A correction of my earlier self

It is interesting in reading some of earlier writings from 2006. It shows how I've changed my mind, what I thought was important then vs. what I consider important now and just an overall development of my thinking process. For example in 2006 I was staunchly beholden to a literal Seven-Day Creationist approach in understanding Genesis. I railed against evolution and was "pained" in an early attempt at apologetics to find that my arguments couldn't rule out evolution. Now, I don't think that evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive and not a vey important part of Christian theology. Likewise, I railed against the ontological argument for the existence of God. Now, I find myself more convinced by it then any other argument for the existence of God. On that however, my twenty-two year old self did admit that he didn't like the ontological argument possibly because he didn't understand it. It's just funny and enlightening to reflect on my past thought process and view it from a point further down the road.

365 Day Bible Day 2

Day 2 (still playing catch-up)

Genesis 3-4

The Fall of Man in Genesis 3- Why did God make the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why did God make the Tree of Life? Genesis 3 offers us the first look of the Problem of Evil in Scriptures. Why was the serpent crafty? Why did he defy God? Why did Eve mis-remember or lie about the tree in the middle of the garden and embellish what God had said? Eve, even in that innocent state at the least erred, if not fibbed. Who is to blame for the fall of man?

Was it God for setting Adam and Eve up to fail? Was it the serpent for seducing Eve? Was it Eve for eating the apple and seducing Adam? Was it Adam to succumbing to Eve and eating the apple? It just occurred to me, though I've probably thought of it before or so I'm not mis-remembering or fibbing, it's probably more accurate to state that it has been pointed out to me before that the problem of free will and the problem of evil are intricately related.

Why did God create the universe in the way He did? We may posit guesses, theories and plausible scenarios, but our answers will only reach probability standards and internally consistency. The fact of the matter is that the world is as it is because God created it as such (allowing a transcendental argument that presupposes that the Christian God did create the world, that I have no personal qualms with accepting on various levels that I'll not go into at the moment). But, as for the creation of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (whether this is a literal or metaphorical creation, a topic for another discussion) demands that God created the world as such to involve Free Will. Thus, sin, though not inevitable, is at least possible in the world that God created. The Problem of Evil comes about because we ask who is the author of evil. In a world that is created by God where evil is at least possible don't we have to accept that God is the ultimate author of evil? I tend to lean towards St. Augustine's way of dealing with the existence of evil as I sort of had a eureka moment when I learned of his theory. Evil is not something that exists independently and is really only the diminishing of the good. Thus, God who cannot be diminished at all can never be evil. Thus, we can rule God out as the author of evil.

But, we needn't get too deep into this as it really doesn't concern Genesis 3 only that it absolves God from any guilt in the scenario. God shows whose to blame as he doles out punishment. The serpent is cursed. The woman has her pain in childbearing greatly increased and Adam and the ground is cursed because of his role in the event.

Even after punishment though God takes care of Adam & Eve making them garments of skin.

Cain and Abel are then born to Adam and Eve in exile from the Garden. Cain offered "some" of his fruits and Abel offered "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock". The Lord looked on Abel with favor for his offering, but not on Cain. Cain became angry. Then God says something interesting, combining a comforting and a warning - "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it".

That verse, 4:7 strikes some fear in me. I can vividly picture sin crouching at my door seeking to have me. Lord, help me master it.

Cain kills Abel and is cursed by God, but once again God even punishment doesn't totally destroy Cain, marking him so that nobody kills him.

This is where I start to get intrigued and thinking about the whole Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel and why is Cain scared stating, "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me". If Adam & Eve are the first people and Cain and Abel their first children, and now that Abel is dead, who is Cain afraid of coming across when he is wandering? Who is his wife that he lay with in the next verse? Now I guess is as good of a place as any for me to posit my working and probably incredibly inaccurate thoughts on Creation, Adam & Eve and who the heck Cain is scared of.

First, with regard to the Genesis account of Creation and its literal/metaphorical interpretation. Actually, let's back up a second before I go into this. Firstly, anything and everything in Scriptures is relevant to our daily walk with God. But, if it doesn't deny the salvation through Jesus Christ or anything heretical about the nature of God, I think a debate can be had on certain things - one of which is Creation. Secondly, as long as there is no disagreement on how one is redeemed, which is through Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him as one's Lord and Savior, and on the Triune God of Christianity being the sole God, one can be called a Christian. I am sure that when I get to Heaven I will be surprised who I see and who I don't see. God's redemptive powers are greater than my conception of them. Lastly, I do not think it to be edifying the faithful or a good look to the un-believing for Christians to come to blows, literal or metaphorical about things related to faith. Where there is disagreement, let there be discussion unless discussion leads to heresy or disharmony. If there are in those rare spots places where Christians can disagree on points of theology that are not related to Christ, his redeeming ways or on the Trinity then let us simply do good works to show our faith. But when it comes to Creation, I am not a literalist. I don't think we can take the Biblical account of Genesis 1-2 and turn it into a scientific treatise because that is not what it was intended to be.

As for my take on Creation, I see no reason why a Darwinian account of evolution is incompatible with a Scriptural worldview. I see this because I don't think the Bible is a scientific textbook. Now, Darwinian evolution has the power to describe the process of how the earth came into being, but not the why or the intent of creation. I believe that when God set into motion the events of creation that would eventually lead to this point and to the final point in history, He did so in the full knowledge of the fall of man and that his creation act included the two seminal points in redeeming man - the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus Christ and the second coming. They were woven into the fabric of creation because he had foreknowledge that man would fall and in the ultimate act of love and sacrifice he chose to create and redeem nonetheless. Why did God create in such a way that included Free Will? Again, this is one of those questions we can only posit theories to that approximate internal consistency because we cannot know the full mind of God.

Now, we come to Adam and Eve and some of the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. I think at some point in the distant past, when man was emerging out of East Africa, God chose, much in the way he chose Abraham, a certain man and placed him in the Garden to fulfill the purpose which God had set for man at the onset of creation - "to fill the earth and subdue it, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Through Adam naming the creatures of the garden, God gave him dominion over those in the garden. While I don't take creation as literal, I take the Garden of Eden and Adam as literal, as well as Eve being formed for Adam by God specifically as literal, historical events.

Now comes the question of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life and the serpent. This I vacillate back and forth on. On the one hand, if God set up a guard at the entrance to the Garden so that Adam & Eve couldn't return to the garden it would suggest that both trees are literal. But, on the other hand, the sin/fall of man could very well have been Adam & Eve exercising their free will in a way that resulted in sin and the story could be metaphorical and just Adam & Eve choosing to live their way instead of God's way. I'm not sure - to be honest, I'm not really sure about any of this; it's just my personal thoughts.

Cain & Abel is most definitely now entering a literal phase. I think that once Adam & Eve have been banished from paradise they are aware of other people throughout their little corner of the world. Cain being banished from his home territory would mean coming across other groups of humans who might not be overly receptive to someone wandering into their territory where they hunt and gather. Why do I think that Adam & Eve and their sons knew of other human beings in the vicinity of them? The wife of Cain, without the Biblical mention of Adam & Eve having a daughter makes me think that Cain (and probably Abel) acquired a wife from another band of humans in the general vicinity to where Adam & Eve were living. But, this could all be wrong. Lord, I pray for two things. First, that I don't get to caught up in intellectualizing your Word and thus, not gleaning the eternal truths from it by drowning out your voice. Second, that I don't lead myself or anyone else astray from you in thinking or writing these things.

To finish up today's reading in Genesis I have two things that puzzle me

1) Lamech. What is Lamech saying when he makes his declaration to his two wives?
2) Adam & Eve's third son Seth has a son called Enosh: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord". What does that mean? The Lord spoke to Adam & Eve, and to Cain (presumably to Abel). But had the fall caused enough rift that the Lord was pulling back and so the roles reversed to where man was beginning to call on the name of the Lord instead of the other way around?

Matthew 3

John the Baptist was baptizing and preaching in the desert and drawing crowds. He chastised the Pharisees and the Sadducees who seemed to be relying on their heritage as descendants of Abraham for salvation. "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance" (3:8) he warned them, continuing "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (3:10).

Lord, hear my prayer - Help me to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. I repent of my sins and yet I am bearing no fruit. I continue to go to my sins often, even after repenting. I repent again. Help me to bear fruit.

The first words of Jesus in the New Testament come from Matthew 3:15 "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness". While the formation of the Scriptures as it is now may not be chronological in the order that events happened or were even recorded, I find it interesting to English readers of the Scriptures that Jesus' first words are essentially 'let's do it to fulfill all righteousness'. With that John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and God declares from Heaven who Jesus is - "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased". Righteousness pleases God.

Psalm 2

2:11 - "Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling"
2:12b - "Blessed are all who take refuge in him"

Lord, may I serve you and rejoice you and take refuge in you.

Proverbs 1:7-9

1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."

Lord, let this be yet another beginning of knowledge. Teach me not to despise your discipline. Hear my prayer Lord.

Empedocles

Empedocles

FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Empedocles is a wealth of subject matter.

