Confessions
St. Augustine
Book XIII
Ch. 1
"I call thee into my soul, which thou didst prepare for thy reception by the desire which thou inspirest in it"
Ch. 2
From the fullness of Goodness in God comes creation.
"An unformed spiritual entity is more excellent than a formed corporeal entity; and the corporeal, even when unformed, is more excellent than if it were simply nothing at all"
"The true good of every created thing is always to cleave fast to thee"
Ch. 3
God is the only being that does not have a distinction in his being between living and living in blessedness, "thou art thyself thy own blessedness".
Ch. 4
God created out of his goodness and fullness, not because He lacked anything.
Ch. 5
Augustine argues the language of Genesis affirms the Trinity.
Ch. 6
Augustine wonders why the Spirit was introduced after the waters he was moving over.
Ch. 7
The Holy Spirit lifts us up to the inner heavens where our souls can find rest.
Ch. 8
Augustine confesses that his existence is woe apart from God.
Ch. 9
The Holy Spirit is how we enjoy God.
Ch. 10
"Let him who is able to understand this; and let him who is not ask of thee". Lord, I ask of thee. I don't understand this passage at all.
Ch. 11
What man can fully understand the Trinity? By analogy we can understand how a trinity exists in an unity, but the complete understanding of the Trinity is too much for man.
Ch. 12
When we became displeased with our darkness we turned to thee and there was light.
Ch. 13
We live by faith not by sight because we live by hope in the promise that one day we'll see face-to-face.
Ch. 14
The relapse into the darkness can occur in us but hope and pray and praise God in even the darkness of the night.
Ch. 15
The whole of Scriptures is like the skins God stretched for Adam and Eve after the fall. It is His words stretched over us to protect us and clothe us.
Ch. 16
I cannot satisfy myself; only God can satisfy me.
Everything God is He immutably is.
Ch. 17
When we help our neighbors physically we perform both a physical and spiritual task with both physical and spiritual results.
Ch. 18
By feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and sheltering the homeless we operate on a low level of fruitful action and can come to the joy of contemplation.
By God's eternal design He spreads the Heavenly blessing on earth in the proper seasons.
Ch. 19
Augustine encourages Christians into missionary work: be the light of the world you are!
Ch. 20
"O God, who dost refresh our easily wearied mortal senses that is our mental cognition a single thing may be figured and signified in many different ways by different bodily motions"
Augustine argues he sees the text of Genesis allegorically because it leads to the higher things of God. He notes that those who can't move past the text in its physical meaning still have a soul that has a higher life that profits from the spiritual text.
Ch. 21
Don't be overcome by pride, lust or morbid curiosity. These things are signs of a dead soul because the soul has sought things away from the wellspring of life.
Only wen man has become renewed in his mind by God can he walk in the image of God he was created in without any human guidance.
Ch. 22
Be not conformed to this world.
Ch. 23
Now as a Spiritual man it does not behoove him to judge the Scriptures, even if there are parts hard to understand. "Instead, we submit our understanding to it and believe with certainty that which is hidden from our sight is still rightly and truly spoken"
"Nor does a man, even though he is
spiritual, judge the disordered state of society in this world. For what business of
his is it to judge those who are without, since he cannot know which of them may
later on come into the sweetness of thy grace, and which of them may continue in
the perpetual bitterness of their impiety?" That's an interesting point...
Ch. 24
Augustine takes, "be fruitful and multiply" on an allegorical level to mean to increase our fruitfulness of mind because even the beasts are fruitful and multiply physically.
Ch. 25
All men are liars. The truth they speak is only through God's truth.
Ch. 26
Paul was fed with joy and that is why he can be content in all situations.
Ch. 27
The uninstructed and the infidel require mysteries of initiation and great works of miracles. The instructed already accept God.
Ch. 28
The whole of creation, an amalgam of things called good by God, is called very good by God. The sum is greater than the parts.
Ch. 29
The things we see through God's spirit he sees the same way. But the temporal things we see in a way different than God because God does not see things in time.
Ch. 30
Augustine argues against the dualistic notion of a benevolent creator of all things spiritual and a malevolent creator of all things physical.
Ch. 31
What we see as good in creation we see as good because God has called it good.
Ch. 32
The imago dei is having the power of reason and understanding.
Ch. 33
Creation was made by God but made of God.
Ch. 34
In order to perfect the faithful God ordained that the faithful, "should themselves bring forth good things" for both this life and the next.
Ch. 35
Augustine prays for peace and rest.
Ch. 37
God exists outside of time but created everything that exists in time.
God takes the Sabbath and rests in us when He completes the work in us.
Ch. 38
"We can see all those things which thou hast made because they are - but they are because thou seest them."
God has never ceased to do good.
Only by seeking truth in God will we find any truth.
Showing posts with label Imago Dei. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Imago Dei. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Goodreads review of Meno
(Originally written October 24, 2017)
From my Goodreads review.
This is one of my favorite dialogues because it encapsulates Socrates' style without being overly repetitive. It's also an interesting conclusion that virtue cannot be taught or acquired; but, is rather given to virtuous men by the divine. In a Christian understanding of it we might say that Socrates is a good guide by virtue of having a right opinion of imago dei. Certainly he can't have had knowledge of it, but if it leads to the right destination then it is just as useful as knowledge. But, that is just a thought very off topic.
From my Goodreads review.
This is one of my favorite dialogues because it encapsulates Socrates' style without being overly repetitive. It's also an interesting conclusion that virtue cannot be taught or acquired; but, is rather given to virtuous men by the divine. In a Christian understanding of it we might say that Socrates is a good guide by virtue of having a right opinion of imago dei. Certainly he can't have had knowledge of it, but if it leads to the right destination then it is just as useful as knowledge. But, that is just a thought very off topic.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Myths that mirror the Christ story are good dreams sent by God
A couple of days ago I wrote about a post I titled as Myths as a basis for believing in Christ as a note about my (sightly behind schedule) daily readings in A Year With C.S. Lewis. January 22nd's post (I know, I'm more that slightly behind schedule) follows up on this. I'm not sure when I first came to think that Christianity was foreshadowed by earlier myths or even partially understand as a part of our human nature, but it might have been with C.S. Lewis. It also might have been in college when I became interested in exactly what the Imago Dei meant to us. I think that I believe that being made in the image of God, we have an innate understanding of who God is. While this innate idea is neither perfect nor complete, it allows us to have, at least at a subconscious level, a deep understanding of even some of the finer points of Christian theology. While Lewis doesn't necessarily point to the whole being made in the image of God as a reason, I don't think he would disagree either. He talks more about what God has done, rather than what we can glean from being made in the image of God. In this post he writes:
"And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again, and by his death, has somehow given new life to men" (Lewis, from Mere Christianity).
"And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again, and by his death, has somehow given new life to men" (Lewis, from Mere Christianity).
Thursday, January 28, 2016
365 Day Bible 3 & 4
Day 3 of the 365 Day Bible (still have some catching up to do).
Genesis 5 - 10
Genesis 5:1-2 reminds us that when God created man He did so in the likeness of God, the Imago Dei. Interestingly here, the NIV says the "likeness of God" and not the "image of God". I wonder what the original text states? I know there are some Christian sects that believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall we lost the 'likeness' and retained the 'image'.
Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years. Enosh lived 905 years. Kenan lived 910 years. Mahalalel lived 895 years. Jared lived 962 years.
Enoch lived 365 years and unlike his ancestors, the Bible doesn't say 'and then he died'. It states 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away". Is this poetic license? Is it just stating the same thing in a more flowery language? Or is it something else? I don't know.
Methuselah lived 969 years. Lamech lived 777 years. Lamech was the father of Noah.
Noah was the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 6 has some interesting stuff. First, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (6:2). "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (6:4). What on earth does that mean? Who were the Nephilim?
In spite of the wickedness of man, Noah alone found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was righteous, blameless and walked with God. God decided to wipe out all living things on account of man who had brought violence to the earth. But, God makes a covenant with Noah (this is the first time God makes a covenant in the Old Testament).
Why does God command Noah to take two of every kind of bird in 6:20 and seven of every kind of bird in 7:2?
After the flood the first thing Noah does is to build an altar and sacrifice to God. God then states, "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21). That doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of man - every inclination is evil from childhood. So much for the theory that man is intrinsically good.
God then reminds us of the Imago Dei in a warning not to kill another man - 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".
God then makes his covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth by a flood and sets the rainbow as a sign to remember that He will remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures of every kind.
Noah then gets drunk and Ham dishonors him, but Japheth and Shem cover him up. Noah curses Ham (the father of Canaan) to be the slave of his brothers. Noah lived 950 years and died.
What are we to do with the ages in this passage? Are we to take literally that men lived nearly a thousand years? What can be the explanation for such longevity?
Matthew 3-4
John the Baptist bursts onto the scene in Matthew 3, calling for repentance. He prophesies about the coming Messiah who will baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. He doesn't paint Jesus as a sort of wimpy guy either "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12).
John the Baptist then, after mild protestation, baptizes Jesus. A voice from Heaven declares that Jesus is God's son.
After baptism, Jesus goes into the desert to fast 40 days. After this he is tempted by the devil three times. The thing I have always found the most interesting about this passage is that both use Scripture in their back and forth. Of course one would expect Jesus to quote Scripture, but the devil uses it as well. That's an unsettling thought.
