Dreadful Freedom - Marjorie Grene

(Originally written December 20, 2005 in Book 1)

Dreadful Freedom
Marjorie Grene
1948

Chapter 1 - Why Existentialism?

Existentialism is (in some sense) a reaction against Hegel.

Existentialism's first principle is that existence is prior to essence.

Existentialism can come off as a more complex version of pragmatism. Both attempt to shift value from the past to the future. Dewey and Sartre have similar shifts of the definition of value. However, Sartre proposes a philosophy that supports a constant state of revolution, whereas Dewey would replace the old dogma with an emphasis on maintaining a progressive society (this is still dogmatic, just less precise).

Both systems state existence before essence, but pragmatism moves philosophy from speculation to practical outputs; whereas existentialism focuses in on a stream of consciousness. Pragmatism uses science; existentialism uses sense-data to promote scientific research.

"It is a different kind of existence whose priority to essence is proclaimed by the two philosophies" (Green, 9).

Pragmatism fails to recognize that pure facts and pure science cannot produce values. It can only add or detract from them.

Some existentialists believe that a return to faith in the Christian God is "a possible and even necessary way out of our present moral chaos" (Green, 13). The atheistic existentialist however contends that values must be founded on objective facts.

Both a return to God and a value system based on facts "seek to escape our ultimate, inexplicable and terrible responsibility for the values that we live by, by giving them a cosmic rather than a human... source" (Green, 13).

Chapter 2 - Soren Kierkegaard: the self against the system

Kierkegaard's problem was to find out what the misunderstanding was between speculation and Christianity. He contends that the problem is rooted in individual existence. (He uses the term 'speculation' as understood in Hegelian speculation).

He condemns empirical science: natural science is dangerous, especially physiology's attempt to take over ethics. He states that it is bad to treat ethics like a natural science, to make it an illusion of statistical averages.

He asks, "Do I need to know how the movement in the nervous system works in order to believe in God and love men?" (Green, 16).

Kierkegaard is afraid that by embracing natural science we will lose ourselves to it and forget that which is important, God.

Kierkegaard contends that the only important thing worth understanding is one's self.

Kierkegaard is limited by the Christian paradox: man's experience is nothingness before God, but it still fulfills his existence.

He contends there is no objective truth of Christianity.

He states that the problem for the sincere Christian is subjective. It is not to build a theological system, but to find the way to heaven for themselves. The Christian is only aware of his own personal existence and the existence of God.

Kierkegaard focuses philosophy into the question: "what is man?"

What is man?
-What can I know?
-What ought I do?
-What may I hope?

Kierkegaard attempted to fuse Plato & Christianity.

Kierkegaard and modern existentialism both held to the awareness that here and now may be the last moment as a central idea.

"Pragmatism is afraid to face evil" (Green, 27). It is also afraid of facing the ultimate puzzle of individual humanity.

Kierkegaard drowns himself in paradoxes and word plays. Some of his most profound passages are difficult to decide whether their profoundness lies in an amazingly brilliant insight or such incredibly word trickery.

Notes on Secular Humanism: Threat & Challenge - 3

(Originally written December 3, 2005 in Book 1)

Secular Humanism: Threat & Challenge
Robert E. Webber
1982

Chapter 4 - The Playboy Mentality

The playboy mentality promotes free sex, TV sex and pornography. The playboy mentality has given a rise in drugs, explicit song lyrics, alcohol abuse and homosexuality.

Chapter 5 - The Violent Society

Expressions of violence in our culture:
-War
-Television
-The Family
-Abortion

Christians and secularists may agree on the evils of war, but they do not have the same reasons leading up to the conclusion. Christians should strive for peace because it is in accordance with Christ's teachings.

Violence on TV leads to violence in society.

Without God we are free from accountability. We are free from marital covenants, free from child raising responsibilities and free to pursue all of our selfish ambitions.

Abortion is the ultimate expression of violence being used to solve a problem.

Chapter 6 - The schoolroom nightmare

There are four areas in which secular humanists and Christians clash in the public school system:
- Values clarification
- Sex Education
-Creation vs. Evolution
-Prayer in schools/observance of religious holidays

Public education has overstepped its role and has begun to teach morality or values clarification. Because of the presence of secular humanism in the schools they teach a morally relative version of ethics. Moral absolutes and religious teachings learned by children from their Christian parents are being undermined by the school's morality teachings.

Sex education is a dangerous arena for everyone. Because of the differing views on sex held by the secular humanists and Christians it is important to monitor this closely. It is important for children to learn about sex, but the worldly values taught in public education should be excluded from the curriculum.

Creation vs. evolution is a hot topic in the public school debate. Christians argue that scientific creation should be taught alongside of evolution or that evolution should be only taught as a theory and not fact. Because of the differing views of creation within the Christian community it is not likely that a strictly Christian view of the origin of life will be pushed into the public schools. Young Christians should be encouraged to become science teachers so that evolution will be only taught as a theory.

Prayer in schools is a question of whether the government should protect the freedom of religion or the freedom from religion. Christians should not advocate for token prayers in schools that are more for show than truly religious in nature.

Chapter 7 - The political tangle

The question is how involved should Christians be in using politics as a way of regulating morality. The clash between secularists and Christians over legislating morality is due to the secularists wanting laws to be relative so that people can do what they want, whereas Christians want to legislate against 'sinful acts' for the greater good of society. Homosexuality and their rights fall under the category of moral legislation. Christians want to protect the sanctity of marriage while secularists want to assert an individual's right of choice. A second example of moral legislation is the abortion issue. The U.S. government devalued the unborn child's life and gave it only the value of the carrier's decided value of that unborn child. A third example of this occurs within the laws of marriage. Commonwealth marriages give unmarried couples the rights and benefits of married couples. This new type of relationship undermines the institution of marriage. It gives way to the thought that society's social patterns is what ought to be used in determining what is right and wrong, in lieu of using moral absolutes as the determining factor.

In dealing with the issue of Church and State a Christian must realize the state is a temporary institution, while God is forever. A separate Christian state is nowhere advocated for by Jesus. We are to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

The state can be used by Satan to undermine the works of Christians.

Without a moral authority over the head of the state, the state becomes the ultimate source of right and wrong. Essentially, the state becomes a god.

Secularism argues that the state is to protect the rights of all individuals and to determine what is right and wrong. Communism, another secular movement, decides what is right for the collective community. Both of these are flawed because what is right can change from ruler to ruler due to shifting values and attitudes.

Christians argue that the function of the state should be to contain the differing institutions and balance their freedoms with a sense of order that is necessary to have a true government. Christians should look at the government as appointed by God, but should not overstep its boundaries to become itself a god. The thing that should be most frightening to Christians is that once a government passes moral legislation that is in conflict with the Christian viewpoint that legislation will soon become the ethical norm.

Chapter 8 Where do we go from here?