The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980

Empedocles

-Empedocles is the first pluralist we know anything about.
-accepted the Parmenidean notion that nothing is created or destroyed
-denied the Parmenidean notion that motion is impossible
-argued that motion took place by things swapping places in the plenum
-The many things that exist are roots: earth, air, fire and water. Each of these roots are a Parmenidean one, eternal, uncreated, indestructible and unchanging
-Two types of motion: Love & Strife
-Love - the motion of uniting
-Strife - the motion of separation
-The world ebbs and flows between total love (absolute mixing of the four roots) and total strife (absolute segregation of the four roots)
-the objects of the perceivable world are unstable combinations of the four roots
-anticipated the survival of the fittest part of evolution in a creative way:

As love begins to come back into the ascendency and take back from strife the world will have a strange look: "At this time the various parts of animals arise in a hit-or-miss way, as Love bit by bit mixes the elements that Strife has separated: 'heads spring up without necks and arms wander bare and bereft of shoulders. Eyes stray up and down in want of foreheads'. As love continues to mix things up, these parts get united in a completely haphazard way: 'these things joined together as each might chance, and many other things besides continually arose'. Eyes might, for instance, 'mix' with hands, feet with shoulders. Such mixtures obviously cannot survive, but in the course of random combinations a successful relationship sooner or later occurs" (Jones, 27).  But the evolutionary process is completely controlled by chance. There is no god guiding it along.

FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Empedocles needs to be a sort of mad scientist letting things 'evolve' by random. Weird beasts with no eyes, six hands and a foot, sort of a Dali painting out of a nightmare. 

While Empedocles denied the existence of god in the evolutionary process of love coming into the ascendency, he did worship the overall process as a god like Xenophanes. Also like Xenophanes, the god of Empedocles was not anthropomorphic.

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972

"The mixture of philosopher, prophet, man of science, and charlatan, which we found already in Pythagoras, was exemplified very completely in Empedocles" (Russell, 53).

-Flourished circa 440 BC
-from Acragas, Sicily
-a democratic politician and claimed to be a god
-stories abound of him as a miracle worker, could control the winds, brought a woman back to life after being dead for 30 days
- to prove he was a god he leapt into the crater of Etna
"Great Empedocles, that ardent soul
Leapt into Etna, and was roasted whole"
-Like his contemporary Parmenides, Empedocles wrote in verse
-his science and religion were inconsistent with one another
-discovered a crude version of centrifugal force
-wild evolutionary theory
-knew that the moon shined by reflected life (but, thought the sun did too)
-four elements (six in function): fire, earth, water, air (love & strife)
-love and strife are processes that are cyclical. there was a time when love fully wiped out stripe and men only worshiped the Cyprian Aphrodite then. But strife came back and things began to separate again.
-The cycle of life was not teleological. It was only governed by chance.
-His religious leanings were Pythagorean and Orphic
-He also considered himself a god, even if sometimes he felt like one in exile for some sin

Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001

-Came from Acragas, Sicily
-Came from a rich and distinguished family
-lived circa 495-435 BC
-claimed to be no longer mortal, an immortal god, compassionate for strangers and inexperienced in evil
-was a little conceited, "But why do I attack them as though I were achieving something great if I prove superior to much-perishing mortal men?" (Barnes, 112). This is how Empedocles described being smarter than the average man, eh Boo-Boo. Sextus Empiricus however says that no one even moderately versed in philosophy would have thought him boastful.

Plutarch describes some of his words (the bold are Empedocles, the regular Pultarch):

There is an oracle of necessity, an ancient decree of the gods, that whenever anyone errs and defiles in fear his dear limbs - one of the spirits who have been allotted long-lasting life - he shall wander thrice ten thousand seasons far from the blessed ones. Such is the road I now follow, an exile from the gods and a wanderer. He proves from his own case that not just he himself but all of us are immigrants here and strangers and exiles. For it is not blood, my friends, nor blended breath (he says) which provides the substance and principle of our souls: from these the body has been fashioned, earth-born and mortal; but the soul has come here from elsewhere and he calls birth by the gentlest of terms, a journey abroad. And what is most true, the soul flees and wanders, driven by divine decrees and laws...when it is tied to the body, it cannot recall or remember from what honour and from what breadth of bliss it has come, having exchanged not Sardis for Athens, nor Corinth for Lemnos or Scyros, but the heavens and the moon for earth and an earthly life (Barnes, 113).

FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - This is why the Greeks live on another planet. They were sent to earth to live abroad by the gods. Some of them are still stuck in a cycle of birth-death in exile on earth, but some have returned to their home planet, where our traveler is being taken. They were sent to earth because of sin they committed, decreed to wander thrice ten thousand seasons far from the blessed ones. But, the gods got bored waiting and followed them to earth, forgot how to get home and have since traveled elsewhere. Only Prometheus, because of his punishment was sent back home to wait. 

-Souls were 'long-lasting spirits' in his poetry because the soul is immortal
-Strife, the process by which things are coming apart in his cosmology punish the souls by forcing them to go from body to body
-the bodies of the animals men eat are the dwelling places of punished souls
-sex is bad because it makes men and women co-workers with strife
-He called those who gain the wealth of divine thoughts happy and those whose beliefs about the gods are dark are wretched
-believed that no part of the universe is empty

His biological evolution theory had four generations:

1st Generation of animals was just body parts
2nd Generation of animals were monstrous
3rd generation of animals are what we see today (properly joined limbs and such)
4th generation of animals is when Love is totally in dominance and all is One

"In the time of Love where many neckless heads sprang up" (Barnes, 142)

FUTUTRE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - A field of 'Love' where neckless heads are being grown like cabbages. There is a scarecrow in the field to scare away the strifebirds.

"Many were born double-headed and double-chested - man-faced oxen arose and again ox-headed men" (Barnes, 143).

For Empedocles blood contained the capacity to understand. Thought is located in the blood.

Empedocles was a vegetarian because he found that the souls migrated from one body to another. Eating an animal was a grave sin because you devour another when you eat meat.

Like Pythagoras, Empedocles said it was a sin to eat beans.

Empedocles had a Utopian ideal. In his Utopian age, the beasts and animals were friendly to man and man friendly to them.

Anaximander

Anaximander:

The Classical Mind 2nd Edition
W.T. Jones
1980

- A younger contemporary of Thales
- One remaining sentence from his book: "From what source things arise, to that they return of necessity when they are destroyed; for they suffer punishment and make reparation to one another for their injustice according to the order of the time" (Jones, 11).
             - There is one stuff (monism)
             - There is a process by which the one becomes many stuffs
             - The process is necessary
- For Anaximander, the one stuff was not an element, but something called the 'boundless'
- Anaximander argued that the one stuff couldn't be an element from a logical standpoint. Water can't really become fire because that would be the thing becoming the opposite of itself. Since all the elements would have this problem, his one stuff had to be something entirely different in essence.
- For Anaximander the process was important. The boundless would become something, would return to the boundless and then become the opposite thing. It was cyclical.
-For Anaximander, "The world was still basically disorderly, and that what required explanation was its orderliness" (Jones, 12).
-Anaximander had an interesting theory of evolution that anticipated some basic Darwinian features.

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972

-Born around 610 B.C.
- Second of the third Milesian philosophers
- His first substance was infinite, eternal and ageless. It encompasses all the world
- Thought our world was one of many
- His process of the boundless becoming other things and then back to being the boundless has an underpinning of cosmic justice.
- He believed "there should be a certain proportion of fire, of earth, and of water in the world, but each element (conceived as a god) is perpetually attempting to enlarge its empire. But there is a kind of necessity or natural law which perpetually redresses the balance; where there has been fire, for example, there are ashes, which are earth" (Russell, 27).
-The worlds that existed evolved, and were not created
-Believed that man descended from fish
-First man to make a map
-Earth is shaped like a cylinder

Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001

-Produced a star map and a map of the world
-The boundless contains all the world
-The boundless is also time
-Eternal motion exists and that brings the heavens into existence
-Earth is rounded like a stone pillar
-The number of worlds is limitless in number
-All things are constantly renewed after destruction (return to the boundless and then processed again)
-At the generation of earth something broke off from the eternal and formed a flame around the earth, like bark on a tree. Then the ball burst and the sun, moon and stars came into being.
- Censorinus - "Anaximander of Miletus says he thinks that from water and earth when they were heated, there arose fish, or animals very like fish, that humans grew in them, and that the embryos were retained inside up to puberty, whereupon the fish-like animals burst and men and women emerged already able to look after themselves" (Barnes, 20). That could be an interesting invasion story for Future Modern Ancient Greeks.
-The boundless is divine, because it is immortal and indestructible

Anaximander might be the best one to model the Future Modern Greek's new planet

Secular Humanism: Threat & Challenge Revisited

It's been ten years since I've read the book Secular Humanism: Threat and Challenge by Robert E. Webber. It's been thirty-two years since Robert E. Webber has written the book. Some of its tone seems to be as current as ever. Its rhetoric is definitely current. But, in typing the notes I've noticed a few things about my own thoughts on these topics in my current mindset. I've matured; become less naïve and developed a more nuanced view of the world. I'm not sure if that's always the best thing in the world, but it is the brute fact. But, I've become a little bit more open-minded to things as well. I think I'd be less apt to label secular humanism as hypocritical in the margins of my notes today. I might not; I once yelled at an Ayn Rand book and scared some poor Starbucks sipping soccer moms to death.

I reject the dichotomy between science and Christianity that has plagued us since the renaissance. I accept that the Church has at times been a source of blocking progress in numerous fields of knowledge. But, I reject that it blocks progress in the fields of ethics. Ethics is a field in which progress ought not to be made.

