Wednesday, September 21, 2005
No Fly Zone
Today’s JetBlue incident underscores why I hate flying and have no intention of flying any time soon. The last time I hopped a ride on a jet, we almost crashed (well that’s what it felt like). We were approaching O’Hare when the pilot came on the intercom to tell us that it would take a bit longer before we could land since we had to fly around a severe thunderstorm. When I see seasoned flight attendants looking pretty worried (I was sitting right next to one of their stations), I get worried. Just three words: Worst…turbulence…ever. And it just kept going on and on. It was like bucking a bronco. A 200 ton metal bronco. I prefer to take Kasey Kasem’s advice: Keep your feet on the ground…(I forget how the rest of that goes.)
God and hurricanes pt.3
Now, one might object by asking: "Couldn’t God intervene whenever a major disaster is about to hit?” They might also ask: “Couldn’t God have created different physical laws, ones that wouldn’t result in so much devastation?”
To the first question we could respond that God would have to intervene in so widespread a manner that it would result in the suspension of the natural order with all its regularity of physical laws. But this would jeopardize responsible human action.
To the second question we could respond that the person asking the question simply has no idea what such a world would look like. If God were to modify one part of the natural system to prevent, say, earthquakes, for all we know He’d have to modify some other part of the natural system that may produce even more unpleasant results. Philosopher Ronald Nash points out that a “natural order is a system; even an apparently minor change in one part of the order would have to have repercussions throughout the system.”
The answers provided by the free will and natural law theodicies pave the way for the Soul-Making theodicy. In order to grow and become virtuous people, we must face certain challenges. Growth is difficult, if not impossible, in an environment that is free of any risk, danger or disappointment.
Some, maybe many, people won't be very satisfied with this response. Fair enough. But it's at least worth thinking about.
I’m certainly not qualified to write much more than this about this topic. For a fuller treatment, I recommend Part 4 of Ronald Nash’s book Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Zondervan, 1988).
Also worth a look is this article by William Lane Craig.
I honestly hope I do not ever go through a natural disaster. Like a lot of people, I’ve witnessed my share of suffering (family members dying of cancer or stroke or pneumonia, and family members being subjected to a repressive and deadly Communist regime). That's about all I can handle (and I wasn't even the one doing much of the suffering). The best that I can do is to trust that God has got it all under control (even if it seems like He doesn't). And to give to the Red Cross and Salvation Army.
To the first question we could respond that God would have to intervene in so widespread a manner that it would result in the suspension of the natural order with all its regularity of physical laws. But this would jeopardize responsible human action.
To the second question we could respond that the person asking the question simply has no idea what such a world would look like. If God were to modify one part of the natural system to prevent, say, earthquakes, for all we know He’d have to modify some other part of the natural system that may produce even more unpleasant results. Philosopher Ronald Nash points out that a “natural order is a system; even an apparently minor change in one part of the order would have to have repercussions throughout the system.”
The answers provided by the free will and natural law theodicies pave the way for the Soul-Making theodicy. In order to grow and become virtuous people, we must face certain challenges. Growth is difficult, if not impossible, in an environment that is free of any risk, danger or disappointment.
Some, maybe many, people won't be very satisfied with this response. Fair enough. But it's at least worth thinking about.
I’m certainly not qualified to write much more than this about this topic. For a fuller treatment, I recommend Part 4 of Ronald Nash’s book Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Zondervan, 1988).
Also worth a look is this article by William Lane Craig.
I honestly hope I do not ever go through a natural disaster. Like a lot of people, I’ve witnessed my share of suffering (family members dying of cancer or stroke or pneumonia, and family members being subjected to a repressive and deadly Communist regime). That's about all I can handle (and I wasn't even the one doing much of the suffering). The best that I can do is to trust that God has got it all under control (even if it seems like He doesn't). And to give to the Red Cross and Salvation Army.
God and hurricanes pt.2
Hurricanes, tsunamis and other serious natural disaster always bring up the question of why God, who is all good and all powerful, would allow this kind of suffering, commonly called natural evil.
My own take is that we can provide models for how it might be possible for a good and powerful God to allow evil, without going to the point of saying that the model explains with absolute certainty how God would allow evil. Perhaps the models are not completely accurate, but if we mere, finite humans can come up with possible reasons for why God would allow various types of evil, then surely god himself has a reason. These models are commonly called theodicies. A theodicy is any justification of God’s goodness and power in the face of evil.
Most people are familiar with the Free Will theodicy, namely, human beings freely make certain choices, some of which result in evil, commonly called moral evil. God’s purpose in allowing moral evil to exist is to bring about certain greater goods. These would include the existence of moral goods like love, generosity, compassion. Free moral agents are needed for moral good.
I don’t know if philosophers use the term theodicy to express the idea that we know exactly how God would allow evil. If so that seems a bit presumptuous. I think I prefer the term Free Will Response to the problem of evil. But I’ll just use the term theodicy for now.
The natural law theodicy says that an orderly created world is necessary for moral agents to act responsibly. Moral order requires physical order. If natural objects were to behave unpredictably, deliberate action by humans would be made difficult, if not impossible. We need to know what the effects of our actions will be, and for this we need nature to behave in regular ways.
For example, we need to know that pushing your little brother off the fifth floor balcony, or that pushing your little brother’s head underwater for too long, or pointing a loaded gun at someone and firing has serious consequences. Our knowledge of the predictable effects of gravity, for example, keep us (or at least should keep us) from acting in irresponsible ways.
These same physical laws are the things that cause hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. And these laws are capable of producing both harmful and beneficial effects. The water you drink is the same water that can drown you. The knife you use to cut your food is the same knife that can seriously hurt you.
Though it’s difficult to accept if you’ve gone through one of these disasters, scientists point out that hurricanes and earthquakes are required for life to exist on earth. Christian physicist Hugh Ross (in Facts & Faith, 1998, vol.12, No.4) points out that:
“[H]urricanes…play a vital role in sustaining the right range of temperatures for life. On the one hand, they counterbalance the ocean's tendency to leach carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This leaching, if unchecked, would result in a catastrophic cooling of the planet. On the other hand, hurricanes prevent the oceans from trapping too much of the sun's heat. They help circulate greenhouse gases globally as they shade the ocean (reflecting solar radiation) locally, preventing heat from building up too dramatically for the safety of certain sea creatures. During the summer of 1995, three hurricanes over the Sargasso Sea increased the flow of carbon dioxide from the water to the atmosphere by more than fifty percent. At the same time, each hurricane cooled the sea water (near the surface) by 7°F (4°C) for two to three weeks at a time.
Meteorologists affirm that too many or too few hurricanes would spell disaster for advanced life on Earth. The fact that their frequency and intensity fall into precisely the right range for life support provides one more piece of evidence that God carefully designed Earth with the necessities of life in mind.”
Elsewhere he write:
“The apologetics question about earthquakes I hear most often is "Why would a loving God allow us to experience the horrors of earthquakes?" I can give one answer from my limited human understanding, and that has to do with His provision for man's food needs.
Without earthquakes, nutrients essential for land life would erode off the continents and accumulate in the oceans. In a relatively brief time, land creatures, at least the advanced species, would starve. But, thanks to tectonic plate movements (the movements that generate earthquakes), nutrients eroded into the oceans are recycled back to the continents.
If the number and intensity of earthquakes on planet Earth were any smaller, the rate of nutrient recycling would be insufficient to support land-based life.
If the number and intensity of earthquakes were any greater, human civilization, certainly, urbanization, would be impossible. The rate of earthquake activity is just right. The next time you feel an earthquake, try thanking God for His perfect providence.
In the case of other disasters, too, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and blizzards, you may be comforted to learn that here again the number and intensity are ideal for sustaining the best conditions for life on Earth. Though it is painful to suffer or see others suffer through these disasters, we can acknowledge that they are, on a grand scale, a manifestation of God's care.”
My own take is that we can provide models for how it might be possible for a good and powerful God to allow evil, without going to the point of saying that the model explains with absolute certainty how God would allow evil. Perhaps the models are not completely accurate, but if we mere, finite humans can come up with possible reasons for why God would allow various types of evil, then surely god himself has a reason. These models are commonly called theodicies. A theodicy is any justification of God’s goodness and power in the face of evil.
Most people are familiar with the Free Will theodicy, namely, human beings freely make certain choices, some of which result in evil, commonly called moral evil. God’s purpose in allowing moral evil to exist is to bring about certain greater goods. These would include the existence of moral goods like love, generosity, compassion. Free moral agents are needed for moral good.
I don’t know if philosophers use the term theodicy to express the idea that we know exactly how God would allow evil. If so that seems a bit presumptuous. I think I prefer the term Free Will Response to the problem of evil. But I’ll just use the term theodicy for now.
The natural law theodicy says that an orderly created world is necessary for moral agents to act responsibly. Moral order requires physical order. If natural objects were to behave unpredictably, deliberate action by humans would be made difficult, if not impossible. We need to know what the effects of our actions will be, and for this we need nature to behave in regular ways.
For example, we need to know that pushing your little brother off the fifth floor balcony, or that pushing your little brother’s head underwater for too long, or pointing a loaded gun at someone and firing has serious consequences. Our knowledge of the predictable effects of gravity, for example, keep us (or at least should keep us) from acting in irresponsible ways.
These same physical laws are the things that cause hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. And these laws are capable of producing both harmful and beneficial effects. The water you drink is the same water that can drown you. The knife you use to cut your food is the same knife that can seriously hurt you.