Secular humanism and Christian humanism will continue to clash. There are four reasons for this:

1 Human nature is fallen
-Christians believe man is evil by nature due to the fall
-Secular humanists believe in the inherent goodness of man
-"All naïve hopes that individuals will change and society will become better are utopian and false" (Webber, 106).

2 Christ has redeemed the world
-Christians believe that Christ offers salvation to the world
-Secular humanists believe salvation is man's duty to create

3 The Church is the society of the redeemed
-Christians believe this statement
-Secular humanists believe the Church is an enemy of progress

4 The Church is to act as 'salt & light'
-Christians believe and act on this statement
-Secular humanists see Christians as standing in the way of freedom

"The Church should not enter into political and economic alliances that will compromise authentic Christian humanism" (Webber, 109).

"The Church should not seek to accomplish its task in society through political power or legislative force" (Webber, 109).

We should not use America as a tool to spread Christianity throughout the world. The job of evangelism is the Church's. If we are to give that job to America we are going to weaken the Church and to give false premises to the world that Christianity is supposed to use military force to spread the good news.

The Church should instead instruct people on the values and ethics of Christianity and act as an example to the world. The Church needs to wake up, but not use political power to move its agenda.

Notes on Secular Humanism: Threat & Challenge - 2

(Originally written December 2, 2005 in Book 1)

Secular Humanism: Threat & Challenge
Robert E. Webber
1982

Chapter Three - What is Secular Humanism?

Many different types of secular humanism:
-Ethical humanism
-Existential humanism
-Scientific humanism
-Utilitarian humanism
-etc.

One of the most apparent characteristics of secular humanism is its evangelical approach to atheism.

In 1980, "A secular humanist declaration" was signed by 61 prominent scholars

Secular humanism insists on thought and knowledge being free of the shackles of ecclesiastical, religious, political, ideological or social constraints.

Religious institutions have been guilty of censoring thought, for example: Theodosius' declaration of Christianity as the only legal religion in the empire, the Medieval Papacy, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials. Contemporary Christian Humanism however, advocates free thought.

"A secular humanist declaration" contains ten theses of secular humanism. Education, science and technology, evolution, moral education, religious skepticism, knowledge through reason, free inquiry, separation of church and state, freedom and critical intelligence.

Secular humanism intends to "tolerate diversity of opinion" and to "respect the rights of individuals to express their beliefs.

Truth is more likely to be produced in an area of exchanging opposing opinions in this worldview.

Secular humanism's hypocrisy is shown through groups like the ACLU advocating for free speech of the Nazi movement, but oppressing the religious right.

Secular humanists advocate for a complete withdrawal of religion from politics. They insist that if a certain religion is given primacy then minorities will suffer.

Secular humanism is completely against any form of totalitarianism.

Secular humanism rejects moral absolutes that come from God.

Ethics come from critical reason and existed before religion. A guide to discovering personal moral beliefs should be taught in public schools.

It is the duty of the government (public schools) to give people choices for morality. (Hypocrisy - this is a form of totalitarianism).

Reason is the ultimate means of knowing truth.

Science and technology offer salvation.

Evolution is the origin of man and the evolutionary process is not yet finished; however, it is not "an infallible principle of science". Creation cannot be taught because it is not a scientific fact. (Hypocrisy - Secular humanists admit that evolution is not "an infallible principle of science" yet it is taught as a scientific fact).

Evolution has not reached the final stage.

Education is essential for a free and humane society.

The church and Christianity are enemies of the people and progress.

Potential Dangers of Secular humanism:

1 Destructive, irresponsible freedom
2 Naïve Utopianism
3 Moral chaos
4 Loss of human dignity

Destructive and Irresponsible freedom

Secularist point of views promote a sick, narcissistic society concerned only with personal rights. There is no basis for caring for the welfare of other humans aside from altruism. It weakens society's sense of duty and obligation. Charity is done only to promote one's self.

Naïve utopianism may introduce totalitarianism. Secular humanism states if man were free of everything that binds or restrains him he would create the perfect society. This does not take in account for man's inborn evil nature.

Moral chaos

When man is free of any higher force (God) he must determine what is right and what is wrong. If man is the determiner of right and wrong then right and wrong become subjective and can change.

Loss of human dignity

In a secular humanist society man will only be worth his contributions to that society.

Notes on Secular Humanism: Threat & Challenge - 1

(Originally written December 1, 2005 in Book 1)

Secular Humanism: Threat & Challenge
Robert E. Webber
1982

Chapter 1 - Introduction

America changed in the 1960's & 1970's. According to Jerry Falwell, "Secular humanism has become the religion of America".

History used to be divided into two eras, the pre-Christian era and the Christian era. Now we are entering a third era: the post-Christian era. (C.S. Lewis). The post-Christian era has brought about a change in society. Those in favor of this change see it as abandoning religion, which is false, for science, which is true.

Even Christians have changed. They now separate the secular and sacred aspects of life. Prayer and church no longer have a place in the public persona of Christians.

This book is about the recovery of an authentic Christian humanism.

Secularization has driven a wedge between religious faith and our life in the world. Secular humanism is a potent force in American society. The extreme religious right does not have the answers. The extreme religious left does not have the answers. The alternative to the religious right and left is the recovery of authentic Christian humanism.

Chapter 2 - What is Humanism?

"Humanism challenges every principle America was founded on" - Jerry Falwell

Humanism is defined as a reference to man and man's importance. Humanism is interested in what man is capable of creating, especially by using his mind.

Education is important to humanism.

Humanism came from the Greco-Roman world and the Judaic-Christian world.

Protagoras (500 BC) wrote, "man is the measure of all things". He was the first humanist.

Biblical humanism comes from Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs.

The difference between Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian humanism is that the first is naturalistic and the latter is supernatural. Christian humanism asserts that God became human and understands what humanity faces. It also makes God knowable.

Human life is sacred because man is created in the image of God and because God became human.

The Incarnation affirmed that moral absolutes were real. This is contrary to the pagan or secular belief that morals are relative.

Christian humanism has been perverted over the years (the Inquisition, the Crusades and Theodosius' decree of Christianity as the only legal religion are examples of this).

The rediscovery of Greco-Roman humanism in the Renaissance period paved the way for today's secular humanism. That humanism denies anything that is supernatural. That humanism sees religion as an obstacle blocking growth as a species. That humanism sees religion as imposing beliefs upon individuals, denying them the opportunity to live by personal convictions.

Humanism does not wish to negate all morality however. Because their view lacks an ultimate God or an ultimate good. they have no common way of measuring good or evil.

Humanism acquires its values from experience, observation and rationalization only. Humanism seeks to individualize all beliefs and values.

Christian humanism contrasts secular humanism in four ways:
-Confidence in God, in Christ
-A supernatural worldview
-The power of Christ through the Church
-Incarnational humanitarianism

Christ is the model human for Christian humanism. Christ came as a man due to the dehumanizing of men.

Christian humanism seeks to stop the dehumanizing effects of secular humanism and restore the intended nature of man in society. Christian humanism recognizes the battle between good and evil, light and darkness and between God and Satan.

