I will deal with individual issues at that time.}
PHOEBE: Ok, don't get me started on gravity.
ROSS: You uh, you don't believe in gravity?
PHOEBE: Well, it's not so much that you know, like I don't believe in it, you know, it's just...I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.
LATER...
ROSS: How can you not believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: Just don't. Look at this funky shirt!
ROSS: Pheebs, I have studied evolution my entire adult life. Ok, I can tell you, we have collected fossils from all over the world that actually show the evolution of different species, ok? You can literally see them evolving through time.
PHOEBE: Really? You can actually see it?
ROSS: You bet. In the U.S., China, Africa, all over.
PHOEBE: See, I didn't know that.
ROSS: Well, there you go.
{This is one of the most important axioms in the evolutionist's argument and yet their weakest and most glossed over. A reminder: Ross introduces more empirical data, but I use the term loosely because there is not full disclosure in Ross's argument. Much of the confusion in evolution is found in the difference in micro and macro evolution. I, nor should any Christian, doubt micro evolution. We have all seen variations within species. In fact, one apologetic for Noah's Arc is that he took two of each "kind" (not species, which is an important distinction) and micro evolution worked from there. But when evidence for the micro is used to try to affirm the macro one should pause. Is Ross doing that? No. However, the fossils Ross is speaking of hardly qualify as a fossil record. It is more like fossil conjecture. Further study into this will show that transitional fossils are practically non-existent. The ones that have been "found" are little more that a few parts and a lot of drawings and imagination. (Google "transitional fossil" and try to find more than a catalogue of skulls, single itemized bones and tons of drawings. Then type "dinosaur fossils" and look at the robust evidence of these pre-human fossils. The "fossil record" of Ross's begins to look pretty weak.)Some scientists have noticed this problem and realized they are being called on their "Ross" argument so they hypothesize Punctuated Equilibrium (long waiting periods, then a boom of evolutionary growth) or other hypotheses to make certain that evolution is "scientific fact" at all costs. These efforts have been noted by William Dempsky as shooting an arrow then drawing the target around it after it hits the wall: a bulls eye every time.}
PHOEBE: Huh. So now, the real question is, who put those fossils there, and why?
LATER...
ROSS: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?
PHOEBE: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.
ROSS: Please tell me you're joking.
PHOEBE: Look, can't we just say that you believe in something, and I don't.
{Why does Ross have to be such an oppressor? More of Phoebe's Postmodernity.}
ROSS: No, no, Pheebs, we can't, ok, because its like math, one plus one equals two. I can't stand by and let you think one plus one might equal three or four or yellow.
{Here is Ross's Rationalism. Notice now that Ross has conveniently made Evolution equal to logic and mathematics. Do I really need to expand on this to demonstrate how clearly false this argument is? All I will say is that math and logic are unchanging or static. What would Ross say produces these unchangeable facts? He would say the human brain, but how are they unchanging reliable truths if they are originated in a changing, dynamic brain? The cause must be greater than the effect and if the genesis for the laws of logic were produced by something that is in constant flux they too would be in constant flux. Ross's argument is self refuting (so is any other evolutionary argument)he is essentially saying that the ever changing evolution is an unchanging reality and yet all logic is within the changing human brain and yet retains its unchanging nature, very dogmatic and contradictory. Even Carl Sagan when he wrote Contact admits that math would be a universal language, and so would logic.}
PHOEBE: What is this obsessive need you have to make everyone agree with you? No, what's that all about? I think, I think maybe it's time you put Ross under the microscope.
{Again, why does Ross have to be such an oppressor? Yet more of Phoebe's Postmodernity.}
ROSS: Is there blood coming out of my ears?
LATER...
PHOEBE: Uh-oh. It's Scary Scientist Man.
ROSS: Ok, Phoebe, this is it. In this briefcase I carry actual scientific facts. A briefcase of facts, if you will. Some of these fossils are over 200 million years old.
PHOEBE: Ok, look, before you even start, I'm not denying evolution, ok, I'm just saying that it's one of the possibilities.
{There are many metanarratives why should one be greater by being true?}
ROSS: It's the only possibility, Phoebe.
PHOEBE: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?
{Scientists have made mistakes so they can't be trusted according to Phoebe. There is still progress yet to be made so science can not be trusted according to Phoebe. Lastly, Ross is morally flawed (arrogant) for believing his views to be true. Postmodernism}
ROSS: There might be, a teeny, tiny, possibility.
PHOEBE: I can't believe you caved.
ROSS: What?
PHOEBE: You just abandoned your whole belief system. I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. How, how, how are you going to go into work tomorrow? How, how are you going to face the other science guys? How, how are you going to face yourself? Oh! That was fun. So who's hungry?
{Ross loses due to the rhetorical leverage gained by Phoebe's attack on Ross's epistemology, which states that there are no doubts when there is overwhelming empirical data. Ross's rationalism failed for it could not be supported by the assumptions of Empiricism. Once Ross conceded doubt he did so on the grounds that the empirical data alone would not suffice and because he grouped the rationality of logic as part of evolution his Rationalism failed as well. Winner: Phoebe, who is actually a loser as well because she assumes that her position (that all views should be treated as equally plausible) is true and because no position can claim to be true then this would include her own making it false. So the real winner is: you if you do not embrace either of these false views, congratulations! You win a copy of 1984!}

God, Time, and Eternity X, Part 1

2009-03-29T19:27:00.006-04:00

Well, now things really heat up as we explore the opposition to timeless eternity or what we will be calling the Temporalist's position. I am fascinated to know what their ideas are as I hope that you are as well so let's dive in.

TIMELESSNESS AND GOD AS A PERSON
What does it mean to be a person? Are there not some things that must be inherent in an individual in order to qualify one as a person? Certainly we would say that God is a person wouldn't we? If God is a person what are some of the important qualities required to possess personhood?
Feinberg quotes Richard Coburn whom I will paraphrase:
In order to be a person one should be able to do the following: remember, anticipate, reflect, deliberate, decide, intend, and act intentionally (if your thinking what I'm thinking this list in reference to God should be bothering you right about now. In reference to humans I am a bit uncomfortable with this list as well, there have been babies aborted whom would not possess some of these traits, are they not persons? Don't count him out yet, but this is not a good beginning and seems to reek of a bit of existentialism). If an eternal being lacked these qualities he could not be a person, if he did possess these qualities he must be in time.
Furthermore, a timeless being could not respond in writing or speech or stimuli. The being would be frozen or static as he would have no before or after. Some disagree with the notion that a timeless being is incapable of doing ALL of these things. How so? Let us say that God (given atemporal assumptions)intends to do something or has a purpose. Now, suppose you or I intend to go shopping this would be that we wish to go shopping (not necessarily that we intend in that we are making plans to go but incline to go shopping, or that we have the desire to go). To say that God intends all to be saved means he wishes all to be saved. One can be timeless and have such a wish. Another way in which the word intend can be used is to say one intends to accomplish something by doing something. One does not have to be temporal in this sense either. To do something in the belief that there will be some consequence, one would not have done said activity if one did not believe that certain results would be achieved. Although the activity to produce the results must be in time the agent causing the activity does not. This only holds water if a timeless being can act on the timeless at all (interesting!). All of this assumes that the timeless agent knows what time is in a world wrought with time and the Temporalist believes that this will be very difficult for the Atemporalist to maintain. Many Atemporalist say that this is all a moot point because God acts out of a perfect timeless state and makes events occur within time with precision, Feinberg seems to doubt that this will turn out to make sense though.