Though it’s difficult to accept if you’ve gone through one of these disasters, scientists point out that hurricanes and earthquakes are required for life to exist on earth. Christian physicist Hugh Ross (in Facts & Faith, 1998, vol.12, No.4) points out that:
“[H]urricanes…play a vital role in sustaining the right range of temperatures for life. On the one hand, they counterbalance the ocean's tendency to leach carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This leaching, if unchecked, would result in a catastrophic cooling of the planet. On the other hand, hurricanes prevent the oceans from trapping too much of the sun's heat. They help circulate greenhouse gases globally as they shade the ocean (reflecting solar radiation) locally, preventing heat from building up too dramatically for the safety of certain sea creatures. During the summer of 1995, three hurricanes over the Sargasso Sea increased the flow of carbon dioxide from the water to the atmosphere by more than fifty percent. At the same time, each hurricane cooled the sea water (near the surface) by 7°F (4°C) for two to three weeks at a time.
Meteorologists affirm that too many or too few hurricanes would spell disaster for advanced life on Earth. The fact that their frequency and intensity fall into precisely the right range for life support provides one more piece of evidence that God carefully designed Earth with the necessities of life in mind.”
Elsewhere he write:
“The apologetics question about earthquakes I hear most often is "Why would a loving God allow us to experience the horrors of earthquakes?" I can give one answer from my limited human understanding, and that has to do with His provision for man's food needs.
Without earthquakes, nutrients essential for land life would erode off the continents and accumulate in the oceans. In a relatively brief time, land creatures, at least the advanced species, would starve. But, thanks to tectonic plate movements (the movements that generate earthquakes), nutrients eroded into the oceans are recycled back to the continents.
If the number and intensity of earthquakes on planet Earth were any smaller, the rate of nutrient recycling would be insufficient to support land-based life.
If the number and intensity of earthquakes were any greater, human civilization, certainly, urbanization, would be impossible. The rate of earthquake activity is just right. The next time you feel an earthquake, try thanking God for His perfect providence.
In the case of other disasters, too, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and blizzards, you may be comforted to learn that here again the number and intensity are ideal for sustaining the best conditions for life on Earth. Though it is painful to suffer or see others suffer through these disasters, we can acknowledge that they are, on a grand scale, a manifestation of God's care.”
God and hurricanes pt.1
Recent natural disasters have focused attention on the relationship between evil, pain and suffering, and an all-powerful, loving God. Some Christians say that God is punishing people for their sins and saying it unlovingly and unintelligently (see this Richard Roeper column, for example)
Others, while not going that far, acknowledge that natural calamities are generally related somehow to a sinful, fallen world.
For example, this article quotes Al Mohler:
“According to Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, people who focus on God's loving and powerful qualities have an incomplete understanding of who God is. ‘The one thing that is often missing from that picture, in terms of how people think about God, is that He is also just,’ Reverend Mohler says. ‘That means that we know that one of the reasons the world experiences earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and tornados is because of sin, and the fact that this is a fallen world. It is not like Eden, as God had intended from the beginning.’ A hurricane happens, in other words, because the balance that God intended for this world has been upset by sin.”
The same article quotes a Catholic theologian:
“Nevertheless, the idea that human sin is responsible for something like a urricane is completely foreign to Catholics, according to Sister Elizabeth Johnson, who teaches Theology at Fordham University, a Jesuit school. She says in Catholic theology, hurricanes and earthquakes are caused not by God and not by sin, but by Natural Law. ‘God is the cause of all causes. God is the primary cause,’ she says. ‘Catholic theology teaches that God set the world up with its own integrity as a creature. It has its own natural laws, it has its own internal ways of working. You have an undersea earthquake, and you get a tsunami,’ Professor Johnson says. ‘God didn't cause that. That's the actual working of the planet that keeps it fertile and refreshed and so on. And hurricanes are in the same boat.’
Now, I agree with Mohler that we live in a fallen world. But is sin the specific reason that Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf states, or that the tsunami hit southeast Asia? I prefer the Catholic approach.
Now, there is a difference between the philosophical or theoretical response to evil, and the pastoral or emotional response. What I want to try to present is a very brief summary of the theoretical response. This is important, I think, because even though most people suffering from evil probably don’t give a rip about the intellectual problem in the midst of the ongoing trials and pains, later on, while reflecting on the question, they may want to look for some answer to the question of why God allows suffering.
Others, while not going that far, acknowledge that natural calamities are generally related somehow to a sinful, fallen world.
For example, this article quotes Al Mohler:
“According to Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, people who focus on God's loving and powerful qualities have an incomplete understanding of who God is. ‘The one thing that is often missing from that picture, in terms of how people think about God, is that He is also just,’ Reverend Mohler says. ‘That means that we know that one of the reasons the world experiences earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and tornados is because of sin, and the fact that this is a fallen world. It is not like Eden, as God had intended from the beginning.’ A hurricane happens, in other words, because the balance that God intended for this world has been upset by sin.”
The same article quotes a Catholic theologian:
“Nevertheless, the idea that human sin is responsible for something like a urricane is completely foreign to Catholics, according to Sister Elizabeth Johnson, who teaches Theology at Fordham University, a Jesuit school. She says in Catholic theology, hurricanes and earthquakes are caused not by God and not by sin, but by Natural Law. ‘God is the cause of all causes. God is the primary cause,’ she says. ‘Catholic theology teaches that God set the world up with its own integrity as a creature. It has its own natural laws, it has its own internal ways of working. You have an undersea earthquake, and you get a tsunami,’ Professor Johnson says. ‘God didn't cause that. That's the actual working of the planet that keeps it fertile and refreshed and so on. And hurricanes are in the same boat.’
Now, I agree with Mohler that we live in a fallen world. But is sin the specific reason that Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf states, or that the tsunami hit southeast Asia? I prefer the Catholic approach.
Now, there is a difference between the philosophical or theoretical response to evil, and the pastoral or emotional response. What I want to try to present is a very brief summary of the theoretical response. This is important, I think, because even though most people suffering from evil probably don’t give a rip about the intellectual problem in the midst of the ongoing trials and pains, later on, while reflecting on the question, they may want to look for some answer to the question of why God allows suffering.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Does blogging make you smarter?
Does blogging make you smarter? (Didn't I just say that?) Well, it hasn’t helped me any (I think mental flabbiness is an irreversible trait with me). But, this blog post by two doctors claims that blogging promotes the type of brain stimulating activity that promotes critical thinking and enhances both introspection and social interaction. It’s very interesting.
My question is, how many posts does it take to cause a significant increase in brain power? 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 5…(well, you get the point)? Is it a gradual effect or does it suddenly cascade into a torrent of brainy expostulations, sort of like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, who, upon hearing he had a brain all along suddenly spouts off the Pythagorean theorem (at least, if memory serves me right. Blast that brain of mine). But if he had a brain the whole time why didn’t he figure this out beforehand (the dummy)? Anyways, don’t hate me because I’m dumb. Hate me because I’m, uh, what was I saying…?
My question is, how many posts does it take to cause a significant increase in brain power? 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 5…(well, you get the point)? Is it a gradual effect or does it suddenly cascade into a torrent of brainy expostulations, sort of like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, who, upon hearing he had a brain all along suddenly spouts off the Pythagorean theorem (at least, if memory serves me right. Blast that brain of mine). But if he had a brain the whole time why didn’t he figure this out beforehand (the dummy)? Anyways, don’t hate me because I’m dumb. Hate me because I’m, uh, what was I saying…?
Monday, September 19, 2005
Semicolons
Here’s an entertaining article on semicolons; it’s basically a combination of a comma and a period; with the period on top and the comma on the bottom.
Natural Predispositions
If someone says that he has a natural predisposition towards some behaviour (say, alcoholism, or stealing, or whatever), he will probably use that as an explanation to excuse that behaviour.
Now, we all have natural predispositions. Some predispositions lead to good and healthy behaviours, and others lead to not so good and unhealthy behaviours. I, for example, have a natural predisposition towards uttering dumb, inappropriate remarks in serious situations (hopefully this isn’t one of them), or telling a fib to get out of a tight spot. But does that make the action right? What if someone has a predisposition towards pedophilia or child abuse or pyromania? Shall we excuse him from his behaviour based on natural predispositions?
Each person has natural predispositions. But this issue is separate from the issue of whether the actions that result from these predispositions are right. And here we ought to look at each behaviour on a case by case basis to see whether it is healthy or unhealthy.
Let’s say someone does an altruistic act (eg. Giving to charity, volunteering with troubled youth, opening their home to disaster victims, etc.). We commend that person for doing a good deed. Is that commendation any less valid if we knew that the person had less of a natural predisposition to doing good deeds than someone else? We recognize the good deed irrespective of the natural disposition of the person in question. So, don’t let anyone try to justify a bad behaviour by appealing to a natural predisposition. As they say about blood stains, that just won’t wash. (or maybe grass stain – blood makes some people faint).
Now, we all have natural predispositions. Some predispositions lead to good and healthy behaviours, and others lead to not so good and unhealthy behaviours. I, for example, have a natural predisposition towards uttering dumb, inappropriate remarks in serious situations (hopefully this isn’t one of them), or telling a fib to get out of a tight spot. But does that make the action right? What if someone has a predisposition towards pedophilia or child abuse or pyromania? Shall we excuse him from his behaviour based on natural predispositions?