I am no longer stand vehemently against the theory of evolution. It seems to be, at the moment, the best paradigm we posses for how man came to be in the physical state he is at the moment. It has nothing to do with his moral state though. Physical evolution cannot produce morality. But, as a Christian I am confident that whether the Genesis account of creation was supposed to be literal or figurative or something in between, it has no bearing on the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Whether God used words and instant gratification, or a form of evolution, the fact of the matter is that when God created the world He had already set into motion His plans to redeem mankind.

I am still very much against abortion except in rare circumstances. I have no problem with state sanctioned marriages because they have nothing to do with the marriage that is sacred in the Bible. The Bible puts marriage up as a union between a man, a woman and God. Secular marriage should be meaningless to the purely Christian viewpoint. Now, pastors or priests who marry someone in a non-Biblical fashion, they are going to have to answer for that some day. But, that has nothing to do with a state sanctioning.

The secularist optimistic view of man is hopelessly flawed as well. Man is inherently evil. While it is possible for the most evil of person to do something good or for less evil men to suppress their evil for awhile, that evil always lurks in the back and given the right circumstances will manifest itself. If those right circumstances happen to be when a given individual is in a powerful position, the manifestation will bring about powerful consequences. The good that even the most heinous of men possess is the remnant of the Imago Dei shining through the darkness. The difference between the Christians and the non-Christian is that darkness has been overcome by the light in a reunion with Christ. That is it.

The separation of Church and State used to be a hot topic for me. I thought it was awful that God was being blocked from public forums. The fact of the matter is though that a government cannot block God from coming into the public domain. I don't need to worry about that. God will manifest Himself whether a secularist government wants Him to or not. That isn't a battle worth fighting because it is already won. While I feel that I would be less inclined to nod my head along if I were to read this book now as I find myself agreeing on a couple of things he said about politics.

"The Church should not seek to accomplish its task in society through political power or legislative force" (Webber, 109). The Church isn't supposed to be a political vehicle. Divorce your politics from your faith. That doesn't mean accepting recent legislation as being the new ethically right standpoint. Ethics don't evolve because moral absolutes still exist, regardless of what man thinks of them. What it means is that your political agenda shouldn't influence your walk with Christ and it shouldn't move the Church in any particular way. The Church can recognize the brokenness that some secularist laws create the conditions for. But, when your political affiliation or your patriotism begins to move your walk with God or your church's agenda you can be pretty sure that you'll end up down a path that isn't authentically Christian.

Notes on Genesis 1-10

(Originally written April 26, 2007 in Book 16)

Back to the Basic, the foundation

The Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV)

Creation, Adam & Eve and the Fall of Man

1:1 Heavens and Earth
1:2 Earth was without form and void.
- What does form mean? Purpose? Shape?
1:3 Light created
1:4 Light called good, light separated from darkness
1:5 Light called day, darkness called night
- Naming implies ownership. God owes night and day. There can be no dualism here where day is good and night is evil because God owns both.
1:6 Day 2: separates the water from the earth and sky
1:7 God makes sky
1:8 Day 2 ends
1:9 God makes dry land
1:10 God names land "Earth" and the waters "seas"
-Ownership of Earth and seas
1:11 God creates vegetation
1:12 God calls the vegetation good
1:13 End of Day 3
1:14 God creates the stars to serve as signs
-Important note: God creates signs
1:15 The stars give light to the earth
1:16 od specifically purposes the Sun and the moon and the stars
1:17 Purpose of the stars to give light upon the earth
1:18 God calls the stars good
1:19 End of day 4
1:20 God creates fish (sea creatures) and birds (air creatures)
1:21 God calls both the sea creatures and air creatures good
1:22 God gives them purpose/meaning: "Be fruitful and multiply"
1:23 End of Day 5
1:24 God creates land creatures
1:25 God calls the land creatures good
1:26 God sets out to create man in His own image. Man's purpose is to have dominion over the creatures of earth
- "Let us make man in our image" implies a multiplicity in God
1:27 God creates man and woman
1:28 God blesses man and gives him purpose: "Fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over all the creatures"
1:29 God gives all the plants yielding seeds and fruit to man as food
1:30 God gives the plants to all animals to eat
1:31 Everything God created he calls very good. End of Day 6

2:1 Creation of Everything was complete
-Does this rule out evolution, or at least macro evolution?
2:2 God rested on the 7th day
2:3 God blessed the 7th Day
2:4 Recount of creation
2:5 Day 1: Heaven and earth, but no plants, no rain, no man
2:6 There was only a mist from the earth to water the whole ground
2:7 God formed man from the dust of the ground an breathed life in to him
- This definitely rules out man from the evolutionary cycle
2:8 God plants the Garden of Eden and puts man there
2:9 The tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil are planted in the garden with all the other trees
2:10 The River that flowed out of Eden watered the garden and divided into four Rivers
2:11 Pishon flows around the whole land of Havilah. Havilah contains gold.
- What does Pishon mean?
- What does Havilah mean?
- What are the implications of gold existing?
2:12 The gold of Havilah is good. Bdellium and onyx stone are there
- What is the significance of Gold, Bdellium and onyx?
2:13 The rive Giron flows around the whole land of Cush
2:14 The Tigris flows east of Assyria and the 4th river is the Euphrates.
2:15 God gives man purpose in the Garden of Eden: to till and keep it
-Man's existence in paradise was not void of purpose or duty
2:16 The LORD commanded man to eat freely of every tree in the garden
2:17 The LORD commanded man to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil because in the day that you eat of it you shall die.
2:18 God decides that it is not good for man to be alone and decides to make a helper fit for him
2:19 God brings all the creatures to Adam to see what he will call them
- Man's naming of the creatures implies ownership
2:20 There was no suitable helper among all the creatures
2:21 God caused man to have a deep sleep and removed a rib from him
2:22 From man's rib God formed woman and brought her to Adam
2:23 Man calls woman, "woman" because she is the bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh
2:24 Man and woman becomes one flesh
- Institution of marriage by God
- Implicit denial of homosexuality
2:25 Man and Woman are naked, but not ashamed

3:1 The serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature. He asked the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?"
3:2 The woman replied we may eat of any tree
3:3 But, God said you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die
- The is the first human distortion of God's commands by man. Notice that it is a building on of God's law, not a detraction. This is an interesting point. She tends towards legalism rather than hedonism. What is the significance here?
3:4 The serpent said, "you will not die"
- This is the first refutation or denial of God's claims. It is the first lie.
3:5 The serpent says you won't die, but your eyes will be opened and become like God.
- Now the lie is emboldened by an enticement
- The serpent makes the false claim that downing good and evil is what makes God God
3:6 The woman saw the tree was good for food and was a way to become wise. Thus she ate from it and gave some to her husband who ate.
- There is a conscious decision for the woman to eat and then a conscious decision for the man to eat. Two separate sins.
3:7 They became aware of their nakedness and sewed fig leaves together to make clothes
- The innocence is lost
3:8 Man and woman hide from God who is walking in the garden.
3:9 The LORD calls out to the man and woman
3:10 Man said he hid from God because he was afraid and naked
- First sense of fear
3:11 God accuses man of eating from the tree he was not supposed to eat from.
3:12 The man blames the woman (and God for giving him the woman) for giving him the fruit
- First blasphemy of God
3:13 God asks the woman what have you done? The woman blames the serpent
3:14 God curses the serpent worse than any other animal and forces him to slither on his belly
3:15 God instills enmity between women and serpents
3:16 God curses the woman in child brith by greatly multiplying the pain
-This is interesting that He will increase the pain but not create pain in child birth. Thus, not all pain can be called Evil.
God instills a desire in woman for her husband and places him in charge of her
3:17 God curses the ground as a result of man's sin
3:18 God demands that the ground will bring forth thorns and thistles but that man will nonetheless eat the plants of the field.
3:19 God states that man will return from where he came. man is of dust and will return to dust.
3:20 God called the woman Eve because she was the mother of all living
3:21 The LORD made garments of skin for Adam and Eve and clothed him
- First killing
3:22 God declares that man has become like one of us knowing good and evil and must be stopped from eating of the tree of life and living forever.
3:23 Adam and Eve are banished from the Garden of Eden
3:24 God placed the cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the tree of life from man

4:1 Adam and Eve had sex and Cain was born. She proclaimed that she bore a man by the help of the Lord
- Even after sinning and banishment Eve still acknowledges God and His help
4:2 She then bore Abel. Abel became a sheep herder and Cain became a farmer
4:3 Cain brought an offering to the Lord of fruit
4:4 Abel brought the firstlings of his flock and the fat ones as an offering to the Lord. The Lord accepted Abel's offering
4:5 Cain's offering was not accepted. Cain became very angry.
4:6 The Lord asked why Cain was angry
4:7 The Lord says if you do well you will be accepted, but if you do not do well sin will over take you. He tells Cain that sin desires for him, but that he must master sin.
4:8 Cain lures Abel into the field and murders him
- First murder, significantly different then the 1st killing (Gen. 3:21)
4:9 The Lord asks Cain where his brother is and Cain retorts, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?"
4:10 The Lord replies, "the voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground"
4:11 The Lord says now you are cursed from the ground
4:12 Cain is diminished to a fugitive and a wanderer of the the earth
4:13 Cain states that his punishment is more than he can bear
4:14 Cain fears that he will be killed since he wanders and is hidden from God
4:15 The Lord marked Cain so that no man would kill him
4:16 Cain left the Presence of the Lord and dwelt in Nod, east of Eden
- This whole situation is intriguing. Despite the banishment from the garden and a murder God has direct contact with Cain. When did this direct contact stop and why?
4:17 Cain took a wife and had a son, Enoch. Cain built a city called Enoch.
4:18 Enoch begat Irad. Iran begat Me-hulja-el. Me-hulja-el begat Me-thu'sha-el. Me-thu'sha-el begat Lamech.
4:19 Lamech had two wives: Adah and Zilla
-first instance of polygamy
4:20 Adah bore Jabal to Lamech. Jabal is the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle.
4:21 Adah also bore Jubal who became the father of those who play the lyre and pipe.
4:22 Zillah bore Tubal-Cain who was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron
4:23 Lamech said to his wives: I have slain a man for wounding me. I have killed a young man for striking me.
4:24 He said if Cain is avenged seven-fold, Lamech is avenged seventy-seven fold.
4:25 Adam and Eve had Seth. Eve said Seth is appointed by God because Cain slew Abel.
4:26 Seth had a son, Enosh. At this time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.

