Stephen Hawking is worried about meeting up with aliens. (He wouldn't be doing this to drum up business for an upcoming book or media presentation would he?) He's afraid they won't be the nice peaceful beings portrayed in the scientific romances we call SF. He claims it's completely rational to believe in aliens, and thus seems to imply that it's irrational not to believe in aliens. Let's take a look at this bit of space ship speculation.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The BBC News reported that Hawking considers it “perfectly rational” to believe that aliens exist, but he also believes we should do everything possible to avoid making contact. He said, “We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet.” [1.]
- Hawking tells us that it's perfectly rational to believe aliens exist. Is it? (As an aside, why is it people so often add the adjective perfectly to rational? Does anyone know what perfect rationality would be like? does such a concept make sense? Oh well; never mind... we shouldn't nitpick, we've got bigger fish to fry.) How is it 'perfectly' rational (I guess ordinary rationality isn't enough for Hawking) to believe in aliens? Well; a belief in aliens is neither rational or irrational. Such a belief doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's a reasoned (rational) deduction from a set of presuppositions. i.e. if (and only if) you believe living organisms on earth somehow 'emerged' from inert matter (without intelligent interference) in a purely 'natural' process, then, if similar planets exist in the cosmos, it's rational to believe the process might well have happened other times.
In other words; the conclusion isn't rational, but the process is, or might be rational. What conclusion we come to (about aliens or about anything else) will depend upon our starting assumptions. In the case of Hawking; the reasoning might go something like; since there is no creator God (no one has seen him around Oxbridge, thus disproving his existence) and since 'life' emerges naturally from inert matter (as easily as a lie from the mouth of a professor) then it's rational (ie. logical) to believe this process has happened elsewhere in the cosmos, and thus it's rational to believe aliens exist elsewhere in the universe.
I prefer to say that aliens might exist, but if they do they would be beings created by God. I maintain this is also a rational statement. The conclusion is based on some assumptions. I take as a starting point that God exists; I then take the view god created all things including all life forms we know about. I believe that it's impossible for living organisms to 'emerge' from inert matter. In addition I take the orthodox position that God governs the universe by a providential plan. Therefore my conclusion that if aliens are discovered they will have been created by God; the same God who created mankind. Though it may not seem so to some, I maintain that this conclusion is every bit as rational as the one made by Hawking.
- Is it 'rational' to compare humans and aliens? Is it 'rational' to make deductions about aliens based on human behavior? How would we know one way or the other? (I don't think it would be rational unless we just assumed that aliens and humans were more or less the same; but we have no evidence for this assumption.)
- I wonder what Carl Cosmos think of this fear mongering by Hawking? I don't think he'd be amused. (Maybe the NASA gang should have included a book on logic, along with the Beatle music and other trivium they sent up into space.) Is this fear rational or not? Well; it again depends on your starting assumptions. Conclusions aren't rational or irrational. It's the reasoning process that is either rational (logically valid) or not rational.
Summary;
In Don Quixote our hero goes mad (if madness it is) from reading too many romances... and I fear Hawking has gone mad from reading too many scientific romances. Having abandoned his creator he's left with no limits on his thinking. If anything is possible then all manner of stupid ideas must be taken seriously; as seriously as any others. The implication of this is that there are no rational or irrational ideas, there are only possibilities... which are limitless. This I think explains the wild invention of current Sf and fantasy; these authors have drunk deeply at the bowl of limitless possibility. I sometimes look through the summaries of these stories, and it's staggering. They're so strange one is disinclined to read them. Each author strives to outdo his rivals in sheer bizarreness. If anything is possible, it soon becomes clear that nothing is all that interesting. (The idea anything is possible is one of our great myths; one of our great 'fictions'.) In terms of Biblical theology, God determines what is possible; and thus there are rational limits on possibility.
- Do I think aliens exist? No I don't; but I have no way of knowing one way or the other.
Notes;
1. Cosmologist Suffers Paranoid Delusions: Media Promotes His Views; Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/26/2010
“They’re coming to get us, and I’m sure of it, because I know everything.” What would you think of someone who talked like that? What if he were one of the most famous cosmologists alive today? The man is Stephen Hawking – that wheelchair-bound math wizard who talks with a speech synthesizer and once fell into a black hole in The Simpsons.
2. Stephen Hawking warns over making contact with aliens
'Prof Hawking thinks that, rather than actively trying to communicate with extra-terrestrials, humans should do everything possible to avoid contact.' BBC
- I'm not sure about this, but is he saying we should treat them like an ex spouse?
3. 'Prof Hawking said: "To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. "The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."
- This is a classic example of how Darwinian thinking works. First, you assume evolution is true, and then you say to yourself, 'since evolution is true, what else would necessarily have to be true?' In other words, you take a flying leap (even if you're in a wheelchair I guess) over the impossibly difficult part and go on with the easy bits.
- How does he know he has a 'mathematical' brain? The fact he's better than most of us at math doesn't mean the essence of S. Hawking is equal to this ability... that the essence of his person is mathematics. The essence of man isn't some intellectual ability but his spiritual nature; the fact he was created by God for a relationship to God. The essence of man is therefore the image of god; and this is as true for S. Hawking as it is for anyone else.
4. 'Professor Cox added: "Closer to home, the evidence that life could exist on Mars is growing.'
- I've said it before, but it bears repeating; there is no such thing as life. What we see around us are living creatures, we do not see life. (We need to get rid of the old Greek idea of thinking in terms of abstractions.)
5. The next episode of his Discovery Channel series, Moskowitz revealed, is titled, “The Story of Everything.”
- Story is about it. [Hawking is famous for making absurdly big claims; claims he can't back up.] If you want the truth, read Genesis. (Hopefully you'll feel inspired to read the rest of the book.)
- I've heard that Hawking is a big SF fan.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Creation, faith, and knowledge
There are a lot of oddball characters in the Origins debate. One of them is Ken Miller. Although he claims to be Catholic, he's one of the fiercest critics of any kind of creationist thinking. Is it possible to make any sense of this seeming dichotomy? I'll take a brief look at Thomas Aquinas in an effort to understand his opposition.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The notion of Aquinas that an object of faith cannot at the same time be an object of knowledge, and that an object of knowledge cannot at the same time be an object of faith, can find a great deal of support in Augustine's earliest writings.' [1.]
- I think this is an important point; and one that is still relevant. What did Aquinas mean by this statement? He seems to have meant that if we know something we don't have to accept (by faith) what God says about it. (i.e. in scripture.) The mistake Aquinas makes is to employ abstract (and Greek) ideas of knowledge and faith. His argument or claim is a highly abstract one, and uses a perfectionist idea (ideal) of knowledge. To look at the world and deduce it must have had a creator is knowledge, but it isn't true or complete (comprehensive) knowledge. There is still a lot of room (as it were) for faith here. We cannot know the full truth about creation from a study of the world, and therefore the doctrine of creation still remains one of faith. I believe this example applies to all biblical doctrine.
What Aquinas is doing here (and what unfortunately he did most of the time) is to rely on philosophy (e.g. Aristotle) as his authority, instead of relying on scripture.
I think Aquinas is also wrong in his claim an object of faith cannot be at the same time an object of knowledge. To say because it's a Christian doctrine that God created the world that we can't know anything about it (e.g. can't find evidence for it) is simply fallacious. Again he's using perfectionist concepts; relying on abstractions and ignoring God's word. He seems to be saying that we can't possibly know if scripture is true. When he does this he's relying on Greek definitions of his terms, rather than on what scripture tells him. (His attempt to synthesize Aristotle and scripture leads him to deny both, to be untrue to both.) Contrary to his claims, there is much evidence for all of the Christian truth claims. Faith isn't blind faith, but faith that is grounded in evidence. [2.]
Aquinas is continually mired in error because he deals with abstractions instead of concrete reality and truth. (The more he works away at his system the deeper he sinks.)
Summary;
As far as I can see, Aquinas makes the mistake of conflating human and divine knowledge. He falls into error because he ignores the creator/creature distinction. He seems to assume that it's possible for man and God to know X in the same way. This isn't true of all things, but it is true of some things. This means (for Aquinas) that if man has knowledge of X he has the same knowledge of it that God does; therefore this knowledge cannot be the object of faith. The take home message seems to be that scripture (special revelation) has no value to the enterprise of science; that it's useless at best, but can be pernicious in leading people astray in their thinking.
It appears to me that Ken Miller sees things the way Aquinas did, and that he thinks the origin of life on earth (and the origin of the universe) are things man can determine on his own, without any help at from special revelation. He seems to believe it's possible for man to attain to the same knowledge of Origins as that held by God. [3.]
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - A Christian Theory of Knowledge p.127
2. I'm aware Aquinas gave proofs for God, but these aren't proofs of the Triune God of the Bible. (As far as I know, he also doesn't try to give a proof for the veracity of Biblical scripture.)
3. I'm giving Miller the benefit of the doubt here. It may be that the 'god' of his theology is only an idea or limiting concept.
4. Update;
I've just reread this post and I see that it makes about as much sense as Ken Miller does.
- Well; I tried.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The notion of Aquinas that an object of faith cannot at the same time be an object of knowledge, and that an object of knowledge cannot at the same time be an object of faith, can find a great deal of support in Augustine's earliest writings.' [1.]
- I think this is an important point; and one that is still relevant. What did Aquinas mean by this statement? He seems to have meant that if we know something we don't have to accept (by faith) what God says about it. (i.e. in scripture.) The mistake Aquinas makes is to employ abstract (and Greek) ideas of knowledge and faith. His argument or claim is a highly abstract one, and uses a perfectionist idea (ideal) of knowledge. To look at the world and deduce it must have had a creator is knowledge, but it isn't true or complete (comprehensive) knowledge. There is still a lot of room (as it were) for faith here. We cannot know the full truth about creation from a study of the world, and therefore the doctrine of creation still remains one of faith. I believe this example applies to all biblical doctrine.
What Aquinas is doing here (and what unfortunately he did most of the time) is to rely on philosophy (e.g. Aristotle) as his authority, instead of relying on scripture.
I think Aquinas is also wrong in his claim an object of faith cannot be at the same time an object of knowledge. To say because it's a Christian doctrine that God created the world that we can't know anything about it (e.g. can't find evidence for it) is simply fallacious. Again he's using perfectionist concepts; relying on abstractions and ignoring God's word. He seems to be saying that we can't possibly know if scripture is true. When he does this he's relying on Greek definitions of his terms, rather than on what scripture tells him. (His attempt to synthesize Aristotle and scripture leads him to deny both, to be untrue to both.) Contrary to his claims, there is much evidence for all of the Christian truth claims. Faith isn't blind faith, but faith that is grounded in evidence. [2.]
Aquinas is continually mired in error because he deals with abstractions instead of concrete reality and truth. (The more he works away at his system the deeper he sinks.)
Summary;
As far as I can see, Aquinas makes the mistake of conflating human and divine knowledge. He falls into error because he ignores the creator/creature distinction. He seems to assume that it's possible for man and God to know X in the same way. This isn't true of all things, but it is true of some things. This means (for Aquinas) that if man has knowledge of X he has the same knowledge of it that God does; therefore this knowledge cannot be the object of faith. The take home message seems to be that scripture (special revelation) has no value to the enterprise of science; that it's useless at best, but can be pernicious in leading people astray in their thinking.
It appears to me that Ken Miller sees things the way Aquinas did, and that he thinks the origin of life on earth (and the origin of the universe) are things man can determine on his own, without any help at from special revelation. He seems to believe it's possible for man to attain to the same knowledge of Origins as that held by God. [3.]