In death, Christ destroyed the power of evil. In resurrection, Christ demonstrated his power to recreate in his new body.

A Christian humanist explains the evils that still exists today in two ways:
-Christ's work will only be completed when He comes again
-The Church is the presence of the future world to come

Christian humanism is rooted in God's love for humanity

God's role in the creation of sin

(Originally written November 18, 2005 in Book 1)

Recently I was asked by a friend about a topic that was intriguing. She said that she was having a very interesting conversation with a friend of hers about life and God. The conversation turned deep and 'philosophical' very quickly. It left me to think about what my friend's friend had said. She had posed the question, 'Who created sin?' My friend answered 'Satan'. The girl then replied, "Wrong, it was God; because God made Satan".

Is God responsible for sin? Is this a logical assumption? I thought and discussed aloud that a belief in God is faith-based and not always rooted in man's rationality. (I am not arguing that a belief in God cannot be proven rationally, I am simply stating that sometimes man's logic and rationality and logic is flawed and warped). My friend told me that her friend would not accept that answer because she only thinks on a logical and rational level.

So I now had two premises for her friend's argument. First that her friend was always rational and would not accept anything based on faith. Second, I knew that she believed God was the author of sin. I decided then to see if I could logically disprove one or both of her statements.

Written out an argument for hers would look like this: (We'll name her Penny)

Penny's Argument I

Premise A - I am always logical and rational in my thinking.
Premise B - God created sin.
Conclusion: The statement that 'God created sin' is a logical one.

This is basically her argument, but to arrive at the premise 'B' there must be a few presuppositions or an argument leading up to it. This argument would be as follows:

Premise A - God created Satan
Premise B - Satan contained Evil
Premise C - Evil caused Sin
Conclusion: God created sin

Now there is a solid argument showing that Penny is logical and that Penny believes that God created sin; and, since Penny is always logical her conclusion is logical. Now that we have an argument to check for logical correctness and rationality let's start.

To disprove this logical argument I am going to pose an argument that uses the same form. First, let's look at the form of Penny's arguments.

The argument I is a deductive argument. The argument affirms the antecedent. "IF Penny is always logical in her thinking, then her arguments are always logical. Penny is logical, therefore her argument that 'God created sin' is logical."

The argument for God's creation of sin has this form:

A created B
B contained C
C caused D
A therefore created D

To disprove this argument I will pose an argument using the same form that this argument uses. Since this is a deductive argument if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. But if the conclusion is false, then one of the premises (or more) must be false. Using this form I will pose this argument:

Bobby created a grilled cheese sandwich
The grilled cheese contained bacteria X
The bacteria X caused the virus Y
Bobby therefore created virus Y

This is obviously a false conclusion. A person cannot create a physical virus inadvertently by cooking a sandwich. Since this argument is false and it uses the same form as Penny's argument for God's creation of sin, Penny's argument is illogical. Since this argument is illogical it cannot serve as a premise for a logical argument. Premise B in argument I is false, rendering argument I false. That leaves us now with a dilemma.

Either God is not the creator of sin or Penny does not always think logically. We now know from my counter argument that Penny doesn't always think logically because she uses a false premise to prove a conclusion. Therefor, God is not the creator of sin. This may seem like a large jump but there is no way of logically defending the statement that God created sin. This is an indefensible argument and to take a belief that is logically indefensible is illogical.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 15

(Originally written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter 15 - The Value of Philosophy

It is important to realize that even if all hunger and disease were disposed of, much work would still be needed to be done to produce a valuable society

The interesting fact of philosophy is, when a definite knowledge of that which something is being studied in philosophy has been found it ceases to be philosophy. Astronomy and psychology are prime examples of this process.

Philosophy cannot prove dogmatic beliefs.

The value of philosophy is to free us from the prejudices of common sense, from habitual beliefs of one's time or nation, and from convictions to which we have been subjected to from birth and have accepted without any scrutiny.

"It [Philosophy] removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of liberating doubt" (Russell, 157).

Without philosophy we are constantly haunted by an insistence of desire and a powerless sense of will. Without philosophy we are trapped.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 14

(Originally written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter 14: The limits of Philosophical knowledge

Attempting to obtain knowledge of the universe through metaphysics, proving the fundamental dogmas of religion through a priori knowledge and using the laws of logic to state such and such a thing must exist and such and such a thing cannot exist is all in vain. These proofs cannot stand up to a critical scrutiny.

Philosophical and scientific knowledge are basically the same. All knowledge depends upon some a priori knowledge, usually some pure empirical knowledge.

Criticism sets philosophy apart from science.

Criticism examines science and daily life for inconsistencies. It allows us to accept knowledge or beliefs only when "no reason for rejecting them has appeared" (Russell, 149-150).

Pure skepticism is irrational and cannot be refuted by any logical argument. It is destructive and assumes no knowledge can be obtained. Philosophy should use Descartes' methodical doubt principle in being skeptical.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 13

(Originally written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter 13: Knowledge, error, and probable opinion

Knowledge is what is validly deduced from known premises. This is a circular definition because it makes the assumption that 'known premises' is already known what to mean. This definition of knowledge can be used for derivative knowledge.

Derivative knowledge is what is validly deduced from premises known intuitively. This is not circular bit it still leaves us wondering what 'intuitive knowledge' is.

Psychological inference is a way that which which we pass beliefs from one another without the use of logical inference.

The definition of knowledge is not a precise conception, it merges into probable opinion.

There are two ways that a fact may be known:
1. Through the use of a judgment, in which its parts are judged to be related as they are in fact related (my hand writing in this sentence was particularly poor, it may have read 'are judged to be related as they are intact and related' or 'inferred related', but the gist of this sentence is lost on me since I wrote it over a decade ago).
2. Through acquaintance with the fact (which can be broadly called perception)

Two types of self-evidence
1. One that gives an absolute guarantee of truth
2. One that gives a partial guarantee of truth (in my margins I wrote "if it only is partially true, it is partially false and therefore is not self-evident, we only believe it is")

A self-evident truth that guarantees truth is guaranteed by the fact that it corresponds with acquaintance we have.

Mental facts and all facts concerning sense-data have a privacy which makes them unique to only the individual that knows them.  All knowledge of particulars falls under this.

The second type of self-evidence will have varying degrees.

What we firmly believe, that is true, is knowledge. What we firmly believe that is false, is error.

What we firmly believe that is neither knowledge nor error and what we hesitantly believe is probable opinion.

A body of individual probable opinions that are mutually coherent become more probable than any individual probable opinion in the body.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 12

(Originally written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter 12 - Truth and falsehood

The knowledge of things is undisputed; there is no opposite. You either have that knowledge or you don't. There is nothing to disprove it.

The knowledge of truths has an opposite. It has something that can dispute our knowledge. This thing is called error.

The fact is that people hold differing and incompatible opinions; therefore, there is a necessity for the existence of error. Both parties cannot have differing opinions on one particular thing and be both right. One must be erroneous.