Genealogies
5:1 "This is the book of the generations of Adam"
- Is this separate from the first four chapters? When God created man he made him in the likeness of God
5:2 God blessed and named them
5:3 At 130 years old Adam had Seth. Seth was in the likeness of Adam
- Adam is in the image of God. Seth in the image of Adam. Is Seth then in the image of God equal to being in the image of God or less?
5:4 Adam had other sons and daughters
5:5 Adam lived 930 years and died
5:6 Seth was 105 years old when he had a son, Enosh
5:7 Seth had other sons and daughters
5:8 Seth lived 912 years and died
- Some say that it is ridiculous to assume this is literal. Others say it is unfair that they live that long. Why did God delay death so long back then? Why is the curse so much harsher now? But, God said that man will fear death all of his life. If we live longer then we fear death longer. Maybe our short lifespans are an act of mercy, not an act of curse.
5:9 Enosh was 90 years old when he had a son, Kenan
5:10 Enosh had many other sons and daughters
5:11 Enosh lived 905 years and died
5:12 Kenan was 70 years old when he had a son, Ma-hal'alel
5:13 Kenan had many other sons and daughter
5:14 Kenan lived 910 years and died
5:15 When Ma-hal'alel lived 65 years when he had a son, Jared
5:16 Ma-hal'alel had other sons and daughters
5:17 Ma-hal'alel lived 895 years and died
- Quick recap Adam - Ma-hal'alel 4,092 years
5:18 Jared had a son, Enoch, when he was 162.
5:19 Jared had other sons and daughters
5:20 Jared lived 962 years and died
- Adam to Jared: 4,892 years
5:21 Enoch had a son, Methuselah, when he was 65
5:22 Enoch had other sons and daughters
5:23 Encoh lived 365 years and then walked with God
5:24 God took Enoch, he did not die
- Adam to Enoch 5,192 years
5:25 Methuselah had Lamech when he was 187 years old
5:26 Methuselah had other sons and daughters
5:27 Methuselah lived 969 years
- Adam to Methuselah: 5,974 years
5:28 Lamech was 182 years old when he had Noah
5:29 Noah is named because he is the one who will bring relief from our work
5:30 Lamech had other sons and daughters
5:31 Lamech lived 777 years and died
- Adam to Lamech: 6,569 years
5:32 Noah had Shem, Ham and Japheth at 500 years old
- Adam to Noah 7,069

Noah & The Flood

6:1 Men began to multiply and daughters were born to them
6:2 "The sons of God saw that the daughters of man were fair and they took to wife such of them as they chose"
- This has been used very oddly, like to prove the intercourse between angels and women. I think this is merely God-fearing men taking up non-God fearing wives.
6:3 The Lord said that man's days are numbered 120 years
- Is this no one will live past 120 years or when the flood will occur, or are years not literal here and the end of earth will come about in 120 'years'.
6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days
- What are the Nephilim? The children of the sons of God and the daughters of men were the "mighty men that were of old, the men of renown"
- What does this mean?
6:5 The LORD saw the wickedness of men in those days and saw that their imaginations were always an evil.
6:6 The LORD was sorry that He even made man.
6:7 The Lord decided to blot out man
6:8 Noah however, found favor with the Lord
6:9 Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.
6:10 Noah had 3 sons: Ham, Shem and Japheth
6:11 Earth was corrupt and full of violence
6:12 All flesh had corrupted their way on the earth
6:13 God told Noah he was going to destroy the flesh and the earth
6:14 God commanded Noah to make an ark
6:15 Length of the Ark: 300 cubits, Breadth of the Ark: 50 cubits, Height of the Ark: 30 cubits
6:16 Make the Ark with three decks
6:17 God tells Noah that a flood will kill everything on Earth
6:18 But Noah and his family will be safe by God's covenant with Noah
6:19 Also a male-female of every living thing will be sound on the ark
6:20 Two of every animal will come to Noah and to be kept alive
6:21 God tells Noah to store every sort of food for the flood
6:22 Noah did everything that God commanded

7:1 God commands Noah and his family to enter the Ark
7:2 7 pairs of all clean animals are to be taken into the art and 1 pair of all unclean animals too.
7:3 7 pairs of the birds are also to be taken into the ark
7:4 The flood of rain for 40 days and 40 nights will come in 7 days and blot out all life on earth.
7:5 Noah did all that God commanded of him
7:6 Noah was 600 years old when the flood came
- 7,169 years between Adam and Flood
7:7 Noah and his sons and his sons' wives went into the ark to be saved
7:8 The animals followed Noah into the ark
7:9 Male and female animals followed Noah
7:10 After 7 days, the flood came upon the earth
7:11 The fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of the heaven were opened
7:12 Rain fell upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights
7:13 The flood began the day that Noah and his family entered the ark
7:14 The flood began the day that the animals entered the ark
7:15 Everything that was supposed to enter the ark went in according to its kind
7:16 The LORD shut them all in
7:17 The waters increased for 40 days and nights
7:18 The ark floated on the surface of the water
7:19 Even the mountains were covered by water
7:20 The mountains were covered then by 15 cubits deep
7:21 Everything on the earth died
7:22 Whatever had breath died
7:23 Only Noah and those who were with him survived
7:24 The waters were on the earth for 150 days

8:1 God remembered Noah and everything on the ark. He caused a wind to subside the waters.
8:2 The fountains of the deep were closed; the rain stopped
8:3 After 150 days the water had receded
8:4 The ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat.
8:5 After ten months the tops of the mountains were visible
8:6 Noah opened the window of the ark
8:7 He sent out a raven
8:8 Then he sent out a dove
8:9 The dove returned because it had nowhere to rest
8:10 After 7 days he sent the dove out again
8:11 It returned with an olive branch
8:12 He waited another 7 days and sent the dove out again, but it did not return
8:13 Noah removed the covering of the ark and found that it was dry on the surface
8:14 After another month the ground was fully dry
8:15 God spoke to Noah
8:16 God said to Noah take your family and leave the ark
8:17 God told him to release the animals so they could be fruitful and multiply
8:18 Noah left the ark with his family
8:19 Everything left the ark
8:20 Noah built an altar and made sacrifices to the LORD
8:21 Upon smelling the odor God vowed never to curse the ground again because of man or to destroy every living creature
- God says that the imagination of men's heart is evil from his youth
- God smelled and maybe anthropomorphic isn't as bad as it is expected
8:22 He promised that so long as the earth exists the seasons and day and night will not cease

9:1 God blessed Noah and his sons and told them to be fruitful and multiply the earth
9:2 He told them that every living creature will fear man and be delivered unto them
9:3 God gives them everything that exist as food
- The first condoning of meat-eating
9:4 God says not to eat flesh when it is still alive, no eating of blood
9:5 This is a sin that will require a reckoning
9:6 God warns that whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed because man is made in the image of God
9:7 God tells them to be fruitful and multiply the earth
9:8 God spoke to Noah and his sons
9:9 God establishes a covenant with them
9:10 God establishes a covenant with everything that came out of the ark
9:11 This covenant states that never again will God destroy the earth by flood
9:12 God gives them a sign of the covenant
9:13 The rainbow is the sign
9:14 When the rainbow is seen...
9:15 ... God will remember this covenant
9:16 It is an everlasting covenant between flesh and God
9:17 God tells Noah this is the sign of the covenant between God and all flesh that is on the earth
9:18 Shem, Ham and Japheth were the sons of Noah who got off the Ark. Ham was the father of Canaan.
9:19 From the sons of Noah the whole earth was peopled.
9:20 Noah tilled the soil and planted a vineyard
9:21 He drank wine and became drunk and laid naked in his tent
9:22 Ham, the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers
- This may mean that he raped him. Is this true?
9:23 Shem and Japheth covered Noah without looking at him naked
9:24 Noah awoke and knew what Ham (his youngest) had done to him
9:25 Noah cursed Canaan: "a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers"
9:26 Noah blessed Shem and said let Canaan be his slave
9:27 Noah played that Japheth would prosper and that Canaan would also be his slave.
9:28 After the flood Noah lived 350 years
9:29 Noah lived 950 years
- Adam to the death of Noah: 7,519 years