Just like John the Baptist, Jesus begins to preach calling for repentance. Jesus then calls his first four disciples Simon-Peter, Andrew, James and John (the sons of Zebedee). Jesus then begins his ministry by preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing the sick. People flocked to him from all over and brought their sick to be healed.
Psalms 3-4
Psalm 3 is one of those Psalms that has a difficult verse in it. "Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked" (Psalms 3:7). Not exactly one of those verses that makes God seem like the great redeemer He is. It's hard to reconcile the love of God with what David is calling on God to do. But, just as we saw in Matthew 3, Jesus who is healing the sick just one chapter later is being prophesied as standing with the winnowing fork ready to store up his wheat in the barn and burn the chaff forever in an unquenchable fire.
But there are two verses that really stick out to me in Psalm 3. Psalm 3:5 "I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the Lord sustains me". Even something so simple as waking up is worthy of praising God, because He sustains us. Psalm 3:8 "From the Lord comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people". David, for all intents and purposes is one of the most renowned warriors in the Bible, but he sees the Lord as his deliverance, not his own strength or might.
Psalm 4 also shows David seeing God as his safety. But, the verse in Psalm 4 that strikes me the most is verse 4. "In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent". Hear my prayer God, help me to search my heart so that I do not sin in anger.
Proverbs 1:10-23
Again we see a warning against sin - 1:10 "My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them". Again we see repentance and what it does for a man. 1:23 "If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you".
Genesis 5 - 10
Genesis 5:1-2 reminds us that when God created man He did so in the likeness of God, the Imago Dei. Interestingly here, the NIV says the "likeness of God" and not the "image of God". I wonder what the original text states? I know there are some Christian sects that believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall we lost the 'likeness' and retained the 'image'.
Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years. Enosh lived 905 years. Kenan lived 910 years. Mahalalel lived 895 years. Jared lived 962 years.
Enoch lived 365 years and unlike his ancestors, the Bible doesn't say 'and then he died'. It states 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away". Is this poetic license? Is it just stating the same thing in a more flowery language? Or is it something else? I don't know.
Methuselah lived 969 years. Lamech lived 777 years. Lamech was the father of Noah.
Noah was the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 6 has some interesting stuff. First, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (6:2). "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (6:4). What on earth does that mean? Who were the Nephilim?
In spite of the wickedness of man, Noah alone found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was righteous, blameless and walked with God. God decided to wipe out all living things on account of man who had brought violence to the earth. But, God makes a covenant with Noah (this is the first time God makes a covenant in the Old Testament).
Why does God command Noah to take two of every kind of bird in 6:20 and seven of every kind of bird in 7:2?
After the flood the first thing Noah does is to build an altar and sacrifice to God. God then states, "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21). That doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of man - every inclination is evil from childhood. So much for the theory that man is intrinsically good.
God then reminds us of the Imago Dei in a warning not to kill another man - 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".
God then makes his covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth by a flood and sets the rainbow as a sign to remember that He will remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures of every kind.
Noah then gets drunk and Ham dishonors him, but Japheth and Shem cover him up. Noah curses Ham (the father of Canaan) to be the slave of his brothers. Noah lived 950 years and died.
What are we to do with the ages in this passage? Are we to take literally that men lived nearly a thousand years? What can be the explanation for such longevity?
Matthew 3-4
John the Baptist bursts onto the scene in Matthew 3, calling for repentance. He prophesies about the coming Messiah who will baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. He doesn't paint Jesus as a sort of wimpy guy either "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12).
John the Baptist then, after mild protestation, baptizes Jesus. A voice from Heaven declares that Jesus is God's son.
After baptism, Jesus goes into the desert to fast 40 days. After this he is tempted by the devil three times. The thing I have always found the most interesting about this passage is that both use Scripture in their back and forth. Of course one would expect Jesus to quote Scripture, but the devil uses it as well. That's an unsettling thought.
Just like John the Baptist, Jesus begins to preach calling for repentance. Jesus then calls his first four disciples Simon-Peter, Andrew, James and John (the sons of Zebedee). Jesus then begins his ministry by preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing the sick. People flocked to him from all over and brought their sick to be healed.
Psalms 3-4
Psalm 3 is one of those Psalms that has a difficult verse in it. "Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked" (Psalms 3:7). Not exactly one of those verses that makes God seem like the great redeemer He is. It's hard to reconcile the love of God with what David is calling on God to do. But, just as we saw in Matthew 3, Jesus who is healing the sick just one chapter later is being prophesied as standing with the winnowing fork ready to store up his wheat in the barn and burn the chaff forever in an unquenchable fire.
But there are two verses that really stick out to me in Psalm 3. Psalm 3:5 "I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the Lord sustains me". Even something so simple as waking up is worthy of praising God, because He sustains us. Psalm 3:8 "From the Lord comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people". David, for all intents and purposes is one of the most renowned warriors in the Bible, but he sees the Lord as his deliverance, not his own strength or might.
Psalm 4 also shows David seeing God as his safety. But, the verse in Psalm 4 that strikes me the most is verse 4. "In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent". Hear my prayer God, help me to search my heart so that I do not sin in anger.
Proverbs 1:10-23
Again we see a warning against sin - 1:10 "My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them". Again we see repentance and what it does for a man. 1:23 "If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you".
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
365 Day Bible Day 1
Day 1 of the 365 day Bible reading (of course it's Day 12 of the year, but I'm a procrastinator).
Genesis 1-2
When God creates the sea creatures and the birds, he blesses them and says "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth". When God creates the land creatures he says its good. When he creates man "in our image" he does so to "let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground". He gave man a duty and a purpose in the act of creation.
1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them". Why does the author repeat God created man three times in a single phrase? What is the significance of the repetition?
After creating man for a purpose, he blesses them and gives them every seed-bearing plant as food.
God rested on the seventh day and made it holy - he set it apart for rest.
The creation of man coincided with him placing man in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
God named the "day" and the "night", the "sky", the "land" and the "seas, but Adam named all the animals. Is this significant? I remember vaguely from a college class that naming something in Hebrew culture gave ownership or stewardship, but is that true? I mean, it would make sense as man was created to work and subdue the earth.
Matthew 1-2
Mary was found to be pregnant with Jesus before being married by the Holy Spirit. Is this the first time that the Holy Spirit is mentioned specifically in the Bible?
Joseph became aware of this and was going to break it off with Mary, but an angel came to him and explained the situation. That would be an odd one to experience.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the Magi came to see him. They stopped in Jerusalem to find where the one who was to be the king of the Jews was born. They avoided going back through Jerusalem though because of King Herod.
Joseph is again visited by an angel, telling him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt because King Herod was going to try and kill Jesus. Joseph is once again visited by an angel and told that it was safe to return to Israel now that King Herod was dead.
Psalm 1
1:1-2 "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law he meditates day and night". This is my prayer Lord, help me to delight in your law and meditate on it day and night.
Proverbs 1:1-6
The purpose of the Proverbs:
-to attain wisdom and discipline
-to understand words of insight
-to acquire a disciplined and prudent life
-to do what is right and just and fair
I need the Proverbs probably more than most things right now. I need to acquire a disciplined and prudent life. Help me Lord to achieve this end.
Genesis 1-2
When God creates the sea creatures and the birds, he blesses them and says "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth". When God creates the land creatures he says its good. When he creates man "in our image" he does so to "let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground". He gave man a duty and a purpose in the act of creation.
1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them". Why does the author repeat God created man three times in a single phrase? What is the significance of the repetition?
After creating man for a purpose, he blesses them and gives them every seed-bearing plant as food.
God rested on the seventh day and made it holy - he set it apart for rest.
The creation of man coincided with him placing man in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
God named the "day" and the "night", the "sky", the "land" and the "seas, but Adam named all the animals. Is this significant? I remember vaguely from a college class that naming something in Hebrew culture gave ownership or stewardship, but is that true? I mean, it would make sense as man was created to work and subdue the earth.
Matthew 1-2
Mary was found to be pregnant with Jesus before being married by the Holy Spirit. Is this the first time that the Holy Spirit is mentioned specifically in the Bible?
Joseph became aware of this and was going to break it off with Mary, but an angel came to him and explained the situation. That would be an odd one to experience.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the Magi came to see him. They stopped in Jerusalem to find where the one who was to be the king of the Jews was born. They avoided going back through Jerusalem though because of King Herod.
Joseph is again visited by an angel, telling him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt because King Herod was going to try and kill Jesus. Joseph is once again visited by an angel and told that it was safe to return to Israel now that King Herod was dead.
Psalm 1
1:1-2 "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law he meditates day and night". This is my prayer Lord, help me to delight in your law and meditate on it day and night.
Proverbs 1:1-6
The purpose of the Proverbs:
-to attain wisdom and discipline
-to understand words of insight
-to acquire a disciplined and prudent life
-to do what is right and just and fair
I need the Proverbs probably more than most things right now. I need to acquire a disciplined and prudent life. Help me Lord to achieve this end.
Monday, July 20, 2015
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.