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - A Christian Theory of Knowledge p.127
2. I'm aware Aquinas gave proofs for God, but these aren't proofs of the Triune God of the Bible. (As far as I know, he also doesn't try to give a proof for the veracity of Biblical scripture.)
3. I'm giving Miller the benefit of the doubt here. It may be that the 'god' of his theology is only an idea or limiting concept.
4. Update;
I've just reread this post and I see that it makes about as much sense as Ken Miller does.
- Well; I tried.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Evolution and chance
People are confused by the theory of evolution. They don't realize that the theory depends entirely upon the concept of chance. When apologists say, 'evolution produced x' they're really just saying that it happened by accident, that it's the 'product' of blind chance. Molecules to man evolution (M2M) needs a source of original information, and though people try to hide it, all they've got to offer as this source is chance. The trouble is that chance (if it's even possible in a law governed universe) isn't creative or directed. It's my view that chance is an abstraction that can produce nothing original and creative. Let's take a look at a recent example of how this plays out.
Quotes and comments;
A. Insect glue;
'To Russell Stewart (U of Utah) it can only mean one thing: “They came to this underwater adhesion solution completely independently,” he said. The press release added, “showing that it repeatedly evolved because of its value in helping the creatures live and thrive, Stewart says.” [1.]
- What Stewart is really saying is that these underwater adhesives just happened by chance; not only once but many times. When you cut through the obfuscating language that's what he's saying. When he reduce this to the level of physics he's making the claim that elegant solutions to 'problems' happen 'because' (via) of the random motion of particles. The word evolve (evolution) is used to confuse people; when you look at what he's saying it simply means that all these amazing creations just happen by accident, by the chance motion of atoms swirling in the void. He talks of cause, but all he has to offer us is chance. A major refutation of this idea is that there would seem to be no possibility of chance in merely material universe. (Contra the ancient Greeks, atoms do not swerve.)
Apologists for evolution like to speak of the 'solutions' they find in nature, but they don't like to talk about where those solutions came from. i.e. they like to talk about the wonders of natural selection, and how it chooses one 'solution' over another, but they don't like to tell us how those solutions came into being. When you look at the subject closely you realize that evolution is just a fancy word that covers up a shabby and poor concept called chance.
Summary;
The irony here is that we're talking about products our best scientists, in our best labs, can't duplicate... but yet our apologists for evolution tell us that these 'solutions' just happened by the accidental (blind, undirected) motions and collisions of atoms. How is it that people can believe such a far fetched notion?
Notes;
1. Natural Wonders Can Be Useful Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/06/2010
- The above 'article' is is an interesting collection of new discoveries in biomimetics.
2. Insect glue: The Caddis fly is well known to fishermen. They are accustomed to hunting for the tube-shaped larva shelters, made of grains of sand and rock. The larva glues those grains together with silk made of a wet adhesive that is attracting the attention of inventors.
3. I can't resist commenting on an article mentioned in the same C/E post.
Sea Squirt;
'The article said, for whatever it means, “as long ago as Darwin, it has been recognized that sea squirts may be our closest invertebrate relatives; in their immature, tadpole form, they resemble proper vertebrates, and they share about 80% of their genes with us.”
- This 'relationship' number is beside the point; it's about as meaningful as saying computers and cars share about 99 percent of the same materials.
This is the the kind of nonsense you get when you look at things in reductionistic terms.
Quotes and comments;
A. Insect glue;
'To Russell Stewart (U of Utah) it can only mean one thing: “They came to this underwater adhesion solution completely independently,” he said. The press release added, “showing that it repeatedly evolved because of its value in helping the creatures live and thrive, Stewart says.” [1.]
- What Stewart is really saying is that these underwater adhesives just happened by chance; not only once but many times. When you cut through the obfuscating language that's what he's saying. When he reduce this to the level of physics he's making the claim that elegant solutions to 'problems' happen 'because' (via) of the random motion of particles. The word evolve (evolution) is used to confuse people; when you look at what he's saying it simply means that all these amazing creations just happen by accident, by the chance motion of atoms swirling in the void. He talks of cause, but all he has to offer us is chance. A major refutation of this idea is that there would seem to be no possibility of chance in merely material universe. (Contra the ancient Greeks, atoms do not swerve.)
Apologists for evolution like to speak of the 'solutions' they find in nature, but they don't like to talk about where those solutions came from. i.e. they like to talk about the wonders of natural selection, and how it chooses one 'solution' over another, but they don't like to tell us how those solutions came into being. When you look at the subject closely you realize that evolution is just a fancy word that covers up a shabby and poor concept called chance.
Summary;
The irony here is that we're talking about products our best scientists, in our best labs, can't duplicate... but yet our apologists for evolution tell us that these 'solutions' just happened by the accidental (blind, undirected) motions and collisions of atoms. How is it that people can believe such a far fetched notion?
Notes;
1. Natural Wonders Can Be Useful Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/06/2010
- The above 'article' is is an interesting collection of new discoveries in biomimetics.
2. Insect glue: The Caddis fly is well known to fishermen. They are accustomed to hunting for the tube-shaped larva shelters, made of grains of sand and rock. The larva glues those grains together with silk made of a wet adhesive that is attracting the attention of inventors.
3. I can't resist commenting on an article mentioned in the same C/E post.
Sea Squirt;
'The article said, for whatever it means, “as long ago as Darwin, it has been recognized that sea squirts may be our closest invertebrate relatives; in their immature, tadpole form, they resemble proper vertebrates, and they share about 80% of their genes with us.”
- This 'relationship' number is beside the point; it's about as meaningful as saying computers and cars share about 99 percent of the same materials.
This is the the kind of nonsense you get when you look at things in reductionistic terms.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The Evolutionary critique of Liberal theology
A popular critique of Naturalism in our day has been the argument put forward by Alvin Plantinga, that since the naturalist believes in macro-evolution, he has no basis for believing the validity or veracity of his own thought process. [1.]
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The Romanist and Arminian think they know that reality cannot be such that human responsibility operates within the plan of God.' [2.]
- I think this observation applies to all 'liberal' theologians, and to most evangelical ones as well.
The liberal (Humanist) theologian claims that he knows what reality can and cannot be - and that he uses this knowledge to judge scripture. If it weren't so serious a matter it would be comical. We might bring up Plantinga's critique of naturalism and apply it to 'liberal' theologians, since they too claim to be a proud believers in Darwinism. If man is evolved pond scum (how this could be, no one, not even god, knows) then how is it his mind is capable of judging the truth of God's word? How does this 'mind' know the limits of the possible, and the coordinates of the real?
I see no answer to that critique. (To live with Darwin is to die with Darwin.) To affirm Evolution is to lose all basis for a critique of God's word. (Since using human standards as a method of rewriting Biblical theology is the bread and butter of Humanistic theologians, this leaves them without a reason for being.)
Liberal Christians don't seem to understand how their acceptance of M2M evolution has undercut their ability to to do theology and apologetics. The same arguments they use against the atheist and the naturalist can be used against them. If the naturalist can't trust his own thoughts, then neither can the theologian who believes in evolution. Why should the atheist (or anyone) accept what the Darwinian theologian says about God and God's word?
Summary;
It's only Biblical Christianity that gives man a basis a confidence that his mind is a competent organ; and it's only this Faith that gives him a basis for true knowledge. It was Van Til's view that man is not fit to judge the veracity of scripture; that his only hope of attaining a true picture of the universe was to accept the Bible as the word of God.
Notes;
1. 'The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a philosophical argument regarding a perceived tension between biological evolutionary theory and philosophical naturalism --- the belief that there are no supernatural entities or processes. EAAN argues that the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then—according to Plantinga's calculations—the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low. - Wiki
2. Common Grace - Cornelius Van Til/p.224
3. I've given Plantinga credit for this observation but it goes all the way back (at least) to Charles Darwin, who wondered why anyone should take seriously the thoughts of an (evolved) ape. (I think Plantinga borrows the idea from Van Til as well.)
- I can't find the quote I wanted from Darwin.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The Romanist and Arminian think they know that reality cannot be such that human responsibility operates within the plan of God.' [2.]
- I think this observation applies to all 'liberal' theologians, and to most evangelical ones as well.
The liberal (Humanist) theologian claims that he knows what reality can and cannot be - and that he uses this knowledge to judge scripture. If it weren't so serious a matter it would be comical. We might bring up Plantinga's critique of naturalism and apply it to 'liberal' theologians, since they too claim to be a proud believers in Darwinism. If man is evolved pond scum (how this could be, no one, not even god, knows) then how is it his mind is capable of judging the truth of God's word? How does this 'mind' know the limits of the possible, and the coordinates of the real?
I see no answer to that critique. (To live with Darwin is to die with Darwin.) To affirm Evolution is to lose all basis for a critique of God's word. (Since using human standards as a method of rewriting Biblical theology is the bread and butter of Humanistic theologians, this leaves them without a reason for being.)
Liberal Christians don't seem to understand how their acceptance of M2M evolution has undercut their ability to to do theology and apologetics. The same arguments they use against the atheist and the naturalist can be used against them. If the naturalist can't trust his own thoughts, then neither can the theologian who believes in evolution. Why should the atheist (or anyone) accept what the Darwinian theologian says about God and God's word?
Summary;
It's only Biblical Christianity that gives man a basis a confidence that his mind is a competent organ; and it's only this Faith that gives him a basis for true knowledge. It was Van Til's view that man is not fit to judge the veracity of scripture; that his only hope of attaining a true picture of the universe was to accept the Bible as the word of God.
Notes;
1. 'The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a philosophical argument regarding a perceived tension between biological evolutionary theory and philosophical naturalism --- the belief that there are no supernatural entities or processes. EAAN argues that the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then—according to Plantinga's calculations—the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low. - Wiki
2. Common Grace - Cornelius Van Til/p.224
3. I've given Plantinga credit for this observation but it goes all the way back (at least) to Charles Darwin, who wondered why anyone should take seriously the thoughts of an (evolved) ape. (I think Plantinga borrows the idea from Van Til as well.)
- I can't find the quote I wanted from Darwin.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Reasoning about reason
Although people speak carelessly about 'reason' - in actuality there is no such thing. There is no abstract or generic reason. What we see in the world are people who reason; we do not see reason.
Quotes and comments;
A. In his book on Common grace, Cornelius Van Til discusses different approaches to apologetics. "It was also impossible to agree with the Old Princeton position to the effect that appeal must be made to reason without differentiating between a reason conceived of as autonomous and reason conceived of as created." [1.]
- At the heart of Van Til's theology is a creationist view of reason. In this view reason is neither normative or neutral; nor is it correct to reason from the basic assumption of human autonomy. Reason isn't an abstract or generic entity. There is no such thing as 'pure' reason. What man possesses isn't reason, but human reason (a complex of abilities created by God, for man, for specific purposes). What conclusions men come to when they reason depends almost entirely upon their starting assumptions - and their starting assumptions are never chosen without purpose and bias.
Van Til's position is that since man is a rebel against God he always chooses (as his epistemological foundation) assumptions that will lead him away from God and from any truths connected with God. (Man never reasons in a vacuum; and it's in fact impossible to reason in a vacuum.) This then explains the antithesis between the Christian and the non-Christian. (The difference is not that one reasons and the other does not, but that they reason from different starting points.)
Also mistaken is the idea that 'reason' evolved somehow, and that if we could trace it back we would find its sources in the phosphorescence of pond scum. The entire idea of reason found in the dictionaries used by students in our day (and I feel sorry for them) is a delusion and a phantasm. [3.] It's only in biblical theology that we find a true conception of reason. Man is able to reason (think logically, clearly, and rationally) because God created him with this ability. Reason is in no way an independent and autonomous entity. It is dependent for its existence to its creator, and dependent for its operation on a personal agent.