10:1 The generations of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth
10:2 Sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Jovan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras
10:3 Sons of Gomer: Ash, Kenaz, Riphath and Togar'mah
10:4 Sons of Javan: Eli'shah, Tarshish, Kittim and Do'danim
10:5 Japheth - They have their own lands, their own language and their own nations
10:6 Sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan
10:7 Sons of Cush: Seba, Hav'ilah, Sabtah, Ra'amah and Sab'teca. Sons of Ra'amah: Sheba and Dedan
10:8 Cush became the father of Nimrod, Nimrod was the first mighty man
10:9 Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord
10:10 Nimrod's kingdom was Ba'bel, Erech, and Accad, all in the land of Shiner
10:11 From there Nimrod went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Reho'both-Ir and Calah
10:12 Rosen between Nineveh and Calah is a great city
10:13-13 Egypt became the Father of Ludim, An'amim, Leha'bim, Naph-tu'him, Pathru'sim, Caslu'him (where the Philistines force from) and Caph'torim
10:15 Canaan begat: Sidon and Heth
10:16-18 Canaan is the father of: the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, the Hives, the Arkoites, the Simites, the Arlvadites, the Zem'arites, and the Ha'mathites. The families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
10:19 The territory of the Canaanites extends from Sidon to Gaza to Admah to Lasha
10:20 These are the sons of Ham
10:21 Shem is the father of all the children of Eber
10:22 The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpach'shad, Lud and Aram
10:23 The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether and Mash
10:24 Arpach'shad begat Shelah. Shellac begat Eber
10:25 Eber's sons: Peleg and Joktan
10:26-29 The sons of Joktan: Almo'dad, Sheleph, Hazarma'reth, Jerah, Hador'am, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abim'a-el, Sheba, Ophir, Hav'ilah and Jobab.
10:30 The sons of Joktan occupy the territory from Mesha to the hill country of the east
10:31 These are the sons of Shem
10:32 These are the descendants of Noah, according to their nations. These spread abroad the whole art after the flood.

Teleological, Analogical and Models in Religious Language

(Originally written March 19, 2007 in Book 25)

Class notes

The Teleological Argument

Transcendental Logic

Given a phenomena 'X'
What are the conditions that make X possible?
Unless there is Y, there cannot be X

Given the fact that all things act for an end
What are the conditions that make it possible for all things to act for an end?
Unless there were an intelligent being that directs all things to their end, ti would not be possible.

Aristotle's Four Questions and their answers

1) What is its purpose? Final Cause (Telos)
2) What is it made of? Material Cause
3) What is its shape (form)? Formal Cause
4) Who or what made it? Efficient Cause

Substance - the total thing with all of its attributes (Aristotelian, not Cartesian)

Paley's Argument from analogy

The watch did not grow there.
It did not just happen.
Because of its complexity and purposiveness we know that it was made by a human being.

The very properties that lead us to infer that the watch was made by a watchmaker lead us to infer the universe was made by a universe-maker.

Inductive Analogy

Set A consists of member {a, b, c, d, e...}
All these members share property X
"F" is also a member of set A
Therefore, F probably has property X

In the General sample you want a "high negative analogy"

But when the General sample is extended to one particular thing you want a "high positive analogy".

The teleological argument of Paley depends on the universe being as much like a clock as possible.

Criticism of Paley's Argument

Hume:

-Even if the analogy holds, it doesn't prove the existence of God
- Even if there is a strong analogy between the watch and the universe we have not ruled out the possibility that it could have come about by chance

Post-Humean Versions

- tend to become disjunctions rather than analogy
- which is the better explanation: the universe came by chance or by purpose?

Stuart Hackett

Teleological argument from the "Macroscopic point of view"
From a conspicuous adaptation to an intelligent creator

examples:

1) The fitness of the inorganic material world to be an environment for both the production and maintenance of organic life. Chance is not a sufficient explanation because chance is tied to the consistent make-up of the inorganic material.

2) The internal adaptedness of organic beings, both in their structure of specialized functions and in their general orientation for self-maintenance or subservience to some other form of organic life. Chance is ruled out as a proximate cause. Chance would postal minute, non-advantageous changes.

3) The intelligibility of the world and its instrumentality in the realization of humanly provisioned ends. Chance ruled out because minds are not the logical outcome of our evolutionary process. Minds are so transcendent that they cannot have arisen from matter.

4) The temporal progressiveness of the cosmic progress through levels of matter, life and mind, in an order of increasing valuation significance.

Anthropic Principle

What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the condition necessary for our presence as observers. (Weak Version)

The universe would have had to passed some very tiny probabilities of window in order to be observed. (Strong version)

Generation of Carbon Post- Big Bang

- Needs to combine three helium nuclei
- May not exceed three helium nuclei
- If it becomes four it becomes oxygen and then "boom", nothing is left

The universe seems to have moved in a deliberate direction. Therefore, it seems more plausible that the universe arose from a creator and not from chance.

Ramsey: Qualified Disclosure Models

Ramsey built his religious language out of an empirical setting and tests it by its empirical adequacy.

Disclosure-Commitment Situations

There are two aspects to the kind of experiences that are religious in nature:
1) An empirical situation that evokes discernment
2) A total commitment to what is discerned

The empirical situations that evoke discernment are the experiential grounding for the meaning of religious language.

Discernment situations:

Ramsey holds that metaphors and odd words have the disclosure poor to make the "ice break" or the "light down".

The literary and logical oddity of "I-Religion" or tautologies like "I am I", "Duty for duty's sake" or "love for love's sake" do not render them meaningless.

To Ramsey there is more in empirical language and situations than meets the eye.

Commitment Situations:

Not every disclosure situation provides religious disclosure.

Religious disclosure evokes a total commitment.

Total commitment is a total commitment to the whole universe, not a total commitment to a part of the universe or a partial commitment to the whole universe.

Ramsey holds religious experience to be one in which one responds to a discernment situation with a total commitment.

Religious Language: Qualified Models

Since religious experience in and of itself is odd, religious language will in turn be odd.

The Meaning and Use of Models

A disclosure model does not seek to describe anything. It enables us to articulate what we once could not express.

Language about God is not declarative; it is evocative.

The Qualification of Models

Ramsey calls qualifiers "words which multiply models without end and with subtle changes" (279).

Models and qualifiers create what Wittgenstien calls family resemblances.

Ramsey develops three groups of qualified models:
1) The negative attributes of God - i.e. God is immutable
2) One word positive attributes of God - i.e. perfection
3) Two-word positive attributes of God - i.e. first cause or infinitely good

Ramsey holds the term "God" to be an integrative term, bringing together the separate discernment-commitment disclosures into a unified whole.

The term "God" functions like the term "I" in everyday language.

The Adequacy of Models: Empirical Fit

Models help to articulate theology in a reliable way when:
1) They arise in a moment of insight or disclosure
2) It empirically fits, it is able to incorporate diverse phenomena consistently

Evaluation of Ramsey's View

Ramsey's master model of God, a combination of many individual models, answers the problem of empirically grounded God-talk.

Without an analogy built on the ontological similarity of Creator and creature, God-talk is purely equivocal.

Only metaphysical analogy can save qualified models from equivocation.

Ferré Metaphysical Models

Ferré builds a metaphysical synthesis based on the religious model, which is subject to truth tests.

The Nature and Function of Models

To Ferré, a model y is that "which provides epistemological vividness or immediacy to a theory by offering as an interpretation of the abstract or unfamiliar theory-structure that both fits the logical form of the theory and is well-known" (283).

Models are similar to metaphors in two ways:
1) Their language is literally false
2) They have a point nonetheless

Ferré divides models threefold:
1) Type - the degree of concreteness the model has
2) Scope - degree of inclusiveness the model has
3) Status - how important the model is

Ferré holds there are three functions for models:
1) Suggest point-by-point resemblance
2) Serve heuristic value
3) Fulfill the holistic desire of man to have an explanatory model of his experience

Models in Religions Language

A scientific mode can separate reality and the observer, whereas a theological model cannot

Scientific models are judged on how helpful they are

Theological models must be judged on truth and falsity

Theological models draw upon a different set of facts than scientific models.

Ferré holds the religious imagery of the Scriptures, the creeds, and traditions of the believing community to be a "metaphysical model"

God-Language is not literal, it is anthropomorphic

The theistic model incorporates data from other areas of knowledge, but religious imagery is always the core.

Testing Religious Models

Ferré denies that religious language is purely non cognitive while admitting it serves many non-cognitive functions.

No metaphysical model (world view) should be adopted arbitrarily

There are three strata in one's total account of things:
1) Preverbal metaphysical model of symbol (taken from the imagery of Scripture)
2) Set of propositions that attempt to express this metaphysical model in a cognitive way
3) A range of functions (cognitive and non-cognitive, verbal and nonverbal) that constitute the religious language game.

Only the second strata is applicable to the truth tests

Ferry offers five truth tests for the truth of total synthesis built on religious models:
1) Consistency - it must be non-contradictory
2) Coherence - consistency must be external as well as internal
3) Applicability - masut be relatable to individual experience
4) Adequacy - must be applicable to all domains of feeling and perception
5) Effectiveness - the synthesis must be a useable instrument for coping with the total environment of human experiences

A metaphysical synthesis is adequate (according to Ferré) only if it is capable of putting all experience into a whole, pervasive and adequate pattern.

Ferré notes that nay falsification of a metaphysical position is like an erosion, not an explosion.