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.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Proverbs 1 & Introduction to History of Western Philosophy
(Originally Written January 24, 2014 on scrap paper)
It seems that every time I find myself to be bored intellectually I try to take up some sort of journaling endeavor. I come back to this or that book that had at one point sparked an endeavor to delve into some short-lived intellectual pursuit. Perhaps today is the beginning of one such short-lived journey. Perhaps not. We shall se in a month whether or not I am purchasing another composition notebook or not.
But, in my most recent returns to intellectual pursuits for the sake of the pursuit, I have come to the table trying to come from the perspective of the tabula rasa. I say, whether on paper or in some unfinished and unread blog things such as "of course one that is 30 cannot fully push beyond one's self all the experience of the past three decades" or "I shall try to come to an idea as if I were in possession of a blank slate as my mind". Firstly, when I think on these statements I laugh at my pretentiousness. Second, I find myself admiring the thought of trying to come from a clean slate without preconceived notions and without a desire to judge an idea.
Isn't it what we as modern human beings need? Openness in intellectual discussions, a willingness to abandon early notions for better ones, and a passion to keep an open mind about everything are the hallmarks of modernity in today's accepting society. But, then after I think critically about this clean slate approach I find myself souring on the entire idea. Besides that, the hallmarks of modernity are illusionary at best. The openness is only open for those that agree with you, the abandonment of early notions for better more progressive ones comes only when it suits a politically expedient solution and today's accepting society is partisan.
Of course some knowledge is gained through experience. Of course as we grow older our experiences change and shape our minds. But, the notion of there ever a mind that truly exists as a blank slate is nonsensical on many fronts. From a purely biological standpoint we, though we know still so little, we comprehend enough genetic knowledge to confidently say the sense play a major role in much of who we are. I won't say much more on this matter because what little collective genetic knowledge there is out there, even less is in my head.
Outside of the biological issues with a tabula rasa that interest me little, there are deeper issues with a clean slate idea. While the man will learn much from experience, the notion that there is not a framework for understanding contained in every human from birth is unpalatable on a couple of levels. First, logical reasoning is not something that can be absolutely empirically derived. Experience will have the logical functions of the mind. Language is another thing that exists intuitively. Of course humans learn language, but a baby reacts and interacts with a mother's voice from even inside the womb. There exists some framework in the mind that is innate.
Of course, then there is the imago dei, the strongest argument against a tabula rasa. While there is argument over exactly what the image of God is in humanity, its existence denies any notion of a clean slate at birth. Also, the inherited sin nature of man excludes a clean slate. Of course this argument is transcendental and falls on deaf ears to an unbelieving reader. But, as one who has experience God in relationship it is impossible for me to see from a viewpoint that has not had that experience. The opposite is true as well. One who has not accepted and experienced God in however little and partial as I have cannot see from my vantage point.
And lastly, the approach that I have taken in the past to achieve what I initially believed to be a noble pursuit was actually little more than a spineless approach to intellectual curiosity. In our open society, those who judge something as true or something as false, something as good or something as evil are quickly becoming labeled as bigoted or as close-minded. But, a pursuit of any intellectual subject must have as its end a desire to gain an understanding of that pursuit's truth. So it is with a desire to understand and attain truth that I set out on this adventure, however short-lived it may turn to be. (As an aside, this short-lived adventure lasted an incredible 19 days).
Now that I have trekked back to an old familiar starting point to begin again anew, let's go over the focus. What I will do in this journal is chronicle my thoughts from three sources. For the grounding I will delve into the Scriptures. For my intellectual curiosity I will start again in Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy. To stay current I will push into various weekly installments of The Economist. Because of my lack of direction in the Scriptures, I will start in Proverbs because of their instructive nature. I want to learn and that is in fact the goal of Proverbs, to instruct.
Proverbs 1
1:7a "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge".
I do wonder now at 30, am I the young in need of knowledge and discretion? Surely, I am not the wise ready to listen and add to my learning. Guide me then my Lord and teach me discretion. Help me to acquire a disciplined and prudent life.
I am struck by a couple of things. First, as I am setting out to find knowledge I have stumbled upon the perfect passage. "The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. This is a hard pill for the non-believer, but a grounding for me. Help me to never rely on my own cleverness and to always begin my pursuit of knowledge with the fear of the Lord.
Second, God as personified as wisdom calls out to us. If we do not reject Him, he would pour out His heart and make his thoughts known (1:23). How much do we as Christians struggle with what is the will of God? We toss and turn and say, 'is this your will'? Yet, God says to listen to His rebuke and He will make His mind known to us. But that word rebuke is thought to swallow. As the non-believer finds it unpalatable to admit knowledge begins with the fear of the Lord, the Christian finds it just as unsatisfying to know that we must heed God's correction to know his mind. Break me of my pride so that I hear your rebuke, Lord.
I pray this because God as wisdom personified states that if we reject wisdom we will be turned over to our own sinful desires. God will not intercede on our behalf if we don't call on him. This is the real problem of Free Will, not the mere intellectual one. The part I find most terrifying is 1:32b "The complacency of fools will destroy them". Lord, hear my prayer: let me bend my will to your gentle rebuke and help me not to be complacent. Let me take safety in your wisdom.
A History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
I chose this book because I read it in the summer of 2005 when I was becoming interested in philosophy. It seemed a good starting point then and an appropriate one now. I enjoy the historical aspect of it and it should offer a good launching pad into specific areas of thought.
Introduction:
Philosophy is the product of two factors for Russell, an inherited religious and ethical conception and a sort of scientific investigatory process. "Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science" (Russell, xiii). Russell states that all definite knowledge belongs to science, while dogma - that which surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. Between definite knowledge and dogma is philosophy, a no man's land open to attack from both sides. The studying of questions here in the middle is the business of philosophy.
Russell freely admits that science cannot provide all the answers to life. But he contends that theology has provided answers that are so definitive that they must be met with suspicion by the modern mind. He contends that uncertainty, though painful, must be a part of life if we are to live without "the support of comforting fairy tales" (Russell, xiv). He contends that philosophy is the key to teach one how live in the face of that uncertainty.
Russell seems to state that Christianity's rise was aided by some Stoic traditions. Is this true? He states that Christianity replaced the ideal of antiquity of man's allegiance to the state with man's allegiance to God.
"Dante achieved a synthesis, and gave the only balance exposition of the complete medieval world of ideas" (Russell, xviii). I must read the whole of Dante in the near future.
"The Catholic Church was derived from three sources. Its sacred history was Jewish, its theology was Greek, its government and cannon law...Roman. The Reformation rejected the Roman elements, softened the Greek elements and greatly strengthened the Judaic elements" (Russell, xx).
I do like what Russell says about the Reformation and it explains neatly the current state of Christianity. In the rejection of Catholicism and a central authority determining Truth, the fracturing of Protestantism led to a deepening subjectivism and leading to personal isolation. While the Reformation led to an opening up of a personal avenue between God and man by removing an unnecessary and human constructed constraint between God and man, it fractured a core tenant of Christian belief - the corporate nature of faith. This seems very sad to me.
It seems that every time I find myself to be bored intellectually I try to take up some sort of journaling endeavor. I come back to this or that book that had at one point sparked an endeavor to delve into some short-lived intellectual pursuit. Perhaps today is the beginning of one such short-lived journey. Perhaps not. We shall se in a month whether or not I am purchasing another composition notebook or not.
But, in my most recent returns to intellectual pursuits for the sake of the pursuit, I have come to the table trying to come from the perspective of the tabula rasa. I say, whether on paper or in some unfinished and unread blog things such as "of course one that is 30 cannot fully push beyond one's self all the experience of the past three decades" or "I shall try to come to an idea as if I were in possession of a blank slate as my mind". Firstly, when I think on these statements I laugh at my pretentiousness. Second, I find myself admiring the thought of trying to come from a clean slate without preconceived notions and without a desire to judge an idea.
Isn't it what we as modern human beings need? Openness in intellectual discussions, a willingness to abandon early notions for better ones, and a passion to keep an open mind about everything are the hallmarks of modernity in today's accepting society. But, then after I think critically about this clean slate approach I find myself souring on the entire idea. Besides that, the hallmarks of modernity are illusionary at best. The openness is only open for those that agree with you, the abandonment of early notions for better more progressive ones comes only when it suits a politically expedient solution and today's accepting society is partisan.
Of course some knowledge is gained through experience. Of course as we grow older our experiences change and shape our minds. But, the notion of there ever a mind that truly exists as a blank slate is nonsensical on many fronts. From a purely biological standpoint we, though we know still so little, we comprehend enough genetic knowledge to confidently say the sense play a major role in much of who we are. I won't say much more on this matter because what little collective genetic knowledge there is out there, even less is in my head.
Outside of the biological issues with a tabula rasa that interest me little, there are deeper issues with a clean slate idea. While the man will learn much from experience, the notion that there is not a framework for understanding contained in every human from birth is unpalatable on a couple of levels. First, logical reasoning is not something that can be absolutely empirically derived. Experience will have the logical functions of the mind. Language is another thing that exists intuitively. Of course humans learn language, but a baby reacts and interacts with a mother's voice from even inside the womb. There exists some framework in the mind that is innate.