B. Speaking of a valid method of apologetics Van Til says, "This involves interpreting human reason itself in terms of God. It involves saying that unless human reason regards itself as being what Scripture says it is, created in the image of God, that then it has no internal coherence. To this it must be added that it involves the fact of sin as darkening the understanding and hardening the will."
We hear people talk about reason in reified terms; that we must decide things by reason etc. But this is a false notion. Reason only exists when particular persons reason - and thus it never operates independently of the will, desires, ideas and biases of the person involved. People must reason from a basic starting point - and this makes all the difference. (It is crucial then which 'road' we go down when we begin to reason. It won't do us any good to reason if we're going down the wrong road.)
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - Common Grace p. 186
2. ibid p.190
3. Dictionaries in our day serve the purpose of defining God out of existence. In biblical terms, they are attempts to deny reality by substituting false ideas and conceptions for real and true ones. (You can see this process in operation by looking at older dictionaries and comparing them with current ones. Someone needs to write a history of the dictionary, or a philosophy of the dictionary.)
4. We end up with very different ideas of reason if we start out with matter as our basic starting point, or if we start with the Triune God of scripture. The Materialist has little basis for believing in the effectiveness or validity of an 'evolutionary' reasoning process. He has no basis for knowing what reason exists for, or for knowing where it came from. He has no basis for knowing how to employ reason, or to know what limits (if any) should be placed upon it. He has no foundation for reason other than randomness and chance.
Quotes and comments;
A. In his book on Common grace, Cornelius Van Til discusses different approaches to apologetics. "It was also impossible to agree with the Old Princeton position to the effect that appeal must be made to reason without differentiating between a reason conceived of as autonomous and reason conceived of as created." [1.]
- At the heart of Van Til's theology is a creationist view of reason. In this view reason is neither normative or neutral; nor is it correct to reason from the basic assumption of human autonomy. Reason isn't an abstract or generic entity. There is no such thing as 'pure' reason. What man possesses isn't reason, but human reason (a complex of abilities created by God, for man, for specific purposes). What conclusions men come to when they reason depends almost entirely upon their starting assumptions - and their starting assumptions are never chosen without purpose and bias.
Van Til's position is that since man is a rebel against God he always chooses (as his epistemological foundation) assumptions that will lead him away from God and from any truths connected with God. (Man never reasons in a vacuum; and it's in fact impossible to reason in a vacuum.) This then explains the antithesis between the Christian and the non-Christian. (The difference is not that one reasons and the other does not, but that they reason from different starting points.)
Also mistaken is the idea that 'reason' evolved somehow, and that if we could trace it back we would find its sources in the phosphorescence of pond scum. The entire idea of reason found in the dictionaries used by students in our day (and I feel sorry for them) is a delusion and a phantasm. [3.] It's only in biblical theology that we find a true conception of reason. Man is able to reason (think logically, clearly, and rationally) because God created him with this ability. Reason is in no way an independent and autonomous entity. It is dependent for its existence to its creator, and dependent for its operation on a personal agent.
B. Speaking of a valid method of apologetics Van Til says, "This involves interpreting human reason itself in terms of God. It involves saying that unless human reason regards itself as being what Scripture says it is, created in the image of God, that then it has no internal coherence. To this it must be added that it involves the fact of sin as darkening the understanding and hardening the will."
We hear people talk about reason in reified terms; that we must decide things by reason etc. But this is a false notion. Reason only exists when particular persons reason - and thus it never operates independently of the will, desires, ideas and biases of the person involved. People must reason from a basic starting point - and this makes all the difference. (It is crucial then which 'road' we go down when we begin to reason. It won't do us any good to reason if we're going down the wrong road.)
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - Common Grace p. 186
2. ibid p.190
3. Dictionaries in our day serve the purpose of defining God out of existence. In biblical terms, they are attempts to deny reality by substituting false ideas and conceptions for real and true ones. (You can see this process in operation by looking at older dictionaries and comparing them with current ones. Someone needs to write a history of the dictionary, or a philosophy of the dictionary.)
4. We end up with very different ideas of reason if we start out with matter as our basic starting point, or if we start with the Triune God of scripture. The Materialist has little basis for believing in the effectiveness or validity of an 'evolutionary' reasoning process. He has no basis for knowing what reason exists for, or for knowing where it came from. He has no basis for knowing how to employ reason, or to know what limits (if any) should be placed upon it. He has no foundation for reason other than randomness and chance.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Science and the need for special revelation
Perhaps the most fierce condemnation of Christianity we hear from the 'new atheists' is that it would limit the sciences in what they could study or determine, by forcing them to accept a Biblical view of creation.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'And the essence of this natural theology is that it attributes to the natural man the power of interpreting some aspect of the world without basic error.. Even though men do not recognize God as the creator and controller of the facts of this world, they are assumed to be able to give as true an interpretation of the laws of nature as it is possible fore finite man to give.' [1.]
- In the view of Cornelius Van Til, it's simply not true that man (natural man) doesn't need God's special revelation to be able to engage in valid investigation of the world, himself and the universe. (i.e. science). We can show this by pointing out that the very foundational claims of 'naturalistic' science are fallacious. The basic claim is that man, depending only on himself (we might point out that the self he depends upon is not who and what he claims it is), using only native reasoning powers, can come to an accurate view of the universe. From a Biblical viewpoint this is simply fallacious.
Let's look at a brief overview of the consensus model of reality as it's taught in our colleges worldwide. This is the idea the universe came into being from nothing and with no cause (let alone intelligent cause). A 'formless' gas somehow became formed into stars and planets. Something the textbooks refer obliquely to as 'life' somehow emerged spontaneously on earth, and this primitive protoplasm became a primitive organism which eventually climbed a ladder composed of insubstantial and theoretical rings (i.e. evolved) and became the class of mammals. Eventually (via much slipping and sliding upon said ladder) some unknown mammal became the noble creature we call man. According to Christian doctrine, this model of the universe is completely wrong; and since it is wrong it disproves the very foundations of the so called autonomous method.
This 'secular' model of reality is deemed to be so profoundly true that it can never be shaken. This isn't merely a theory, we're told, it is simple and basic fact... and only a madman would deny it. If however, it is wrong, it disproves the pretense at the heart of current secular thought that man can (on his own resources) come to an accurate understanding of reality. (This subject is complicated by the fact man never depends solely upon his own resources... i.e. upon an assumed independence and autonomy of human thought and knowledge.) The claim made by Van Til, isn't merely that the natural man doesn't give credit to God for what he does (in the area of science) but that he can't come to a true understanding of the universe without revealed truth. The whole model is wrong; radically, irremediably wrong.
Summary;
Not only is the idea that man can (via independent thinking) come to the truth wrong; the very idea that man's mind is a product of chemical transformationism is wrong. Not only is man's view of reality wrong, but his idea that reality exists or could exist apart from divine will is wrong. Not only is man wrong about what he thinks is true, his idea of truth is wrong. Not only is the autonomous man wrong in his scientific views, he's wrong about who (or what) he thinks man is. Not only is his wrong in his particular views of the universe, he's wrong about what the universe is. Not only is he wrong in his particular scientific views, he's wrong about what he thinks science is. Man is not only wrong in what he says about facts, he's wrong about what he imagines facts to be.
- Michael Johnson [frfarer -at - gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - Common Grace/p.143
- Van Til is referring here to Roman Catholic theology specifically, but the quotes applies to most liberal and even 'evangelical' theology in our day. (As far as I know most Christian theologians would disagree with Van Til in his views expressed above.)
2. Not only is the scientist wrong when he says x or y happened by chance, but he's wrong in his idea that chance even exists. (If the God of the bible is true and only god, then chance does not exist.)
- The non-Christian complains that it is 'arbitrary' for god to 'intervene' in human experience, but the Christian view is that God never acts arbitrarily. i.e. not only is the Humanist wrong to charge God with acting arbitrarily in any particular case, but he's wrong to imagine the arbitrary realm exists.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'And the essence of this natural theology is that it attributes to the natural man the power of interpreting some aspect of the world without basic error.. Even though men do not recognize God as the creator and controller of the facts of this world, they are assumed to be able to give as true an interpretation of the laws of nature as it is possible fore finite man to give.' [1.]
- In the view of Cornelius Van Til, it's simply not true that man (natural man) doesn't need God's special revelation to be able to engage in valid investigation of the world, himself and the universe. (i.e. science). We can show this by pointing out that the very foundational claims of 'naturalistic' science are fallacious. The basic claim is that man, depending only on himself (we might point out that the self he depends upon is not who and what he claims it is), using only native reasoning powers, can come to an accurate view of the universe. From a Biblical viewpoint this is simply fallacious.
Let's look at a brief overview of the consensus model of reality as it's taught in our colleges worldwide. This is the idea the universe came into being from nothing and with no cause (let alone intelligent cause). A 'formless' gas somehow became formed into stars and planets. Something the textbooks refer obliquely to as 'life' somehow emerged spontaneously on earth, and this primitive protoplasm became a primitive organism which eventually climbed a ladder composed of insubstantial and theoretical rings (i.e. evolved) and became the class of mammals. Eventually (via much slipping and sliding upon said ladder) some unknown mammal became the noble creature we call man. According to Christian doctrine, this model of the universe is completely wrong; and since it is wrong it disproves the very foundations of the so called autonomous method.
This 'secular' model of reality is deemed to be so profoundly true that it can never be shaken. This isn't merely a theory, we're told, it is simple and basic fact... and only a madman would deny it. If however, it is wrong, it disproves the pretense at the heart of current secular thought that man can (on his own resources) come to an accurate understanding of reality. (This subject is complicated by the fact man never depends solely upon his own resources... i.e. upon an assumed independence and autonomy of human thought and knowledge.) The claim made by Van Til, isn't merely that the natural man doesn't give credit to God for what he does (in the area of science) but that he can't come to a true understanding of the universe without revealed truth. The whole model is wrong; radically, irremediably wrong.
Summary;
Not only is the idea that man can (via independent thinking) come to the truth wrong; the very idea that man's mind is a product of chemical transformationism is wrong. Not only is man's view of reality wrong, but his idea that reality exists or could exist apart from divine will is wrong. Not only is man wrong about what he thinks is true, his idea of truth is wrong. Not only is the autonomous man wrong in his scientific views, he's wrong about who (or what) he thinks man is. Not only is his wrong in his particular views of the universe, he's wrong about what the universe is. Not only is he wrong in his particular scientific views, he's wrong about what he thinks science is. Man is not only wrong in what he says about facts, he's wrong about what he imagines facts to be.
- Michael Johnson [frfarer -at - gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - Common Grace/p.143
- Van Til is referring here to Roman Catholic theology specifically, but the quotes applies to most liberal and even 'evangelical' theology in our day. (As far as I know most Christian theologians would disagree with Van Til in his views expressed above.)
2. Not only is the scientist wrong when he says x or y happened by chance, but he's wrong in his idea that chance even exists. (If the God of the bible is true and only god, then chance does not exist.)
- The non-Christian complains that it is 'arbitrary' for god to 'intervene' in human experience, but the Christian view is that God never acts arbitrarily. i.e. not only is the Humanist wrong to charge God with acting arbitrarily in any particular case, but he's wrong to imagine the arbitrary realm exists.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Creation and reality
Why should we think our ideas of what reality is are correct? Bavinck says it's only our faith in God that gives us confidence in this regard.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Bavinck himself tells us that the only reason why we may hold out thought of reality about us to be correct in what it says is that back of our thought, and of the world about us is the Logos.' [1.]