Each person has natural predispositions. But this issue is separate from the issue of whether the actions that result from these predispositions are right. And here we ought to look at each behaviour on a case by case basis to see whether it is healthy or unhealthy.
Let’s say someone does an altruistic act (eg. Giving to charity, volunteering with troubled youth, opening their home to disaster victims, etc.). We commend that person for doing a good deed. Is that commendation any less valid if we knew that the person had less of a natural predisposition to doing good deeds than someone else? We recognize the good deed irrespective of the natural disposition of the person in question. So, don’t let anyone try to justify a bad behaviour by appealing to a natural predisposition. As they say about blood stains, that just won’t wash. (or maybe grass stain – blood makes some people faint).
Jesus or Horus?
In another letter to our local paper one reader wrote:
“Mr. X. has written a fascinating tirade about how wonderful and responsible the evangelical Christian movement has been and still is….But what I find fascinating is that…he apparently has not looked at the simple reality that there is virtually no historical evidence that Jesus as a man ever existed. All of the significant elements of his so-called life were lifted almost in their entirety from Egyptian mythology of several thousand years earlier. In their wisdom, the Egyptians knew them to be life-enriching myths about Horus, not historical events. However the “Church” of the early 300s forced the members of the Christos cult to change their views and history so that the Christos in every man was changed to be in “a man” – thus the birth of Jesus as the only saviour. Even back then, the struggle for power and control outweighed the simple and much more wonderful and inspiring truth: We all have divine inspiration within us, equally, and vibrantly. It is up to us as individuals to foster it.” Mr. Z from the city.
Mr. Z seems to have lifted this idea from Tom Harpur’s book The Pagan Christ. Since I haven’t read the book I wouldn’t really be able to say much about it except to recommend that Mr. Z, and others like him, spend more time reading books by respected biblical historians like N.T. Wright (Bishop of Durham), E.P. Sanders (Duke University), and Martin Hengel (Tubingen University). None of these scholars are evangelical (though Wright and Hengel are certainly “evangelical friendly”). Sanders is not, as far as I know, a Christian; but his scholarship has been valuable in discovering more about Jesus of Nazareth, especially in the context of Judaism. Even liberal scholars like those in the Jesus Seminar, whatever their differences with evangelicals and other theologically conservative Christians, acknowledge that Jesus existed.
This long article from Tektonics.org contains a critical review of Harpur’s book if anyone is interested. In fact, I'd recommend Tektonics to anyone who has questions on objections to the historical Jesus.
“Mr. X. has written a fascinating tirade about how wonderful and responsible the evangelical Christian movement has been and still is….But what I find fascinating is that…he apparently has not looked at the simple reality that there is virtually no historical evidence that Jesus as a man ever existed. All of the significant elements of his so-called life were lifted almost in their entirety from Egyptian mythology of several thousand years earlier. In their wisdom, the Egyptians knew them to be life-enriching myths about Horus, not historical events. However the “Church” of the early 300s forced the members of the Christos cult to change their views and history so that the Christos in every man was changed to be in “a man” – thus the birth of Jesus as the only saviour. Even back then, the struggle for power and control outweighed the simple and much more wonderful and inspiring truth: We all have divine inspiration within us, equally, and vibrantly. It is up to us as individuals to foster it.” Mr. Z from the city.
Mr. Z seems to have lifted this idea from Tom Harpur’s book The Pagan Christ. Since I haven’t read the book I wouldn’t really be able to say much about it except to recommend that Mr. Z, and others like him, spend more time reading books by respected biblical historians like N.T. Wright (Bishop of Durham), E.P. Sanders (Duke University), and Martin Hengel (Tubingen University). None of these scholars are evangelical (though Wright and Hengel are certainly “evangelical friendly”). Sanders is not, as far as I know, a Christian; but his scholarship has been valuable in discovering more about Jesus of Nazareth, especially in the context of Judaism. Even liberal scholars like those in the Jesus Seminar, whatever their differences with evangelicals and other theologically conservative Christians, acknowledge that Jesus existed.
This long article from Tektonics.org contains a critical review of Harpur’s book if anyone is interested. In fact, I'd recommend Tektonics to anyone who has questions on objections to the historical Jesus.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Do Christians Impose their Beliefs?
A letter appeared recently in our local newspaper that goes as follows:
“Mr. X’s commentary explaining what being an evangelical Christian means to him was passionate, eloquent and informative. I am left with no doubt that he is a good person. However, I believe he has missed the point as to why some people get nervous about the efforts to mobilize the Christian right politically (with evangelicals seemingly being at the forefront). It is a fine line between wanting to have your voice heard and wanting to impose your belief system on others. Though Mr. X might not want to, many hear the rhetoric of some leaders of that mobilization as the desire to impose their beliefs on others. You don’t have to believe in God or some particular version of God to be a good person. Although the vast majority of us, evangelical Christians included, are good people, avowed belief and attendance at church don’t determine who’s good and who isn’t. Also, each of us have a different view on what disqualifies individuals from membership in the “Good Person” club. Debating the qualifications is healthy. Trying to impose my views on others when their views don’t really affect me is quite another matter. The heroic political evangelical leaders to whom Mr. X refers all understood the difference. Some of us are not as confident about some of the current leaders.” By Mr. Y from the eastern suburbs.
Now, I didn’t read the original letter or commentary by Mr. X (not his real name). But I gather that he expressed the belief that evangelicals are generally good people and that a number of evangelical leaders in the past have effected important social changes for the good. (I suspect he mentioned William Wilberforce’s successful effort to abolish slavery in the British colonies.)
Mr. Y commends Mr. X for being a good person and sees no problem (it appears anyway) with evangelicals wanting to have a voice in politics and in steering public policy in a certain direction. He seems genuinely concerned, though, about evangelicals imposing their views on others (he mentions this three times.) This concern, however, is unfounded.
To impose a belief is to force people to accept said belief. That being the case, evangelicals don’t impose their beliefs on others, nor could they given their numbers. Instead, they propose a certain view of reality for consideration, one that people are free to either accept or reject. As Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon points out, that’s what citizens in a democracy do: propose, give reasons, then vote. This is no different than what Mr. Y has done. He has put forward a particular point of view. He’s provided some reasons for his view. And as for voting, I presume he feels no obligation to vote the way certain evangelicals may want him to (and it should be noted that there is a diversity of political views within Canadian evangelicalism. There are evangelicals in all the major political parties and voting among evangelicals is not monolithic. See the Sept/Oct 2004 edition of Faith Today for details). I, or anyone else, can either agree or disagree with his view. I’m sure nobody would mistake the proposal of his viewpoint for an imposition of beliefs on others.
Of course, one could point out that Wilberforce did in fact impose his views on all citizens of the British Empire, namely the view that slavery is wrong and its practice should expunged from British society. But certainly some beliefs are so sensible and worthy of adoption that imposition is not a problem, and I think the abolition of slavery is one of those beliefs. Other beliefs need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. In addition, somebody’s beliefs are always being imposed on others in a democracy by being enshrined in law, such as the belief that it is wrong to steal other people’s property or that one should not abuse children. That being the case, imposition in itself is not a problem. The problem is in what beliefs are being presented for imposition. In any case, evangelicals propose beliefs for consideration.
Mr. Y also makes the claim that people don’t need to believe in God or attend church to be good. That this is obvious to both religious believers and non-believers alike renders such a statement meaningless. The question is not whether non-religious people can be good (of course, they can) but rather whether or not any person can be good if God does not exist, regardless of that person’s particular religious beliefs. The existence of objective moral standards follows from God’s existence. If objective moral standards do not exist, then one cannot distinguish between goodness and badness. Since one can distinguish between goodness and badness, then objective moral standards do exist. Since objective moral standards do exist, then God exists. The real question is: What grounds the moral standards in reality, the same moral standards (generally) that both believers and non-believers alike hold to? One doesn’t need to believe in God in order to be good. But God does need to exist in order for one to be good. Of course, on the biblical view, no one is truly “good”. We’ve all committed moral crimes of one sort or another (commonly known as sin). Hence, the need for forgiveness. And this is why many people are evangelicals. They have accepted the forgiveness of their sins offered by God through Jesus Christ.
“Mr. X’s commentary explaining what being an evangelical Christian means to him was passionate, eloquent and informative. I am left with no doubt that he is a good person. However, I believe he has missed the point as to why some people get nervous about the efforts to mobilize the Christian right politically (with evangelicals seemingly being at the forefront). It is a fine line between wanting to have your voice heard and wanting to impose your belief system on others. Though Mr. X might not want to, many hear the rhetoric of some leaders of that mobilization as the desire to impose their beliefs on others. You don’t have to believe in God or some particular version of God to be a good person. Although the vast majority of us, evangelical Christians included, are good people, avowed belief and attendance at church don’t determine who’s good and who isn’t. Also, each of us have a different view on what disqualifies individuals from membership in the “Good Person” club. Debating the qualifications is healthy. Trying to impose my views on others when their views don’t really affect me is quite another matter. The heroic political evangelical leaders to whom Mr. X refers all understood the difference. Some of us are not as confident about some of the current leaders.” By Mr. Y from the eastern suburbs.
Now, I didn’t read the original letter or commentary by Mr. X (not his real name). But I gather that he expressed the belief that evangelicals are generally good people and that a number of evangelical leaders in the past have effected important social changes for the good. (I suspect he mentioned William Wilberforce’s successful effort to abolish slavery in the British colonies.)