The next part of the argument will look at hog God interacts with time outside of time and how he responds to time laden events outside of time, should be interesting.

Brain Teaser

2009-03-18T22:54:00.003-04:00

Thomas Reid

The ideal system of David Hume is mainly under attack by Reid’s philosophy. He is replacing the concepts of the ideal system with principles of common sense. For Reid the mind works with inherent principles of conception and belief which is almost opposite of Hume’s concept. According to Reid the mind is fashioned to automatically believe when spurred on by sensations prompted by the external world. For example, smelling something causes belief that there is something to be smelled. The belief is not anecdotal or rational but is actually caused by the smell its self.

Sensations cannot be synonymous with external objects, therefore there is an epistemic chain from the object to belief through the median of sensation. The sensation cannot be confused with the object itself for they are not the same thing. This bifurcation allows one to have confidence in the existence of the external world, according to Reid. Intuition (I think the assumption of the law of identity) makes it plain to us that objects and senses are different, so this answers Hume who would say that sensations are merely representations or imprints.

John Frame

For Frame knowledge is tethered to the Lordship of God. This lordship makes God known and known to all. Those who would embrace agnosticism are self deceived and in some cases are proactively deceiving others. God is a Lord that works through covenants and his “covenantal presence” is found in all God has created. Frame concludes that this makes his presence epistemologically inescapable. All things are under God’s control, knowledge is a recognition of divine norms for truth which in turn is a recognition of God’s authority. Due to these conclusions Frame implies a question; if we know anything do we not also know God? For the believer this implies a knowledge of wrath as well as general knowledge of God.

-Are these positions compatible or opposed?

-Can there be a synthesis formed between the two?

-Is Reid's position less dogmatic than Frame's?

-How do these systems compare to your own understanding of knowledge?

God, Time, and Eternity IX

2009-03-15T23:00:00.004-04:00

Analogy of God as Spaceless
We have touched on God and analogy several times in Sunday School and I think that we are all pretty familiar with analogies so I don't think I need to go over this too much, but if this portion becomes confusing (which I can't imagine happening :) please post a question concerning analogies. God's relationship to space has often been considered by theologians analogously and so has God's relationship to time. Now, Feinberg considers some examinations on the subject from Schleiermacher who explains that God has a lack of spacial extension or he does not fill space with height, weight and so forth. A corollary position must then be considered; God has no contrasts within space. He is not above or below an object at a particular measurement. In the same vein as his relationship to space so also is his relationship to time, both temporal extension and temporal location. To be more clear, he lacks extension in time and location in time. The assumption of this proposition is that time and space are related in a similar manner so much so that what is true for the spacial proposition is true for the temporal proposition. Feinberg only offers a summery of a bigger argument. Essentially if God is proven to be timeless then he is spaceless, however those who oppose Atemporalism are attempting to prove that God is in time and therefore in space which is against traditional Christian doctrine.

This is an intriguing argument and I am disappointed that Feinberg didn't cover it in more detail. I will leave it up to you to determine the strength or weakness of this position. In my personal opinion it seems a bit flimsy. It may even come a bit close to violating the excluded middle which says that because two things are similar it does not follow that they are the same. I think that time and space are very closely linked (although I have friends who are persuading me to rethink this position) but for this argument to be effective it needs more assurance in this regard.

Temporal God Leads to Process Theism
This argument is used to demonstrate the consequences of adopting an alternative position. If God is temporal then he may not be immutable and if he is not immutable than he may not be impassible. He could experience reactionary emotions and suffer just like any human. If God is in time then he can not know all of time at once. One could say that God knows the future while in time, but this would be a strict determinism (I think Feinberg is a determinist of some kind and it should be interesting seeing how he deals with this because he does favor the atemporal position). Because Indeterminists hold to their position so strongly it has led some to deny that God has any foreknowledge at all. If the stakes are this high should not one be careful about adopting a position that would lead to heresy? Due to the fact that the other attributes of God are so clearly stated in scripture then this argument carries a lot of weight.

Next time we will begin Feinberg's session on arguments against timeless eternity. Some of these arguments are very long and may take several sessions just to cover one so your feedback could be helpful. I don't mind the arguments being difficult and wading through them but I don't want you to have to wade through formatting issues so keep me informed as to how I can help.

God, Time, and Eternity VIII

2009-01-09T17:55:00.002-05:00

Well, Christmas and New Years are over so it's time to get back to the cerebral grindstone!

Temporal Duration Inadequate for the Ground of All Being
This is a fascinating argument. Two scholars that Feinberg quoted earlier are the main source of this argument which comes to us by way of implication. Temporal duration is only a momentary lapse of genuine duration according to the two scholars. The past has ceased to be and the future has yet to arrive so given the Temporalists position the current moment will be a very short span, or at the very least the status of any given moment is destined to change from the current moment to "the past". Temporal flux demonstrates that everything within time has no permanent status even if it appears to. How does time effect the status of being? How can something exist within a temporal framework and retain the status of immutable being? This seems to imply the need for some permanent actuality rather than a permamnent potentiality that the Temporalist seems to imply. God's being would have a potential future and past. A permanent actuality of being seems impossible if that being's status changes with time. If the being is not within time then this is not a problem.
The Temporalist present two counter arguments:
1) Temporal duration is real temporal duration and the Atemporalist argument makes the Temporalist position out to be a non-genuine temporality. If the object in question does not retain its identity from one moment to the next then there is no genuine duration. How is this? The object in question would have to go out of existence to pass to the next moment. With each passing moment the object would have to cease to exist or completely change. The Temporalist admits to change, but it does not have to be all or nothing. (I could be misunderstanding Feinberg here, but this seems like a disturbing admission, because God is immutable and actual so the degree of change seems irrelevant to me the question is, how could God change at all?)
2) Is permanence better than change? Would not a workable universe be served better by both? (Could God not supply the permanence and time supply the temporary?)