Ferré states that:
1) Christianity has been effective in the past, but there is doubt about its effectiveness in the present and future.
2) Few would dispute the applicability of love and reverence. But this is only a minimal test.
3) Adequacy is a complex test involving many levels that Christianity appears to meet fairly well.
4) No clear contradictions have been demonstrated in Christianity but the proposed solutions have not gained universal acceptance.
5) Christianity has a "striking internal coherence" but the external coherence is not as obvious. There are almost certainly some empirical statements in Scripture that are false (i.e. the sun standing still for Joshua)

Evaluation of Ferré's Metaphysical Model

Ferré is not in the univocal camp. No literal descriptions of God, anthropomorphic Bible, etc.

Ferré denied the analogical intrinsic causal connection of the Thomists but his concentration on truth statements suggests he does not mean to make religious language equivocal.

Ferré would need to rethink his stance on analogy to save his theory from equivocation.

Recent Trends Retreating from models

Much of contemporary religious language has been shaped by Hume, the logical positivists and young Wittgenstein

Gill: Mediation and Metaphor

Jerry H. Gill attempts to build a holistic comprehension of humanity and human knowledge, instead of a purely cognitive or empirical basis.

He held that:
1) Religious language is linguistically constituted, we cannot know religious reality apart from it being covered to us in words and concepts
2) Religious language is social activity. Many uses are more important than descriptive.
3) Religious language is meaningful with significant, not absolute precision
4) Religious language is primarily metaphorical

Gill's Proposal Evaluated

Analogy must be grounded in metaphysical reality, but Gill denies this ontological link.

Gill has made a strong analysis of the function of religious language but has forfeited any guard against it being equivocal.

Metaphysics - Ch. 6 (B)

(Originally written July 31, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen

Ch. 6 (continued)

The first cause argument is a cosmological argument. But the First Cause Argument begs the question 'why does the first being exist?' by answering 'because it always has existed.'

One cosmological argument for why things exists without appealing to the principle of sufficient reason goes as follows:

An independent being is one who relies on nothing outside of itself for its existence.
A dependent being is one who relies on things outside of itself for its existence.
There can be no independent and contingent being(s). "It is a necessary truth that if there are any beings that in no way, or in any degree depend for their existence on things outside themselves, then those beings are necessary... for every being that exists, there must be at least a partial explanation for the fact of its existence and if a being was truly independent then there could only be one explanation of any sort for its existence: that its non-existence was impossible" (van Inwagen, 111).

This argument suffers because one of its premises is that the world is an individual thing. Both theists and atheists will want to reject this premise (but for different reasons).

Through any argument thus far we have proved the existence of a necessary being, but van Inwagen claims that if there is no necessary being then there can be no answer to the question, Why is there anything at all?

Metaphysics has not or is unable to produce a logical answer for why there is anything at all because it has failed to produce the argument proving the existence of a necessary being.

Some scientists claim that the whole of metaphysics has failed to produce an answer, since has succeeded with the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang theory states that there used to be less space than there is now; that is, space is continually spreading out. If we trace it backwards approximately 10-15 thousand million years we would reach the mathematical origin of the universe: the singularity. Some scientists accept this, but most have an anti-religious bent. Others reject this, partly because they have a belief in God.

Alan Sandage, "the father of modern astronomy" states that, "science cannot answer the deepest questions. As soon as you ask why there is something instead of nothing, you have gone beyond science" (van Inwagen, 115).

The scientific answer is hopelessly flawed. It labels 'nothingness' as an object with he property of instability. Nothingness is not an object and cannot therefore possess properties. Instability is a purely temporal property so even if nothingness were an object it would be an object outside of time and could not possess any temporal properties like instability.

Even the science of quantum field theory there exists a "quantum vacuum", But, a vacuum is not nothing; it is something (the lowest energy state of the quantum field).

"Nothingness is unstable" is merely an linguistic slogan. It is really "the quantum vacuum is unstable". But the quantum vacuum is merely a modification of the quantum field and the quantum field is most definitely something and not nothing.

Science has not succeeded in answering the question why is there anything instead of nothing. They have merely caused confusion through word games of substituting 'nothing' or 'nothingness' for 'vacuum'

Metaphysics - Ch. 6 (A)

(Originally written July 30, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen

Chapter 6 - Necessary Being: The Cosmological Argument

The principle of sufficient reason states: for every truth there is a sufficient reason for it being true. The principle of sufficient reason does not entail that everything has a purpose, only that there is a reason for the truth being true or a reason why something is the way it is.

The principle of sufficient reason produces this argument for why something exits: "There is a necessarily existent thing that is in some way responsible for the fact that there are contingent things" (van Inwagen, 102).

The principle of sufficient reason present difficulties though. Quantum mechanics claims nature is filled with events that occur without explanation. Another part of the principle of sufficient reason that is difficult to entertain is that all true propositions are necessarily true. It denies the possibility of contingently true propositions.

If the principle of sufficient reason is false than the entire cosmological argument for why anything rather than nothing exists is false.

Are there other possible worlds as is assumed? I would say no. There is only one possible world and that is the one we exist in. This world could be much different in a variety of ways (i.e. history could be completely different or the world could have more or fewer cities) but that would simply be a variation of this actual world.

Premise 1

The world (physical universe) exists to be a habitat for its inhabitants.

Is this provable? I cannot think of a way to argue it in an indefensible way, but that does not imply that it is false. We have two options when we consider the origin and purpose of the world. Well, three.

1) The world has existed in the way it does in essence eternally.
2) The world has evolved from whatever primordial substance in an undirected, accidental way to produce a habitat capable of sustaining life.
3) The world was created in a purposeful way as a habitat for its inhabitants by a creator.

Each option can have variations but essentially it is one of these three options.

The first option is the most improbable of the three. Science like the laws of thermodynamics deny the possibility of the world existing as it does now forever. That leaves us with the last two options. The principle of sufficient reason would demand that the earth exists in a way that has a purpose and deny accidental causes, but people who reject the principle of sufficient reason will not be swayed by that argument. We face a bit of a conundrum. For this dilemma I will appeal to Occam's razor. What demands more speculation: the existence of a Creator (Supreme Being/God) or the probability of concurrent accidents?

In order to accept option two we would have to accept many unprovable scientific hypotheses. The weight of science is truly impressive and hard to escape. Is science infallible though? Science has produced many truths and many, many falsehoods. The fact that it has produced falsehoods shows that it is not infallible. I could list a number of error science has produced but that would simply be prejudicial.

In order to accept option three we would have to accept one, untestable hypothesis: there is a Supreme Being.

Now by simple numbers it would seem that accepting one hypothesis is less speculative than accepting a number of hypotheses. But, the hypothesis that God exists is hard to accept and a number of scientific hypotheses (even if some are obviously false) seem to be probable.

I do not feel that the ontological argument holds any weight. But, I believe that the first cause argument proves the existence of a necessary being or a god. (For the conclusion of this argument see Book 5 pg. 43-53)

An early attempt at proving the existence of God

(Originally written July 25, 2006 in Book 5)

At this break (end of chapter X of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy) I have a thought.

The existence of God is taken by most people who believe in it only on face value. Is it correct to assume the existence of God? What proofs, real evidence do we have for accepting it? I find the ontological proof for God as thoroughly lacking. It does not convince me at all.

I can state that I have felt His presence overwhelm me in Church, but since I deny that all men who speak in tongues are doing so through the Holy Spirit physically overwhelming them, I leave myself open to the same attack. Speaking in tongues (gibberish, non-sensical language) is a point of contention with me. I interpret the events of a Pentecost as a group of preachers speaking in their own language until the Holy Spirit entered them. At this point they began speaking real, human languages that they had not learned. Thus, men (Jews) from all over the world witnessed a group of mostly uneducated Hebrews speaking in a bunch of different, yet real human languages.

This view leads me to believe that the spiritual gift of tongues is a gift of linguistics. Some individuals are naturally gifted in learning foreign languages. All men and women can learn a number of languages, but I believe that certain individuals possess a natural capability to learn them with more ease, just like a gifted athlete can work on his body to produce an enormous, incredible sport talent.

But, Paul writes about how he can speak in the tongue (language) of men and angels. Paul, was an educated Jew and a Roman citizen. This leads me to believe that he knew at least Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek/Latin. His knowledge and disputation/rhetoric while in Athens strengthens my belief that he knew Greek. i do not know what other languages or dialects were spoken in Tarsus or other areas, but I believe that through his travels and education he probably achieved some level of fluency in other human languages as well. This covers the tongues of man, but what about the tongues of angels?

I believe that when one, who is full of the Holy Spirit, has meditated in prayer and focused wholly on God, that the Holy Spirit's groans and utterances can be focused on. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in the heart or soul of a man then I would find it hard to believe that it is not in constant dialogue with the Father.

But as the Holy Spirit does not fully overwhelm man's own soul (ad body and mind) men even with the Holy Spirit are constantly distracted and cannot audibly or mentally hear the groans of the Holy Spirit. But when a man focuses to hear this dialogue I believe that the experience must be neck-hair raising and cause chills over the whole body.

The realization of having such immense and unimaginable power inside you and advocating to the Almighty God on your behalf must be awe inspiring. Mentally every Christians 'knows' this is happening, but to vividly experience it is beyond merely knowing it. This leads me to the conclusion that the gift of tongues is two gifts:
1) A predisposition to linguistics which must be cultivated except in rare, miraculous instances.
2) A spiritual awareness or experience of the Holy Spirit's dialogue with the Almighty God.