- I believe that it's only because we believe we were created by God that we believe our idea about reality is accurate (or even approaches the accurate). The non-Christian has no real basis for believing the has an accurate knowledge of what reality is (or even that reality exists). Isn't it the case that reality in a universal sense) can Only exist if the God of the bible is real?
Take the example of an alien race that has a very different constitution and sense organs. It then would have a very different view of what constituted reality. The question then becomes 'what is reality?' i.e. is it the ideas of our alien friends (so different from us they don't even like Star Trek or popcorn?) or is it our ideas? Is there one 'reality' or is there two? Is there any such thing as reality at all?
- In other words, for reality to exist, the 'totalizing' (the all conditioning, as Van Til would say) God of the bible, the Triune God of scripture, necessarily has to exist. Only if a divine Person controls and determines all things is reality possible. Reality is an act of the will, a product of the divine will. It is an imposition' upon the 'matter' of the cosmos.
If there were two or more species of intelligent beings, how could there be a single reality? How could there be reality at all? Isn't this a reason to believe only one intelligent species exists in the universe?
Can't' we go even further and say that unless man and the universe were made as a unity (correlative to each other) no such thing as reality could exist? If reality is what God (in scripture) says, then don't man and the universe have to have been made correlative to the eternal counsel of God?
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Common Grace - Cornelius Van Til p.45.
- reference is to Herman Bavinck
2. Reality is defined simply as what is real (not helpful) or what actually exists. If modern physicists are correct in saying that reality consists of sub-atomic particles or even 'strings' what does it mean to say reality is what actually exists? Exists for whom? Exists in what sense?
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Bavinck himself tells us that the only reason why we may hold out thought of reality about us to be correct in what it says is that back of our thought, and of the world about us is the Logos.' [1.]
- I believe that it's only because we believe we were created by God that we believe our idea about reality is accurate (or even approaches the accurate). The non-Christian has no real basis for believing the has an accurate knowledge of what reality is (or even that reality exists). Isn't it the case that reality in a universal sense) can Only exist if the God of the bible is real?
Take the example of an alien race that has a very different constitution and sense organs. It then would have a very different view of what constituted reality. The question then becomes 'what is reality?' i.e. is it the ideas of our alien friends (so different from us they don't even like Star Trek or popcorn?) or is it our ideas? Is there one 'reality' or is there two? Is there any such thing as reality at all?
- In other words, for reality to exist, the 'totalizing' (the all conditioning, as Van Til would say) God of the bible, the Triune God of scripture, necessarily has to exist. Only if a divine Person controls and determines all things is reality possible. Reality is an act of the will, a product of the divine will. It is an imposition' upon the 'matter' of the cosmos.
If there were two or more species of intelligent beings, how could there be a single reality? How could there be reality at all? Isn't this a reason to believe only one intelligent species exists in the universe?
Can't' we go even further and say that unless man and the universe were made as a unity (correlative to each other) no such thing as reality could exist? If reality is what God (in scripture) says, then don't man and the universe have to have been made correlative to the eternal counsel of God?
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Common Grace - Cornelius Van Til p.45.
- reference is to Herman Bavinck
2. Reality is defined simply as what is real (not helpful) or what actually exists. If modern physicists are correct in saying that reality consists of sub-atomic particles or even 'strings' what does it mean to say reality is what actually exists? Exists for whom? Exists in what sense?
Friday, May 14, 2010
The detective and the created order
Detective fiction as seen through the eyes of biblical theology and the doctrine of creation
Why are people so fond of detective fiction? Why are detective novels almost exclusively about murder?
I think we need to take a theological approach to answering these questions, and in addressing this subject. The answer in brief, in both cases, is the Christian system of truth; but let's unpack it.
All murder is first and foremost an attack upon God. Since all men bear (via Adam) God's image, murder is an attack upon God's image, and thus upon God. Since all men belong to God, murder is an attack on what belongs to God. No one has the right to try to steal from God what belongs to God. When we look at murder in this light (the way it should be looked at) we see how profound murder is. Murder is not foremost an attack upon a man, his family or friends, or upon his tribe or upon the state, but upon God. It is god alone who made man. Man is to serve God; not himself or the state.
- The death penalty was instituted (as far as we know) at the time of the Flood, and the reason given to Noah was that it was an attack upon the image of God.
Next we have to point out that in biblical terms all sin is worthy of death; although not all sin (in our day) has the death penalty attached to it. Adam's sin of eating the forbidden fruit was worthy of death. (No doubt Adam would have committed any other sin god had placed before him; broken any rule god had placed before him.)
Sin is rebellion against God; it's a refusal to live as God demands. All sin is worthy of death. This makes the reader of a detective story as much a sinner as the perpetrator of the crimes involved in the story. Everything the murderer does thus 'resonates' with the reader. The murder has committed a crime/sin and the reader has committed crimes or at least sins of his own. (We might think of this in terms of music. Everything thing the murderer does might be seen as a theme that 'calls forth' a similar theme from the reader.) When the murderer commits crimes, the reader becomes aware (at some level) of sins he's committed. When the murderer tries to protect himself from being discovered, the reader is reminded of attempts he's made (or is making) to protect himself from being discovered. When the murderer commits crimes trying to protect himself, the reader is reminded of sins he's committed trying to cover his tracks as it were. (e.g. lies he's told)
The murderer is seen acting in an immoral and criminal fashion; this reminds the reader of how he's acted in an immoral and sinful fashion. The murderer ought to stop his criminal behavior, to confess, and to try and make restitution. This reminds the reader (via his god given, and god informed conscience) that he ought to quit his sinful behavior/s, and to confess (at least to god) and to try and make restitution for the wrong he's done to other people through his sin/s.
The detective novel (in its basic or true form) takes the law seriously. This reminds the reader that he ought to take God's law seriously. (The best detective novels are those that most closely track the biblical view of what is right and wrong. The further a novel strays from this biblical standard the worse it is.) The serious manner in which crime is taken or treated (and in many times and places crime is Not taken seriously; nor is the attempt to stop it or to discover and root out the person/s responsible) reminds the reader of how seriously God takes all sin. (i.e. that all sin is worthy of death.) The detective novel awakes the conscience if I can put it this way. The reader becomes sensitive to sin while reading the story; his sleeping conscience is pricked and is stirred into feeling things on a deeper level.
The reader of detective fiction is (in some sense) both the murderer (sinner) and the detective trying to see that justice is brought to the victim and to the person responsible for the crime. Both these figures evoke a response from the reader. He's the one who has done wrong, and he knows that someone is 'on his trail' as it were; someone is out to bring him to justice. (It sounds odd to portray God as this detective; but God does indeed demand justice for sin; and all men will be found out, and will be called upon to answer for the crimes (sins) they've committed.) He may not be hiding from a detective, but he's hiding from God. As the murderer thinks he will (or might) get away with what he's done, so the reader thinks he'll get away with the sins he's committed. Reading the novel might cause the reader to wonder if he'll be successful in getting away with his sins. It doesn't look like the murderer will; so why should he imagine he will. (God is no mere detective after all; he's not imperfect, and he has perfect knowledge.) The reader is provoked and made to wonder why he should think he'll get away with his sins. He's made to think that one day he too will have to pay for what he's done.
As the detective comes ever closer to discovering the murderer, the reader finds himself (at times?) in an ambivalent frame of mind. Does he want the murderer to be found out? Would he want to be found out? If he wants the murderer to be found out, why shouldn't he want his own sins to be found out? Does he want the murderer to pay? Does he want to be made to pay for his own sins? Does he want the murderer to meet justice? Does he want justice to be done in his own case? Does he have some sympathy for the murderer? Why? Does he want people to have sympathy (compassion) for him over the sins that he himself has committed? Does he want the detective to take the law into his own hands and let the murderer go? Does he want to be let off the hook himself? Does he want the detective to finish the job? Does he want to go on sinning himself? Or does he want whatever wrong he's engaged in to come to an end?
The detective novel (when handled well) evokes a lot of questions in people. The why question is evoked time and time again; and the reader can't help responding to this theme. The sleeping why questions of his life stir and come to life. The detective wonders why the murderer committed his crime or crimes, and the reader wonders why he's committed the sins he's committed, and he wonders why he's committing sin now... why he committed sin that very day. Why does the murderer do what he does? Why does the reader do what he does? Why did the murderer commit such an irrational act, the detective wonders. This causes the reader to wonder why he acts in irrational ways.
The detective novel is sometimes called a mystery; this genre of novels are often called mysteries. There is mystery in every detective novel and this evokes the various mysteries of life... and the huge mystery of human life in general. We don't have all the answers to our questions, and we're reminded of this when we meet with the 'small' mysteries of the detective novel. Detective fiction deals with mystery; and even in the dealing with it (instead of ignoring or suppressing it) the reader finds some comfort. Despite claims to the contrary he knows that life involves mystery; that some questions will never be answered... no matter how much people might desire them to be. He doesn't want cheap answers (that are no answers) but prefers to struggle with mystery.
The novel ends; the detective exposes the murder, and he's apprehended and taken in. He's made to pay (in some way) for what he's done. The reader should feel (if the novel has been a good one) that he too will one day be taken in and made to meet justice. He too will be asked to give an accounting of what he's done.
Notes;
1. 'At every point we run into mystery,'' Van Til says. [Common Grace/p.10]
- the detective novel admits mystery, while the positivist and scientist do not... and hence the reason people prefer to read detective novels. People sense that there are and always will be mysteries... that no amount of research will dispel. As the detective might find the person who murdered the victim, he can't fully comprehend why the criminal did what he did. (The murderer himself doesn't likely know... not in any true or comprehensive way.) Even if the killer is sent to jail or even if he's executed, there's still mystery remaining. (As one example of these 'eternal' mysteries; why does man care what happens in the world? why does he care what happens to strangers? if he's just matter in motion why does he care about anything? why does he care about what happens in a work of fiction? why does he care about fictional characters? The mysteries face us every where we look; we run into them at every point. The detective novel gives us a way to deal with them... or gives us an opportunity to deal with them. The novelist doesn't deny mystery like the positivist, or like the devotees of scientism. This makes him welcome on the book shelf.
2. Has anyone written on murder from the perspective of Reformed theology? Has anyone written on detective fiction from a Christian perspective? I haven't seen it.
3. Since all things were created by God, it's my belief that the doctrine of creation has implications for all areas of study. As an example of this I've tried in this brief post to apply it to a popular cultural genre. (How successful I've been I don't know.)
4. A biblical model of crime affirms both that the criminal is responsible, and that God is the ultimate cause of all things. In so far as detective fiction affirms responsibility it is biblical. (I think this accounts for much of its appeal.)
5. If men were not responsible for what they did, detective fiction (as it exists) wouldn't be possible, and I doubt if it would exist. That it's so popular shows us that people know God, and know that his word is true.
6. Detective fiction depends upon God making man in his image, and upon his declaring murder to be both a sin and a crime. If we were just animals (as the Darwinians claim) crime wouldn't exist; not even murder. The popularity of the genre shows us that people are aware that the evolutionary model is false. They they've been repeatedly been told by their school teachers that man is just an animal, they don't believe it.
Why are people so fond of detective fiction? Why are detective novels almost exclusively about murder?
I think we need to take a theological approach to answering these questions, and in addressing this subject. The answer in brief, in both cases, is the Christian system of truth; but let's unpack it.
All murder is first and foremost an attack upon God. Since all men bear (via Adam) God's image, murder is an attack upon God's image, and thus upon God. Since all men belong to God, murder is an attack on what belongs to God. No one has the right to try to steal from God what belongs to God. When we look at murder in this light (the way it should be looked at) we see how profound murder is. Murder is not foremost an attack upon a man, his family or friends, or upon his tribe or upon the state, but upon God. It is god alone who made man. Man is to serve God; not himself or the state.
