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.
Friday, May 14, 2010
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)