Mr. Y commends Mr. X for being a good person and sees no problem (it appears anyway) with evangelicals wanting to have a voice in politics and in steering public policy in a certain direction. He seems genuinely concerned, though, about evangelicals imposing their views on others (he mentions this three times.) This concern, however, is unfounded.
To impose a belief is to force people to accept said belief. That being the case, evangelicals don’t impose their beliefs on others, nor could they given their numbers. Instead, they propose a certain view of reality for consideration, one that people are free to either accept or reject. As Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon points out, that’s what citizens in a democracy do: propose, give reasons, then vote. This is no different than what Mr. Y has done. He has put forward a particular point of view. He’s provided some reasons for his view. And as for voting, I presume he feels no obligation to vote the way certain evangelicals may want him to (and it should be noted that there is a diversity of political views within Canadian evangelicalism. There are evangelicals in all the major political parties and voting among evangelicals is not monolithic. See the Sept/Oct 2004 edition of Faith Today for details). I, or anyone else, can either agree or disagree with his view. I’m sure nobody would mistake the proposal of his viewpoint for an imposition of beliefs on others.
Of course, one could point out that Wilberforce did in fact impose his views on all citizens of the British Empire, namely the view that slavery is wrong and its practice should expunged from British society. But certainly some beliefs are so sensible and worthy of adoption that imposition is not a problem, and I think the abolition of slavery is one of those beliefs. Other beliefs need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. In addition, somebody’s beliefs are always being imposed on others in a democracy by being enshrined in law, such as the belief that it is wrong to steal other people’s property or that one should not abuse children. That being the case, imposition in itself is not a problem. The problem is in what beliefs are being presented for imposition. In any case, evangelicals propose beliefs for consideration.
Mr. Y also makes the claim that people don’t need to believe in God or attend church to be good. That this is obvious to both religious believers and non-believers alike renders such a statement meaningless. The question is not whether non-religious people can be good (of course, they can) but rather whether or not any person can be good if God does not exist, regardless of that person’s particular religious beliefs. The existence of objective moral standards follows from God’s existence. If objective moral standards do not exist, then one cannot distinguish between goodness and badness. Since one can distinguish between goodness and badness, then objective moral standards do exist. Since objective moral standards do exist, then God exists. The real question is: What grounds the moral standards in reality, the same moral standards (generally) that both believers and non-believers alike hold to? One doesn’t need to believe in God in order to be good. But God does need to exist in order for one to be good. Of course, on the biblical view, no one is truly “good”. We’ve all committed moral crimes of one sort or another (commonly known as sin). Hence, the need for forgiveness. And this is why many people are evangelicals. They have accepted the forgiveness of their sins offered by God through Jesus Christ.
Locked out (just like all of Ned Flanders's cable channels)
Employees at the CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation) have been locked out now for a few weeks. Some are probably disappointed by this, but I’m not (at least not too much). I do enjoy getting the news on CBC Newsworld but even that is not so big of a deal considering that I can get the news from so many other sources. No, the best part about this lock-out is the fact that I get 24 hours of classical music on CBC Radio 2. What’s even better than this is that there are no annoying announcers (I wonder if it’s appropriate to call them deejays) inserting their remarks between every musical selection. There are three announcers in particular that I find rather irritating. I won’t mention their names since I don’t know whether any of them are homicidal maniacs who know how to hack into websites and find out personal information about individual bloggers. But, they simply love the sound of their own voice(s). They love their voices so much that whenever I tune in to one of their shows, I tend to hear more of them than the music. Maybe I’m just tuning at the wrong moments. Maybe if I tuned in at the right time I’d be hearing only great music and not some guy going on about some trivial piece of banality, all the while showcasing his mellifluous, bass intonation (sort of like what I’m doing now only without the mellifluity (or is it mellifluousness) of a bass intoner.)
Well, to give them some credit, at least they give me the title and composer of a piece that I’m not familiar with. So I guess, when they get back to work, I’ll learn to live with them.
Well, to give them some credit, at least they give me the title and composer of a piece that I’m not familiar with. So I guess, when they get back to work, I’ll learn to live with them.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Norman Geisler vs. Alvin Plantinga
I’m no philosopher or even a grad student in philosophy. But I find that philosophy of religion is about the most interesting subject that I can read about.
I stumbled across a blog entry by John Depoe that questions the validity of Alvin Plantinga’s religious epistemology and the notion of the proper basicality of beliefs. In his critique, Depoe quotes from Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. I looked up the referred article and found a few points to make. (Remember, I have no training in philosophy, so please be patient and forgiving.)
Geisler writes that including the belief in God as a properly basic one would “undercut natural theology, the need to provide any arguments for God’s existence.” This is obviously not a concern of Plantinga’s as evidenced by his “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments”. Just because one doesn’t need evidence to believe in God, that doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence. Some examples that Plantinga provides are: The argument from intentionality, the argument from natural numbers, the argument from positive epistemic status, versions of the teleological argument. He lists his arguments under the following categories: metaphysical arguments, epistemological arguments, moral arguments, and other (e.g. the argument from colors and flavors).
Geisler continues with “[Plantinga’s] view is a kind of fideistic foundationalism” and later writes “Like other fideists…”. It’s clear that Geisler thinks Plantinga is a fideist. In the Encyclopedia article titled “Fideism”, Geisler writes, “Religious fideism agues matters of faith and religious belief are not supported by reason. Reason is a matter of faith and cannot be argued by reason. One must simply believe.” If this is what fideism is, then Plantinga is no fideist. In his book Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig writes, “Plantinga thus insists that his epistemology is not fideistic; the deliverances of reason include not only inferred propositions, but also properly basic propositions. God has so constructed us that we naturally form the belief in his existence under appropriate circumstances, just as we do the belief in perceptual objects, the reality of the past, and so forth. Hence, belief in God is among the deliverances of reason, not faith.” (p. 29) The following articles, “Theism, Atheism, and Rationality”, “Intellectual Sophistication and belief in God”, and “Theism as a Properly Basic Belief” show Plantinga using reason to stake out his position. For book lovers, see his Warranted Christian Belief and Faith and Rationality.
Geisler writes, “The denial that there are any self-evident foundational principles of thought involves one either in an infinite regress, where no justification is ever given, or else in an arbitrary cut-off point where one simply stops giving a justification.” Plantinga doesn’t deny that there are self-evident foundational principles. He gladly includes self-evident and incorrigible beliefs as basic ones in a person’s noetic structure. He simply thinks that these are not the only beliefs that are properly basic. Common examples of these other basic beliefs would be memory beliefs, the belief in the existence of an external universe, the belief that the people around you have minds and are not really automatons. When you see a tree, you don’t base your belief that you see the tree on any other beliefs. The belief that you’re seeing a tree is present immediately to your mind. Now, saying that a belief is basic doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true. It simply means that you don’t require any more basic or foundational beliefs to support that particular belief.
Geisler writes that unless the reformed epistemologist provides a rational justification for his basic belief, he “simply begs the question.” First of all, basic beliefs are precisely those beliefs that don’t require any further rational justification. Second, if the lack of rational justification for a basic belief begs the question, then anyone who holds, for example, that the universe has existed for more than five minutes also begs the question, since the holder of this particular belief would be pretty hard pressed to provide a rational justification for that belief. Both the belief in God and the belief that the universe has existed for more than five minutes are in the same epistemological boat.
Geisler writes, “Plantinga here failed to distinguish between belief in and belief that God exists.” In his book God, Freedom and Evil, Plantinga writes, “Now belief in God is not the same thing as belief that God exists, or that there is such a thing as God. To believe that God exists is simply to accept a proposition of a certain sort – a proposition affirming that there is a personal being who, let’s say, has existed from eternity, is almighty, is perfectly wise…To believe in God, however, is quite another matter… Belief in God means trusting God…” (p.1-2). Surely a philosopher and thinker as sophisticated as Plantinga would know the difference between belief in and belief that.
Calvin College philosophy professorKelly James Clark, in an article that I can’t locate any more, says that the way people normally come to religious faith is not through arguments (though I’m sure some do, but the majority of people don’t) but through experiences of various kinds under the right circumstances. The locus of faith is not rational argumentation but rather the work of the Holy Spirit.
So, I think that Geisler misrepresents Plantinga’s position. In addition, Geisler himself at one point in his Christian walk held to belief in God without rational justification. In a radio interview that I heard three or four years ago, Geisler said that he became interested in philosophy and apologetics when, after becoming a Christian as a teenager, people would challenge him to prove God exists or to prove that Christ rose from the dead. As a new believer, Geisler couldn’t answer those challenges. So, since he lacked any rational justification for his belief in Jesus, was Geisler irrational in believing in Him? Shouldn’t he have dropped his belief in Christ since he couldn’t provide a justifying argument? Obviously not. His belief that Christianity was true was the very thing that spurred him on to become a leading Christian apologist. Isn’t it more likely the case that his belief in Christianity was properly basic?
I’ve got a few complaints about the rest of the Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (though I, generally, find it to be a useful and helpful book). I’ll leave that for another time.
(I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. Let's never bring the topic up again lest I make a bigger fool of myself.)
I stumbled across a blog entry by John Depoe that questions the validity of Alvin Plantinga’s religious epistemology and the notion of the proper basicality of beliefs. In his critique, Depoe quotes from Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. I looked up the referred article and found a few points to make. (Remember, I have no training in philosophy, so please be patient and forgiving.)