As interesting as this argument is it still only works by implication which is always thorny to deal with.

Pluralism's Youth

2008-12-22T04:48:00.003-05:00

I read an article in the Courier Journal about a high school project where all of these students were making individual videos to support religious tolerance. Each student was from a different faith. A thought occurred to me that is not new, but the article rekindled a passion that escapes my senses. This happens because lies are so often thrown at us in this culture that we often become desensitized. First, what does it mean to be tolerant? I don't ever hear about Buddhists and Christians at each other's throats in back alley knife fights. When was the last time you heard of a Hindu gunned down in a drive by by a group of Hasidic Jews? If we all lived in the ivory towers that our media resides in one would think there are Christians hiding in nativity scenes with Tech 9s and Glocks waiting for unsuspecting Mormons to come by and gun them down after they are made to eat their own name tags.
Do you think in a million years the media would have reported a film festival where the videos were pleading with radical Muslims to show tolerance? Do you think our liberal educated high school teachers would ever have allowed a festival such as that? I doubt it. How about a truly educational film where good hermeneutical principles are applied to the Koran that shows that the radical Muslim may be more in line with the Koran than their counter parts? We all know they wouldn't. First, it would highlight who is really being tolerant and who isn't. Secondly, it would demonstrate that religions are largely tolerant and this political correctness (new speak as its called in 1984) has tried to change the meaning of tolerance. Lastly, it would show that not all religions are morally equal, some are evil. If this last statement bothers you, watch out, you may have been lured into the lie. All religions are not the same and yet they can be tolerant while respectfully disagreeing. They don't all lead to the same place, but we can have a conversation. It's the ones who are truly violent that are the intolerant.

God, Time, and Eternity VII

2008-12-22T04:06:00.002-05:00

Timelessness and Divine Freedom
I had a pretty funny conversation with a friend of mine after work one night. We were sitting in the parking lot listening to music in his car and I was getting ready to get out and get into my own vehicle when we started an interesting theological conversation. He unwaveringly stated, "We have free will, it is an absolute fact." and I asked him if he believed that God knows all things. He said yes. I said, "So when I get out of your car and get into mine, God knows when that will happen and how?" He said yes. I then asked if those events had to take place the way God knows they will happen, and he was as certain about that as he was about free will. I then asked, "If these future events must unfold in the way God knows they will, then how do I have the freedom to choose otherwise?" He looked forward out the window for a second or two and said, "Yeah, I guess we may not have free will." That was the quickest second guessing to a conviction I have ever experienced. I have to say that it may be to his credit that he was willing to think about the issue honestly and be open to other possibilities, not that that is always a good thing, but in this case it was.
While we see that this problem arises very easily for humanity, it may escape our immediate thoughts that this problem could apply to God. For if God is within time then he must do what he foreknows. God knows what he is going to do and those events must take place the way he foreknows them to take place.
For the Atemporalist God does not have to foreknow because foreknowledge implies a sequential order of moments. The one who will feel the impact of this argument the most is a Temporalist who holds to libertarian free will. The response from this position may be that God's knowledge does not cause what he does and because he is going to do what he wants to do anyway, it then seems that this argument is fairly ineffective. It seems that each position has a good response to this dilemma.

God, Time, and Eternity VI

2008-12-19T19:09:00.002-05:00

Creation and a Sempiternal God
If God is sempiternal or exists in a sequential time of his own, what was he doing before he created the universe? God would have existed in an infinite amount of time and at some point decided to create the universe. Given that the act of creating the universe was good, according to Genesis, what was his reason for delay? What was he doing before he created the universe? What prompted him to do it? Feinberg accepts the notion that this critique is without adequate response from the Temporalist. This is a good lesson in referencing the footnotes, because there is a fascinating response mentioned. According to the footnote the Temporalist must retreat to a position that sees the created order and God equally basic metaphysically. The world would then be limited to agreeing with God's aims. Creation ex nihilo would be ruled out. What is fascinating about this is that it would remove the sempiternal position that God has a separate time frame (as far as I can tell) and Kalam becomes a problem all over again. Even if it didn't remove God's partitioned time frame (which I seriously doubt it would) we would still have to deal with Kalam as it applies to the world. I think the sempiternalist gains no ground trying to explain answer this critique in this way.
A famous quote from Augustin's time comes from this question from his contemporary skeptics. When asked what God was doing before he created the world some would respond, "preparing Hell for people who ask such questions." Augustine saw this as missing the point and put forward his apologetic about God's relationship to time. To ask what God was doing before he created the world posits a time frame God must act with in. There was no before or after concerning God's activities.
The Atemporalist position asserts that God wills timelessly no matter what the act including the creation of time its self , therefore God could not be said to have delayed in any action including creation.

The next section is very important and I am limited on time now, so I will post the next point in part VII possibly over the weekend of 12/20.

Christianity and Philososphy reviewing "Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant

2008-12-16T18:11:00.007-05:00

FYI: We are not abandoning God and Time I am trying to juggle several issues at once when time permits.
Why should a Christian concern him or herself with philosophy? I like the way Francis Schaeffer approaches this issue. He sees it as a mission to engage philosophy. C.S. Lewis felt that it was a worthy endeavor simply because bad philosophy should be challenged. I personally find that it keeps us in contact or in the conversation of current events. Often times it requires philosophical jargon go express theological realities. It is probably true that Christians reject philosophy because there is an intimidation factor or that it requires work (neither is an acceptable excuse considering the fact that the gospel is under philosophical attack almost constantly).
Sometimes when one studies philosophy one gets so caught up in a series of arguments that it is difficult to remember why one began to study a particular issue to begin with. This happens in theology as well. I recall in the book of Judges the Jews had to recall a border dispute to show their enemies why they had a righteous claim on certain land rights. If we never had to go the long way to do something godly we would have to scrap church business meetings all together. Sometimes the long road yields fruit that the shortest path could not have produced, i.e. 40 years in the wilderness.
No one tests the bounds of philosophical futility more than Immanuel Kant. He never crosses the line in my opinion, but he does come close. With Kant, one can find oneself thinking about a universe with just one hand in it to determine if there is inherent meaning in the physical makeup of the cosmos. If it were not for the enormity of the issue he was exploring and its implications it would be sinful to waste time chasing after such thoughts. Kant was a very crafty thinker and his thoughts had ramifications that still effect us today. I think it would almost be a sin not to explore some of the thoughts of these great thinkers, especially since they are likely the genesis of thoughts that have lead people astray from the truths of scripture for many years. The ironic think with Kant is that he was actually trying to defend Christianity, but some of the ideas he bought into had a catastrophic effect on the cerebral landscape of his time and beyond.
It will be work to critique Critique of Pure Reason but the fruits of this study will be worthy of our calling as Christians.
For someone who is new in philosophy, asking them to understand Kant first is sort of like asking a kid at his first swimming lesson to dive into the deep end of the pool without a life preserver. I will do my best to make this plain and clear but you may have to read this several times and post questions. Your efforts will be rewarded.