Erroneous beliefs are usually held as strong as true beliefs. This makes it difficult to know which beliefs are erroneous and which are true. The questions "How do we know our belief is not erroneous?" is a difficult one to answer.

A preliminary question can be asked to make this question easier to answer: "What do we mean by truth and falsehood?"

There are three points to observe when attempting to discover what the nature of truth is:
1) Any theory about truth must be able to admit into it what is the meaning of false. A theory of truth must not be the same as a theory of acquaintance because acquaintance has no opposite.
2) Any theory of truth must incorporate beliefs into it because without beliefs there is no truth or falsehood. If the world were solely matter there would be no beliefs and thus, no truth or falsehood.
3) The truth or falsehood of a belief must always depend on something which lies outside that belief.

Truth consists in a form of correspondence of belief and fact.

Some philosophers have rejected this view of truth as correspondence of belief and something factual outside of that belief. They define something as true thought the theory of coherence. The theory of coherence states that falsehood exists when a belief fails to cohere in the body of all the collective beliefs.

There are two difficulties with this theory of truth:
1. "There is no reason to suppose that only one coherent body of beliefs is possible... Coherence fails because there is no proof that there can be only one coherent system" (Russell, 122).
2. In this view it assumes the meaning of coherence known when in all actuality 'coherence' presupposes the truth of the laws of logic. The truthfulness of the laws of logic cannot be subjected to the tests of truth in this system, yet they serve as the framework for it. If we were to state the opposite of one of these logical laws and reject the true law, the system could still be coherent, but completely false.

While coherence cannot establish the meaning of truth, it can be a strong test of truth after a certain number of truths have been known.

The relation involved in believing must be a relation between more than two things.

A belief is a relation of a mind to several things other than itself.

The mind is the subject of a belief while the sever things it is in relation with are the objects of that belief.

The subject and objects of a belief are the constituents of that belief.

A belief is true when it corresponds to the fact of the objects of that belief. It is false when it does not.

Truth and falsehood are properties of a belief, yet they are extrinsic properties.

Beliefs depend on minds for their existence, but depend on facts for their truthfulness.

Minds do not create truth or falsehood.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 11

(Originally Written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell 1912

Chapter 11 - On intuitive knowledge

Everything we believe ought to be capable of being proved or at least being able to be shown to be highly probably. If a belief is had but there can be no reason given that belief is considered unreasonable. (In my margin's I wrote "Pascal's argument for refutation" as I had not come across the term 'eschatalogically verifiable' yet).

There are two types of self-evident truths:
1. general principles
2. truths immediately derived from sensation: these are called 'truths of perception'

There are two types of self-evident truths of perception: (judgments of perception)
1. one type simply asserts the existence of sense-datum
2. the other type occurs when we acknowledge the existence of the sense data and subject it to analysis (an example is a red circle; we see red, we see round , we put it together and we see a red circle)

Another judgment we make is the judgments of memory

"A memory of an object is apt to be accompanied by an image of the object and yet the image cannot be what constitutes the memory" (Russell, 114).

The essence of memory is having immediately before the mind an object we recognize as past. 

Memory's accuracy is proportional to the vividness and closeness in time to the object or event.

There is a continual gradation in the degree of self-evidence in memory which corresponds with a gradation in the trustworthiness of that memory.

All self-evidence has degrees of accuracy, based on various factors.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 10

(Originally written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell 1912


The difference betwee an a priori general proposition and an empirical general proposition is not in the meaning, but in the evidence for it.


Chapter 10 - On our knowledge of universals

It is possible to know universals in three ways:
1) by acquaintance
2) by description
3) by neither acquaintance nor description

By seeing a particular with an attribute (i.e. color) we have acquaintance with the particular's color. By seeing many particulars with a specific color we abstract that color from the particulars to become acquainted with the universal of that color.

The easiest form of relations (universals) to comprehend are those which relate to parts of sense-datum.

Another relation known is before and after in time.

Another relation known is resemblance or similarity.

"All a priori knowledge deals exclusively with relations of universals" (Russell, 103).

In my margins I wrote "Our knowledge of God is a priori knowledge"

When we apply our a priori knowledge to a particular case we must have an empirical knowledge as well.


Empirical evidence consists of particular cases.

Two forms of knowledge:

1) Knowledge of things
2) Knowledge of Truths

Knowledge of things:
1. acquaintance: immediate knowledge 
 A. particulars 
   i. with sense data
   ii. with ourselves (probably)
 B. Universals
  i. sensible qualities
  ii. relations of space and time
  iii. similarity
  iv. certain abstractions (logical universals)
 2. Description
  - involves both acquaintance with something and a knowledge of truths

Knowledge of Truths:
 1. intuitive knowledge 
   A. Self-evident truths
     i. abstract logical and mathematical principles
     ii. some ethical propositions
 2. The secondary (derivative) form
  - everything that can be deduced from self-evident truths by the use of self-evident principles of deduction

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 8

(Originally written September 22, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter 8 - How a priori knowledge is possible

Kant is regarded as the greatest modern philosopher. His biggest contribution is 'critical' philosophy. 'Critical philosophy is "assuming as datum that there is knowledge of various kinds, inquired how such knowledge comes to be possible, and deduced" (Russell, 82). This question provided many metaphysical results of the nature of the world.

These metaphysical analyses can be debated; but, Kant does deserve credit for introducing a non-purely analytical a priori and for proving the importance of the theory of knowledge.

Analytic a priori are analytic because the predicate is obtained merely by analyzing the subject. i.e. A bald man (subject) is a man (predicate).

All a pirori before Kant were of this type.

Kant believed that all our experience was wrapped up in two elements:
1) the physical object
2) our own nature

Russell admits that he is in agreement here because knowledge of sense-data is based on a physical object and filtered through our own perception (the senses).

Kant believed that the physical object contains the sensation and through a priori knowledge we provide the space and time.

Kant states the physical object is essentially unknowable, what we can know is the phenomenon.

Phenomenon is the joining of the physical object and ourselves through experience which then conforms to our a priori knowledge.

The major problem with this view of a priori is that it expects the facts to always conform to logic and arithmetic and does not allow for variation or change.

The Problems of Philosophy Ch. 9

(Originally Written September 22, 2005)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell 
1912

Chapter 9 - The World of Universals

Relations have a being which is not in either physical object or sense data and important to a priori knowledge. 

Plato's 'ideas' are what Russell calls universals. Universals are anything which may be shared by many particulars and is the pure essence of the world. They do not exist in the world of sense or minds but are concepts that can be grasped by sense or minds. They are not physical objects that exist either, but merely abstract concepts like justice.

All sentences must contain at least one universal. Even simplistic sentences contain universals. "I like this" for example contain the particulars "I" and "this". They are particulars because they apply to a specific thing. The word "like" is a universal because "I" can "like" many different things.

"All truths involve universals, and all knowledge of truths involves acquaintance with universals" (Russell, 93).