Geisler writes that including the belief in God as a properly basic one would “undercut natural theology, the need to provide any arguments for God’s existence.” This is obviously not a concern of Plantinga’s as evidenced by his “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments”. Just because one doesn’t need evidence to believe in God, that doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence. Some examples that Plantinga provides are: The argument from intentionality, the argument from natural numbers, the argument from positive epistemic status, versions of the teleological argument. He lists his arguments under the following categories: metaphysical arguments, epistemological arguments, moral arguments, and other (e.g. the argument from colors and flavors).
Geisler continues with “[Plantinga’s] view is a kind of fideistic foundationalism” and later writes “Like other fideists…”. It’s clear that Geisler thinks Plantinga is a fideist. In the Encyclopedia article titled “Fideism”, Geisler writes, “Religious fideism agues matters of faith and religious belief are not supported by reason. Reason is a matter of faith and cannot be argued by reason. One must simply believe.” If this is what fideism is, then Plantinga is no fideist. In his book Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig writes, “Plantinga thus insists that his epistemology is not fideistic; the deliverances of reason include not only inferred propositions, but also properly basic propositions. God has so constructed us that we naturally form the belief in his existence under appropriate circumstances, just as we do the belief in perceptual objects, the reality of the past, and so forth. Hence, belief in God is among the deliverances of reason, not faith.” (p. 29) The following articles, “Theism, Atheism, and Rationality”, “Intellectual Sophistication and belief in God”, and “Theism as a Properly Basic Belief” show Plantinga using reason to stake out his position. For book lovers, see his Warranted Christian Belief and Faith and Rationality.
Geisler writes, “The denial that there are any self-evident foundational principles of thought involves one either in an infinite regress, where no justification is ever given, or else in an arbitrary cut-off point where one simply stops giving a justification.” Plantinga doesn’t deny that there are self-evident foundational principles. He gladly includes self-evident and incorrigible beliefs as basic ones in a person’s noetic structure. He simply thinks that these are not the only beliefs that are properly basic. Common examples of these other basic beliefs would be memory beliefs, the belief in the existence of an external universe, the belief that the people around you have minds and are not really automatons. When you see a tree, you don’t base your belief that you see the tree on any other beliefs. The belief that you’re seeing a tree is present immediately to your mind. Now, saying that a belief is basic doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true. It simply means that you don’t require any more basic or foundational beliefs to support that particular belief.
Geisler writes that unless the reformed epistemologist provides a rational justification for his basic belief, he “simply begs the question.” First of all, basic beliefs are precisely those beliefs that don’t require any further rational justification. Second, if the lack of rational justification for a basic belief begs the question, then anyone who holds, for example, that the universe has existed for more than five minutes also begs the question, since the holder of this particular belief would be pretty hard pressed to provide a rational justification for that belief. Both the belief in God and the belief that the universe has existed for more than five minutes are in the same epistemological boat.
Geisler writes, “Plantinga here failed to distinguish between belief in and belief that God exists.” In his book God, Freedom and Evil, Plantinga writes, “Now belief in God is not the same thing as belief that God exists, or that there is such a thing as God. To believe that God exists is simply to accept a proposition of a certain sort – a proposition affirming that there is a personal being who, let’s say, has existed from eternity, is almighty, is perfectly wise…To believe in God, however, is quite another matter… Belief in God means trusting God…” (p.1-2). Surely a philosopher and thinker as sophisticated as Plantinga would know the difference between belief in and belief that.
Calvin College philosophy professorKelly James Clark, in an article that I can’t locate any more, says that the way people normally come to religious faith is not through arguments (though I’m sure some do, but the majority of people don’t) but through experiences of various kinds under the right circumstances. The locus of faith is not rational argumentation but rather the work of the Holy Spirit.
So, I think that Geisler misrepresents Plantinga’s position. In addition, Geisler himself at one point in his Christian walk held to belief in God without rational justification. In a radio interview that I heard three or four years ago, Geisler said that he became interested in philosophy and apologetics when, after becoming a Christian as a teenager, people would challenge him to prove God exists or to prove that Christ rose from the dead. As a new believer, Geisler couldn’t answer those challenges. So, since he lacked any rational justification for his belief in Jesus, was Geisler irrational in believing in Him? Shouldn’t he have dropped his belief in Christ since he couldn’t provide a justifying argument? Obviously not. His belief that Christianity was true was the very thing that spurred him on to become a leading Christian apologist. Isn’t it more likely the case that his belief in Christianity was properly basic?
I’ve got a few complaints about the rest of the Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (though I, generally, find it to be a useful and helpful book). I’ll leave that for another time.
(I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. Let's never bring the topic up again lest I make a bigger fool of myself.)
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Rain
It’s a love/hate relationship. Little children chant rhymes for it to come another day. Then they go out and play in the mud. On sunny days they get their parents to take them to water parks. Homeowners curse flooded basements and leaky roofs. They like it when their gardens and lawns get watered for free. I’m Canadian. And I live on the west coast of British Columbia. Here, rain is reality. Rain cleanses the air of the smog and filth being expelled from a million automobile exhausts pipes. It accompanies the windy southeasterlies that blow hats off of the heads of old gentlemen and lift the skirts of red-faced ladies.
In the past couple of weeks rivers have overflowed in various parts of the country, causing much damage of property and displacement of families. The rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous. So it falls on everyone. Well, maybe not on refugees in the Sudan. For them dust is reality. Dust, disease and death. The thing we need the most can either keep us alive or, if withheld, kill us. Such is life. It’s a doubled-edged sword. Great pleasure. Sometimes even greater pain. Earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons, mudslides. The list goes on and on. The way the natural world operates often seems to conspire against us frail creatures. Combine that with murders, sexual abuse, torture, genocide. So why would God allow such things to occur if they cause such harm to his creatures, his children?
Well, I’ve got some views on the problem of evil but others have already written some good material on it. The following web articles might be of some use to some people.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/bosnia.htm
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/problemofevil.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html
In the past couple of weeks rivers have overflowed in various parts of the country, causing much damage of property and displacement of families. The rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous. So it falls on everyone. Well, maybe not on refugees in the Sudan. For them dust is reality. Dust, disease and death. The thing we need the most can either keep us alive or, if withheld, kill us. Such is life. It’s a doubled-edged sword. Great pleasure. Sometimes even greater pain. Earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons, mudslides. The list goes on and on. The way the natural world operates often seems to conspire against us frail creatures. Combine that with murders, sexual abuse, torture, genocide. So why would God allow such things to occur if they cause such harm to his creatures, his children?
Well, I’ve got some views on the problem of evil but others have already written some good material on it. The following web articles might be of some use to some people.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/bosnia.htm
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/problemofevil.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html
Monday, June 20, 2005
To Hell and back
In a recent issue of Books and Culture, philosopher Kevin Corcoran ponders the possibility of universalism. Although he finally, and reluctantly, comes to the conclusion that universalism is false, he hopes that it will turn out to be true. I, along with Prof. Corcoran, hope that universalism is true and that as a result, many, if not all, will be saved. I believe, however, that this will not be the case. Even if universalism is true, hell would still be a reality.
Free will is the nub of this difficulty (I’m assuming here the incompatibilist view of free will. I haven’t decided yet if I’m a compatibilist or an incompatibilist). The non-believer doesn’t believe precisely because he, in his freedom, cannot or will not believe. If God were to send everyone, including nonbelievers, to heaven, we would have a situation where there is a mixture of people, some who believe, and some who do not. Well, to be more precise we would have one group of people who believe the right beliefs about God and love God, and one group of people who believe the right beliefs about God and don’t love God. (After all, once you are in the presence of God Almighty, it would be very difficult to deny his existence and various numbers of qualities he possesses such as his majesty, greatness, etc.).
The ones who don’t believe would behave in the same manner as they did on earth. This would disrupt the peaceful and loving atmosphere that the bible tells us will exist in heaven. Could such people eventually be educated in the presence of the Lord to love Him? Let’s ask the Israelites of the Exodus. They saw the awesome power of God up close and personal. Their reaction was to be worshipful for a time, but then to drift away into idolatry and general disobedience (they didn’t spend forty years in the desert simply because Moses missed the shortcut into Canaan). What reason do we have that those taken to heaven (against their will, I might add) would be any different? One could imagine Genghis Khan or some devotee of violence continuing to do the things he knows how to do well: raping, pillaging, etc.
The disruption these people would cause could become so severe that God would have to cordon them off in a special area where they couldn’t harm those who wish to follow Him. He may even assign a name to it, say, Hell. There would be no danger of believers finding this place. I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis’ conception of hell as being a tiny crack in the ground of heaven (see The Great Divorce).
But what if God were to make regular visits to Hell to show His love to those in there in the hopes that some or even all may eventually embrace Him and be saved. I can’t see how, if the occupants of hell didn’t accept God when in heaven, they would suddenly accept Him in hell. If a person truly wants nothing to do with God, His presence may even drive that person further away from loving Him, just as the presence of a co-worker you find annoying might make you want to avoid him. (comparing an experience of the God of the universe to a mere human experience may not be that appropriate but you get the point, right?...).
Prof. Corcoran says that he hopes “God’s love extends to everyone, and that, eventually, that love will have its way with all and all will embrace it.” I hope so too, but I don’t see that as being likely. It seems to me, then, that hell, i.e., separation from God, is a necessary and, alas, an inevitable reality, even if universalism is true.