- The death penalty was instituted (as far as we know) at the time of the Flood, and the reason given to Noah was that it was an attack upon the image of God.
Next we have to point out that in biblical terms all sin is worthy of death; although not all sin (in our day) has the death penalty attached to it. Adam's sin of eating the forbidden fruit was worthy of death. (No doubt Adam would have committed any other sin god had placed before him; broken any rule god had placed before him.)
Sin is rebellion against God; it's a refusal to live as God demands. All sin is worthy of death. This makes the reader of a detective story as much a sinner as the perpetrator of the crimes involved in the story. Everything the murderer does thus 'resonates' with the reader. The murder has committed a crime/sin and the reader has committed crimes or at least sins of his own. (We might think of this in terms of music. Everything thing the murderer does might be seen as a theme that 'calls forth' a similar theme from the reader.) When the murderer commits crimes, the reader becomes aware (at some level) of sins he's committed. When the murderer tries to protect himself from being discovered, the reader is reminded of attempts he's made (or is making) to protect himself from being discovered. When the murderer commits crimes trying to protect himself, the reader is reminded of sins he's committed trying to cover his tracks as it were. (e.g. lies he's told)
The murderer is seen acting in an immoral and criminal fashion; this reminds the reader of how he's acted in an immoral and sinful fashion. The murderer ought to stop his criminal behavior, to confess, and to try and make restitution. This reminds the reader (via his god given, and god informed conscience) that he ought to quit his sinful behavior/s, and to confess (at least to god) and to try and make restitution for the wrong he's done to other people through his sin/s.
The detective novel (in its basic or true form) takes the law seriously. This reminds the reader that he ought to take God's law seriously. (The best detective novels are those that most closely track the biblical view of what is right and wrong. The further a novel strays from this biblical standard the worse it is.) The serious manner in which crime is taken or treated (and in many times and places crime is Not taken seriously; nor is the attempt to stop it or to discover and root out the person/s responsible) reminds the reader of how seriously God takes all sin. (i.e. that all sin is worthy of death.) The detective novel awakes the conscience if I can put it this way. The reader becomes sensitive to sin while reading the story; his sleeping conscience is pricked and is stirred into feeling things on a deeper level.
The reader of detective fiction is (in some sense) both the murderer (sinner) and the detective trying to see that justice is brought to the victim and to the person responsible for the crime. Both these figures evoke a response from the reader. He's the one who has done wrong, and he knows that someone is 'on his trail' as it were; someone is out to bring him to justice. (It sounds odd to portray God as this detective; but God does indeed demand justice for sin; and all men will be found out, and will be called upon to answer for the crimes (sins) they've committed.) He may not be hiding from a detective, but he's hiding from God. As the murderer thinks he will (or might) get away with what he's done, so the reader thinks he'll get away with the sins he's committed. Reading the novel might cause the reader to wonder if he'll be successful in getting away with his sins. It doesn't look like the murderer will; so why should he imagine he will. (God is no mere detective after all; he's not imperfect, and he has perfect knowledge.) The reader is provoked and made to wonder why he should think he'll get away with his sins. He's made to think that one day he too will have to pay for what he's done.
As the detective comes ever closer to discovering the murderer, the reader finds himself (at times?) in an ambivalent frame of mind. Does he want the murderer to be found out? Would he want to be found out? If he wants the murderer to be found out, why shouldn't he want his own sins to be found out? Does he want the murderer to pay? Does he want to be made to pay for his own sins? Does he want the murderer to meet justice? Does he want justice to be done in his own case? Does he have some sympathy for the murderer? Why? Does he want people to have sympathy (compassion) for him over the sins that he himself has committed? Does he want the detective to take the law into his own hands and let the murderer go? Does he want to be let off the hook himself? Does he want the detective to finish the job? Does he want to go on sinning himself? Or does he want whatever wrong he's engaged in to come to an end?
The detective novel (when handled well) evokes a lot of questions in people. The why question is evoked time and time again; and the reader can't help responding to this theme. The sleeping why questions of his life stir and come to life. The detective wonders why the murderer committed his crime or crimes, and the reader wonders why he's committed the sins he's committed, and he wonders why he's committing sin now... why he committed sin that very day. Why does the murderer do what he does? Why does the reader do what he does? Why did the murderer commit such an irrational act, the detective wonders. This causes the reader to wonder why he acts in irrational ways.
The detective novel is sometimes called a mystery; this genre of novels are often called mysteries. There is mystery in every detective novel and this evokes the various mysteries of life... and the huge mystery of human life in general. We don't have all the answers to our questions, and we're reminded of this when we meet with the 'small' mysteries of the detective novel. Detective fiction deals with mystery; and even in the dealing with it (instead of ignoring or suppressing it) the reader finds some comfort. Despite claims to the contrary he knows that life involves mystery; that some questions will never be answered... no matter how much people might desire them to be. He doesn't want cheap answers (that are no answers) but prefers to struggle with mystery.
The novel ends; the detective exposes the murder, and he's apprehended and taken in. He's made to pay (in some way) for what he's done. The reader should feel (if the novel has been a good one) that he too will one day be taken in and made to meet justice. He too will be asked to give an accounting of what he's done.
Notes;
1. 'At every point we run into mystery,'' Van Til says. [Common Grace/p.10]
- the detective novel admits mystery, while the positivist and scientist do not... and hence the reason people prefer to read detective novels. People sense that there are and always will be mysteries... that no amount of research will dispel. As the detective might find the person who murdered the victim, he can't fully comprehend why the criminal did what he did. (The murderer himself doesn't likely know... not in any true or comprehensive way.) Even if the killer is sent to jail or even if he's executed, there's still mystery remaining. (As one example of these 'eternal' mysteries; why does man care what happens in the world? why does he care what happens to strangers? if he's just matter in motion why does he care about anything? why does he care about what happens in a work of fiction? why does he care about fictional characters? The mysteries face us every where we look; we run into them at every point. The detective novel gives us a way to deal with them... or gives us an opportunity to deal with them. The novelist doesn't deny mystery like the positivist, or like the devotees of scientism. This makes him welcome on the book shelf.
2. Has anyone written on murder from the perspective of Reformed theology? Has anyone written on detective fiction from a Christian perspective? I haven't seen it.
3. Since all things were created by God, it's my belief that the doctrine of creation has implications for all areas of study. As an example of this I've tried in this brief post to apply it to a popular cultural genre. (How successful I've been I don't know.)
4. A biblical model of crime affirms both that the criminal is responsible, and that God is the ultimate cause of all things. In so far as detective fiction affirms responsibility it is biblical. (I think this accounts for much of its appeal.)
5. If men were not responsible for what they did, detective fiction (as it exists) wouldn't be possible, and I doubt if it would exist. That it's so popular shows us that people know God, and know that his word is true.
6. Detective fiction depends upon God making man in his image, and upon his declaring murder to be both a sin and a crime. If we were just animals (as the Darwinians claim) crime wouldn't exist; not even murder. The popularity of the genre shows us that people are aware that the evolutionary model is false. They they've been repeatedly been told by their school teachers that man is just an animal, they don't believe it.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The philosophy of definition, and the metaphysics of description
Are the definitions (and descriptions) we find in our dictionaries a neutral source of information? Let's take a look.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'It is sometimes suggested that though there is a basic difference between the Christian and the non-Christian explanation, there is no such difference in the mere description of facts. With this we cannot agree. Modern scientific description is not the innocent thing we as Christians all too easily think it is.' [1.]
This was the way I thought of things until recently. I now consider this to be too shallow a way of looking at things. (ie. I now agree with Van Til.)
B. Van Til speaks of Eddington's illustration [of the ichthyologist], and says of him, 'the only fish that exist for him are those that his net has caught. He makes bold to say 'what my net can't catch isn't fish'. That is to say, description is patternization. It is an act of definition. It is a statement of the what as well as of the that. It is a statement of connotation as well as that of denotation. Description itself is definition.' [2.]
Van Til is saying that what is presented as 'mere' description is usually more than this; that people slip ideas about x into their supposedly neutral descriptions of x. (Mere description morphs into definition if you will.)
C. 'Current scientific description is not merely explanation, but it is definitely anti-c. explanation. Current scientific methodology wants to be anti-metaphysical. It claims to make no pronouncements about the nature of reality as a whole.'
Consensus methodology claims to be neutral; as if denying God were somehow taking a neutral position. Materialism, to the contrary, is clearly a statement about reality. To deny this is so absurd a claim it's laughable.
D. 'It appears then that a universal judgment about the nature of all existence is presupposed even in the 'description' of the modern scientist.' [3.]
e.g. To claim man is an animal is Not a mere description of this creature we call man. It is rather a judgment on (or about) man. Not all descriptions are obviously judgments, but people need to be aware of this process of biased description. It's simply not true that Christians and non-Christians agree on description, and differ only (if they do) on explanation.
- Let's take an example; we go to the dictionary [AHD] and they give us what purports to be a neutral description/definition of man.
Man;
Zoology; A member of the genus Homo, family Hominidae, order Primates, class Mammalia, characterized by erect posture and an opposable thumb, especially a member of the only extant species, Homo sapiens, distinguished by a highly developed brain, the capacity for abstract reasoning, and the ability to communicate by means of organized speech and record information in a variety of symbolic systems.'
Is that a neutral description of man? is man a primate? is he an animal? is that an accurate description of man? does this give us the essence of man? if we didn't know man would we get a good picture of him from this? It's an idealized description for one thing; it gives us positive characteristics but not negative ones. It ignores what God says about man. It denies man is an eternal being; denies he is fallen, and so on.
Let's look at a different definition; this one from Webster's; 1913
1. A human being; [as] opposed to a beast.
This definition is far more accurate in my view, but is it a description? I don't think so. A Christian claims that man is not an animal, but he takes this as an article of faith. The bible tells him this is true, and he sees much evidence for it. If the bible is what it claims to be, this [the above] must be a true statement. (The biblical definition is a creature made in the image of God. That is the 'judgment' not of man, but of man's creator
Summary;
I believe that our common every day dictionaries are among the most anti-christian documents we have. Not only are they deeply biased against c. they're especially dangerous in that they are advertised as being neutral resources. While we do get basic descriptions (denotation) these descriptions are partial and biased, but pretend to be neutral and comprehensive. With these descriptions we also get definitions (connotation) which pretend to be neutral but are instead rooted in a materialistic and evolutionary model of the universe. When dictionaries talk about the essence and the nature of things they are referring to popular evolutionary theories on the one hand, and self-consciously denying the biblical model on the other hand.
I consider it a scandal that we have no contemporary christian dictionary. This in itself tells us volumes about how the intellectual leadership in the church views the world. i.e. they've bought into the neutrality model of knowledge and education. People once knew better; let's hope the church comes to its senses and realizes the dangers of the so called neutral method.
Notes;
1. Common grace and the gospel - Cornelius Van Til/p.3
2. The Philosophy of the physical sciences - Arthur Eddington/p.16
3. Van Til p.4
4. The 1828 dictionary of Noah Webster is still the best dictionary I know of; although it's badly in need of an update. The Century dictionary is the second best dictionary I know of. I'm not sure, but I think it came out around 1900, so it's more current.
- Let's hope some person or group will assemble a dictionary that conforms to biblical standards of truth. (I think most of the key definitions exist in various places; so the project would 'only' involve putting this scattered work together.)
Quotes and comments;
A. 'It is sometimes suggested that though there is a basic difference between the Christian and the non-Christian explanation, there is no such difference in the mere description of facts. With this we cannot agree. Modern scientific description is not the innocent thing we as Christians all too easily think it is.' [1.]