Universals that are used as adjectives and common nouns express qualities or properties that single things (particulars) have. These have been widely used. However, universals expressed as verbs and prepositions have been widely ignored by philosophy.

The usage of universals as common nouns and adjectives place emphasis on particulars or individual items, whereas the usage of universals as prepositions or verbs place emphasis on relations of individual items. Since the relations of universals has been widely ignored, metaphysical systems have focused on individual items in isolation of the world and ignored the relationship between them. These metaphysical systems include the likes of Spinoza's monism and Leibniz's monadism.  

Universals are not of the mind, that is they exist outside of the scope of our mind. This book has a quality of being white with blue lines and a red cross line. It has a quality of whiteness. This whiteness is universal. The page would be white regardless of if or if not I were stating that it is white. I can say that the thought of the whiteness of the book is in my mind, but cannot say that this book is white because I say it is.

Thoughts, feelings, minds and physical objects exist in time and space; universals exist but they exist in relation to these other things. They have being independent of space and time.

Can Man Live Without God? Appendix

(Originally Written September 22, 2005 in Book 1)

Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994

Appendix A

The theory that there is insufficient evidence for theism contains three logical blunders:

1. The move to atheism by default is not an academically credible switch to make when there are many other choices

2. To state that 'I am an atheist because there isn't enough evidence for theism' implies a logically satisfactory defense of atheism they do not possess. They hold it even though it is logically indefensible while at the same time rejecting theism on the basis that it is logically indefensible.

3. Atheism cannot be defended and that is why it has become a softer version of agnosticism.

Nietzsche may have created an environment for Hitler, but what about the crusades under Christianity?

The difference is that under the philosophy of Nietzsche, Hitler's ideology was permissible. The crusades were a political endeavor that was disguised as an outlet of Christianity. It takes a path starkly different than that of Christ's philosophies.

Appendix B

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Believed that "I think, therefore, I am"

Defends the existence of God by stating that the human mind cannot come up with the concept of a perfect mind because a man's mind is imperfect. It therefore must have been placed into the imperfect mind by the perfect mind, which is God.

Defends the existence of God by stating just as a triangle by definition must have three sides, so a necessary being must exist. God is necessary and therefore, He exists.

Descartes reduced God to an innate idea.

David Hume (1711-1776)

Believed knowledge could only be derived by experience.

Anything that transcends a man's finite existence on earth is meaningless. God and creation are therefore not worthy to question about.

Believed that man has no soul

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Attempted a synthesis between empiricism (British philosophy) and rationalism (Continental European philosophy)

Kant's theory of knowledge (summary): Raw material consists of the outside world which is perceived by the senses, but that is inevitably processed by the human brain. It is the mind's perception of the object that we see, not the object in reality.

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

The individual's ability to choose is of the supreme importance. Choosing God is a 'leap of faith' that affirms God's existence, but recognizes it as an intellectual absurdity.

Three stages of life:
-Aesthetic
-Ethical
-Religious

From Kierkegaard's journal: "The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die". Thus, truth is relative to the individual.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

Believed everything in life could be reduced to sheer will.

Belief in the superman. Superman was one who realizes the human predicament but who nevertheless creates his own values in the face of anguish or deprivation and can build his life in triumph over it.

Elizabeth (Friedrich's sister) called Hitler the superman

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

Concerned himself with dilemmas and argued against God by making the debater against him choose one of his either/or postulates.

His presuppositions were however, wrong.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

A leading exponent of atheistic existentialism

Shifted from existentialism to a version of Marxist sociology later in life.

Sartre's philosophy led to the bloodshed in Cambodia

Man must choose for himself and author his own values.

Argued against the existence of God by stating that man cannot find God by himself.

Possibly disavowed his life's philosophy on his death bed.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 7

(Originally Written September 21, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter 7 - On our Knowledge of General Principles

The inductive principle is necessary to all arguments based on experience; however, experience cannot prove or disprove it. The principle of induction is not alone in this characteristic.

The principle of inference is the means of drawing inferences based on a sensation. If this inference is then true, it is as true as the data itself.

An inference takes the pattern of stating:
If A is true then B is true
A is true
B is true

The principle is obvious and may seem trivial, but it is important because it is knowledge which is in "no way derived from objects of sense" (Russell, 72).

There are three laws of thought:
1) The law of identity - Whatever is, is
2) The law of contradiction - Nothing can bot be and not-be
3) The law of the excluded middle - Everything must be or not be

(3: This is only man's logic. God is not subject to this law) This was written in my margins, but to be honest I don't know what I meant by it

In addition to these principles (laws of thought and the principle of inference) which enables us to prove that from a given premise that something is certainly true, there are other logical principles that enable us to prove that there is greater or lesser probability that something is true. (These principles include the inductive principle)

All knowledge is elicited and caused by experience, however some knowledge is a priori. A priori is knowledge derived without reference to particular facts or experience.

"Nothing can be known to exist except by the help of experience" (Russell, 76). This means that if we want to prove something exists of which we have no experience of we must use premises (one or more) of things we have direct experience with.

The scope of a priori is strictly limited.

When anything is known by direct experience (immediately) it is known by experience alone. But, when anything is proved to exist without immediate experience both experience and a priori principles are required in the proof of that thing's existence.

Empirical knowledge rests wholly or partly on experience.

A priori knowledge is hypothetical and contends that things exist or may exist, but does not give actual existence.

"The most important example of non-logical a priori knowledge is knowledge as to ethical value" (Russell, 75-76).

Russell is not stating ethical value as what is useful or virtues because they do not need empirical premises; he is referring to "the intrinsic desirability of things" (Russell, 76).

"It is fairly obvious that they [judgments on the intrinsic value of something] cannot be proved by experience; for the fact that a thing exists or does not exist cannot prove either that it is good that it should exist or that it is bad" (Russell, 76).

Whether something's existence is good or bad falls into the scope of ethics.

The knowledge as to what is intrinsically of value is a priori in the same sense that logic is a priori; meaning that the truth of such knowledge cannot be proved or disproved by experience.

Pure mathematics is a priori.

Pg. 78-79 mortal men passage. If men are not mortal it would upset the entire fabric of our knowledge. What of Elijah who was taken into heaven? He was immortalized by God and yet the fabric of man's knowledge was not interrupted. Man's logic was superseded by God's presence.

Deduction takes us from general to general or from general to particular whereas induction takes us from particular to particular or particular to general.

All empirical generalizations are more uncertain than the instances of them.

A priori propositions include logic, pure mathematics and fundamental propositions of ethics.

The questions that arise from a priori are:

1. How is it possible that there should be such knowledge?
2. How can there be knowledge of general propositions in cases where we have not examined all the instances and never can (because they are infinite)?

Can Man Live Without God? Chapters 10-16

(Originally written September 21, 2005 in Book 1).

Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994

Chapter 10 - Love's Labor Won

Components of meaning:
-Pursuit of wonder
-Knowledge of truth
-Love
-Security

The consummation of love comes in young adulthood.