Free will is the nub of this difficulty (I’m assuming here the incompatibilist view of free will. I haven’t decided yet if I’m a compatibilist or an incompatibilist). The non-believer doesn’t believe precisely because he, in his freedom, cannot or will not believe. If God were to send everyone, including nonbelievers, to heaven, we would have a situation where there is a mixture of people, some who believe, and some who do not. Well, to be more precise we would have one group of people who believe the right beliefs about God and love God, and one group of people who believe the right beliefs about God and don’t love God. (After all, once you are in the presence of God Almighty, it would be very difficult to deny his existence and various numbers of qualities he possesses such as his majesty, greatness, etc.).
The ones who don’t believe would behave in the same manner as they did on earth. This would disrupt the peaceful and loving atmosphere that the bible tells us will exist in heaven. Could such people eventually be educated in the presence of the Lord to love Him? Let’s ask the Israelites of the Exodus. They saw the awesome power of God up close and personal. Their reaction was to be worshipful for a time, but then to drift away into idolatry and general disobedience (they didn’t spend forty years in the desert simply because Moses missed the shortcut into Canaan). What reason do we have that those taken to heaven (against their will, I might add) would be any different? One could imagine Genghis Khan or some devotee of violence continuing to do the things he knows how to do well: raping, pillaging, etc.
The disruption these people would cause could become so severe that God would have to cordon them off in a special area where they couldn’t harm those who wish to follow Him. He may even assign a name to it, say, Hell. There would be no danger of believers finding this place. I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis’ conception of hell as being a tiny crack in the ground of heaven (see The Great Divorce).
But what if God were to make regular visits to Hell to show His love to those in there in the hopes that some or even all may eventually embrace Him and be saved. I can’t see how, if the occupants of hell didn’t accept God when in heaven, they would suddenly accept Him in hell. If a person truly wants nothing to do with God, His presence may even drive that person further away from loving Him, just as the presence of a co-worker you find annoying might make you want to avoid him. (comparing an experience of the God of the universe to a mere human experience may not be that appropriate but you get the point, right?...).
Prof. Corcoran says that he hopes “God’s love extends to everyone, and that, eventually, that love will have its way with all and all will embrace it.” I hope so too, but I don’t see that as being likely. It seems to me, then, that hell, i.e., separation from God, is a necessary and, alas, an inevitable reality, even if universalism is true.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
restless time
"You have made us for yourself and our heart is restless until it rests in you." So says Augustine in his Confessions. This restlessness is evident in a lot of contemporary society, most notably in the area of sexual conduct. I found it a bit surprising at first that sex is a major topic in the Confessions, considered to be a spiritual classic. All this proves, I guess, is that sex is a spiritual matter. Some theologians have noted that sexual yearning is a sign or symbol of our desire for something more than our insular selves, a desire to join in some kind of physico-spiritual bond that transcends simple physical pleasure. Concupiscence is not simply a concern of the body but also of the soul. Augustine pulls no punches in describing his struggle with his sexual desire. After his conversion to Christianity, his view of sex was a favourable one, namely that sex provides for the survival of the human race through procreation and that this procreative impulse is a gift of the creator.
There are in my view four options regarding sex (there are others I’m sure, but my imagination is a bit limited). I) Unbridled sex anytime with anybody for any reason and damn the consequences ii) Sex within a monogamous, non-marriage relationship, with changes in partners at various times iii) Sex within a faithful, marriage relationship iv) chastity. The fourth option can be seem to be a difficult one. Whether it is a struggle may depend on what passes through one’s mind at any given time. But there is a peculiar phenomenon that occurs that can take the edge off some difficulty. Augustine also refers to nocturnal emissions in Book X. This seems to be the body’s method of housecleaning, just as dreams may be the mind’s method of mental housecleaning. That fact that erotic dreams and emissions invariably occur together may also point to the physico-spiritual nature of sex (assuming the mind is a component of the soul and not merely the byproduct of the brain, in which case mental and spiritual phenomena can be reduced to merely physical processes. I think though, that there are good reasons for believing in the existence of the soul.)
There are two things that all people have in common: sex and time. Every person has a sex (not has sex, but has a sex), either male or female. Every person exists in time. What is time? Good question. Augustine’s view was rather prescient given the fact that he didn’t have the benefits of modern physics. Time is a created entity (ie. it had a beginning. This was confirmed by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose about 35 years ago) and God sees all of time as an eternal present. This brings to mind the debate among philosophers about what is God’s relationship to time. Is He timelessly eternal or temporally eternal? Is He wholly outside of time or does He exist within time? These sorts of discussions can get rather abstruse, what with all the talk about the correctness of the A-theory or the B-theory of time, etc. and I’m not really smart enough to evaluate their merits, but reading various philosophers’ views on the matter is an interesting mental exercise (and trust me, my mind needs the exercise. Sometimes I think my mental flabbiness is an irreversible trait.)
There are in my view four options regarding sex (there are others I’m sure, but my imagination is a bit limited). I) Unbridled sex anytime with anybody for any reason and damn the consequences ii) Sex within a monogamous, non-marriage relationship, with changes in partners at various times iii) Sex within a faithful, marriage relationship iv) chastity. The fourth option can be seem to be a difficult one. Whether it is a struggle may depend on what passes through one’s mind at any given time. But there is a peculiar phenomenon that occurs that can take the edge off some difficulty. Augustine also refers to nocturnal emissions in Book X. This seems to be the body’s method of housecleaning, just as dreams may be the mind’s method of mental housecleaning. That fact that erotic dreams and emissions invariably occur together may also point to the physico-spiritual nature of sex (assuming the mind is a component of the soul and not merely the byproduct of the brain, in which case mental and spiritual phenomena can be reduced to merely physical processes. I think though, that there are good reasons for believing in the existence of the soul.)
There are two things that all people have in common: sex and time. Every person has a sex (not has sex, but has a sex), either male or female. Every person exists in time. What is time? Good question. Augustine’s view was rather prescient given the fact that he didn’t have the benefits of modern physics. Time is a created entity (ie. it had a beginning. This was confirmed by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose about 35 years ago) and God sees all of time as an eternal present. This brings to mind the debate among philosophers about what is God’s relationship to time. Is He timelessly eternal or temporally eternal? Is He wholly outside of time or does He exist within time? These sorts of discussions can get rather abstruse, what with all the talk about the correctness of the A-theory or the B-theory of time, etc. and I’m not really smart enough to evaluate their merits, but reading various philosophers’ views on the matter is an interesting mental exercise (and trust me, my mind needs the exercise. Sometimes I think my mental flabbiness is an irreversible trait.)
Lame Poem 1
Questions and answers reside together on a
bubble of ignorance and knowledge. A sliding scale
of tacit sureness invades every mind then leaves a
coal-coloured mark. Love comes and goes. The grass seems
to whistle in the strong wind. The breath of memories
glistens in the cold enclaves of longing.
A sure way to die is to remember. The mists of
times past, angry words, hateful thoughts. If to hate is to murder
then I deserve the death penalty. The odious demeanour
penetrates and occupies my
soul as emperor of all. A revolution must take
place. The tyrant must be overthrown.
My thirst must be slaked. But rain cannot penetrate
the skin. Cut me quickly for my blood boils and must
release its steam. Don’t shoot until the visual whites
appear. I’ve not yet begun my flight, my journey to
oblivion. I’m waiting for a reprieve. Body pummeled
hard. Mind saunters unmolested. Spirit quakes, a trembling
of terror unspoken. The world is gained but the earth
will eventually come to an end.
bubble of ignorance and knowledge. A sliding scale
of tacit sureness invades every mind then leaves a
coal-coloured mark. Love comes and goes. The grass seems
to whistle in the strong wind. The breath of memories
glistens in the cold enclaves of longing.
A sure way to die is to remember. The mists of
times past, angry words, hateful thoughts. If to hate is to murder
then I deserve the death penalty. The odious demeanour
penetrates and occupies my
soul as emperor of all. A revolution must take
place. The tyrant must be overthrown.
My thirst must be slaked. But rain cannot penetrate
the skin. Cut me quickly for my blood boils and must
release its steam. Don’t shoot until the visual whites
appear. I’ve not yet begun my flight, my journey to
oblivion. I’m waiting for a reprieve. Body pummeled
hard. Mind saunters unmolested. Spirit quakes, a trembling
of terror unspoken. The world is gained but the earth
will eventually come to an end.
Conversation
So you see a woman you like. She’s pretty, seems nice. Many a young fellow (or old for that matter) have fallen (hard) for a face and body, only to find out later that the person behind the figure was not for him. (The same probably applies to women who may fall head over heels for a good looking guy. I guess there’s no danger of this happening in my case. The only reason a woman would fall head over heels because of me would be because she was trying to get away from me and tripped). The adage of getting to know the person and not just the body is a good one, I think.
Conversations over a period of days and weeks (months even) could help solve a lot of future relationship problems. If no relationship develops, these conversations would result in no relationship problems at all since there would be no relationship to which problems could adhere. If the relationship goes forward, you can get a feel for what kind of person she is and act/speak/emote appropriately. How often has a guy assumed something about a woman that could have been made clear by a good conversation, only to have it surprise him later (and often in a negative way)?