Critique of Pure Reason

Preface

What is cognition? It is the act or process of knowing something. Kant starts his preface with a pretty bold postulate, "There can be little doubt that all our cognition begins with experience." In the field of epistemology (how we know things) this is a statement that yields a dichotomy: first, Kant is making a statement about how much the world outside of our own minds effects what we know and how much the outside world imposes itself on our noetic equipment (our minds). This is classically known as externalism. Externalists believe that the outside world has a great effect on what we know. The opposite of externalism is internalism, which states that our noetic equipment is not effected by anything other than its self.There is a whole world of moderate positions between the two which I believe Kant falls into; we will revisit this issue again. The second part of the dichotomy is called Foundationalism. Foundationalists believe that our knowledge rests on foundations which are usually external to ourselves. What would qualify as a foundational belief to build ones epistemology upon? I believe the laws of logic qualify. Usually Foundationalists base their epistemology on external perceivable realities. No doubt, we will visit this again later.
Kant questions how one's cognitive abilities can be stirred into action without outside forces effecting our senses. I want to take a moment and mention that this could go down a very troubling avenue. If outside forces stir us into our cognitive processes it is going to be hard to escape some form of determinism. I'm not sure whether Kant is concerning himself with this at all, it could be one of his main points for all I know. We really need to stop and consider the consequences of this statement. If physical forces outside of my mind determine my thoughts, then I really have very little control over my own thoughts and what I believe. This is a big issue in philosophy known as doxastic voluntarism; how much control do I have over my own beliefs? Don't I have a duty to believe what is most rational within the knowledge I posses? This question sums up what is known as epistemic duties. If forces outside of my mind cause me to believe what I believe then my epistemic duties go no further than what I believe. A doxastic determinism caused my beliefs and my epistemic duties are to believe what ever it is that I believe because I had absolutely no control over what I believe. I suspect we will visit this again as well.
The word "stir" is a bit ambiguous, but Kant emphasizes experience so much that it seems likely "stir" means "cause" rather than "influence" or "nudge".
Kant feels that the objects of the world do two things. First, they bring about presentations. The word "presentations" would seem to imply that our senses may be imperfect and so the objects can only be manifested as presentations rather that univocal (exactly the same) copies in our minds of what is actually in the world (this is an educated guess). Secondly, they begin a process in our minds. This process is an effort to understand by comparing these presentations and either make connections or clear divisions. An example of a connection would be making historical connections such as the Treaty of Versailles to World War II; an example of a division might be the difference between a rock and a ball or how the Civil War was different from the Vietnam War. These collective impressions are called experiences. According to Kant we must have experiences in order to have cognitions, therefore experiences precede cognitions. So far this is Externalism; forces outside of our minds are critical to how and what we think.
Kant stresses that all cognition begins with experience, but if we think that all cognition is a result of experience then we are being too hasty. What does he mean? He is saying that while the initiative of thought may be experience the preceding thoughts are the result of the thoughts before them. So the way this may play out is one has an experience which causes a thought which causes a thought. The direct agent for one thought is not always experience but the ultimate cause is experience. Now, Kant has not avoided doxastic determinism because experience would still set noetic events in motion. When we have experiences it is possible that our minds supply thoughts into those impressions and distinctions between the two can become foggy. The way this can be conceived is to imagine that our minds have a data base of information stored in them. When we have an experience it sets our minds in motion and we add to those thoughts other thoughts from our data base, and how one distinguishes between the two can be murky. These stored thoughts are still subject to externalism for they arrived by experiences as well and then were stored.
If there is a cognition separate from experience (this would be internalism), according to Kant, it is not easy to determine and he admits ignorance on this issue. If there are cognitions separate from experience that are unprompted they are called a priori cognitions. Cognitions based in experience are called posteriori cognitions.
A priori cognitions are an ambiguous area for Kant and because of this the full meaning of the question of whether they exist at all is yet to be determined. Kant acknowledges that there are universal laws of logic; he insists that we come to these through experience. So, we have experiences and we may add to those experiences with a priori cognition, which is available to us through universal laws of logic which we also gained (Kant actually says "borrowed") through experience. Kant offers an illustration: "if someone has undermined the foundation of his house, we say that he would have known a priori that the house could cave in, i.e., he did not have to wait for the experience of its actually caving in. And yet he could not have known this completely a priori. For he did first have to find out through experience that bodies have weight and hence fall when their support is withdrawn."
Kant stresses that when he is referring to a priori he is not indicating that which is independent of certain experiences, but rather absolutely independent of all experience. If there are a priori cognitions that are completely independent from all experiences then they are to be considered pure. Kant grants an example that the notion "every change has its cause" is an a priori proposition, but it may not be considered pure because the entire concept of change only comes about through experience.
Let's summarize:
1) Cognition arrives through experience
2) Not all cognition arrives through experience
3) Some cognition arrives through previously stored cognition and interacts with cognition that is sparked by experience
4) If there is cognition that is separate from experience then it is called a priori
5) there are laws of logic
6) even a priori cognition that borrows from the laws of logic is rooted in experience
7) therefore, there is no pure a priori cognition

It is important to keep in mind that while Kant was a Theist he has done a great disservice to Theism by inviting the notion that the only mind that matters is the mind of man. We can not maintain that God received knowledge through experience. Given our current discussion of God and time, the Atemporalist has a good argument that shows that notions like a priori knowledge could never apply to God for he is not subject to time to begin with. Can not this God give man pure a priori knowledge? I say yes, if God so chooses thus.

Proverbs 8:22-27 (wisdom says) "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth, before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there."