Of course, then there is the imago dei, the strongest argument against a tabula rasa. While there is argument over exactly what the image of God is in humanity, its existence denies any notion of a clean slate at birth. Also, the inherited sin nature of man excludes a clean slate. Of course this argument is transcendental and falls on deaf ears to an unbelieving reader. But, as one who has experience God in relationship it is impossible for me to see from a viewpoint that has not had that experience. The opposite is true as well. One who has not accepted and experienced God in however little and partial as I have cannot see from my vantage point.
And lastly, the approach that I have taken in the past to achieve what I initially believed to be a noble pursuit was actually little more than a spineless approach to intellectual curiosity. In our open society, those who judge something as true or something as false, something as good or something as evil are quickly becoming labeled as bigoted or as close-minded. But, a pursuit of any intellectual subject must have as its end a desire to gain an understanding of that pursuit's truth. So it is with a desire to understand and attain truth that I set out on this adventure, however short-lived it may turn to be. (As an aside, this short-lived adventure lasted an incredible 19 days).
Now that I have trekked back to an old familiar starting point to begin again anew, let's go over the focus. What I will do in this journal is chronicle my thoughts from three sources. For the grounding I will delve into the Scriptures. For my intellectual curiosity I will start again in Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy. To stay current I will push into various weekly installments of The Economist. Because of my lack of direction in the Scriptures, I will start in Proverbs because of their instructive nature. I want to learn and that is in fact the goal of Proverbs, to instruct.
Proverbs 1
1:7a "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge".
I do wonder now at 30, am I the young in need of knowledge and discretion? Surely, I am not the wise ready to listen and add to my learning. Guide me then my Lord and teach me discretion. Help me to acquire a disciplined and prudent life.
I am struck by a couple of things. First, as I am setting out to find knowledge I have stumbled upon the perfect passage. "The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. This is a hard pill for the non-believer, but a grounding for me. Help me to never rely on my own cleverness and to always begin my pursuit of knowledge with the fear of the Lord.
Second, God as personified as wisdom calls out to us. If we do not reject Him, he would pour out His heart and make his thoughts known (1:23). How much do we as Christians struggle with what is the will of God? We toss and turn and say, 'is this your will'? Yet, God says to listen to His rebuke and He will make His mind known to us. But that word rebuke is thought to swallow. As the non-believer finds it unpalatable to admit knowledge begins with the fear of the Lord, the Christian finds it just as unsatisfying to know that we must heed God's correction to know his mind. Break me of my pride so that I hear your rebuke, Lord.
I pray this because God as wisdom personified states that if we reject wisdom we will be turned over to our own sinful desires. God will not intercede on our behalf if we don't call on him. This is the real problem of Free Will, not the mere intellectual one. The part I find most terrifying is 1:32b "The complacency of fools will destroy them". Lord, hear my prayer: let me bend my will to your gentle rebuke and help me not to be complacent. Let me take safety in your wisdom.
A History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
I chose this book because I read it in the summer of 2005 when I was becoming interested in philosophy. It seemed a good starting point then and an appropriate one now. I enjoy the historical aspect of it and it should offer a good launching pad into specific areas of thought.
Introduction:
Philosophy is the product of two factors for Russell, an inherited religious and ethical conception and a sort of scientific investigatory process. "Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science" (Russell, xiii). Russell states that all definite knowledge belongs to science, while dogma - that which surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. Between definite knowledge and dogma is philosophy, a no man's land open to attack from both sides. The studying of questions here in the middle is the business of philosophy.
Russell freely admits that science cannot provide all the answers to life. But he contends that theology has provided answers that are so definitive that they must be met with suspicion by the modern mind. He contends that uncertainty, though painful, must be a part of life if we are to live without "the support of comforting fairy tales" (Russell, xiv). He contends that philosophy is the key to teach one how live in the face of that uncertainty.
Russell seems to state that Christianity's rise was aided by some Stoic traditions. Is this true? He states that Christianity replaced the ideal of antiquity of man's allegiance to the state with man's allegiance to God.
"Dante achieved a synthesis, and gave the only balance exposition of the complete medieval world of ideas" (Russell, xviii). I must read the whole of Dante in the near future.
"The Catholic Church was derived from three sources. Its sacred history was Jewish, its theology was Greek, its government and cannon law...Roman. The Reformation rejected the Roman elements, softened the Greek elements and greatly strengthened the Judaic elements" (Russell, xx).
I do like what Russell says about the Reformation and it explains neatly the current state of Christianity. In the rejection of Catholicism and a central authority determining Truth, the fracturing of Protestantism led to a deepening subjectivism and leading to personal isolation. While the Reformation led to an opening up of a personal avenue between God and man by removing an unnecessary and human constructed constraint between God and man, it fractured a core tenant of Christian belief - the corporate nature of faith. This seems very sad to me.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Early thoughts on the Problem of Evil
(Originally written February 27, 2008 in Book 22)
Evil then exists in a vacuum. This vacuum is created by the self-deprivation of God's ultimate goodness. Evil is the cause of sin. Sin therefore exists in a vacuum.
Evil then exists in a vacuum. This vacuum is created by the self-deprivation of God's ultimate goodness. Evil is the cause of sin. Sin therefore exists in a vacuum.
As a result of sin, Adam & Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden (which was Heaven on Earth). Earth is corrupted now along with all of its inhabitants, even the beings and created things without free will. Earth is a vacuum, void of God's goodness. Thus, evil and sin exist in the world.
God removed his ultimate goodness in the world by removing himself from Earth and breaking a "physical" communion and vindicating ultimate righteousness and ultimate holiness. However, all of creation, that is not a free-will being is still a testament to God's creative power. They work on instinct and still taste in His ultimate goodness, yet they are in this vacuum of the world and are subsequently subject to imperfections seen as mutations or adaptations. In this world, the only free will beings are humans. They still revel in the remnants of God's ultimate goodness because they are made in the image of God.
Imagine it this way. God is the sun and man is the moon. The sun gives a perfect light to the world. It illuminates the world, heats it, and sustains life. God illuminates the world and sustains all life in it. Hypothetically imagine that, the sun were much closer to the Earth, so close that it lit up the entirety of the world all at once, without burning it up. This is how God was before the Fall. He dwelled on Earth and walked on the Garden. As a result of man's rebellion God removed himself (theoretically the sun returned to its original place). However the sun still illuminates part of the earth part of the time and sustains it continually. So too does God illuminate some creation some of the time, but sustain it all of the time. Since the world is now devoid of God's ultimate goodness it has been corrupted and at times, God's creation, namely man, cannot see his illumination or feel his sustaining power. The sun too is blocked by imperfection in the world (clouds) clouds can partially block or fully block the light of the Sun, but cannot stop it from sustaining the world. So too can the state of fallen creation partially or fully block the illumination of God, but cannot prevent God's ability to sustain life.
Man, being created in the image of God, has some of God's attributes and subsequently some of his abilities, but not all. God is to man as the Sun is to the moon. God is completely perfect whereas man was (prior to the Fall) perfect, yet a fragmented perfection. Man reflects the perfect image of God. God (and the Sun) are unaffected by the imperfections like Evil and sin (for the Sun oncoming asteroids or comets). They cannot hurt him. Sin and Evil have smashed into humanity like the asteroids and comets into the moon causing both man and the moon to be scarred and crater filled. These distortions have caused man's reflection of God (or the moon's reflection of the Sun) to be even less complete than a reflection already.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Allegory of Imago Dei in a fallen world
(Originally written July 24, 2007 in Notebook 17)
When I search the faces of men, women and even children I see two things. IN the honest people I see hatred, selfishness, stupidity, envy and a whole host of vices. In the dishonest folks I see masks that scarcely hide these vices.
Man, above all things, is a selfish brute. All of us are more concerned with ourselves than with anything else. It is written that I should love all men as I love myself, but as I am a man I too share all of these selfish vices. On the one hand I love myself and indulge my selfish wants. On the other I loathe myself for being selfish. Should I love and hate all men as I love and hate myself?
The goodness of man is a myth, a fable, and aspiration that is unachievable by every individual ever born or who will be born. We lie, cheat, kill steal and rape for pleasure. If we do not do these things in act we most assuredly do them in thought.
Our normalcy is cruelty. Our modus operandi is meanness.We are all sharks and dogs. We are even more dangerous when we hunt together. Our selfishness can be combined and we grow in greed exponentially when we are left with no outside intervention. We destroy all that we touch, or we consume it and hoard it to satisfy our insatiable lust.
But is there no good in man? How can we explain altruism at all? If what I wrote was the case then we would never see a single good deed and yet we do see such deeds.
When was the last time you witnessed the goodness of man? Prove me wrong! I beg of you! I want so badly to be wrong, but fear I am correct. When we witness a good deed or the goodness of man we witness no act of man at all. Every act, thought or desire of man is utterly selfish. A good deed is truly selfless. There can be no combination of selfishness and selflessness. There must be one or the other. They cannot coexist.
In times of tragedy such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina we were all witnesses to the goodness of men. We saw at times of great tragedy truly selfless deeds that involved the apex of selflessness: giving one's life for another. There, there is the goodness of man! In times of tragedy a selfless nature can overcome the normal of selfishness.
But how can a truly selfish being forgo all of his instincts. How can he act against his nature? He cannot! It would be like seeing fish flying in the air and birds living in water. It is an impossibility. But nonetheless there are good deeds and goodness.