This was the way I thought of things until recently. I now consider this to be too shallow a way of looking at things. (ie. I now agree with Van Til.)
B. Van Til speaks of Eddington's illustration [of the ichthyologist], and says of him, 'the only fish that exist for him are those that his net has caught. He makes bold to say 'what my net can't catch isn't fish'. That is to say, description is patternization. It is an act of definition. It is a statement of the what as well as of the that. It is a statement of connotation as well as that of denotation. Description itself is definition.' [2.]
Van Til is saying that what is presented as 'mere' description is usually more than this; that people slip ideas about x into their supposedly neutral descriptions of x. (Mere description morphs into definition if you will.)
C. 'Current scientific description is not merely explanation, but it is definitely anti-c. explanation. Current scientific methodology wants to be anti-metaphysical. It claims to make no pronouncements about the nature of reality as a whole.'
Consensus methodology claims to be neutral; as if denying God were somehow taking a neutral position. Materialism, to the contrary, is clearly a statement about reality. To deny this is so absurd a claim it's laughable.
D. 'It appears then that a universal judgment about the nature of all existence is presupposed even in the 'description' of the modern scientist.' [3.]
e.g. To claim man is an animal is Not a mere description of this creature we call man. It is rather a judgment on (or about) man. Not all descriptions are obviously judgments, but people need to be aware of this process of biased description. It's simply not true that Christians and non-Christians agree on description, and differ only (if they do) on explanation.
- Let's take an example; we go to the dictionary [AHD] and they give us what purports to be a neutral description/definition of man.
Man;
Zoology; A member of the genus Homo, family Hominidae, order Primates, class Mammalia, characterized by erect posture and an opposable thumb, especially a member of the only extant species, Homo sapiens, distinguished by a highly developed brain, the capacity for abstract reasoning, and the ability to communicate by means of organized speech and record information in a variety of symbolic systems.'
Is that a neutral description of man? is man a primate? is he an animal? is that an accurate description of man? does this give us the essence of man? if we didn't know man would we get a good picture of him from this? It's an idealized description for one thing; it gives us positive characteristics but not negative ones. It ignores what God says about man. It denies man is an eternal being; denies he is fallen, and so on.
Let's look at a different definition; this one from Webster's; 1913
1. A human being; [as] opposed to a beast.
This definition is far more accurate in my view, but is it a description? I don't think so. A Christian claims that man is not an animal, but he takes this as an article of faith. The bible tells him this is true, and he sees much evidence for it. If the bible is what it claims to be, this [the above] must be a true statement. (The biblical definition is a creature made in the image of God. That is the 'judgment' not of man, but of man's creator
Summary;
I believe that our common every day dictionaries are among the most anti-christian documents we have. Not only are they deeply biased against c. they're especially dangerous in that they are advertised as being neutral resources. While we do get basic descriptions (denotation) these descriptions are partial and biased, but pretend to be neutral and comprehensive. With these descriptions we also get definitions (connotation) which pretend to be neutral but are instead rooted in a materialistic and evolutionary model of the universe. When dictionaries talk about the essence and the nature of things they are referring to popular evolutionary theories on the one hand, and self-consciously denying the biblical model on the other hand.
I consider it a scandal that we have no contemporary christian dictionary. This in itself tells us volumes about how the intellectual leadership in the church views the world. i.e. they've bought into the neutrality model of knowledge and education. People once knew better; let's hope the church comes to its senses and realizes the dangers of the so called neutral method.
Notes;
1. Common grace and the gospel - Cornelius Van Til/p.3
2. The Philosophy of the physical sciences - Arthur Eddington/p.16
3. Van Til p.4
4. The 1828 dictionary of Noah Webster is still the best dictionary I know of; although it's badly in need of an update. The Century dictionary is the second best dictionary I know of. I'm not sure, but I think it came out around 1900, so it's more current.
- Let's hope some person or group will assemble a dictionary that conforms to biblical standards of truth. (I think most of the key definitions exist in various places; so the project would 'only' involve putting this scattered work together.)
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Science, theology and the new atheism
Creationists are often told by atheists and 'liberal' christians that they must let 'science' inform and correct their theology. (This advice is even handed out by people who call themselves 'evangelical' theologians; e.g. J.P. Moreland and even 'conservatives' like Vern Poythress.) I've heard this song so often I've become tired of it, and have decided to turn it around. I'd like to ask in this post how often it is that atheists let science correct their theology. (Or a-theology as the case may be.) To do this we'll take a look at earthquakes.
Quotes and comments;
A. '...this is therefore the best of all possible world.' [1.]
I'm not quoting Leibnitz here, or from Voltaire's Candide, but the Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til. While Van Til might possibly have been referring to the creation before the Fall, I think he was referring to the post-Fall world, and our world today.
It was this idea (theodicy) of Leibnitz that Voltaire mocked after the Lisbon earthquake. He thought it obvious that a world with devastating earthquakes quite obviously could not be the best possible world. He thought it child's play to imagine a better one. (It's a moot question how he, or anyone, can know what a 'best' possible world would be. I don't see how anyone can, but that's another question.)
He imagined the world would be a better place without earthquakes. On the face of it this seems obvious - but how do we know? How do we know they're not necessary or unavoidable? The bigger question concerns defining what is meant by better. (e.g. better for whom? better in terms of what ultimate purpose?)
If we look strictly at the people of Lisbon who saw their city fall, and the people they knew die, we get one answer. (i.e. a 'humanist' one) If we look at things from God's point of view we get another answer. The key to history in the latter case is not the welfare of people living at that time and place, but the overarching redemptive plan of God for all mankind, and even for the universe as a whole. The answer then concern God's glory, not man's mortal welfare. (I'm not going to pretend I know why the earthquake happened.)
We can see in retrospect that man has always had the ability to protect himself from earthquakes - but has squandered his intelligence and resources on stupid and evil pasttimes, rather than applying himself to a rigorous study of science and engineering. Ancient man was at least as smart as modern man, but frequently made little effective use of his intelligence, preferring warfare or other insane or useless pursuits to a serious study of the world he lived in. The blame for the suffering in so called 'acts of god' remains with mankind, as he was capable of much better. [2.]
Summary;
All this brings us back to the new atheists. I see them still using examples like earthquakes (Tsunamis) as disproof of God and evidence that God is either limited or evil - despite the fact scientists are telling us that they're necessary events and processes. Maybe it's time they took their own advice and corrected their theology of god in this particular case. (i.e. stopped using the earthquake argument as a disproof of God.) There are many more examples I could give. [3.]
I don't see much hope of this, as not even our Christian apologists ever call on atheists to use science to correct materialist thinking. Why this should be the case, you tell me.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Introduction to systematic theology - Cornelius Van Til/p.237
- If I read Van Til correctly, this is the best of all possible worlds because it's the one God wants, the one that in included in his Providential plan for mankind, and the one that best brings glory to God. In other words, mankind is not the focus, but God is the focus. This world may not be the best possible world for man (especially man as rebel against God), but it's the best possible world when seen in terms of God.
2. Some ancient stone structures appear to have been designed to be earthquake proof. (I'm referring to structures built with interlocking stone slabs of various sizes and shapes.)
3. The failure of OOL experiments to provide any basis for believing living organisms can 'emerge' from inert matter should cause atheists to correct their theology, but it doesn't. The failure to come up with an explanation for the creation of new (specified, complex) information should cause atheists to correct their theology, but it doesn't. The failure to explain the intellectual and spiritual chasm between mankind and the animal kingdom should cause atheists to correct their theology, but it doesn't. (There are many more examples.)
Quotes and comments;
A. '...this is therefore the best of all possible world.' [1.]
I'm not quoting Leibnitz here, or from Voltaire's Candide, but the Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til. While Van Til might possibly have been referring to the creation before the Fall, I think he was referring to the post-Fall world, and our world today.
It was this idea (theodicy) of Leibnitz that Voltaire mocked after the Lisbon earthquake. He thought it obvious that a world with devastating earthquakes quite obviously could not be the best possible world. He thought it child's play to imagine a better one. (It's a moot question how he, or anyone, can know what a 'best' possible world would be. I don't see how anyone can, but that's another question.)
He imagined the world would be a better place without earthquakes. On the face of it this seems obvious - but how do we know? How do we know they're not necessary or unavoidable? The bigger question concerns defining what is meant by better. (e.g. better for whom? better in terms of what ultimate purpose?)
If we look strictly at the people of Lisbon who saw their city fall, and the people they knew die, we get one answer. (i.e. a 'humanist' one) If we look at things from God's point of view we get another answer. The key to history in the latter case is not the welfare of people living at that time and place, but the overarching redemptive plan of God for all mankind, and even for the universe as a whole. The answer then concern God's glory, not man's mortal welfare. (I'm not going to pretend I know why the earthquake happened.)
We can see in retrospect that man has always had the ability to protect himself from earthquakes - but has squandered his intelligence and resources on stupid and evil pasttimes, rather than applying himself to a rigorous study of science and engineering. Ancient man was at least as smart as modern man, but frequently made little effective use of his intelligence, preferring warfare or other insane or useless pursuits to a serious study of the world he lived in. The blame for the suffering in so called 'acts of god' remains with mankind, as he was capable of much better. [2.]
Summary;
All this brings us back to the new atheists. I see them still using examples like earthquakes (Tsunamis) as disproof of God and evidence that God is either limited or evil - despite the fact scientists are telling us that they're necessary events and processes. Maybe it's time they took their own advice and corrected their theology of god in this particular case. (i.e. stopped using the earthquake argument as a disproof of God.) There are many more examples I could give. [3.]
I don't see much hope of this, as not even our Christian apologists ever call on atheists to use science to correct materialist thinking. Why this should be the case, you tell me.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Introduction to systematic theology - Cornelius Van Til/p.237
- If I read Van Til correctly, this is the best of all possible worlds because it's the one God wants, the one that in included in his Providential plan for mankind, and the one that best brings glory to God. In other words, mankind is not the focus, but God is the focus. This world may not be the best possible world for man (especially man as rebel against God), but it's the best possible world when seen in terms of God.
2. Some ancient stone structures appear to have been designed to be earthquake proof. (I'm referring to structures built with interlocking stone slabs of various sizes and shapes.)
3. The failure of OOL experiments to provide any basis for believing living organisms can 'emerge' from inert matter should cause atheists to correct their theology, but it doesn't. The failure to come up with an explanation for the creation of new (specified, complex) information should cause atheists to correct their theology, but it doesn't. The failure to explain the intellectual and spiritual chasm between mankind and the animal kingdom should cause atheists to correct their theology, but it doesn't. (There are many more examples.)
Saturday, May 8, 2010
The dark side of Naturalism
In an essay on Hamlet, Colin McGinn quotes a long passage by Hume about the self; about how if you look for it you don't find it, merely a string of disconnected impressions. In this we can see an example of what we might call the dark side of Empiricism.
Quotes and comments;
A. Summarizing Hume's position Mcginn says, "We speak as if there is a self that sustains us over a lifetime... but when we look inside ourselves we encounter nothing but this mental flux; honest introspection fails to turn up the supposed metaphysical substance of the simple and continuing self. There is nothing of that sort in there." [1.]
- Naturalism (or Empiricism) can be made to seem a great thing, and has become a methodology used to 'disprove' the truth of Christian doctrine on the one hand, and as the basis of science on the other. Few however talk about the more than disturbing results of applying the method to the the human sciences or to the self.
If you do this you see that not only doesn't God exist (or miracles, the incarnation, etc.) - you find that the self doesn't exist either. No matter how hard you look for it, you can't find it anywhere. You can't find it anymore than you can find God. If you can't find this self, who are you? Do you even exist? You apply the method to the other verities we've all depended on... and not only don't you see the self, you don't see truth, justice, meaning, or reality. You don't see anything solid at all. (As in Hamlet things are melting into the air... becoming dew, and then evaporating altogether beneath the glare of the method.)