Before there were any things for one to experience wisdom was there. This passage is also speaking of Jesus, but the point for our look at Kant is that there is a mind that matters beyond man's. Notice that Kant expected us to understand his propositions regardless of whether the question of pure reason could be answered. This implies that there are things all people should know, because there is a law of logic that sets the parameters for what is knowable in the first place. So, we have a diversity of people with a diversity of experiences which all know the exact same thing, namely, the laws of logic. Kant admitted to a universal law of logic, how did that get there? This law does not change regardless of man's experiences. C.S. Lewis did this subject well for he establishes that miracles can occur if the uniformity of cause and effect can be shown to be violated. The laws of logic do just this because there is no cause within the universe for them and yet we use them all the time. We can avoid the problem of doxastic determinism because the laws of logic violates cause and effect. What is fascinating is that we can't even approach the laws of logic with questions like, "what causes them?" because they are static so nothing dynamic can cause them. The human brain (not to be confused with "mind") is dynamic, all material things are dynamic. The real question is "what sustains them?" Only an immutable mind can sustain them that is not subject to the dynamic principles of the universe and yet interacts with it. Romans 1 would seem to imply that God has embedded certain knowledge about particular things concerning himself that does not require experience, but rather is "built into" our cognitive abilities a priori. Although, these passages could assume that man is having the experiences he needs to possess knowledge off God, but I think this would assume Kant's assumption that man's brain and mind are the same thing (this gets into mind/body dualism which is an entirely different treatment which we will look at later and I will tie into these issues). This, along with Proverbs 8, seems to imply that there is such a thing as pure, a priori cognition. I am not saying that Kant is completely wrong but I am skeptical toward his position. How is Kant not completely wrong? Because man is limited and while we do have varying degrees of experience we still experience the laws of logic. What is important to remember is that these laws of logic exist whether humanity experiences them or not.

God, Time, and Eternity Part V

2008-12-10T18:10:00.007-05:00

Infinity and God as Everlasting
This argument is based on the Kalam Cosmological argument. What is Kalam? In its bear essence: the universe is not eternal and therefore must have had a cause (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, pg. 399). This reasserts questions from my previous post concerning the Atheistic pseudo argument, "Who created God?" Let us explore the force and effect of Kalam before we move on to the atemporal argument proper. There can not be an actual infinite. Infinity by definition means "never ending", so how could it possibly be actualized? To be actual would require it to end and thus rendering it less than never ending. Infinites by definition are potential. A good example would be that there is a potential infinite between the numbers 1 and 2: 1, 1.1, 1.11, 1.111, etc. Remember that time moves in successive moments. A picture of you starring at the sun would have been an example of one of those moments. Could there be an actual infinite number of moments before this one? Kalam suggests not. One could never arrive at this moment, for an infinite number of moments would have to pass first. In order for an infinite number of moments to pass prior to this one, infinite moments would have to be actualized thus rendering them finite. Evidence for the truth of this abstract argument can be found in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law, everything in the universe is moving towards equilibrium or entropy. This is why if one pours cold water into a tub then hot water, they don't collect in respective partitions. Rather, they equalize and form a synthesis. Anther example would be that smoke in a bottle does not collect in one side or another, it distributes evenly. This law is a governing force of the universe writ large and so the entire cosmos is experiencing heat death. The entire universe is moving into a state of equilibrium. If the universe consisted of an infinite number of past events, then why has this not happened yet? One can not say there has not been enough time, there has been an infinite amount of time! This demonstrates the finite beginning of the universe, which implies that it was created, which implies a creator. This element of Kalam not withstanding, there is yet another aspect. Each successive moment of time must be infinite in and of itself if an actual infinite could exist. How then could a moment pass? If the universe is finite then it had a beginning; if it had a beginning then one would have to cause its beginning. So the Atheist asks, "What caused the one who caused the beginning?" This question implies an actual infinite regress which would mean we could never have arrived at this moment. But we have arrived at this moment. Therefor, something has to be necessary in and of itself and it either the universe (according to Bertrand Russell) or its a God. But how could the universe actualize its self? We all see that the universe moves in a uniformity of cause and effect and that nothing can cause its self. It seems far more rational to imply that a creator God would then be a necessary being. This God would create an order of cause and effect while not subjecting himself to it for he is the necessary cause and the universe is utterly contingent. This really puts a damper on straw man arguments from Freud and Marx who claim that religion is a result of some form of personal or psychological deficiency (not to mention the genetic fallacy). It is rational to believe there is a God when the universe keeps shoving it in your face!
How does this relate to the atemporal position? If God exists in time then this would imply an actual infinite, which Kalam demonstrates does not exist. This moment could never have arrived if there is an infinite number of preceding moments. However, this moment has arrived. Therefore, there has not been an infinite number of preceding events. This implies that there was a time in which God began to exist. This is impossible given that he is a necessary being (if this seems unsubstantiated please read previous post, if that does not convince you please read 1984), therefore he must exist timelessly.
Feinberg discusses two objections presented by those who advocate God as time laden. Temporalists argue that, "'there cannot ever be a realization of an additive, infinite succession which has a beginning (emphasis original). But God's existence from all eternity past is not the sort of series or succession which has a beginning'". The Temporalist's God has no beginning so they feel this derivative of Kalam has no force. This defense, as it turns out, is docile. Simply because a time laden God requires no beginning it does not answer the question of how we have arrived at this moment. Temporalists are still postulating an actual infinite regardless of the denial of an additive beginning.
One argument is never enough though. The Temporalists offer a second argument which postulates that God's existence before creation was undifferentiated. What does this mean? There is a difference between stating that infinite time existed before creation and saying that an infinite series of events existed before creation. I find this to be unhelpful. Essentially, the Temporalist is saying that God existed in an uneventful, nonpartitional (or no individual moments that move in successive order), homogenized "God-time". Feinberg elicits the help of a scholar named Paul Helm who is very skeptical toward the the Temporalist's position. Helm rejects the notion that there would be a undifferentiated "God-time" prior to the existence of the world. Temporalists feel that a timeless God would be lifeless, but Helm argues that a God without events would be lifeless as well. Helm explains that the implications of "God-time" is that there would be a successive mental life or a succession of thoughts in the divine mind. Time would then be far from undifferentiated but instead be marked by a series of mental events. If God does not exist in a timeless eternity then his thought life would imply a series of events. Any series of events would be infinite and thus imply an actual infinite which Kalam demonstrates can not be.
Feinberg makes an interesting observation. If God had no beginning, has no ending, endures infinitely, though atemporal, the same problem appears to confront the Atemporalist, namely, God's atemporal infinite existence is itself an actual infinite. If God is atemporal the infinite is not a derivative of a tally of infinite moments of God's life, but it is still atemporal duration, and due to the fact that God actually exists, this seems to imply that the problem of an actual infinite is not resolved by the Atemporalist.
A summery of the big picture is offered. We can easily demonstrate that the universe has no hope of autonomy from God as exhibited by Kalam. But our own understanding of God's relationship with time is in jeopardy (jeopardy is probably too strong of a word considering that one should not expect exhaustive knowledge of God in the first place). The idea of God being temporal or of existing in some sort of "God-time" is in trouble due to Kalam. However, the Atemporal position has not provided a sufficient defense once confronted with Kalam as well. Until the Atemporalist offers a non-question-begging response to Kalam themselves both positions have a problem.