When a good deed happens, when selflessness overcomes selfishness we are no longer ourselves. It is the very notion of selflessness that allows for good deeds to happen. We lose ourselves, our selfish nature, if only for a moment, and do not ourselves act. Something selfish cannot do something selfless, likewise something selfless cannot do something selfish.
When we become selfless we are not ourselves. We cannot be. Yet we seem to act. We are all fashioned in the image of God. We all have the divine imprint in us somewhere. It is like a beautiful diamond that is recovered from the charred remains of a home.
At one time the home was beautiful and the diamond was placed in the house on display for everyone to see. It shined and reflected light throughout the whole house. But we insulted the builder and keeper of the house, for He is one and the same. The perfect house, the gorgeous furniture, the luxurious landscape, and most precious that diamond he gave us was not enough. We saw it all and were ungrateful. Ingratitude became selfishness and then self-idolatry.
In agner and righteous rage the Builder cursed the house, the landscape and the furniture; but, in mercy he left us our lives and that diamond. The landscape grew wild and overtook the house. Without the keeper we could not maintain the house. Slowly but surely the house turned to ruin, until finally it burned down.
When we scrounged through the rubble frantically searching of our accumulated possessions we happened upon the diamond. Its brilliance remained exactly as it was the day it was given to us. We remembered the Builder, we remember the glory of the House and for that moment we are one with the Builder again. He acts through us for a moment until we return to normalcy.
The image of God in us is untainted. Though our bodies, our minds, and our world has fallen into disrepair the image remains as new as ever. It takes tragedy for us to remember this image, even if it is done so subconsciously. It is out of that image we act in goodness. The image of God overwhelms the corruptness of selfishness and we lose ourselves to God. God's goodness is enacted through men and when we come to our senses we are selfish again.
The goodness of man is a myth. It is another selfish ideal of a selfish creature. Whatever is good must belong to good. Man is most definitely no longer good (though he can be restored! Hallelujah!through an eternal selflessness). When good shines through man it is the goodness of God, not man. So much for the goodness of man.
When I search the faces of men, women and even children I see two things. IN the honest people I see hatred, selfishness, stupidity, envy and a whole host of vices. In the dishonest folks I see masks that scarcely hide these vices.
Man, above all things, is a selfish brute. All of us are more concerned with ourselves than with anything else. It is written that I should love all men as I love myself, but as I am a man I too share all of these selfish vices. On the one hand I love myself and indulge my selfish wants. On the other I loathe myself for being selfish. Should I love and hate all men as I love and hate myself?
The goodness of man is a myth, a fable, and aspiration that is unachievable by every individual ever born or who will be born. We lie, cheat, kill steal and rape for pleasure. If we do not do these things in act we most assuredly do them in thought.
Our normalcy is cruelty. Our modus operandi is meanness.We are all sharks and dogs. We are even more dangerous when we hunt together. Our selfishness can be combined and we grow in greed exponentially when we are left with no outside intervention. We destroy all that we touch, or we consume it and hoard it to satisfy our insatiable lust.
But is there no good in man? How can we explain altruism at all? If what I wrote was the case then we would never see a single good deed and yet we do see such deeds.
When was the last time you witnessed the goodness of man? Prove me wrong! I beg of you! I want so badly to be wrong, but fear I am correct. When we witness a good deed or the goodness of man we witness no act of man at all. Every act, thought or desire of man is utterly selfish. A good deed is truly selfless. There can be no combination of selfishness and selflessness. There must be one or the other. They cannot coexist.
In times of tragedy such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina we were all witnesses to the goodness of men. We saw at times of great tragedy truly selfless deeds that involved the apex of selflessness: giving one's life for another. There, there is the goodness of man! In times of tragedy a selfless nature can overcome the normal of selfishness.
But how can a truly selfish being forgo all of his instincts. How can he act against his nature? He cannot! It would be like seeing fish flying in the air and birds living in water. It is an impossibility. But nonetheless there are good deeds and goodness.
When a good deed happens, when selflessness overcomes selfishness we are no longer ourselves. It is the very notion of selflessness that allows for good deeds to happen. We lose ourselves, our selfish nature, if only for a moment, and do not ourselves act. Something selfish cannot do something selfless, likewise something selfless cannot do something selfish.
When we become selfless we are not ourselves. We cannot be. Yet we seem to act. We are all fashioned in the image of God. We all have the divine imprint in us somewhere. It is like a beautiful diamond that is recovered from the charred remains of a home.
At one time the home was beautiful and the diamond was placed in the house on display for everyone to see. It shined and reflected light throughout the whole house. But we insulted the builder and keeper of the house, for He is one and the same. The perfect house, the gorgeous furniture, the luxurious landscape, and most precious that diamond he gave us was not enough. We saw it all and were ungrateful. Ingratitude became selfishness and then self-idolatry.
In agner and righteous rage the Builder cursed the house, the landscape and the furniture; but, in mercy he left us our lives and that diamond. The landscape grew wild and overtook the house. Without the keeper we could not maintain the house. Slowly but surely the house turned to ruin, until finally it burned down.
When we scrounged through the rubble frantically searching of our accumulated possessions we happened upon the diamond. Its brilliance remained exactly as it was the day it was given to us. We remembered the Builder, we remember the glory of the House and for that moment we are one with the Builder again. He acts through us for a moment until we return to normalcy.
The image of God in us is untainted. Though our bodies, our minds, and our world has fallen into disrepair the image remains as new as ever. It takes tragedy for us to remember this image, even if it is done so subconsciously. It is out of that image we act in goodness. The image of God overwhelms the corruptness of selfishness and we lose ourselves to God. God's goodness is enacted through men and when we come to our senses we are selfish again.
The goodness of man is a myth. It is another selfish ideal of a selfish creature. Whatever is good must belong to good. Man is most definitely no longer good (though he can be restored! Hallelujah!through an eternal selflessness). When good shines through man it is the goodness of God, not man. So much for the goodness of man.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Class notes on Analogical Language
(Originally written April 17, 2007 in book 25)
Class Notes
How can I, a finite human being, whose language is learned in the context of finitude, apply this same language to an infinite God?
Thomistic Analogous language about God
Objection to Analogy:
1. Finite concepts taken out of a finite mode are meaningless
2. To think our finite concepts are applicable to God takes away from the transcendence of God
3. Even if analogy works it is a weak analogy at best
4. Ambiguity as to which finite concepts can be applied to God
5. Choices of finite concepts appear arbitrary
6. Equivocation and univocity are inconsistent. You can't have just a little equivocity nor can you have just some univocity. Analogy attempts to blend the two
Is there no way we can talk about God? Or Analogy as our last hope
Words can be used in two senses:
Univocal - anthropomorphism
Equivocal - Skepticism
It is central to our faith that we can talk about God
Philosophically, univocal and equivocal language is null
We have no choice but to talk analogically about God
Analogy makes the best sense of our experience of life and talk about God
Analogy is how we talk about most things most often
Linehan: Why we can talk univocally about God:
1. Image of God/likeness of God
2. Incarnation of Christ
3. Indwelling of the holy spirit
Analogy and Being
In the concept of Being everything is understood analogically (Eric Mascall)
Objections/Hurdles:
1. Analogy is an arbitrary way of thinking
response: analogy is used in lots of language why not religious language?
2. Isn't God too inaccessible to us to speak about Him by analogy or in any way?
response: there is no gulf between God and man that is impassible. God bridged the gap with creation/incarnation
3. There must be definable, separable univocity and equivocacy
- It can't be all univocity
- It can't be all equivocate
Response: When we talk about God the word/concept is univocal, but the way it is predicated is equivocal
i.e. Chris has being. God has being. Being is univocal in meaning, but applicable to God in a different way than to Chris
Duns Scotus claimed everything must be univocal. Aquinas held that the concept was univocally understood and defined, but predicated analogically.
This works because God and people are causally connected (Metaphysical argument). God is the essential cause, not the accidental cause of the universe.
Analogy can yield no new knowledge. If X is like Y is only comprehensible if I know X and Y and can then deduce similarities. But if I do not know Y at all I cannot say anything about it (equivocally, analogically, or univocally)
What does the analogy look like?
Not analogy duorum ad tertium, analogy unius ad alterum
duorum ad tertium: 3rd party analogy
unius ad alterum: analogy of similar aspects of two things
Attribution analogy: God has being so much as it is necessary to have in order to cause being in Mr. Jones.
Proportionality analogy - Life of a woman/essence of a woman = life of God/essence of God
the way in which the life of the woman is determined by the essence of a woman is proportional to the life of God is determined by the essence of God
By combining analogy of attribution and analogy of proportionality we can produce meaningful language concerning God. Without analogy of attribution or without analogy of proportionality the analogy fails to be meaningful.
How a woman is is proper to its mode. How a man is is proper to its mode. How an elephant is is proper to its mode. How God is is proper to its mode.
Class Notes
How can I, a finite human being, whose language is learned in the context of finitude, apply this same language to an infinite God?