Chapter 11 - Crossing the Bar

The search for security comes in maturity.

Chapter 12 - Getting to the truth

Modern times has seen the death of truth because truth is absolute and all absolutes are nowadays discredited. That's an absolute spoken to discredit all other absolutes. Ironic isn't it?

Three tests to see if a system is true:
1) Logical consistency
2) Empirical adequacy
3) Experiential relevance

Chapter 13 - Humanity's dilemma

Man is not intrinsically good and any optimistic philosophy that bases their views on this presupposition is sadly proved wrong by history time and time again.

The heart of man is desperately wicked.

Christianity insists God created man to be equal in dignity and essence, but not all ideas are equal. Some ideas are better than others.

"Greatness in the eyes of God is always preceded by humility before him".

Conviction of sin comes when we compare ourselves to God. Earthly greatness comes when we compare ourselves to other's low standards.

Chapter 14 - The Philosopher's Quest

Out of diversity comes unity.

The Trinity is diverse and unified. It is diverse in their personalities and unified as an all-powerful, all-loving God.

One of the great longings of humanity is to worship. Worship should involve both the spirit and truth.

Worship needs the constraints of truth so it doesn't become superstition or be reduced to mere ceremony. The truth which defines and creates something to worship is God.

Worship is coextensive with life.

Worship provides unity within all of life's diversity. It gives life the necessary tools for the ultimate fulfillment.

The pattern for unity in diversity is the Trinity.

The philosophical quest for truth and the answer of unity is found in Christ.

Chapter 15 - The Historian's Centerpiece

Christ fused the past, the present and the future together to form a Holy lifestyle. It remembers the past and looks to the future, but it acts during the present.

Christ's death provides the key to life.

Chapter 16 - The believer's treasure

"Why are we so unhappy" (as a society)? "We are a troubled civilization because the loss of a moral and spiritual center" (Zacharias, 169).

The difference between manmade utopias and heaven is the cross of Christ. Christ took on all the pain and suffering so that we could go to heaven. In manmade utopian settings suffering and pain is eliminated without being accounted for.

Can Man Live Without God? Chapter 9

(Originally written September 20, 2005 in Book 1)

Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994

Chapter 9 - Truth: An Endangered Species

When the fantasy of childhood ends and the search for wonder with it, adolescence brings the search for truth.

The search for truth must first have the intention of seeking truth and then dealing with the content of truth.

Truth and knowledge are not the same thing.

The absence of truth is not usually the reason for misunderstanding it. The suppression of truth is the root of misunderstanding.

Truth is gained through a relationship with Jesus Christ, not an understanding of his teachings.

Truth is absolute and truth is knowable.

By claiming to be the truth, Jesus implies all he says is true and cannot be false.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 6

(Originally written September 20, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter 6 - On induction

Without using induction we have knowledge of the existence of:
1. Ourselves (probably)
2. What we are acquainted with through sense-data
3. Memory: which is the act of remembering past sense-data

To expand our knowledge of existence we must make inferences of our already known (acquired) knowledge.

"Things which we see become associated by habit, with certain... sensations" (Russell, 62).

Uniformity can be misleading, but they nevertheless exist.

Since uniformity is sometimes misleading we must distinguish the fact that past uniformities cause expectations as to the future, from whether or not there is reasonable ground for giving these expectations merit when questions arise of their validity.

The uniformity of nature is the belief that everything that has happened or will happen is an instance of some general law to which there are no exceptions.

"We have reason to know that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has constantly become the past, and has always been found to resemble the past, so that we really have experience of the future, namely of times which were formerly future, which we may call past futures" (Russell, 64-65).

The fact that two things have been found together often and never apart does not prove demonstratively that they will always be found together. The most it does is lend weight to the belief that it does. It can never reach absolute certainty.

Because of this Russell states: "Thus probability is all we ought to seek" (Russell, 66).

The tool we use to test probability is the principle of induction.

There are two parts to the principle of induction (regarding individual cases).

1. When something of type A is found with something of type B and has never been found alone, the more times A & B are found the higher probability when either A or B is newly discovered the other will be associated with the new discover as well.

2. When #1 is done enough times and never disproved, the probability is almost considered a certainty.

There are two parts to the principle of induction (regarding general laws).

1. The greater number of cases in which A & B are together the greater the probability the general law is true.

2. If a sufficient number of cases is done and found A & B together and never separate, then this general law is almost considered a certainty.

The inductive principle is unable to be proved or disproved by an appeal to experience.

The inductive principle only uses data from an observed class. Any unobserved class experienced later does not alter the probability of the first observed data but can be incorporated to strengthen, weaken or somhow alter the conclusion.

The inductive principle must be accepted on the grounds of its intrinsic evidence or we must give up all our rights to making expectations of the future.

Can Man Live Without God? Chapter 8

(Originally written September 19, 2005 in Book 1)

Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994

Chapter 8 - The Romance of Enchantment

Childhood search for meaning: the sense of wonder in a child is what fascinates us about children and it is what fascinates a child. It is wonder that draws a child to search for meaning.

A child accepts fairy tales for three reasons:
1) It contains a moral and the enchantment and wonder of the story makes us eager to see the moral behind it.
2) It contains a non-negotiable condition, i.e. 'you must be back by the stroke of 12'.
3) This is an interesting point, because it is never questioned (which is the third part of the fairy tale)

Meaning for a child is produced by his/her recognition of the awe inspiring reality that surrounds his/her life. A child then loses his sense of wonder and enters adolescence.

But gratitude comes from wonder and wonder is cognizant of God himself.

When we lose wonder we lose a lot of things. We lose gratitude; we lose part of meaning and we diminish aspects of life that make it worth living.

The older you get the more it takes to fill your heart with wonder. Only God is big enough to supply an endless stream of wonder.

God meets you where you are and restores the wonder in your heart. Then you can walk with Him in a new sense of awe and passion.

Nietzsche said he went looking for God and didn't find him. Thus, nihilism was born.

The search for wonder does not lead us to the pursuit of knowledge, happiness or of life's vices. It leads us to a relationship with Jesus Christ.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 5

(Originally written September 19, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter Five - Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description

There are two kinds of knowledge:
1. Knowledge of things
2. Knowledge of truths

Knowledge of things is essentially simpler than any knowledge of truths and logically independent of knowledge of truths.

Knowledge of things by description always involves some knowledge of truths as its source and grounding.

Acquaintance comes from anything we are directly aware of. It comes from our sense-data.

Description comes from connecting truths of physical objects to our sense data.

There is no state of mind in which we are directly aware of physical objects; all our knowledge of physical objects is really a knowledge of truths. The physical object is not known to us at all.

While we may not know the physical object, we do know a description that corresponds to just one physical object.

All our knowledge (both knowledge of things and knowledge of truths) base their foundation on acquaintance.

Sense-data is the simplest form of acquaintance, but if it were the only source of acquaintance we would know nothing of the past, or even that the past existed.

We have to consider acquaintance with other things besides sense-data if we are to obtain any tolerably adequate analysis of our knowledge.