personal reflection

I am concerned with Feinberg's use of the word "atemporal duration" in regards to Atemporalists and Kalam. I identified this problem in one of my earlier posts that the word duration is a time laden word and an anthropomorphism. It would be advisable and helpful to reread post number one to acclimate yourself with some of my concerns. I don't believe that we can ever understand how God exists outside of time. Feinberg in so much as admitted this when he said that he felt that it was hard to make sense of the Atemporalist position. I think it makes sense in that it is cogent, but I do not think that it can be fully comprehended. This may be question begging and I should admit that up front, but I don't believe it is circular in regards to Feinberg's critique concerning Atemporalists and Kalam. Atemporalists escape the critique of Kalam due to the fact that time does not apply to God. I believe Feinberg is making a presuppositional error in that the word "duration" is univocal or means the same thing as time laden duration. Atemporalist believe that God is absolutely outside of time and that even terms like duration fail to adequately represent God's relationship with time. Is this position circular? Yes, just as circular as all properly basic assertions. Is it circular in regard to Kalam? No, notions of time do not apply to God.

God, Time, and Eternity IV

2008-12-02T18:20:00.000-05:00

There are other arguments for timeless eternity that Feinberg covers, we will not be investigating all of them as some are only slightly nuanced from others.
Nature of Time Necessitates a Timeless God
When we think of time we often have the image of a clock with three hands in our minds. We also think of it as a mere measurement that is merely a human construct. This is much more complex than what appears on the surface. The whole issue of time as a mere measurement created by humans is debated. Since modern relativity theory the whole notion of time as being something that humans have made up has been turned upside down on its head. I am not certain how many people, and for how long, have known that time is no mere measurement and is something real to be measured, but I believe that relativity has made more people think about time. At least in my case this is true. Ever since I heard about the theory of relativity my mind has been racing with curiosity and wonder. Have you ever thought about it? If the earth were a little bigger or spun on its axis a little slower would not time change? If your reaction is yes, then I think you are wrong. I would say that our measurement of time would be different. Why is this? Our measurement of time is not the same as time its self. The theory of relativity takes this very seriously and postulates that time is so real (can something be so real? Or very real? Oh well, lol) that time is relative to speed. I would be lying if I told you I completely understood this, but I can give you an illustration that both Einstein and Hawking use:
Let us suppose you were on a train with a friend, and as the train was traveling down the tracks you and your friend start throwing a ball from one end of the train car you occupy to the other. Let us say that the train is traveling at 50 miles per hour and you were throwing the ball at 10 miles per hour. To you and your friend the ball would appear to be traveling at 10 mph. Now let us say there is someone who is way better looking than Jason Sturkie standing outside of the train, standing still and watching the train go by. To this quite handsome fellow (me) the ball would appear to be traveling at 60 mph. Because time is relative to speed, mass, and distance and time is real, not just a measurement, then time is also relative. Therefore, even though it is not obvious to the three parties involved, time is relative because time is real and is relational to objects in the universe; as it is in this illustration.

Let us be clear that this is a contested notion of time. So, time as we know is related to the earth's relationship to the sun. It is difficult to think of a given moment as simultaneous across the universe given relativity theory. If this is the true nature of time then God can not be in time. God is not physical which is necessary for time given our defined understanding above. God is not contingent on anything, he transcends all spacial locations for he is omnipresent (all present). He does not have to hurry to one place to hear one prayer and be off in a dash to hear another. He does not go really fast in space like warp speed in Star Trek. He is present without limitation and without mass (since mass entails limits this is an obvious point). Those who hold that God is within time, or Temporalists as they are sometimes identified, feel that God is not limited by these physical realities. They feel he is in touch with each time frame without being rooted in these time frames. Temporalists say that to say that God is in time is not synonymous to stating that he is in these time frames, but rather that his life encompasses successive states. If God's life operates with in successive states then he a being within time, but not the same way physical objects are. This, in my opinion, affirms a dichotomy: there are two times; one which God experiences and one which is operating within the space-time continuum.
God does not need a personal succession to know all about time frames within the universe. He can know all at once events that occur in temporal sequences with out waiting for those sequences to pass for he decreed these events to happen. It seems to me that the Atemporalist is saying that the notion that because there are sequences that we experience then God must also experience sequences as well, just not our sequences; this is a very generalized conclusion based on the human experience of time. In other words the Atemporalist is accusing the Temporalist of inductive reasoning. Why should this be suspect? Deduction moves from the general to the specific, inductive moves from the specific to the general. Any inductive argument (like almost every Atheist argument) looks at specifics then makes general conclusions and tries to approve them as specific. An example would be that humans have 99 percent DNA in common with primates, therefore humans must have evolved from primates. The theist could respond with his own induction: humans share 99 percent DNA with primates, therefore God uses similar methods in making primates as he does humans. Which one is right? Who knows, the two methods are so inductive and general they are only being paraded as specificity! No wonder they both come to such radically different conclusions, we need a deduction to come to a specific conclusion (there are theistic arguments that can apply deductive reasoning, read miracles by C.S. Lewis or any Ravi Zacharias book). The Temporalist could be right, but their argument comes short of proving it. Another critique by the Atemporalist is that if God was temporal before creation, then what was the reference point for time? It could not be in the physical sense in which we witness in the universe, so just exactly what is the time God was experiencing? Possibly the trinity? That is a different topic of posts that we don't have time to go into. See you next time for part V.

God, Time, and Eternity Part III

2008-11-24T19:00:00.000-05:00

Boethius- According to Feinberg Boethius had far different motives for advocating timeless eternity. In Consolation of Philosophy Boethius is trying to solve the delima of human freewill and God's foreknowledge. If God knows and foresees all that is to come, how can I make free choices? For example if God knows when I am going to stop typing this how could I stop at another time? If I could then God didn't really know, but if I do stop when God knew I would then how am I free to choose differently? Boethius felt that timeless eternity answered the problem.
Anselm- Anselm is famous for the Ontological argument for God's existence, which insists that God is the greatest conceivable being in ALL facets. One of the the greatest attributes God would posses is eternity. Anselm never seems to elaborate on why he believes this would be a necessary quality of God. This was posited in his book Proslogium. In a later tome entitled Monologium Anselm reiterates this attribute of God while emphasizing his simplicity in relation to time. What does it mean that God is simple? Essentially it means that he does not have divisible parts, he is one. So he must be one at all times. If God could exist as a whole at different intervals then he is in time and composite. Because God is outside of time he exists as one whole all at once not at different moments, BECAUSE he possesses eternity as an attribute. Anselm is trying to stay within his logical framework.
Thomas Aquinas- Eternity should be understood as one whole instead of successive moments. It has no beginning or end. Time itself is imperfect due to its successive nature and each interval has a beginning and end. Eternity is one instance rather than successive moments with no begging or end. Since eternity is one perfect whole this is the way God exists. Aquinas is borrowing heavily from Boethius and is accepting his definition of perfect. After much argumentation Aquinas affirms God's immutability (unchanging nature) and due to God's immutability he exists as perfect timeless eternity.