Thomistic Analogous language about God
Objection to Analogy:
1. Finite concepts taken out of a finite mode are meaningless
2. To think our finite concepts are applicable to God takes away from the transcendence of God
3. Even if analogy works it is a weak analogy at best
4. Ambiguity as to which finite concepts can be applied to God
5. Choices of finite concepts appear arbitrary
6. Equivocation and univocity are inconsistent. You can't have just a little equivocity nor can you have just some univocity. Analogy attempts to blend the two
Is there no way we can talk about God? Or Analogy as our last hope
Words can be used in two senses:
Univocal - anthropomorphism
Equivocal - Skepticism
It is central to our faith that we can talk about God
Philosophically, univocal and equivocal language is null
We have no choice but to talk analogically about God
Analogy makes the best sense of our experience of life and talk about God
Analogy is how we talk about most things most often
Linehan: Why we can talk univocally about God:
1. Image of God/likeness of God
2. Incarnation of Christ
3. Indwelling of the holy spirit
Analogy and Being
In the concept of Being everything is understood analogically (Eric Mascall)
Objections/Hurdles:
1. Analogy is an arbitrary way of thinking
response: analogy is used in lots of language why not religious language?
2. Isn't God too inaccessible to us to speak about Him by analogy or in any way?
response: there is no gulf between God and man that is impassible. God bridged the gap with creation/incarnation
3. There must be definable, separable univocity and equivocacy
- It can't be all univocity
- It can't be all equivocate
Response: When we talk about God the word/concept is univocal, but the way it is predicated is equivocal
i.e. Chris has being. God has being. Being is univocal in meaning, but applicable to God in a different way than to Chris
Duns Scotus claimed everything must be univocal. Aquinas held that the concept was univocally understood and defined, but predicated analogically.
This works because God and people are causally connected (Metaphysical argument). God is the essential cause, not the accidental cause of the universe.
Analogy can yield no new knowledge. If X is like Y is only comprehensible if I know X and Y and can then deduce similarities. But if I do not know Y at all I cannot say anything about it (equivocally, analogically, or univocally)
What does the analogy look like?
Not analogy duorum ad tertium, analogy unius ad alterum
duorum ad tertium: 3rd party analogy
unius ad alterum: analogy of similar aspects of two things
Attribution analogy: God has being so much as it is necessary to have in order to cause being in Mr. Jones.
Proportionality analogy - Life of a woman/essence of a woman = life of God/essence of God
the way in which the life of the woman is determined by the essence of a woman is proportional to the life of God is determined by the essence of God
By combining analogy of attribution and analogy of proportionality we can produce meaningful language concerning God. Without analogy of attribution or without analogy of proportionality the analogy fails to be meaningful.
How a woman is is proper to its mode. How a man is is proper to its mode. How an elephant is is proper to its mode. How God is is proper to its mode.
Monday, September 4, 2006
Skepticism (C)
(Originally written September 4, 2006 in Book 6)
Continuing on Hume
He wonders why we believe in the existence of the body. He states that we could have this belief for three reasons:
1) our senses
2) our reason
3) our imagination
It cannot be our senses because our perceptions can change. It cannot be our reason because reason lacks sufficient premises to establish the existence of physical objects. Thus, the imagination is the only plausible cause of the belief in the physical world.
Constancy and coherence of impression are what cause our belief in the external world, but it is not a proof of an external world.
A section from Treatise on Human Nature
"It is in vain to ask, whether there be body or not?" (Pojman, 40).
Hume focuses on the cause of our belief in an external world.
Why do we believe a 'continued' existence of physical objects even when they are not present to the senses? Why do we believe in a 'distinct' existence of physical objects (separate from the mind and perception)? Is it the senses, reason or the imagination that produces the opinion of a continued and distinct existence? As for the senses, they cannot facilitate a continued existence because they are not always at the senses' attention line; I close my eyes or I leave the room. They cannot (the senses) produce distinct existence either without the use of reason or imagination. Thus, our belief in continued and distinct existence of the physical world cannot be produced by our senses.
The senses do not provide us with this thought for three reasons:
1) Ascribing a real corporeal existence to objects of our impression of the mind received from our body is a difficulty. How can the body perceive so the mind knows?
2) Sounds, tastes and smells are commonly regarded as of the mind and thus cannot be situated externally of the body.
3) Our sight cannot inform us of distances without some assistance of our reasoning.
The senses provide us with three types of impressions:
1) Figure, bulk, motion and solidity of bodies
2) Colors, tastes, smells, sounds, heat and cold of bodies
3) Pain and pleasure sensations caused by objects interacting with our body
Philosophers and the vulgar consider 1) to have a distinct and continued existence. The vulgar consider 2) to have distinct and continued existence. Neither the philosopher nor the vulgar believe 3) to have distinct and continued existence.
Our reason is incapable of providing us with a belief in a continued or distinct existence without the assistance of our sensory perceptions. But, since our sense perceptions are not the cause of a continued and distinct existence, neither can reason be. Thus, the opinion of a continued and distinct existence must come from our imagination.
Coherence and constancy are found in the imagination. When I leave the room for thirty minutes, when the TV is on, I find the TV on with a different picture on it. I do not perceive the changes of the TV through my senses as I am gone, but my imagination allows me a constancy or a continued existence of the TV. Continued existence depends on coherence and constancy of certain impressions.
There is a connection between the principle of continued existence and distinct existence. Each of our sensory perceptions is a new impression. We attribute continued existence from our imagination.
Philosophers attempt to distinguish between objects of perception and the perceptions themselves. Perceptions are not continued or distinct, but the objects are distinct and continued.
Hume states that the distinction is not one that should be made.
We cannot know cause and effect.
Our perceptions are not continued and distinct; how can they be identical to the physical world which is continued and distinct? We assume that our perceptions resemble external objects for no valid reasoning. The relation of cause and effect which provides us the basis of this belief is unable to provide us with proof for the existence of continued and distinct existence. Thus, the assumption crumbles.
"We can never conceive of anything but perceptions, and therefore must make everything resemble them" (Polman, 47).
We also assume that every particular object resembles that perception. This also relies n our fallacious knowledge of the relationship between cause and effect.
Hume began with confidence in his senses and now has no confidence at all in them. Regardless, we still ought to believe in the physical world for practical purposes.
A Defense of Common Sense
G.E. Moore
-1873-1958
-Professor at Cambridge University
-He offers a proof against skepticism and for common sense
"1. If skepticism is true, we do not have knowledge of the External World.
2. But we do have knowledge of the external world (Moore gives many examples)
3. Therefore, skepticism is false" (Pojman, 49).
Moore starts by offering truisms:
1. I have a living body
2. The body was born at a specific time
3. My body has existence continuously since my birth
4. My body has undergone changes since my birth
5. That body has been in contact with the earth (or close proximity to it) since it was born
6. My body exists in a place with many other things
7. These things that exist have shape and size in three dimensions
8. My body has been at distances from other thing
9. At times my body has been in contact with things
10. There exists other human bodies, similar, yet distinct from my own.
11. I am a human being
12. I have had many different experiences
13. I have acquired knowledge about the other things existent
14. I have imagined things
15. I have had dreams
16. I have had feelings
17. All other human beings have had experiences, feelings, dreams, etc, similar yet distinct from my own
The class of human beings, of which Moore includes himself, (or at least the vast majority of humans) has at some point known Moore's truisms.
At some point in time many human beings have known these propositions to be true of him or herself or his or her body.
Proof of an External World
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason 2nd Edition has a quote in the preface, "It still remains a scandal to philosophy that the existence of things outside of us... must be accepted merely on faith, and that, if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof" (Pojman, 51).
Kant declared that he had provided a 'rigorous proof' for the existence of the external world. he believed his proof to be the only possible proof.
By proving one thing exists outside of us, we can prove that countless things exist outside of us.
We can prove the existence of physical things "ipso facto" in a number of ways; one of which Moore states that he can prove the existence of his hands by hiding them up and saying, 'here is our hand' and, 'here is another'.
He claims his proof is rigorous because it meets three conditions:
1) The premises he deduced as proof was the same as he set out to adduce
2) The premises adduced provided a proof that he knew to be true
3) The conclusion really follows from the premises
To prove the existence of things in the past al one has to do is offer a proof of something that they experienced in the past. Moore uses his hand holding to show at least two things existed in the past
Moore claims that nothing is easier to prove than the physical world.
Some people will deny that Moore has proved anything because he has not offered proofs for his premises which he claims to know, but cannot prove. These though he cannot prove them are obvious truisms.
"I should say, therefore, that those, if any, who are dissatisfied with these proofs merely on the ground that I did not know their premises have no good reason for their dissatisfaction.
Why not Skepticism?
Keith Lehrer
Lehrer is a professor at the University of Arizona
Lehrer objects to arguments like Moore's because they do not satisfy the justification requirement. "Lehrer argues that we are never completely justified in our beliefs, so we do not have knowledge" (Pojman, 56).
Linehan - If skepticism is true then why become a philosopher? If you can't have knowledge why study for it? Why waste your time trying to obtain nothing? If you are ably intelligent or skillful, create fantasy and bask in the fantasy world you create because the dreariness of impotency in knowing will leave you miserable.
Agnoiology - a theory of ignorance
By developing an agnoiology to defend skepticism, Lehrer hopes to convince us of rational belief and action based on probability without knowledge.
Lehrer is a radical skeptic. "We do not know anything"
To develop an agnoiology to defend skepticism the premises of the agnoioogy are not to be understood as knowledge claims, but as formulations of what he believes and hopes that the rest of us will accept.