People always try to put their best face/foot forward. Foolish is the lad who falls for the façade rather than the foundation. What is the best foundation? A kind heart. An intelligent mind. Good character. From these qualities spring the words that you want to listen to, the thoughts you want to interact with. From these come the continuing desire to encourage the relationship. You just have to be able to tell her your thoughts, to have her agree, disagree, correct, encourage. The beauty of her words will reflect the beauty of her soul. The beautiful soul is the foundation of the house of relationship that you want to build. What will the future hold? Perhaps she will become one of your closest friends and confidants. Perhaps she will even become your wife. Perhaps she may move away to a distant city and leave you lonely and disappointed. But when the loneliness comes, the words will be there for you to remember, and you’ll feel well again. Even then the bonds of communication are not severed. Letters, e-mails, even phone calls can rekindle that flame of desire, not for the body but for the mind; not for the flesh but the spirit. One day the two may become one flesh, but until then, the two minds can become one. This is reward enough.
Conversations over a period of days and weeks (months even) could help solve a lot of future relationship problems. If no relationship develops, these conversations would result in no relationship problems at all since there would be no relationship to which problems could adhere. If the relationship goes forward, you can get a feel for what kind of person she is and act/speak/emote appropriately. How often has a guy assumed something about a woman that could have been made clear by a good conversation, only to have it surprise him later (and often in a negative way)?
People always try to put their best face/foot forward. Foolish is the lad who falls for the façade rather than the foundation. What is the best foundation? A kind heart. An intelligent mind. Good character. From these qualities spring the words that you want to listen to, the thoughts you want to interact with. From these come the continuing desire to encourage the relationship. You just have to be able to tell her your thoughts, to have her agree, disagree, correct, encourage. The beauty of her words will reflect the beauty of her soul. The beautiful soul is the foundation of the house of relationship that you want to build. What will the future hold? Perhaps she will become one of your closest friends and confidants. Perhaps she will even become your wife. Perhaps she may move away to a distant city and leave you lonely and disappointed. But when the loneliness comes, the words will be there for you to remember, and you’ll feel well again. Even then the bonds of communication are not severed. Letters, e-mails, even phone calls can rekindle that flame of desire, not for the body but for the mind; not for the flesh but the spirit. One day the two may become one flesh, but until then, the two minds can become one. This is reward enough.
Monday, April 25, 2005
When Faith is not Enough
When Faith is not Enough by Kelly James Clark(Eerdmans, 1997)
After a fresh snowfall, the world seems a magical place. The brightness of it all is almost mesmerizing (at least it is out here where it doesn’t snow too much). After a couple of days the dirt and car exhaust tinge the white to such an extent that the dovish covering becomes stale and the spell is broken. When the dirt of daily existence darkens the magical landscape of life, faith is the thing that helps us endure the dingy and ugly parts.
I think it’s safe to say that every Christian encounters doubts about his or her faith at some time or another. In one of his essays in Christian Reflections, C.S. Lewis notes that believers, so inured with the material and physical in their everyday experience, are prone to wonder whether Christianity may be just one big delusion. He goes on to note that doubt works in the other direction as well. Often, atheists, in moments of reflective pondering, wonder whether or not there may be more to life than just what they can see and touch and taste.
The fact that there is so much that’s wrong with our world may leave many people to be in a state of continued perplexity over the question of God and his goodness. Clark states the main purpose of his book: "How should we understand faith in the midst of our ambiguous, ambivalent, and suffering world?"
Why is it that the (or at least, a) common response of the church is to blithely gloss over tragedies and simply trot out the common "happy" texts such as Romans 8:28 or Psalm 23? (Your experience in this matter might be different than what mine has been) Maybe all things don’t work out for the good of those who love God (at least not in this life). I’ve never heard Psalm 88 read in a church service; but it may be the one of the most honest of all the psalms. I often feel that people would be better off if they just realize that life sucks.
"Christians, of all people, should be honest about their plight, but they are curiously silent on the topic of honest and sincere doubt. It is, for many, an unspeakable sin."
Clark has written a very readable and thoughtful book on the dilemma of fear and doubt that Christians often face. He goes out of his way to be honest about his own problems and failings. This honesty has a way of drawing the reader into his discussion. In one anecdote he recalls how, as a college student full of intellectual hubris and "feasting my pride", he was humbled by an unpretentious, illiterate, hardworking janitor. As he puts it, "I was humiliated by his humility."
In two chapters, "Moments of Light" and "Moments of Darkness", he contrasts the vast distance between what we perceive to be God’s goodness, and what we experience by way of suffering. All of our good and uplifting experiences, the birth of a child, the beauty and wonder of nature, the exquisite design of the universe, all affirm our belief in a beneficent creator. I read somewhere that Albert Einstein, after hearing pre-teen violin prodigy Yehudi Menhuin play a concert, went backstage and exclaimed, "Now I know that there is a God!" That was before the Holocaust. And the hydrogen bomb.
"I realize, of course, that I may be have been deceived by all my moments of light – that all my glimpses of the divine are just illusion. Part of the terror of life in this age of uncertainty is the realization that all of my most fundamental beliefs might be utterly wrong. My entire life might be structured around a lie."
Could it be that Christians are a little too optimistic about their faith? There are those in the ‘prosperity gospel’ camp who don’t think so. God is the god of blessings. Any bad things that happen are a result of your own lack of faith. If you just have enough faith you’ll be blessed till you can’t take it anymore. Is this the proper view of faith? Clark takes a more realistic approach: "The resolution of doubt and the embracing of faith involve the entire individual, heart as well as mind. Commitment to the person of Christ entails much more than understanding and believing a set of propositions. Genuine faith involves the entire character of a person. Faith is a lifelong process of development that involves the complete transformation of the whole person. Fundamentally, it involves a terrifying and total denial of self."
Faith is a complex thing. Suffering and doubt linger heavily in the hearts of many people. There are no pat answers. Anyone who thinks there are is just fooling himself. The nice thing about this book is that it doesn’t try to provide pat answers. It tries to help the reader to think hard about issues surrounding faith and then tries to point her in the direction of viewing faith as a journey. This journey will contain periods of suffering for which the easy answers are no longer helpful (if they ever were. I’ve heard some pop apologists respond to the problem of evil by saying, "Well, if God were to eliminate all evil in the world, He’d have to eliminate you too, since you’re by nature a sinner." Easy to for them to say). We have struggles but we also have hope. It would be unbearable to live in a world of suffering with no hope.
Clark includes a number of good quotes from various writers, including this one from Flannery O’Connor: "What people don’t realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course it is a cross. It is much harder to believe than not to believe. If you feel you can’t believe, you must at least do this: keep an open mind. Keep it open toward faith, keep wanting it, keep asking for it, and leave the rest to God."
In the end Clark views the benefits of faith to be so great that "in spite of life’s darkness, faith ought to be pursued." Strangely, even though the book is titled When Faith is not Enough, he seems to be saying that in the end faith is in fact enough (this is not a complaint, just an observation).
Since I usually don’t know what I’m talking about, you should read the book for yourself.
After a fresh snowfall, the world seems a magical place. The brightness of it all is almost mesmerizing (at least it is out here where it doesn’t snow too much). After a couple of days the dirt and car exhaust tinge the white to such an extent that the dovish covering becomes stale and the spell is broken. When the dirt of daily existence darkens the magical landscape of life, faith is the thing that helps us endure the dingy and ugly parts.
I think it’s safe to say that every Christian encounters doubts about his or her faith at some time or another. In one of his essays in Christian Reflections, C.S. Lewis notes that believers, so inured with the material and physical in their everyday experience, are prone to wonder whether Christianity may be just one big delusion. He goes on to note that doubt works in the other direction as well. Often, atheists, in moments of reflective pondering, wonder whether or not there may be more to life than just what they can see and touch and taste.
The fact that there is so much that’s wrong with our world may leave many people to be in a state of continued perplexity over the question of God and his goodness. Clark states the main purpose of his book: "How should we understand faith in the midst of our ambiguous, ambivalent, and suffering world?"
Why is it that the (or at least, a) common response of the church is to blithely gloss over tragedies and simply trot out the common "happy" texts such as Romans 8:28 or Psalm 23? (Your experience in this matter might be different than what mine has been) Maybe all things don’t work out for the good of those who love God (at least not in this life). I’ve never heard Psalm 88 read in a church service; but it may be the one of the most honest of all the psalms. I often feel that people would be better off if they just realize that life sucks.
"Christians, of all people, should be honest about their plight, but they are curiously silent on the topic of honest and sincere doubt. It is, for many, an unspeakable sin."
Clark has written a very readable and thoughtful book on the dilemma of fear and doubt that Christians often face. He goes out of his way to be honest about his own problems and failings. This honesty has a way of drawing the reader into his discussion. In one anecdote he recalls how, as a college student full of intellectual hubris and "feasting my pride", he was humbled by an unpretentious, illiterate, hardworking janitor. As he puts it, "I was humiliated by his humility."
In two chapters, "Moments of Light" and "Moments of Darkness", he contrasts the vast distance between what we perceive to be God’s goodness, and what we experience by way of suffering. All of our good and uplifting experiences, the birth of a child, the beauty and wonder of nature, the exquisite design of the universe, all affirm our belief in a beneficent creator. I read somewhere that Albert Einstein, after hearing pre-teen violin prodigy Yehudi Menhuin play a concert, went backstage and exclaimed, "Now I know that there is a God!" That was before the Holocaust. And the hydrogen bomb.