Memory is an acquaintance.

Memory occurs when we remember what we have seen or heard or had otherwise present to our senses.

The next extension of acquaintance is introspection, or self-consciousness.

Introspection is where we are aware of what we are doing, even if we are only doing it in our mind.

"Although acquaintance with ourselves seems probably to occur, it is not wise to assert that it undoubtedly does occur".

We have acquaintance with the outer world through the senses, acquaintance with the inner world through introspection, acquaintance with the past through memory, and probably acquaintance with our self, as that which is aware of things or has desires towards things.

Knowledge by description is important because it enables us to pass beyond the limits of our own personal experiences.

Can Man Live Without God - Chapter 7

(Originally written September 18, 2005 in Book 1)

Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994

Chapter Seven - The science of knowing and the art of living

The what and why of life are bound together. Is the meaning of life the same for all or, "are we condemned to wallow in culturally relative quotients, ever changing the point of reference and relegating meaning to the sense of happiness or to how one feels at a given moment?" (Zacharias, 67). The world has reduced the meaning of life to this quotation.

Michael Polanyi states that science gives us normative knowledge, while poetry, art and religion give us meaning. Polanyi continues to say that society gives meaning to science and if it is reversed, science is in danger of destroying life. (Read Michael Polanyi's book Meaning)

By reducing the world to its atomic level, science has made the search for meaning a meaningless pursuit. The search for meaning however, is not a meaningless pursuit. It is the essence of our very beings. Science may answer the 'hows' of life, but it leaves us empty because it cannot answer the 'whys'.

People look for meaning in their four stages of life, regardless towards their faith in any religion, god or science. They search in childhood, adolescence, young adulthood and maturity alike.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter Four

(Originally written September 18, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter Four - Idealism

Whatever can be known to exist must in some sense be mental.

Bishop Berkeley contends that nothing exists that is not of mind. All things perceived are originated in the mind or else they would not exist. Things exist continually because they exist in God's mind. That is why a tree will still exist after we stop perceiving it through one of our senses.

Knowledge is based on the mind being to be in relationship with something outside the mind.

The knowledge of truths is the sort of knowledge that prevents error. It is tied into our beliefs, convictions and judgments.

The second meaning of the word 'know' is a knowledge of things, which is called acquaintance.

It is truth to say: "If I am acquainted with a thing that exists, may acquaintance gives me the knowledge that a thing exists". It is not however true to say that, "If I am not acquainted with a thing that exists, my lack of acquaintance gives me the knowledge that the thing does not exist".

When there is no acquaintance with a thing it is known by description. Description is the knowledge of a thing by an inference.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 3

(Originally written September 18, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter Three - The Nature of Matter

Sense data is dependent of the reality.

The question is what is the nature of the physical object which persists independently of our sense data.

There is a difference between real space and apparent space. Real space is what is public; whereas apparent space is private.

Science is concerned with real space. 

Can Man Live Without God - Chapter 6

(Originally Written September 17, 2005 in Book 1)

Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994

Chapter 6 - In search of a lower meaning

God provides great meaning for life. If we kill God we lose our great meaning, leaving us empty and void of purpose. Man must have a purpose to live, so we have to find a lower purpose, if we are to be antitheists.

Isn't the pursuit of happiness a meaning to life? Antitheists choose to find happiness and success as their purpose and meaning.

But, Even when we achieve the pinnacle of success we find ourselves still empty and unfulfilled.

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 2

(Originally written September 17, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter Two: The Existence of Matter

Is there such a thing as matter? Is there a table which has an intrinsic nature that continues to exist even if I stop looking at it or is it a mere product of my imagination?

"We can never prove the existence of things other than ourselves and our experiences" (Russell, 22).

It is logically plausible for us to be the only reality and everything else is a fabrication of our dreams and fantasy. But, while logically plausible it is not likely.

It is an instinctive belief that we believe that our sense data corresponds with a real physical world and the physical world is not dependent on our senses. It makes life simpler if we believe in the existence of matter.

All knowledge is built on our instinctive beliefs. Our instinctive beliefs should harmonize with one another to form a plausible system. The only reason to reject an intrinsic belief is if it clashes with another instinctive belief.

Can Man Live Without God - Chapter 5

(Originally written September 16, 2005 in Book 1)

Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994

Chapter 5 - Where is Antitheism when it hurts?

Antitheism cannot provide a remedy for pain because an antitheist believes that life has no meaning. If life has no meaning what is the purpose of alleviating pain? Antitheism abolishes the past and the future leaving man to only fend for himself in the present. WHere is the hope in that if you are facing insurmountable odds?

The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 1

(Originally written September 16, 2005 in Book 2)

The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912

Chapter 1 - Appearance and Reality

"Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?" (Russell, 7). This is a difficult question that philosophy takes on.

Knowledge from our immediate experiences is often contradictory and wrong.

There is a distinction between appearance and reality.

Appearance is what we see and it is constantly changing in accordance to our point of view. Reality is known through inferences based on appearance. Reality is not known to us, but is an inference of what is immediately known.

Sense data are things that are immediately known to us, i.e. color, sounds, smells and textures.

Sensation is the immediate awareness of sense data.

Physical objects are the objects in reality.

The collection of all physical objects is matter.

There is an opinion that states, "whatever can be thought of is an idea in the mind of the person thinking of it; therefore nothing can be thought of except ideas in minds; therefore, anything else is inconceivable and what is inconceivable cannot exist"

Is there a table in reality? Of course there is because a man created it. You cannot create a mere appearance; it must be real. Reality is something created and God created the world therefore it is a reality. (Personal Opinion)

Can Man Live Without God - Chapter 4

(Originally written September 15, 2005 in Book 1)

Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994

Chapter Four - The Homeless Mind

Antitheism hopes to create a literal and figurative utopia where goodness is derived apart from God. Unfortunately, these goals are shattered by failure without reverting to sheer pragmatism.

Immanuel Kant tried to establish a moral impetus within man and to postulate a system of right and wrong from reason alone. Kant set the groundwork for intellectual demagogues of both the Democratic West and the totalitarian Soviet Union.

The USA is to become the USSR without God.

Kant had two theories:
1) That goodness was rational and morals were rational. Thus, all rational beings would be drawn to them.
2) Kant believed that the first theory was contained within mankind and had the capacity to perform these moral and good deeds. By our reason we therefore know what is right and by our will we can do what is right.

Kant believed that God is not essential to reveal morality since man can come to morality by reason; but, he does not deny that God has given some commands. Antitheists praise the first part of this and conveniently omit the second.

Kant's efforts to provide a rational basis for ethics and morals apart from God was unsuccesful but paved the way for existentialists like Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard proposed that rational beings don't gravitate towarads morality, but they have the choice to think of terms in ethic or not to think in terms of ethics.

This and other Enlightenment Age philosophies fail to produce coherent postulates because it leaves life meaningless. To establish morals there must first be the basis of human purpose and destiny. This can solely be arrived at through God. Dostoevsky said, "If God is dead, anything is justifiable."