Arguments for Timeless Eternity
Timelessness a Logical Derivation from Other Doctrines
Feinberg Chooses Anselm's doctrine to spearhead into this issue because his position is as clear as anyone else's. Anselm never seems to explain why the most perfect being must be eternal, he just pontificates that it comes from his perfect nature. It will be from the doctrine of simplicity (not possessing multiple parts) that we find a clearer argument for God's eternal nature. Why should one believe that God must be simple?
1) Something that possesses goodness from another source can not be good in and of its self. This is classically known as contingency. A being is contingent on something else is similar to saying, "The amount of money I get paid for my job is contingent (or depends) on how many hours I work." My whole being is contingent on someone else, I did not produce myself nor do I sustain myself. This is a very basic principle in evangelical theology commonly misunderstood by many. This classic misunderstanding is why many think questioning where God came from, or asking who created God supplies some brilliant argument against God's existence. All it really does is show an ignorance of the subject. For a more well though out critique of this element of our theology one should read Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not A Christian, his argument ultimately fails but it is outside of the scope of this treatment to address this issue now.
2) Does God participate in justice or is he the embodiment of justice? If God participates in justice than there is something outside of him requiring him to be just or justice is part of who God is. Therefore, God must be where justice "come from" so to speak and therefore he is how we know what justice is. Even unbelievers understand this basic principle when they digress in their minds that God will sort things out or imagine Hitler standing before God for his crimes. But most importantly for our discussion is that God is simple and justice is not part of what he is it is what he is. We are the ones who label it separately then turn around and apply to God what he already is.
Feinberg asks a good question, "What is this notion of depending for one's existence only upon one's self?... this is aseity!" (pg386) What is aseity? it is depending on nothing else for existence. I'm not advocating a tautology (furthering an argument without progression) I am just defining the word. So, it is not from perfection that God is simple, according to Anselm, but from perfection to aseity, then from aseity to simplicity, then from simplicity to eternity.
Feinberg uses William Mann to clear up the point concerning simplicity and its relationship to time. Mann essentially states that God has no body. God's simplicity is motivated by his perfection which implies his independence of all other things to be the being he is. By independent, what Mann is trying to say is that God is a necessary being, he relies on nothing else for sustenance or even his existence. He is the explanation for his own existence. All of our lives we struggle because so many things are dependent or contingent on something else. How will I eat tomorrow? If I have enough money. How will I have enough money? If I have a job. How will I have a job? That is contingent on... x and so on. God has no such restraints. So, God is sovereign over all things. If he is sovereign over all things then what does he rely on? Nothing but himself, he is contingent on nothing. Now consider this, if God were composed of multiple parts, like a physical object, then he would have parts that make him up and each part would be contingent on the other to make up the whole of who God is. If God were missing a part he would no longer be God, he would need every part of himself. Needing multiple parts is being contingent on multiple parts. The parts would define who God is as opposed to the parts relying on God for their definition. So, God would be dichotomously contingent the parts would be contingent upon each other to be God and God would need the parts to be defined. This is not the case because of the the doctrine of divine simplicity.
Mann continues to unfold his argument. God does not have temporal stages of existence. God has complete possession all at once. If God does not change (immutability) and he is eternal and he is not composed of parts (simple) then he can not go through stages. There is nothing distinguishably different including a different moment for that would imply a part or a change. What Feinberg is focused on for the purpose of this chapter of No One Like Him is that Mann demonstrates that one can follow simplicity to timelessness and from timelessness to immutability.
This is quite a brain teaser and fortunately for us Feinberg simplifies it in a summery. To be simple one must have no parts, but to have successive stages in one's life is to have parts. A timeless being has no stages in this sense thus a simple being must be timeless. Furthermore, God is always identical with himself, he never changes, so he is immutable. Feinberg goes over some ways to combat this understanding of God as timeless and hold to essential doctrines, but he covers covers arguments for God within time later and so will we.

God, Time, and Eternity Part II

2008-11-11T20:49:00.000-05:00

Now we turn our attention to Temporal Eternity, which is the notion that God is everlasting within time. This has also been called sempiternity. Another way to understand this is that God exists at all times, he has no beginning or end. God's existence extends endlessly backwards and forwards. God has a past present and future just like his creatures. I am curious if Feinberg will deal with actual infinites or not which I will explain in a later post. Feinberg admits that two of God's primary attributes seem risky to postulate if we explain God's relationship to time in this way. God's simplicity (he is absolutely one without multiple parts, he is indivisible) and immutability (unchanging) are things that we know have to be true about God and are directly supported by the Bible. Feinberg asks an important question: How do we define time according to God? Is it a human measurement? Was there time before creation?

Two important questions must be examined: What does the Bible say? How did atemporal eternity (God outside of time) make its way into Christian theology? These are always important questions to ask when it comes to our assumptions and understanding of God.

The biblical authors never reflect directly on the nature of time and eternity. Feinberg seems to feel that there is enough data to warrant speculation, he turns to the history of the doctrine as he feels that would be more fruitful.

How did our current understanding of atemporal duration come into our theology? Why is this understanding necessary? Atemporal duration actually predates Christian theology and finds its origins in: Parmenides, Plato, Plotinus, and the Pythagoreans. The theologians who are responsible for bringing this doctrine into Christian theology are: Augustine, Boetheus, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Why were these theologians committed to atemporal duration? Feinberg offers a brief overview:
(I would like to say from the outset that it is always dangerous to develop a theology out of an apologetic. A good example would be Mormonism where Joseph Smith had an apologetic for God being active in the Americas during biblical times, but does that make Smith right?)
Augustine- Book XI of confessions, many were asking Augustine what God was doing before he created the world. Apparently, God has no reason to create. If he is at rest why not rest eternally? Why begin to create? If creation was always the plan why wait? Additionally, why not an eternal creation? If God begins to create then he changes when he begins to create (immutability), if he created the universe eternal this problem would be solved. If God made a decision to create at a certain point in time then there is a change in his will which is a change in his essence or character, which means he is not prefect. Augustine responds with atemporal duration. These question have their foundations in the assumption that terms like "before" apply to God. We as humans might use them to describe God within our limited reasoning capacity which is reflective in our limited language (anthropomorphisms).
Next time we will finish Feinberg's catalog of the history of this position and delve into some of the arguments for timeless eternity.