"I realize, of course, that I may be have been deceived by all my moments of light – that all my glimpses of the divine are just illusion. Part of the terror of life in this age of uncertainty is the realization that all of my most fundamental beliefs might be utterly wrong. My entire life might be structured around a lie."
Could it be that Christians are a little too optimistic about their faith? There are those in the ‘prosperity gospel’ camp who don’t think so. God is the god of blessings. Any bad things that happen are a result of your own lack of faith. If you just have enough faith you’ll be blessed till you can’t take it anymore. Is this the proper view of faith? Clark takes a more realistic approach: "The resolution of doubt and the embracing of faith involve the entire individual, heart as well as mind. Commitment to the person of Christ entails much more than understanding and believing a set of propositions. Genuine faith involves the entire character of a person. Faith is a lifelong process of development that involves the complete transformation of the whole person. Fundamentally, it involves a terrifying and total denial of self."
Faith is a complex thing. Suffering and doubt linger heavily in the hearts of many people. There are no pat answers. Anyone who thinks there are is just fooling himself. The nice thing about this book is that it doesn’t try to provide pat answers. It tries to help the reader to think hard about issues surrounding faith and then tries to point her in the direction of viewing faith as a journey. This journey will contain periods of suffering for which the easy answers are no longer helpful (if they ever were. I’ve heard some pop apologists respond to the problem of evil by saying, "Well, if God were to eliminate all evil in the world, He’d have to eliminate you too, since you’re by nature a sinner." Easy to for them to say). We have struggles but we also have hope. It would be unbearable to live in a world of suffering with no hope.
Clark includes a number of good quotes from various writers, including this one from Flannery O’Connor: "What people don’t realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course it is a cross. It is much harder to believe than not to believe. If you feel you can’t believe, you must at least do this: keep an open mind. Keep it open toward faith, keep wanting it, keep asking for it, and leave the rest to God."
In the end Clark views the benefits of faith to be so great that "in spite of life’s darkness, faith ought to be pursued." Strangely, even though the book is titled When Faith is not Enough, he seems to be saying that in the end faith is in fact enough (this is not a complaint, just an observation).
Since I usually don’t know what I’m talking about, you should read the book for yourself.
Friday, April 22, 2005
wrong number
Someone called me. It was a wrong number. Why do people sometimes call wrong numbers? Do they know the correct number but simply punch an incorrect digit? Do they begin with an incorrectly copied number and then punch each digit correctly? Do people ever a call wrong number on purpose? One can imagine a lonely person, a rejected and despised soul, purposely dialing up a stranger simply to hear another human voice. Most times the person at the other end will politely inform the caller of her mistake. If called again, many will probably respond just as politely, possibly even laughing a bit, partly at the coincidence of two consecutive wrong calls, partly at the ineptitude of the caller (can’t you read numbers correctly?). The third time is when irritation creeps into the voice.
This planet we live on may be a wrong number. In the midst of a hostile universe, there exists a blue dot, an oasis in a dark and scary and lifeless galactic desert (though there is a certain beauty in deserts). On this dot there exist minds capable of discovering mathematical theorems, designing cathedrals and space shuttles, writing poetry and philosophy. These minds are also capable of the greatest of evils: torture, abuse, genocide. Why should such beings as us exist when there is scant, if any, evidence of any similar such beings elswhere in the cosmos? Scientists and non-scientists alike hold out hope that non-terrestrial life exists, but so far the search for extraterrestrial intelligence has come up short. In fact, given the factors required for intelligent life to develop, the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere than earth is very low (a book to read is Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee).
Perhaps we aren’t a wrong number. We may in fact be the one number which is dialed correctly. If indeed our planet is the only one that contains life, then we are the most fortunate of beings. We hold a privileged place in the universe. We can observe the cosmos and appreciate the beauty and wonder of it all. Only intelligent, sentient beings can do this. But can intelligence come from non-intelligence? It seems more reasonable to believe that we’re the product of an intelligence far greater than we can possibly comprehend.
This planet we live on may be a wrong number. In the midst of a hostile universe, there exists a blue dot, an oasis in a dark and scary and lifeless galactic desert (though there is a certain beauty in deserts). On this dot there exist minds capable of discovering mathematical theorems, designing cathedrals and space shuttles, writing poetry and philosophy. These minds are also capable of the greatest of evils: torture, abuse, genocide. Why should such beings as us exist when there is scant, if any, evidence of any similar such beings elswhere in the cosmos? Scientists and non-scientists alike hold out hope that non-terrestrial life exists, but so far the search for extraterrestrial intelligence has come up short. In fact, given the factors required for intelligent life to develop, the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere than earth is very low (a book to read is Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee).
Perhaps we aren’t a wrong number. We may in fact be the one number which is dialed correctly. If indeed our planet is the only one that contains life, then we are the most fortunate of beings. We hold a privileged place in the universe. We can observe the cosmos and appreciate the beauty and wonder of it all. Only intelligent, sentient beings can do this. But can intelligence come from non-intelligence? It seems more reasonable to believe that we’re the product of an intelligence far greater than we can possibly comprehend.
the question of god
I just watched a recording of PBS’s special, The Question of God, on the religious views of CS Lewis and Sigmund Freud. While interesting at times, it can only be judged a disappointment. The book by the same name is a better choice for people who want to find out about the spiritual views of these two influential thinkers. The major problem of the show lies in the use of the discussion panel. The biographical segments with commentary by various people (eg. Peter Kreeft on Lewis) was much more interesting and informative. What we have are bunch of people, obviously intelligent, and asking good questions, but coming to the conclusion that there are no good answers to the problems brought up in the show. Of course when I say good answers, ‘good’ is in the eye of the beholder. One exchange (and the only name I remember is Michael Shermer’s) on the problem of evil was telling. One panelist, a theist, brought up free will as the solution to evil in the world as though (and perhaps one should not judge too harshly considering the limitations of the format, such as time constraints) that were the only answer available to be given. Another panelist, a skeptic, pointed out that free will would not explain the occurrence of natural evil and suffering such as that caused by earthquakes or hurricanes. There are two problems here. First, the impression was given that no other answer was available. Second, the impression was given that even if there were an answer, the panelists who were theists were not in possession of that answer.
One might ask if there are any good answers to natural evil (earthquakes, hurricanes, mudslides and the like). Well, that may depend on who you ask and how much certainty you want in the answer. My own take is that we can provide models for how it might be possible for a good and powerful god to allow evil, without going to the point of saying that the model explains with absolute certainty how god would allow evil. Perhaps the models are inaccurate, but if we mere, finite humans can come up with possible reasons for why god would allow various types of evil, then surely god himself has a reason. I’m inclined to think, though, that few atheists would be convinced by a model provided by a theist. Why should they? Few theists, at first blush anyways, would probably not give up belief in god at the first instance of evil or suffering that they face. This type of problem goes both ways. But that doesn’t mean either side ought to give up trying to convince the other.
So, one model for looking at natural evil is through the use of the natural law theodicy. A theodicy is any explanation that tries to justify the presence of evil in light of a good and powerful god. An atheist may put it this way: If god is all powerful he would be able to eliminate all evil. If god is all good he would want to eliminate all evil. However, there is evil. Therefore, there is no good and powerful god. The theist could try try to backtrack and say that there is in fact a god but that he isn’t so good or so powerful as to eliminate all evil that people experience. Christian theists, however, would probably not want to go down this route. Christians believe that god is indeed all good and all powerful. (I’ll get back to this at a later date; not that anyone’s that interested, I’m sure).
One might ask if there are any good answers to natural evil (earthquakes, hurricanes, mudslides and the like). Well, that may depend on who you ask and how much certainty you want in the answer. My own take is that we can provide models for how it might be possible for a good and powerful god to allow evil, without going to the point of saying that the model explains with absolute certainty how god would allow evil. Perhaps the models are inaccurate, but if we mere, finite humans can come up with possible reasons for why god would allow various types of evil, then surely god himself has a reason. I’m inclined to think, though, that few atheists would be convinced by a model provided by a theist. Why should they? Few theists, at first blush anyways, would probably not give up belief in god at the first instance of evil or suffering that they face. This type of problem goes both ways. But that doesn’t mean either side ought to give up trying to convince the other.
So, one model for looking at natural evil is through the use of the natural law theodicy. A theodicy is any explanation that tries to justify the presence of evil in light of a good and powerful god. An atheist may put it this way: If god is all powerful he would be able to eliminate all evil. If god is all good he would want to eliminate all evil. However, there is evil. Therefore, there is no good and powerful god. The theist could try try to backtrack and say that there is in fact a god but that he isn’t so good or so powerful as to eliminate all evil that people experience. Christian theists, however, would probably not want to go down this route. Christians believe that god is indeed all good and all powerful. (I’ll get back to this at a later date; not that anyone’s that interested, I’m sure).
Monday, January 17, 2005
Break's over
Well, after moving to a new home I figured it was time to get back to writing my inane thoughts and letting the world have a good laugh. The topics begging to be written about are legion. For example, during the presidential debates, did anyone else notice just how ridiculous both candidates looked? Both of them trying not to pull a Bush scowlfest by constantly grinning stupidly while the other spoke? The second debate had a shot of Bush that, had I not known it was the leader of the free world, I could have imagined would have morphed into a Texas version of a street mime, what with all that makeup caked on the man’s face. Please, just let those pores breathe properly. What about gay marriage? I support the traditional definition of marriage. For my reasons see the next entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)