The first can lead to many consequences. It can produce pride in the individual's own mind, a sense of accomplishment. It can be used for their own gain or it can be used for God. The second can only lead to one consequence: an emotional, spiritual, mental and physical sensation of God. in the moment of experience the senses of the mind, body and soul all experience the same thing: God. It is overwhelming. I believe that this happens legitimately (actually an experience of God) and can produce a vocal or mental utterances of seemingly gibberish. But, that does not mean that whenever one speaks gibberish in church that individual is experiencing the phenomena of mind, body and soul simultaneously experiencing God.

Honestly, I think some people fake it, but not most people. The power of seeing a person legitimately speak in tongues is very likely to trigger a response in the mind, body or soul of an onlooker. The power of seeing an entire congregation or charismatic leader speak in tongues (legitimate or fake) is likely to produce an overwhelming psychological response in indoctrinated individuals or individuals who are familiar with speaking in tongues or in individual who have a mind-set that can be easily seduced into a hypnotic trance like states. I believe that the majority of people who speak in tongues in large settings do so because of an overwhelming psychological response. They utter gibberish and believe truly and sincerely that it is at the prompt and control of the Holy Spirit.

This attack on organized speaking in tongues leaves me open to attacks on my experiences of God. On an irregular, but noticeably consistent basis I feel an overwhelming tingling sensation during musical praises to God. By my own argument I can state that these experiences are one of three situations:
1) I am lying, that is I fake it.
2) I am being overwhelmed by a purely psychological or emotional response.
3) I am truly experiencing God in body, soul and mind simultaneously.

The first is ridiculous. I am not lying. Though, if I could fake the sensation I gladly would. The spine tingling feeling is very pleasant. I feel at peace with myself and my surroundings. That is a rare occurrence because the majority of the time I am engaged in a civil war with myself. If I could elicit that feeling at will, even if it were a lie, I would gladly do so. Sadly (and thankfully) I cannot. Since I am not faking it, it must be legitimate. it is either a subconscious mechanism producing the sensation or God. This implies God exists.

Why do I accept that God exists? On face value I have accepted He exists from a very early age. My training and education and parental guidance has always assumed the existence of God. Philosophically, I can't accept it on face value.

I am not far enough into my studies or learning of philosophy to accept the existence of God from a purely philosophical viewpoint. I reject the ontological argument because I do not see the validity of it. Whether that is because it is not valid or I cannot fully understand it I do not know. But from a purely philosophical viewpoint I must accept the existence of a god and cannot deny the possibility that this god is the Christian God. I affirm the existence of a god for a number of reasons.

First, something must have brought existence as we know it into existence. Philosophically, I cannot demand that this be God, Allah or space gas. But, something, anything, had to create this world and me. This does not affirm God or Allah or any other deity, and it does not deny evolution or the big bang theory or even that the universe is itself an eternal god. It merely affirms that in order for existence at this current moment to be the way it is a god must exist. The first cause/unmoved mover is enough for me to state that some god exists.

Now, my biases will come to the forefront. I want this god to be benevolent and personal. if it is not then I am purposelessness. I am meaningless and so is every other human being. Thus every other man is a means to every other man. This would cause chaos. While the world (universe) is not a perfectly oiled machine as was once thought, it does operate with some resemblance of order and purpose. The earth rotates around the sun; it spins on its axis; the phases of the moon happen in a consistent way; gravity works and other natural laws are consistent. Those facts lead me to believe that the god, who most certainly exists is an orderly one.

Since the world is orderly (for the most part) I can eliminate the possibility of gods who are chaotic intentionally or at random. This is enough evidence for me to deny any origin theory that calls earth or the universe the sum of any accidents. No accidental collision of gases could create such order. I can cross off any god who is chaotic or accidental. Thus, I cannot accept the Big Bang Theory or that the god who exists is some collection of gases.

What do I have left? Orderly deities and the universe exist. The fact of the matter is that most humans and all animals enjoy order. Sure, even the obsessive compulsive neat freak are excited by chaos occasionally but even people who love chaos are agitated when nothing seems to be working properly. If I were to attempt to say table and the word television came out of my mouth every time, even if I thrived in chaos, I would be infuriated. Man's love for order makes me believe that the god who exists is benevolent.

The Universe is, for the most part, an orderly place. Man, for the most part, loves order. The fact that the god who created an orderly universe (even if it is the universe itself) and that human beings (and all other lower beings) love order creates two possibilities for me:
1) Man (and other animals) were purposefully designed for an orderly existence.
2) Man evolved in such a way to adapt to an orderly environment

At this point it pains me as an absolute creationist to state that both possibilities are as plausible as the other. I do in fact believe in creation, but I do believe microevolution is possible and has taken place. This process is a natural occurrence and unnatural occurrence. i.e. Dogs in the wild will breed with others creating a new pieces of dogs. Man can interbreed dogs and create new species. This process over years could create a bunch of new species.

An orderly god could easily create order through macroevolution or microevolution or another process. This leaves me still with equally plausible outcomes.

So far we know that god exists. This god is orderly and purposeful. Accidents cannot create purpose. Chaos cannot create order. The god must be benevolent because man exists (either through divine command or an evolutionary process) in a universe he is suited to.

This leads me to another question. Can a benevolent being be mindless? I do not believe so. In order for anything to be benevolent it must have the intent of pleasing something else. It would be absurd for me to state that this table is so benevolent for allowing me to use it. It is equally absurd to me to state that the universe is so benevolent for arranging itself in such a way for me to enjoy it. An arguer would state that it did not arrange itself, it was caused by gases or other 'accidental' causes. But we have already ruled out accidental causes due to the sheer miraculous nature of the possibility of the universe forming in such a way to facilitate life and the enjoyment of life. The purposeful order of the universe demands something more for an explanation than accidental causes. It could be said that the universe has always existed in this way, but that defies cosmological evidence. It could be argued then that the universe did in fact organize itself in this way purposefully. I would accept that, but it implies that the universe is benevolent, which in turn implies that the universe has a mind. That is absurd.

Thus, we can scratch off the universe in our list of gods. What is left? The god who caused the universe (created it) is benevolent, has a mind, is orderly and is purposeful. The fact that it is benevolent leads me to conclude that it is personal as well. If it or anything is benevolent it must have a personal interest in what it is showing benevolence to. All that we have left is the possibility of the god being a Supreme Being or God.

This argument does not come anywhere close to concluding that God is who Christians or Muslims or any other religion says he or she is. Nor does it deny the possibility of evolution. All it states is that god necessarily exists and that through elimination, that god must be the God.

The very definition of God demands that there is only one God. This throws out any religion based on equal Gods. Polytheism has not been eliminated because it does not require all gods to be God. Pantheism is not eliminated because we have no reason to believe yet that everything isn't just a part of God.

Could Pantheism be the correct interpretation of God? I will reject this quickly for a number of reasons. We know (from this argument) that God must have a mind. God is benevolent. God is orderly and purposeful. Combine these attributes for a moment and attempt to ponder the mind of God. The mind of God must be unimaginably incredible. The way a single organism sustains its existence is far beyond full comprehension of most scientists or human minds. Now there are billions of organisms that somehow sustain their life. The mind needed to design that is undoubtedly incredible. Then factor in all the non-living things and the natural laws that govern Earth. A mind capable of devising all the necessary things to have earth function in an orderly (or even functionally disorderly way) is incomprehensible. The design of the whole universe to be a functioning entity is so far beyond the scope of any human's mind that we cannot even truly to begin to comprehend it.

Basically this shows that God is smart. If Pantheism holds true then why would God design anything that in order to live it would have to destroy another thing? Think about it, basically if everything is a mere part of God overtime something eats God is cannibalizing himself only to defecate himself. Now a pantheist could argue that the consumption and defecation of himself is merely an illusion. But, if God is all things then who is he trying to fool?

Also take war or murder in human history. If every man is merely an extension of God then why would a smart God fight against himself? It would be like an educated man having a fistfight between his left and right arms.

For me, pantheism seems defeated. There is a god, that god is the Supreme Being, God. The order of the universe and its inhabitants being suitable for it implies benevolence, which in turn implies mind. The order of everything also implies that mind is undeniably intelligent. If God is an intelligent mind there would be no reason for any part of God to fight another part.

All we have left for God then is any form of monotheism or polytheism that has one Supreme God and a hierarchy of lower gods. But, I'm done for now.

Metaphysics - Ch. 8

(Originally written July 8, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen

Ch. 8 - The place of rational beings in the world: design and purpose

What is the purpose of man? What is his meaning?

The church of Scotland: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever" (van Inwagen, 132).

The teleological argument does not prove the existence of an all-powerful being, only that there is a designer. And if man has been created or designed, man's purpose or meaning will be found in the designer's intentions. The teleological argument cannot pinpoint what exactly man's purpose is, but it does tell us that he does in fact have some purpose.

If man has a purpose man's existence has a meaning.

While the teleological argument implies that we serve some purpose, does it prove that the cosmos was designed rather than formed by chance?

Some philosophers argue that the chance situation that has produced the life we know should not come as a surprise because it was as equally likely to not have happened by chance. The only difference is that since we do exist by this chance we can comment on how surprising it is that we exists. Van Inwagen calls this "one of the most annoyingly obtuse arguments in the history of philosophy" (van Inwagen, 135).