No One Like Him: God, Time, & Eternity Part 1

2008-11-03T06:15:00.000-05:00

Feinberg starts this section reminding his readers that the eternal nature of God is both vital and comforting. It is good to remember that God is the same always and that this has never changed. That word never is pesky though. What does it say about God's relationship with time that he never . Never implies eternity and the nature of eternity is the question we need to answer. "Is eternity timelessness, or is it never ending existence within time?" (375) Either way one attempts to answer this question problems and limitations in our understanding begin to arise. Another way of asking this question is to ask whether God exists within time or outside of time.
Feinberg offers a definition for consideration: Temporal Location- Something that must exist before or after a particular moment. This is an important point, because even to exists at all points of time implies interaction with time.
The first position considered is God's existence outside of time. Feinberg uses a classic resource in his understanding of this definition in the person of Boetheus. The quote used is from Consolation of Philosophy book 5, prose 6, "Eternity then, is the complete possession all at once of illimitable life." (376) An essay written on Boetheus's definition by two scholars, Stump and Kretzmann, is considered by Feinberg. The definition consists of four concomitant components:

1) Sentience- Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought or simply consciousness.
2) Illimitability- Sentience can not be limited by time.
3) Duration- sentience must endure through time.
-Now if your like me and several scholars who first encountered this definition a question must penetrate your mind immediately; how can it endure through time if it is timeless? As it turns out this question yields component number four.
4) Atemporality- To possess one's essence all at once.

Atemporality is an area that we should focus attention on. All finite beings exist sequentially or "before" and "after" a given moment. For example: "Before I met Jason Sturkie I thought I was good looking after I met Jason I felt I was very good looking." (This was not the example used in Feinberg but I'm sure he would agree with my conclusions in regards to how good looking I am) God has no such limitations, he did not need to gain knowledge because he is omniscient (all knowing) if he had to gain knowledge it would imply a denial of his immutability (unchanging). God can not change, but more to the point, if he gained knowledge it would also imply a time in which he did not possess knowledge thereby foisting him into a sequential order thus limiting him by time. (I'm not entirely sure Feinberg would agree with me that this is by necessity a limitation, but we will see) An atemporal being must possess its essence all at once.
You may be thinking that the term "all at once" is very time-laden. It's important to remember that we are talking about God's interaction with a temporal universe and that he is not limited by time when he interacts with it. Here is another pesky term though, when. We are truly limited in our abilities to fully comprehend and discuss God. I am a being in time so when I say when I don't mean to imply there is a time when God does not interact or sustain creation, rather when one is choosing a specific moment to identify the status of God or activity of God we are forced to use language that is limited by the scope of time.
The next issue Feinberg tackles is atemporal duration. Is this an oxymoron? You may have to decide for yourself. We must remember that time moves in one direction in a series of finite moments and within those moments we have a duration. That moment will not come again and we will be different at every successive moment or we will have a different duration at each successive moment. I think an illustration would be very helpful here.
Suppose you are looking at a picture of yourself when you were a kid. You existed in that state at that moment. Or you possessed that duration at that interval within the successive time line. Perhaps the sun was in your face and you were squinting. You can not say as you look at the picture that you were not squinting at that moment in your childhood, maybe before the picture was taken or after the picture was taken you were not squinting but at that moment you were. Let me ask a question, what was God's duration at that moment in time? Was it different than it is now? Obviously the answer is no. Time has changed and so have you, but God has not changed he was 100% who he is and was unaffected by time even though he was interactive with time at the moment that picture was taken. If you are having a hard time wrapping your mind around this whole issue your in good company, Feinberg himself said he is not sure this makes sense to him either. In short God has a duration that is not limited by time, thus atemporal duration. No succession of moments are required for God to be who he is.
We will look at Feinberg's definition of God within eternal time at the next posting.

God, Time, John Feinberg and Bobby Flay

2008-10-26T15:46:00.000-04:00

For our first mental exercise I would like to ask a question: What is the relationship between God and time?

I am eager to find out your thoughts or studied positions. This is a preamble to the first book we will be looking at which is John S. Feinberg's No One Like Him, chapter 9 pp. 375-436. This is an amazing text on the doctrine of God by an incredible writer, truly a genius. I have barely combed over the section we will be treating but I suspect that I disagree with his position on God and time. I am challenging him to a theological throw-down Bobby Flay style! I might win, I might even lose its any body's game (but you should probably put your money on Feinberg).

Welcome to Beechwood Talking Points!

2008-10-26T14:58:00.000-04:00

Hello, I am Travis J. Sheehan associate pastor at Beechwood Baptist Church. My desire for this blog is to be a resource for thinkers. Of course I hope that members of Beechwood Baptist Church will take advantage of this resource, but all are welcome. In fact I would appreciate divergent perspectives as I believe this would ultimately edify the church. I have a few ground rules:
1) Keep it clean. No posts with foul language will be permitted.
2) Keep it above the belt. Disagreement is practically encouraged, but personal put downs are not tolerable.
3) Stay relevant. This does not mean that you can not have a sense of humor or can not at all go off topic, but too long or too many posts that deviate from the subject will be removed.

The primary issues I will be discussing are philosophical and theological, the occasional political post may appear but it will likely be in regards to its philosophical/theological underpinnings. No candidates will be endorsed (although their philosophies are fair game). If you feel that a post is offensive please contact me and it may be removed. Although, if I determine that you are a political correctness advocate you will likely see the numbers 1984, which will be a reference to the fact that you are an amoral relativist whose subjectivism disqualifies your feelings due to the fact that they are illegitimate and self defeating and reading George Orwell's classic will help you understand that you are the problem and will have a stellar career as a government employee for Oceana; leave the quaking like a duck to yourself (if you did not understand the previous diatribe then you are fasting from the cerebral honey that flows from the pages from one of the greatest novels to grace ink and paper).
At the beginning I will mainly review and interact with books and my own personal thoughts, but my hope is that this will be a communal activity and interaction. Your input about the direction of this blog is also welcome so feel free to let me know about a particular direction or subject you would like to discuss more frequently or less frequently or what ever.

Let the games begin!