Universal ignorance is the theory Lehrer hopes to affirm (actually what he hopes we will concede)
1. If a man knows that p, then it is true that p
2. If a man knows that p, then he believes that p
3. If a man knows that p, then he is completely justified in believing that p.
No one can possibly be mistaken in believing any necessary truth.
But the agnoiology is not refuted by logical impossibility of false belief
Why?
Linehan - Circular reasoning or fancy words. Lehrer is an epistemic magician. With a slight of hand he will have you denying that you know that you are watching him. He will have you denying your knowledge of anything.
If a man believes that a contingent statement is true, and it is logically impossible for the man to believe falsely, don't we have to concede that the man knows?
Some philosophers feel that beliefs about one's current psychological states could not be wrong. It is logically impossible for one to be wrong.
Lehrer disagrees. Why?
There are no beliefs about one's own present state of mind that it is logically inconsistent to be false.
One can believe he is in pain, but really has an itch.
Lehrer concedes that one cannot be wrong in knowing that one believes that they believe.
Linehan - this concession destroys his whole argument. Why bother trying to support a theory of ignorance with a known fact?
If skepticism is neither meaningless nor contradictory, then why not skepticism?
Thomas Reid holds that basic beliefs are beliefs that are justified without any supporting justificatory argument.
Reid is refuted by the skeptical hypothesis (similar to the evil genius of Descartes). IN this theory race 'a' tricks humans into believing their beliefs are correct, but they are false. But race 'b' does the same to race 'a' and race 'c' does to race 'b' and s forth and so forth to infinity. Through this hypothesis our fiefs about our conscious states, sensory perceptions and even memory can be false.
RIDICULOUS!
The agnoiology is not refuted by claims of practicality in having knowledge.
There is one final essay left, but I think that I need a bit more space to take notes. At this point I would like to take a moment to talk about skepticism for a second.
A skeptic may be linguistically superior, but how could I know that? A skeptic may have a sound theory, but how could I have knowledge of that? I could have spent my whole labor day reading essays on skepticism, but how can I justify that belief? How do I know that I believe it or how do I know that I know or that I don't know that I know or don't know? An endless regression of questions is all one finds reading skepticism. It is pointless to argue with them and even more futile to seriously consider their theories.
There isn't much hope in skepticism. I feel hope in my life. Despite some tough times I fell hopeful. But can I justify that? Well, I'm getting married in November. That gives me hope. But how do I know that I'm getting married or that my fiancee even exists? Without knowledge of these thing I cold have no hope (or at least not the same hope I have). But there could be the "Googols" who are deceiving me. And the "Googolplexes" could be deceiving them and the Google-Google-Hamarab-Cal-Canifs could be deceiving them. An endless continuum of deception could destroy my knowledge.
I stated that it is futile to consider skepticism seriously and it is arguments like this that prove my point. Lehrer had to invent continually increasingly intelligent races to deceive one another. Fiction to disprove reality, how far must we allow this? How much must we suffer nonsense in the world of philosophy? We are adults here, let us talk like it. The methodology of inventing nonsensical beings to refute humans is ludicrous. But, I will suffer it?
Why? I believe in a rational God. If i dismiss the argument of skeptical hypothesis simply on the grounds that I do not believe in Googols I leave my argument open to dismissal by philosophers who do not believe in a rational God. So, allow me to slip into a clown suit and argue with Mr. Lehrer. Tonight's topic: Silly Songs with Skeptics.
The Googols possess intelligence of 10 to the 100 compared to men. They trick men (for amusement) to believing that they know things. They do so by sending a peculiar wave that affects the brains of humans in such a way that their beliefs are erroneous. Fine. Great. We're doomed by the Googols.
If the brain is affected by such waves what does it prove? Our brain is fried. This assumes something false (though not everyone will concede this). The brain is a physical thing, but knowledge is not a physical thing. Knowledge, if it were physical would be things we could perceive physically. Reason, intellect, memory, perceptions and all functions of knowledge are not stored in the brain, but the mind. The mind is not a physical thing.
I hear a could play cry from the skeptic. Fine, show me the empirical evidence that knowledge, all knowledge is physical by nature and I will withdraw my objection. But if you show me such evidence both of us will have to abandon our positions. Therefore, while you may have refuted my theory that knowledge is not physical, you will have refuted skepticism by transferring knowledge from you to me.
Enough of the Googols. I now turn to another error of skepticism, this time in Descartes. The evil genius could be deceiving us. But that evil genius could not be God. The evil genius must be all-powerful and malevolent. God is all powerful and benevolent. Since malice and benevolence are contradictory, God who is benevolent, cannot be the evil genius.
Fine. Dandy. But, if God exists as Descartes admits, then there could be no all-powerful, malevolent deceiver. The nature of God is to be all powerful thus an equal in power. But, malevolent is a logical impossibility. There can be but one all-powerful being and this is God.
I grow tired of dealing with ignorance and skeptical claims. If one knows nothing don't wast emu time trying to convince me that I too am an idiot. I do not claim to be a very intelligent being, but I am not ignorant. There are two things that really eat at me in a philosophical theory: ignorance and absolute relativity.
The agnoiology has both. The idea of one not knowing one's own thoughts because they mistake an itch for pain proves nothing. It affirms Lehrer's claim of ignorance. You would still know that you have a feeling and that feeling would be one of discomfort. Mincing words is not proof of a theory or in this case does not push me to concede his point. This is where his relativism shines.
In developing the angoiology the premises are not meant to be understood as claims of knowledge. They are to be understood as formulations of what one believes. By understanding them as such we are to concede the beliefs. But if my beliefs are more eloquently iterated then I hope to have more men concede to my beliefs. This is not the valid of the content that affirms, but the persuasiveness of the theorist. Welcome to the eloquence of relativity and the negation of all judgments.
Book 6 7/20/06-09/04/06
Epistemology continued in Book 8
I leave you with this Descartes' quote: "And indeed it is no purpose that God, in creating me, should have placed this idea in me to be, as it were, the mark of the craftsman stamped on His work - not that the mark need be anything distinct from the work itself. But the mere fact that God created me is a very strong basis for believing that I am somehow made in his image and likeness, which includes the idea of God" (Pojman, 35).
Continuing on Hume
He wonders why we believe in the existence of the body. He states that we could have this belief for three reasons:
1) our senses
2) our reason
3) our imagination
It cannot be our senses because our perceptions can change. It cannot be our reason because reason lacks sufficient premises to establish the existence of physical objects. Thus, the imagination is the only plausible cause of the belief in the physical world.
Constancy and coherence of impression are what cause our belief in the external world, but it is not a proof of an external world.
A section from Treatise on Human Nature
"It is in vain to ask, whether there be body or not?" (Pojman, 40).
Hume focuses on the cause of our belief in an external world.
Why do we believe a 'continued' existence of physical objects even when they are not present to the senses? Why do we believe in a 'distinct' existence of physical objects (separate from the mind and perception)? Is it the senses, reason or the imagination that produces the opinion of a continued and distinct existence? As for the senses, they cannot facilitate a continued existence because they are not always at the senses' attention line; I close my eyes or I leave the room. They cannot (the senses) produce distinct existence either without the use of reason or imagination. Thus, our belief in continued and distinct existence of the physical world cannot be produced by our senses.
The senses do not provide us with this thought for three reasons:
1) Ascribing a real corporeal existence to objects of our impression of the mind received from our body is a difficulty. How can the body perceive so the mind knows?
2) Sounds, tastes and smells are commonly regarded as of the mind and thus cannot be situated externally of the body.
3) Our sight cannot inform us of distances without some assistance of our reasoning.
The senses provide us with three types of impressions:
1) Figure, bulk, motion and solidity of bodies
2) Colors, tastes, smells, sounds, heat and cold of bodies
3) Pain and pleasure sensations caused by objects interacting with our body
Philosophers and the vulgar consider 1) to have a distinct and continued existence. The vulgar consider 2) to have distinct and continued existence. Neither the philosopher nor the vulgar believe 3) to have distinct and continued existence.
Our reason is incapable of providing us with a belief in a continued or distinct existence without the assistance of our sensory perceptions. But, since our sense perceptions are not the cause of a continued and distinct existence, neither can reason be. Thus, the opinion of a continued and distinct existence must come from our imagination.
Coherence and constancy are found in the imagination. When I leave the room for thirty minutes, when the TV is on, I find the TV on with a different picture on it. I do not perceive the changes of the TV through my senses as I am gone, but my imagination allows me a constancy or a continued existence of the TV. Continued existence depends on coherence and constancy of certain impressions.
There is a connection between the principle of continued existence and distinct existence. Each of our sensory perceptions is a new impression. We attribute continued existence from our imagination.
Philosophers attempt to distinguish between objects of perception and the perceptions themselves. Perceptions are not continued or distinct, but the objects are distinct and continued.
Hume states that the distinction is not one that should be made.
We cannot know cause and effect.
Our perceptions are not continued and distinct; how can they be identical to the physical world which is continued and distinct? We assume that our perceptions resemble external objects for no valid reasoning. The relation of cause and effect which provides us the basis of this belief is unable to provide us with proof for the existence of continued and distinct existence. Thus, the assumption crumbles.
"We can never conceive of anything but perceptions, and therefore must make everything resemble them" (Polman, 47).