An Open Letter to Bertrand Russell Outline

(Originally written September 15, 2005 in Book 2)

An open letter to Bertrand Russell
Chris Linehan

Outline

I. Man is not inherently good; man is inherently evil.
              A. Agreement that Christianity is too broadly used.
                        1. What it means to be a Christian
                             a. Personal
                             b. The Church
                             c. The community
                        2. Historical Christianity
                        3. Modern Christianity
              B. Christ's true character
                        1. Christ's teachings aren't figurative
                        2. Explanation of Christ's teachings (arguing against Russell's assumptions)
              C. Hell is not humane, but it is not God's fault that Hell exists
              D. Fear is not the foundation of Christianity
                        1. Love as a foundation
                        2. Christ as the key to salvation
              E. Man is impotent in saving himself

Can Man live without God - Chapter 3

(Originally written September 14, 2005 in Book 1)

Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994

Chapter 3 - The Mad Man Arrives

Auschwitz survivor Victor Frank: "If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment - or, as the Nazis liked to say, 'of blood and soil'. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka and Majdanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers" (Zacharias, 25).

As America removes the 10 Commandments from the constitution, we are setting the tables fore the rise of "sophisticated and elite" ideologies that will pave the way for another Hitler. This is the child of antitheism and materialism.

Aldous Huxley:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently, I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. It is our own will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason to another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless".

Russell: Religion and Morals

(Originally written September 14, 2005 in Book 2)

Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957

Religion and Morals

The important virtues of man are his kindliness and his intelligence.

Intelligence is impeded by any dogmatic creed. Kindness is impeded by belief in sin and punishment.

The decay of dogmatic belief is good.

Can Man live without God - Chapter 2

(Originally Written September 13, 2005 in Book 1)

Can Man Live without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994

Chapter Two: Straying through an infinite nothing

Atheism is the deliberate denial of the existence of God. Atheism bows actions on materialism. Materialism states that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces.

"Atheism is not merely a passive unbelief in God, but an assertive denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism. Atheism contradicts belief in God with a positive affirmation of matter as the ultimate reality" (Zacharias, 17).

One of Nietzsche's contentions was that Christianity had paralyzed human potential. Hitler claimed, "I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality. We will train young people whom the world will tremble at. I want young people capable of violence, imperious, relenting and cruel".

Atheism destroyed morality and conscience and without those two things, man is free to become as evil as he can be. Hitler was begotten of enlightened and freed Germany.

Russell: Can religion cure our troubles?

(Originally written September 13, 2005 in Book 2)

Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957

Can religion cure our troubles?

Truthfulness and intellectual integrity are virtues that can only be derived if one rejects dogmatic religion.

Intellectual integrity: deciding the answer to questions based solely on evidence. If there is not enough evidence to support a conclusion then we should leave the question unanswered. Intellectual integrity will help the world more than any of the organized religions.

Morals are accepted on solely religious creeds or on an obvious social utility.

There is no need for theological morality because as civilization progresses, earthly morals, regulated through law, can punish and stop immoral behavior by itself. There is no need for a god to judge from heaven.

Religions do not like inquiry because inquiry might lead people to question God's existence.

Religion may be argued to be true, but if it is simply argued to be useful then it is dangerous.

"Christianity... does less harm than it used to do, but that it is because it is less fervently believed" (Russell, 198).

Christianity is not the key to changing the world. Christianity has produced many evils over the course of history.

Only man's intelligence can save us from the current state of the world.

Can Man Live Without God - Chapter 1

(Originally Written September 12, 2005 in Book 1)

Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994

In this book Zacharias deals with antitheism, what gives life meaning, and who Jesus is.

Chapter 1 - Anguish in affluence

Philosophy takes place on three tiers

Level One: Foundational level of theory. Great philosophical debate and dealing with clear epistemological bias. This level involves rigorous application of the laws of logic. THere is no room for feeling, culture or emotion at this level.

Level Two: This level deals with that which is done through the arts.

Level Three: This level deals with that which is had at a kitchen table.

Level three is where most of humanity lives and operates. In order for a philosophical theory to be understood it must be debated and conversed at level three so that all humanity can understand.

Russell: Freedom and the Colleges

(Originally written September 12, 2005 in Book 2)

Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957

Freedom and the Colleges

Professors should be hired on expertise alone and not on personal beliefs, and they should be judged by other experts in their field.

Academic freedom is threatened by the plutocracy and the churches.

It is important to have both sides of an argument openly presented, even if one side is a minority, controversial or an unpopular argument.

Intellectualism and progress are dependent upon an individual's freedom to disagree with the public.

Collective wisdom is not an adequate substitute for the intelligence of individuals.

Heretics are the only people who have changed moral and intellectual thought.

New thoughts and new beliefs are necessary at all times.

Russell: Our Sexual Ethics

(Originally written September 11, 2005 in Book 2)

Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957

Our sexual ethics

Sex is still viewed by many in an irrational way.

Monogamy is nearly impossible in modern times. Monogamy can be assisted by living in a secluded area and by the fear of sin. Public opinion can also keep people monogamous.

The difficulty of arriving at a workable sexual ethic arises from the conflict between the impulse to jealous and the impulse to polygamy.

Jealousy can be lessened by removing the stigma in society that goes along with unfaithfulness.

Fatherhood and marriage must pass away for women to be completely sexually liberated.

If marriage and paternity are to survive than a compromise between complete promiscuity and lifelong monogamy must be made.

It is unhealthy for women to have children before 20 and unhealthy for men to marry before 30. It's better that the young have considerable sexual freedom if kids can be avoided.

Divorce should be easy and blameless.

Women sho8uld work when they are wives because otherwise they are gigolos.

Jealousy is the driving force in sexual morality. Modesty is the second force behind our current sexual ethics.

Morality exists in the entire World, at least a certain type of culturally accepted morality.

Asceticism is an impulse which seems to come into play only when a society reaches a certain point of civilization.

The old sexual ethic was effective for a man-dominated world because it kept wives subdued. With the liberation of women, one of two things must change in our sexual ethics. Either men must be held monogamous like women or women must be set free of monogamy, like men are.

Our new sexual ethics will form more effectively and quickly if we continue to weaken the taboo on sexual knowledge.

"In seeking the new ethic of sexual behavior, therefore, we must not ourselves be dominated by the ancient irrational passion which gave rise to the old ethic" (Russell, 175).

The old ethic had come to good maxims, but accidentally

 Since the old ethic has some good maxims we mustn't abandon the old ethic completely but include the maxims that are capable of producing the promotion of human happiness.

There is no good reason to shelter children from sexual knowledge.

The child who is told what he wants to know and allowed to see his parents naked will have no pruriencey and no obsession of a sexual kind" (Russell, 176).

Ignorance of sex is dangerous for the growth of a child into adulthood.

There is no reason to only explain the physiological effects of sex or to tie it and box it in the constraints of marriage.