- The Christian view is that we come to know the self by how we react to God's revealed word in scripture; to God's person and God's law. We either believe what we read about God and decide that he exists, or we disbelieve and decide he doesn't exist. We either agree that God's law is just, or we disagree. We either decide to be a friend (follower) of God, or we decide to be a rebel against God. This interactive process tells us who were are, and what the nature of our self is. We know who we are by reading the Bible; we learn that we are sons of Adam, and that he was created in the image of God. This is in fact the only way we can know who we are, and what the nature of the self is.
Summary;
Hume seems to have picked up his ideas on how to study the self from books on Buddhist meditation. His method of watching the internal motions of consciousness... as if one were watching refuse float down a river, is largely a waste of time, and much worse, it leads to all kinds of false ideas and pernicious results. His method is useless because involves empty abstraction. Whoever said the self was something you could 'discover' the way you discover a new species of butterfly? His idea of the self is a phantasm.
Contrary to critics who tell us that the doctrine of creation has nothing to offer the sciences, we can see by this all too brief look at the self, that the doctrine of creation is vital for a knowledge of true science. e.g. psychology and anthropology. Opposed to the abstractionism of Hume's method, biblical teaching is concrete
and grounded in the creation of God. It provides the only true 'antidote' to Hume's skepticism.
Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Shakespeare's Philosophy - Colin McGinn/p.35
2. In the words of David Hume (quoted by McGinn)
"There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self; that we feel its existence and its continuance; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity...''
"I never catch myself at any time without a perception, and can never observe anything but the perception...''
"...I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, they they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed one another with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement...'
"There is properly no simplicity in it at one time, nor identity...''
A treatise of human nature - David Hume; part 4; section 6
3. Empiricism;
'The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge. - American Heritage Dictionary
4. Materialism leads you to Empiricism which leads you to the void. Empiricism is only legitimate as a tool, not as a worldview; but for the materialist it's the only way of looking at things that there is. There can be no transcendence founded upon materialism. Materialism is the denial of transcendence; the denial of its very possibility.
5. Kant's convoluted philosophy was largely a response to Hume's scepticism, but it's a view that's just more abstractionism.
Quotes and comments;
A. Summarizing Hume's position Mcginn says, "We speak as if there is a self that sustains us over a lifetime... but when we look inside ourselves we encounter nothing but this mental flux; honest introspection fails to turn up the supposed metaphysical substance of the simple and continuing self. There is nothing of that sort in there." [1.]
- Naturalism (or Empiricism) can be made to seem a great thing, and has become a methodology used to 'disprove' the truth of Christian doctrine on the one hand, and as the basis of science on the other. Few however talk about the more than disturbing results of applying the method to the the human sciences or to the self.
If you do this you see that not only doesn't God exist (or miracles, the incarnation, etc.) - you find that the self doesn't exist either. No matter how hard you look for it, you can't find it anywhere. You can't find it anymore than you can find God. If you can't find this self, who are you? Do you even exist? You apply the method to the other verities we've all depended on... and not only don't you see the self, you don't see truth, justice, meaning, or reality. You don't see anything solid at all. (As in Hamlet things are melting into the air... becoming dew, and then evaporating altogether beneath the glare of the method.)
- The Christian view is that we come to know the self by how we react to God's revealed word in scripture; to God's person and God's law. We either believe what we read about God and decide that he exists, or we disbelieve and decide he doesn't exist. We either agree that God's law is just, or we disagree. We either decide to be a friend (follower) of God, or we decide to be a rebel against God. This interactive process tells us who were are, and what the nature of our self is. We know who we are by reading the Bible; we learn that we are sons of Adam, and that he was created in the image of God. This is in fact the only way we can know who we are, and what the nature of the self is.
Summary;
Hume seems to have picked up his ideas on how to study the self from books on Buddhist meditation. His method of watching the internal motions of consciousness... as if one were watching refuse float down a river, is largely a waste of time, and much worse, it leads to all kinds of false ideas and pernicious results. His method is useless because involves empty abstraction. Whoever said the self was something you could 'discover' the way you discover a new species of butterfly? His idea of the self is a phantasm.
Contrary to critics who tell us that the doctrine of creation has nothing to offer the sciences, we can see by this all too brief look at the self, that the doctrine of creation is vital for a knowledge of true science. e.g. psychology and anthropology. Opposed to the abstractionism of Hume's method, biblical teaching is concrete
and grounded in the creation of God. It provides the only true 'antidote' to Hume's skepticism.
Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Shakespeare's Philosophy - Colin McGinn/p.35
2. In the words of David Hume (quoted by McGinn)
"There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self; that we feel its existence and its continuance; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity...''
"I never catch myself at any time without a perception, and can never observe anything but the perception...''
"...I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, they they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed one another with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement...'
"There is properly no simplicity in it at one time, nor identity...''
A treatise of human nature - David Hume; part 4; section 6
3. Empiricism;
'The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge. - American Heritage Dictionary
4. Materialism leads you to Empiricism which leads you to the void. Empiricism is only legitimate as a tool, not as a worldview; but for the materialist it's the only way of looking at things that there is. There can be no transcendence founded upon materialism. Materialism is the denial of transcendence; the denial of its very possibility.
5. Kant's convoluted philosophy was largely a response to Hume's scepticism, but it's a view that's just more abstractionism.
Friday, May 7, 2010
All men believe in God
Our age is famous or infamous for the large numbers of people who say they don't believe in god. But what what do they mean by god? To what are they referring when they use this word? Is their idea of god a Santa Claus figure who lives on an asteroid somewhere? (One might think so from some of the commentary one reads.) People seem utterly ignorant of who god is and of what 'place' in the universe he has. If people realized what God is responsible for then they might change their minds about whether or not they believe in God.
We can define God (to an imperfect degree) by delineating his functions (excuse the language). So what 'work' does God accomplish and provide?
- God created the universe; it would only exist if he'd created it. God upholds (maintains) the universe. (In other words it would wink out of existence if it no longer factored into his will and plan.) God gives us the knowledge we need to engage in rational thought, as he is the foundation 'behind' our necessary presuppositions and for universals. God is the foundation for truth, morality, moral law; the foundation for all absolutes. God is the source of intelligence, personality and language. God is the foundation for uniformity and logic. Do you believe in logic? Do you rely on uniformity?
The question then is this; do you believe in a universe, reality, in truth, in moral absolutes, in law, in language, in universals, in logic, in beauty, in meaning, in justice? in complex, specified information, in Design? If you do you believe in God. Without the Triune god revealed to us in scripture none of these things would be possible.
- Criticisms; some people will read this (assuming anyone does) and say; "that my friend is nothing more than an empty claim."
Let me respond to our polite dissenter. (I don't get many readers of my humble blog, but when I do they're always well mannered :=) I believe my claim is true for two reasons; a. it's what the bible and orthodox theology teaches, b. materialism (mere matter in motion) is utterly incapable of producing the things I mentioned. Most or all of my examples involve immaterial entities; by their very nature matter in motion could not produce them. (e.g. universals like truth, logic; language in general.)
Summary;
One reason people are so ignorant of theology (and the more educated they are the more ignorant they usually are) is that they don't want to know the truth about God. I remember listening to a lecture given to a select group of professorial types and in the Q+A a posh sounding Brit lady took the mike and said; ''I don't even know what you're talking about when you talk about God. Can you define this god?"
If she was being honest (and I suspect she was) she had no excuse for her ignorance. She lived on a campus filled (even in our debauched times) with books on theology.... even a few good ones :=) She lived no far from where men formulated the famous Westminster Confession. She didn't know 'what' god was because she didn't want to know. She was one of a large crowd that conjure up some utterly horrid and stupid idea of god and then tell themselves proudly that they don't believe in anything like that! When people say they don't believe in god, they really mean that they don't want to give god any credit. (i.e. any credit for the things they do believe in.)
Notes;
1. I believe my short summary is Biblically accurate, and can be backed up by exegesis. In short the argument is that even if some kind of a cosmos could exist without a creator God, it would be a kind of empty and formless void... utterly devoid of living organisms and especially of man; that it's only the ordering Word of God that brings all valued human experience into being.
2. It's my observation that educated 'atheists' form their idea of god by collecting the worst things about god they've ever heard and then fabricating their image out of these falsehoods. I believe that they do this out of a bias against the idea of the Triune God found in Christian scripture. (The good books are out there, but somehow the 'atheist' never seems to find them.)
3. While I claimed that all people believe in God, I didn't mean to infer that there are no people who honestly (ie. privately) don't believe a creator God exists... who are so confident they don't even doubt it. (I think such people are rare, but I don't know if this is true or not.) What I see them as having done is to have used various ideas to rule God out of existence a priori. (i.e. god doesn't exist because he can't exist.)
- Most 'atheists' rely on hedonism to keep god out of mind. If you really work at it you can keep almost any 'awful' truth out of your mind.
- Since I'm no artist let me describe a cartoon. A man sits out on a veranda. Let's say he's a famous writer, now in his twilight years. He's giving an interview. He's drinking a scotch. Are you afraid to die?" he's asked. He pops a pill and downs it with a drink. "Not in the least," he says.
We can define God (to an imperfect degree) by delineating his functions (excuse the language). So what 'work' does God accomplish and provide?
- God created the universe; it would only exist if he'd created it. God upholds (maintains) the universe. (In other words it would wink out of existence if it no longer factored into his will and plan.) God gives us the knowledge we need to engage in rational thought, as he is the foundation 'behind' our necessary presuppositions and for universals. God is the foundation for truth, morality, moral law; the foundation for all absolutes. God is the source of intelligence, personality and language. God is the foundation for uniformity and logic. Do you believe in logic? Do you rely on uniformity?
The question then is this; do you believe in a universe, reality, in truth, in moral absolutes, in law, in language, in universals, in logic, in beauty, in meaning, in justice? in complex, specified information, in Design? If you do you believe in God. Without the Triune god revealed to us in scripture none of these things would be possible.
- Criticisms; some people will read this (assuming anyone does) and say; "that my friend is nothing more than an empty claim."
Let me respond to our polite dissenter. (I don't get many readers of my humble blog, but when I do they're always well mannered :=) I believe my claim is true for two reasons; a. it's what the bible and orthodox theology teaches, b. materialism (mere matter in motion) is utterly incapable of producing the things I mentioned. Most or all of my examples involve immaterial entities; by their very nature matter in motion could not produce them. (e.g. universals like truth, logic; language in general.)
Summary;
One reason people are so ignorant of theology (and the more educated they are the more ignorant they usually are) is that they don't want to know the truth about God. I remember listening to a lecture given to a select group of professorial types and in the Q+A a posh sounding Brit lady took the mike and said; ''I don't even know what you're talking about when you talk about God. Can you define this god?"
If she was being honest (and I suspect she was) she had no excuse for her ignorance. She lived on a campus filled (even in our debauched times) with books on theology.... even a few good ones :=) She lived no far from where men formulated the famous Westminster Confession. She didn't know 'what' god was because she didn't want to know. She was one of a large crowd that conjure up some utterly horrid and stupid idea of god and then tell themselves proudly that they don't believe in anything like that! When people say they don't believe in god, they really mean that they don't want to give god any credit. (i.e. any credit for the things they do believe in.)
Notes;
1. I believe my short summary is Biblically accurate, and can be backed up by exegesis. In short the argument is that even if some kind of a cosmos could exist without a creator God, it would be a kind of empty and formless void... utterly devoid of living organisms and especially of man; that it's only the ordering Word of God that brings all valued human experience into being.