Another reply to the teleological argument denounces the teleological argument's presumption of many radically different possible cosmos (cosmos - multiple cosmos).

Aristotle, Kant, Descartes and Einstein searched for evidence that this is the only possible cosmos. (Linehan - at this point I am in agreement with these men).

If this is the only possible cosmos then we must have an enormous (seemingly ridiculous and absurd) number of necessary truths.

Van Inwagen contends that the possibility of only one cosmos being life-sustaining is improbable and does not have a solid scientific backing.

Another argument against the teleological argument is that simply because the cosmos is fine-tuned it does not follow that it is fine-tuned for the existence of man. Example: If mice lived in the walls of a house (and were capable of rational thought) they could conclude that the house was created for them even though the humans living in the house had built it for themselves. Man could be wrongly assuming that the cosmos was created for them as the rational mice wrongly assumed the house was created for them.

Sidenote: these mice would then have theologians/philosophers and these theologians and philosophers would be extremely troubled by the Problem of the Cat. That's funny! Actually this could be the premise for a very humorous short story: "The Mice and the Problem of the Cat"

The Darwinian account of evolution or even the possibility of the account being true has been stated to refute the teleological argument. But, van Inwagen claims that this is not true. The teleological argument deals with the cosmos as a whole and not a living being; the Darwinian account deals with living beings and cannot therefore be applied to the cosmos as a whole.

Darwin did show how though how it was possible for chance to produce something that would initially be ascribed to the creation of a rational being. Darwin showed that chance provides a number of situations and necessity eliminated the situations not beneficial enough or outright detrimental to existence.

To disprove the teleological argument demands that one provide an explanation of why the cosmos work in the fine-tuned way they do that is at least as good as the fine-tuned argument.

Here is an 'at-least-as-good' explanation:
1. the cosmos is only one of a vast number of actual cosmoi
2. there are so many actual cosmos that is not surprising that there is at least one capable of producing us (statistically probable)

Van Inwagen claims that this explanation is just as good because it explains the cosmos' existence and does not rest on any known falsehoods.

Interestingly though he claims that the rational beings in any of the individual cosmos would only be able to know the insides of their own cosmos. So if we can only know our own cosmos how does it follow that supposing multiple unknowable cosmos existing is as good as knowing, very partially a designer and our own cosmos? I don't see how unknowable is as good as very partially knowable.

He states that (aside from divine revelation) "we have to regard the following two hypotheses as equally probable: this is the the only cosmos, and some rational being has (or rational beings have) fine-tuned it in such a way that it is a suitable abode for life. [And] This is only one among a vast number of cosmoi, some few of which are suitable abodes for life" (van Inwagen, 145).

"We do not know whether the apparently purposive fine tuning of the cosmos is reality or mere appearance" (van Inwagen, 145).

The fine tuning of the cosmos has been established by modern physics and cosmology.

The cosmos does not exist on its own. We know that there is an Arche. The Arche (ar-KAY) accounts for the existence of the cosmos. Arche is a Greek word used for the beginning of all things, "or that which is the foundation on which the existence of all things rest" (van Inwagen, 145).

Metaphysicians cannot say anything about the Arche other than that it in fact exists. The most important question it cannot answer is "is the arche a chaos or logos?

Chaos - the origin of the cosmos is due to fluctuation in some pre-cosmic quantum field.
Logos - usually translated as 'word' but means 'that which goes forth fro a speaker' or 'reason'

If the Arche is Chaos our existence has no meaning. If the Arche is Logos our existence has purpose.

The metaphysician might not be able to say anything other than each position mentioned has an emotional appeal to certain types of individuals.

Arthur Hugh Cloud said,
"There is no God, the wicked saith,
And truly it's a blessing,
For what he might have done with us
It's better only guessing" (van Inwagen, 146).

Existence via chaos frees us from the demands of a God or Logos. If we have a meaning assigned to our existence there are necessarily consequence when we do not meet those standards.

If the Arche is Logos then man's existence is not as high as it would be if the Arche is chaos. Man would be lower than the Logos.

The Objectivist Ethics - 2

(Originally written June 28, 2006 in Book 3)

The Objectivist Ethics
Ayn Rand

Consciousness is the means for survival for beings that possess it. Man, although he has consciousness must rely on reason to survive.

"Man cannot survive, as animals do, by the guidance of mere precepts" (Rand, 21).

Linehan - Then man is not an animal, if man be not an animal, he could not have evolved from an animal. How can a being evolve from something and not be it anymore? It surely cannot. If a single-celled organism evolves into a two-celled organism it is a collection of cells, but remains a celled organism. If man then has evolved from apes, which are animals then man too would be an animal. But if man needs more than precepts to survive (the survival that animals require) then he cannot be an animal and therefore cannot have evolved from them. [This is weak argumentation]

The thought process which man needs for survival is not automatic, instinctive, or infallible.

Linehan - Ms. Rand, are there no instinctive thoughts or innate ideas?

Man has no automatic knowledge, therefore no automatic values. Therefore man does not have an automatic knowledge of good or evil.

"Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer - and that is the way he has acted through most of his history" (Rand, 22).

The science of ethics is the pursuit of the right goals and values for the survival of man. Man needs a code of ethics to survive.

"Ethics is not a mystic fantasy - nor a social convention - nor a dispensable subjective luxury, to be switched or discarded in any emergency. Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival - not by the grace of the supernatural, nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life" (Rand, 23).

Man must choose to view his life as valuable and choose to accept a code of values, which is, via the act of choosing, a moral code.

The judging of good and evil requires a standard to judge against. For the objectivist ethics the standard is man's life or 'that which is required for man's survival qua man'.

Reason is man's basic survival tool and with the standard of good and evil being life, then that which is "proper to the life of a rational being is good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is evil" (Rand, 23).

Everything man needs must be discovered and then produced. Therefore, the two essential to survival are 1) thinking and 2) productive work.

Mental parasites are men, who chose not to think and only imitate others to survive. "They are the men who march into the abyss, trailing after any destroyer who promises them to assume the responsibility they evade: the responsibility of being conscious" (Rand, 23).

Men who survive by force steal and loot from men who are surviving via the two essentials. They are parasites who attempt to survive by animal methodology. But just as animals cannot survive via plant methodology, man cannot survive via animal methodology.

Animals live lifes in cyclical form; whereas man's life is a continuous stream of interrelated events.

Man, if he wishes to survive, must choose his values, course, methods, goals, etc. based on a lifetime and not from moment to moment due to the interconnectivity of life.

The choice of these based on a lifetime cannot come from instincts, precepts or sensations; they only come from the rational processes of the mind.

"Man's survival qua man means terms, methods, conditions and goods required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan" (Rand, 24).

Man can exist subhuman as history proves. But he cannot succeed as such. Ethics teach subhuman brutes how to live like men.

"The objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value - and his own life  as the ethical purpose of every individual man" (Rand, 25).

Standard - an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete specific purpose.

Linehan - If ethics are objective and not subjective they must be universal. Therefore there can only be a universal standard and a universal specific purpose for all men. No man can have a unique purpose, therefore a man's life can have nothing to do with objectivist ethics.

Value - that which one acts to gain/and or keep

Virtue - the act by which one gains or keeps it.

The ultimate value in objectivist ethics is one's own life.

3 Cardinal values of objectivist ethics
1) Reason
2) Purpose
3) Self-Esteem

3 Corresponding virtues
1) Rationality
2) Productiveness
3) Pride

"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life... reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work and pride is the result".

Rationality is the basic virtue of man and the source of all other man's virtues. Man's basic vice is un-focusing his mind. It is the source of all evil.

"The virtue of rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action" (Rand, 25).

The virtue of independence - the acceptance of framing one's own judgments and living by the work of one's own mind.

The virtue of integrity - never sacrificing one's convictions to the opinions or wishes of others.

The virtue of honesty - never faking reality

The virtue of justice - never seeking or granting the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit

One must reject any form of mysticism, any claim to non-sensory sources, any claim to non-rational sources, any claim to non-definable sources and any claim to supernatural sources of knowledge.

The virtue of productiveness - the recognition of productive work as being the sustainer of man's life and the freedom to adjust his background to his desire.

Productive work draws man's finest and highest characteristics -
1) Creativity
2) Ambition
3) Self-Assertion
4) a refusal to bear uncontested disasters
5) "dedication to the goal of reshaping the earth in the image of his values" (Rand, 26).

Productive work is a chosen pursuit of a rational endeavor, great or modest. Regardless of the scale of his work, the fullest and most purposeful usage of his mind constitutes productive work.

Linehan - But, how are we to know that one is pursuing a fullest usage of one's mind. If it is truly objective it must be measured on the scale of accomplishment. Otherwise it is pure subjectivism poorly masked as objectivist ethics.

The virtue of pride - "that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining - that as man is being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self - made soul" (Rand, 27).

This is idolatry at its worse. Beware the gods that are men; as they are unfit to be worshiped, save in their own heats and minds.

Pride is moral ambitiousness.

"One must earn the right to hold oneself as one's own highest value by achieving one's own moral perfection" (Rand, 27).

Pride is earned by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one's own self-esteem. Pride is the rejection of being a sacrificial animal. Pride rejects anything that upholds self-immolation as being moral. Pride rejects God and Christ and Christianity.