2. It's my observation that educated 'atheists' form their idea of god by collecting the worst things about god they've ever heard and then fabricating their image out of these falsehoods. I believe that they do this out of a bias against the idea of the Triune God found in Christian scripture. (The good books are out there, but somehow the 'atheist' never seems to find them.)
3. While I claimed that all people believe in God, I didn't mean to infer that there are no people who honestly (ie. privately) don't believe a creator God exists... who are so confident they don't even doubt it. (I think such people are rare, but I don't know if this is true or not.) What I see them as having done is to have used various ideas to rule God out of existence a priori. (i.e. god doesn't exist because he can't exist.)
- Most 'atheists' rely on hedonism to keep god out of mind. If you really work at it you can keep almost any 'awful' truth out of your mind.
- Since I'm no artist let me describe a cartoon. A man sits out on a veranda. Let's say he's a famous writer, now in his twilight years. He's giving an interview. He's drinking a scotch. Are you afraid to die?" he's asked. He pops a pill and downs it with a drink. "Not in the least," he says.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
A voluntary universe
If matter is all there ever was, all there is, and all there ever will be, then things are what they are necessarily. If this is the case it should be possible to discover the reasons why all things exist. The Christian concept of creation is rejected by many because it throws the above project into doubt.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'For the created universe itself owes its existence to a voluntary act of God. It is intelligible only if seen as such.' - Cornelius Van Til [1.]
- It is thus an error for men to search for necessary reasons why the universe exists or why it must exist; and it's an error to search for the necessary (in terms of independent, autonomous, material causes) reasons for galaxies, stars, solar systems, planets, living organisms and man. If Van Til is correct here (and I think he is) the whole universe is a voluntary and creative act of God. It's not the product of mechanical cause and effect working upon eternal matter. The implications of this 'idea' is that it's a mistake to think of the universe in necessitarian terms.
This of course goes against the grain with the current model of science; but I believe the search for the necessary causes of all things in the mechanical workings out of matter is a mistaken one. It's one that can never come to the truth, and at best it's largely a waste of time. (It's true there might be tangential benefits from the process... as there often is in even the most misguided projects.)
This means that man can never comprehend any aspect or object in the universe in a complete way; that this knowledge is God's and god's alone. Man may know things truly, but not comprehensively. [p.182] It is therefore an error for men to claim complete (comprehensive) knowledge of the universe or of any aspect of it.
Summary;
What are the implications for scientific endeavor? I think the search for necessary causes should be abandoned, and scientists should restrict themselves to doing what they do best, which is the investigation and description of the universe. The fact the universe (and all it contains) is a voluntary creation of God places limits on what men can know, and on how they can know it.
Michael Johnson [frfarer - at - gmail.com]
Notes;
1. An introduction to systematic theology - Cornelius Van Til/p.181
2. Word of advice to first time readers of Van Til. His terminology often seems strange to modern ears. I've found that his terminology usually follows the definitions found in Webster's 1913 or 1828 dictionary. (e.g. On page 183 he says man never knows God adequately. You might think that while man doesn't know god comprehensively that he at least knows him adequately; but when you check the dictionary you see that the older meaning of adequate is equal. What Van Til seems to be saying is that man's knowledge of god is never equal to god's knowledge of himself.)
- for more technical terms, I've found the that the best dictionary to use is the Century dictionary. It can be found on the Wordnik site.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'For the created universe itself owes its existence to a voluntary act of God. It is intelligible only if seen as such.' - Cornelius Van Til [1.]
- It is thus an error for men to search for necessary reasons why the universe exists or why it must exist; and it's an error to search for the necessary (in terms of independent, autonomous, material causes) reasons for galaxies, stars, solar systems, planets, living organisms and man. If Van Til is correct here (and I think he is) the whole universe is a voluntary and creative act of God. It's not the product of mechanical cause and effect working upon eternal matter. The implications of this 'idea' is that it's a mistake to think of the universe in necessitarian terms.
This of course goes against the grain with the current model of science; but I believe the search for the necessary causes of all things in the mechanical workings out of matter is a mistaken one. It's one that can never come to the truth, and at best it's largely a waste of time. (It's true there might be tangential benefits from the process... as there often is in even the most misguided projects.)
This means that man can never comprehend any aspect or object in the universe in a complete way; that this knowledge is God's and god's alone. Man may know things truly, but not comprehensively. [p.182] It is therefore an error for men to claim complete (comprehensive) knowledge of the universe or of any aspect of it.
Summary;
What are the implications for scientific endeavor? I think the search for necessary causes should be abandoned, and scientists should restrict themselves to doing what they do best, which is the investigation and description of the universe. The fact the universe (and all it contains) is a voluntary creation of God places limits on what men can know, and on how they can know it.
Michael Johnson [frfarer - at - gmail.com]
Notes;
1. An introduction to systematic theology - Cornelius Van Til/p.181
2. Word of advice to first time readers of Van Til. His terminology often seems strange to modern ears. I've found that his terminology usually follows the definitions found in Webster's 1913 or 1828 dictionary. (e.g. On page 183 he says man never knows God adequately. You might think that while man doesn't know god comprehensively that he at least knows him adequately; but when you check the dictionary you see that the older meaning of adequate is equal. What Van Til seems to be saying is that man's knowledge of god is never equal to god's knowledge of himself.)
- for more technical terms, I've found the that the best dictionary to use is the Century dictionary. It can be found on the Wordnik site.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
What are the chances of a chance universe?
I guess we might say that one of mankind's most notable inventions has been the concept of chance. Let's take a brief look at chance.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The idea of chance is simply the recognition of the failure of man to reduce things to logical relations.' - Cornelius Van Til [1.]
- Philosophers (and others) who use the term chance are admitting that the Rationalist project has failed. The reliance on chance is widespread; e.g. the 'factor' that caused the singularity to explode and become the universe is attributed to some chance event; the cause of the first 'life' on earth is attributed to some chance occurrence; it's by some unknown chance event that sex and sexual reproduction came into being; etc. We see in this evidence for the claim that the attempt to give an explanation of the universe in terms of logical relations has failed.
Evolutionists (the sons of atheism and materialism) are of course very touchy about such critiques. They deny that chance is a constitute element in their theory, and that it's only provisional. They claim that the Rationality project is not dead, but alive and well. In saying this they make it clear that they don't understand what Rationalism was all about. Rationalism is the claim that all things can be understood logically. It's not (at heart) a scientific project. i.e. it doesn't depend upon empirical discoveries. For example; the rationalist knows that the God of Christianity doesn't exist through the application of logic, not through exhaustive empirical research.
That materialists rely on chance to explain the most basic realities of our universe and human experience means that the Rationalist project has failed. It has been replaced in the hearts and minds of materialists by a kind of triumphalist scientism. This is the claim (boast) that science (not logic) will one day show all doubting agnostics and over confident creationists the reality behind what is now attributed to chance. i.e. will show that there is no such thing as chance, and that there is a demonstrable (and material) cause for all things. Chance will one day (so the chorus goes) be thrown out of the universe - even as earlier God was thrown out.
I consider this an impossible project. As I see it, chance isn't be used as a cover for the unknown, but a cover for mystery. Biblical Christianity teaches that some basic truths (e.g. ultimate origins) can only be known by special revelation.
Summary;
Biblical Christianity denies the idea of chance. It claims that the universe and everything in it has an ultimate cause in the God who created it. It further claims that all things that happen have their ultimate cause in the Providence and governance of God. It is thus a major error in philosophical thought to deny Providence or to affirm chance. It is also an error to affirm that the universe operates in terms of mechanical necessity. [2.]
Notes;
1. Systematic Theology - Cornelius Van Til/p.161
2. See the Westminster Confession of Faith [section 5; On Providence]
- I recommend a book called 'The Westminster Confession of Faith' (for study classes) by G. I. Williamson; P+R Publishing.
- While our new atheists (about as new as gravity) talk a lot about Christianity, they seem to know precious little about it. If Sam Harris were to read one page of the WC he'd improve his knowledge base a hundred percent.
3. In Genesis we read of how the Serpent tempted Eve; it asked her if God had 'really said' something... and if she thought this would 'really' happen. What he/it was doing was trying to persuade her that she lived in a chance universe; that there were areas in it that were outside of God's control. The serpent was trying to instill doubt about what God had said by inferring some 'thing' called chance had an independent existence... by inferring that the universe was (at least in some limited way) independent and outside of God's control. This being the case, maybe it was Satan who invented the idea of chance; but to say this would rob man of one of his proudest accomplishments. We wouldn't want to do that would we?
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The idea of chance is simply the recognition of the failure of man to reduce things to logical relations.' - Cornelius Van Til [1.]
- Philosophers (and others) who use the term chance are admitting that the Rationalist project has failed. The reliance on chance is widespread; e.g. the 'factor' that caused the singularity to explode and become the universe is attributed to some chance event; the cause of the first 'life' on earth is attributed to some chance occurrence; it's by some unknown chance event that sex and sexual reproduction came into being; etc. We see in this evidence for the claim that the attempt to give an explanation of the universe in terms of logical relations has failed.
Evolutionists (the sons of atheism and materialism) are of course very touchy about such critiques. They deny that chance is a constitute element in their theory, and that it's only provisional. They claim that the Rationality project is not dead, but alive and well. In saying this they make it clear that they don't understand what Rationalism was all about. Rationalism is the claim that all things can be understood logically. It's not (at heart) a scientific project. i.e. it doesn't depend upon empirical discoveries. For example; the rationalist knows that the God of Christianity doesn't exist through the application of logic, not through exhaustive empirical research.
That materialists rely on chance to explain the most basic realities of our universe and human experience means that the Rationalist project has failed. It has been replaced in the hearts and minds of materialists by a kind of triumphalist scientism. This is the claim (boast) that science (not logic) will one day show all doubting agnostics and over confident creationists the reality behind what is now attributed to chance. i.e. will show that there is no such thing as chance, and that there is a demonstrable (and material) cause for all things. Chance will one day (so the chorus goes) be thrown out of the universe - even as earlier God was thrown out.
I consider this an impossible project. As I see it, chance isn't be used as a cover for the unknown, but a cover for mystery. Biblical Christianity teaches that some basic truths (e.g. ultimate origins) can only be known by special revelation.
Summary;
Biblical Christianity denies the idea of chance. It claims that the universe and everything in it has an ultimate cause in the God who created it. It further claims that all things that happen have their ultimate cause in the Providence and governance of God. It is thus a major error in philosophical thought to deny Providence or to affirm chance. It is also an error to affirm that the universe operates in terms of mechanical necessity. [2.]
Notes;
1. Systematic Theology - Cornelius Van Til/p.161
2. See the Westminster Confession of Faith [section 5; On Providence]
- I recommend a book called 'The Westminster Confession of Faith' (for study classes) by G. I. Williamson; P+R Publishing.
- While our new atheists (about as new as gravity) talk a lot about Christianity, they seem to know precious little about it. If Sam Harris were to read one page of the WC he'd improve his knowledge base a hundred percent.
3. In Genesis we read of how the Serpent tempted Eve; it asked her if God had 'really said' something... and if she thought this would 'really' happen. What he/it was doing was trying to persuade her that she lived in a chance universe; that there were areas in it that were outside of God's control. The serpent was trying to instill doubt about what God had said by inferring some 'thing' called chance had an independent existence... by inferring that the universe was (at least in some limited way) independent and outside of God's control. This being the case, maybe it was Satan who invented the idea of chance; but to say this would rob man of one of his proudest accomplishments. We wouldn't want to do that would we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)