We also assume that every particular object resembles that perception. This also relies n our fallacious knowledge of the relationship between cause and effect.
Hume began with confidence in his senses and now has no confidence at all in them. Regardless, we still ought to believe in the physical world for practical purposes.
A Defense of Common Sense
G.E. Moore
-1873-1958
-Professor at Cambridge University
-He offers a proof against skepticism and for common sense
"1. If skepticism is true, we do not have knowledge of the External World.
2. But we do have knowledge of the external world (Moore gives many examples)
3. Therefore, skepticism is false" (Pojman, 49).
Moore starts by offering truisms:
1. I have a living body
2. The body was born at a specific time
3. My body has existence continuously since my birth
4. My body has undergone changes since my birth
5. That body has been in contact with the earth (or close proximity to it) since it was born
6. My body exists in a place with many other things
7. These things that exist have shape and size in three dimensions
8. My body has been at distances from other thing
9. At times my body has been in contact with things
10. There exists other human bodies, similar, yet distinct from my own.
11. I am a human being
12. I have had many different experiences
13. I have acquired knowledge about the other things existent
14. I have imagined things
15. I have had dreams
16. I have had feelings
17. All other human beings have had experiences, feelings, dreams, etc, similar yet distinct from my own
The class of human beings, of which Moore includes himself, (or at least the vast majority of humans) has at some point known Moore's truisms.
At some point in time many human beings have known these propositions to be true of him or herself or his or her body.
Proof of an External World
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason 2nd Edition has a quote in the preface, "It still remains a scandal to philosophy that the existence of things outside of us... must be accepted merely on faith, and that, if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof" (Pojman, 51).
Kant declared that he had provided a 'rigorous proof' for the existence of the external world. he believed his proof to be the only possible proof.
By proving one thing exists outside of us, we can prove that countless things exist outside of us.
We can prove the existence of physical things "ipso facto" in a number of ways; one of which Moore states that he can prove the existence of his hands by hiding them up and saying, 'here is our hand' and, 'here is another'.
He claims his proof is rigorous because it meets three conditions:
1) The premises he deduced as proof was the same as he set out to adduce
2) The premises adduced provided a proof that he knew to be true
3) The conclusion really follows from the premises
To prove the existence of things in the past al one has to do is offer a proof of something that they experienced in the past. Moore uses his hand holding to show at least two things existed in the past
Moore claims that nothing is easier to prove than the physical world.
Some people will deny that Moore has proved anything because he has not offered proofs for his premises which he claims to know, but cannot prove. These though he cannot prove them are obvious truisms.
"I should say, therefore, that those, if any, who are dissatisfied with these proofs merely on the ground that I did not know their premises have no good reason for their dissatisfaction.
Why not Skepticism?
Keith Lehrer
Lehrer is a professor at the University of Arizona
Lehrer objects to arguments like Moore's because they do not satisfy the justification requirement. "Lehrer argues that we are never completely justified in our beliefs, so we do not have knowledge" (Pojman, 56).
Linehan - If skepticism is true then why become a philosopher? If you can't have knowledge why study for it? Why waste your time trying to obtain nothing? If you are ably intelligent or skillful, create fantasy and bask in the fantasy world you create because the dreariness of impotency in knowing will leave you miserable.
Agnoiology - a theory of ignorance
By developing an agnoiology to defend skepticism, Lehrer hopes to convince us of rational belief and action based on probability without knowledge.
Lehrer is a radical skeptic. "We do not know anything"
To develop an agnoiology to defend skepticism the premises of the agnoioogy are not to be understood as knowledge claims, but as formulations of what he believes and hopes that the rest of us will accept.
Universal ignorance is the theory Lehrer hopes to affirm (actually what he hopes we will concede)
1. If a man knows that p, then it is true that p
2. If a man knows that p, then he believes that p
3. If a man knows that p, then he is completely justified in believing that p.
No one can possibly be mistaken in believing any necessary truth.
But the agnoiology is not refuted by logical impossibility of false belief
Why?
Linehan - Circular reasoning or fancy words. Lehrer is an epistemic magician. With a slight of hand he will have you denying that you know that you are watching him. He will have you denying your knowledge of anything.
If a man believes that a contingent statement is true, and it is logically impossible for the man to believe falsely, don't we have to concede that the man knows?
Some philosophers feel that beliefs about one's current psychological states could not be wrong. It is logically impossible for one to be wrong.
Lehrer disagrees. Why?
There are no beliefs about one's own present state of mind that it is logically inconsistent to be false.
One can believe he is in pain, but really has an itch.
Lehrer concedes that one cannot be wrong in knowing that one believes that they believe.
Linehan - this concession destroys his whole argument. Why bother trying to support a theory of ignorance with a known fact?
If skepticism is neither meaningless nor contradictory, then why not skepticism?
Thomas Reid holds that basic beliefs are beliefs that are justified without any supporting justificatory argument.
Reid is refuted by the skeptical hypothesis (similar to the evil genius of Descartes). IN this theory race 'a' tricks humans into believing their beliefs are correct, but they are false. But race 'b' does the same to race 'a' and race 'c' does to race 'b' and s forth and so forth to infinity. Through this hypothesis our fiefs about our conscious states, sensory perceptions and even memory can be false.
RIDICULOUS!
The agnoiology is not refuted by claims of practicality in having knowledge.
There is one final essay left, but I think that I need a bit more space to take notes. At this point I would like to take a moment to talk about skepticism for a second.
A skeptic may be linguistically superior, but how could I know that? A skeptic may have a sound theory, but how could I have knowledge of that? I could have spent my whole labor day reading essays on skepticism, but how can I justify that belief? How do I know that I believe it or how do I know that I know or that I don't know that I know or don't know? An endless regression of questions is all one finds reading skepticism. It is pointless to argue with them and even more futile to seriously consider their theories.
There isn't much hope in skepticism. I feel hope in my life. Despite some tough times I fell hopeful. But can I justify that? Well, I'm getting married in November. That gives me hope. But how do I know that I'm getting married or that my fiancee even exists? Without knowledge of these thing I cold have no hope (or at least not the same hope I have). But there could be the "Googols" who are deceiving me. And the "Googolplexes" could be deceiving them and the Google-Google-Hamarab-Cal-Canifs could be deceiving them. An endless continuum of deception could destroy my knowledge.
I stated that it is futile to consider skepticism seriously and it is arguments like this that prove my point. Lehrer had to invent continually increasingly intelligent races to deceive one another. Fiction to disprove reality, how far must we allow this? How much must we suffer nonsense in the world of philosophy? We are adults here, let us talk like it. The methodology of inventing nonsensical beings to refute humans is ludicrous. But, I will suffer it?
Why? I believe in a rational God. If i dismiss the argument of skeptical hypothesis simply on the grounds that I do not believe in Googols I leave my argument open to dismissal by philosophers who do not believe in a rational God. So, allow me to slip into a clown suit and argue with Mr. Lehrer. Tonight's topic: Silly Songs with Skeptics.
The Googols possess intelligence of 10 to the 100 compared to men. They trick men (for amusement) to believing that they know things. They do so by sending a peculiar wave that affects the brains of humans in such a way that their beliefs are erroneous. Fine. Great. We're doomed by the Googols.
If the brain is affected by such waves what does it prove? Our brain is fried. This assumes something false (though not everyone will concede this). The brain is a physical thing, but knowledge is not a physical thing. Knowledge, if it were physical would be things we could perceive physically. Reason, intellect, memory, perceptions and all functions of knowledge are not stored in the brain, but the mind. The mind is not a physical thing.
I hear a could play cry from the skeptic. Fine, show me the empirical evidence that knowledge, all knowledge is physical by nature and I will withdraw my objection. But if you show me such evidence both of us will have to abandon our positions. Therefore, while you may have refuted my theory that knowledge is not physical, you will have refuted skepticism by transferring knowledge from you to me.
Enough of the Googols. I now turn to another error of skepticism, this time in Descartes. The evil genius could be deceiving us. But that evil genius could not be God. The evil genius must be all-powerful and malevolent. God is all powerful and benevolent. Since malice and benevolence are contradictory, God who is benevolent, cannot be the evil genius.
Fine. Dandy. But, if God exists as Descartes admits, then there could be no all-powerful, malevolent deceiver. The nature of God is to be all powerful thus an equal in power. But, malevolent is a logical impossibility. There can be but one all-powerful being and this is God.
I grow tired of dealing with ignorance and skeptical claims. If one knows nothing don't wast emu time trying to convince me that I too am an idiot. I do not claim to be a very intelligent being, but I am not ignorant. There are two things that really eat at me in a philosophical theory: ignorance and absolute relativity.
The agnoiology has both. The idea of one not knowing one's own thoughts because they mistake an itch for pain proves nothing. It affirms Lehrer's claim of ignorance. You would still know that you have a feeling and that feeling would be one of discomfort. Mincing words is not proof of a theory or in this case does not push me to concede his point. This is where his relativism shines.
In developing the angoiology the premises are not meant to be understood as claims of knowledge. They are to be understood as formulations of what one believes. By understanding them as such we are to concede the beliefs. But if my beliefs are more eloquently iterated then I hope to have more men concede to my beliefs. This is not the valid of the content that affirms, but the persuasiveness of the theorist. Welcome to the eloquence of relativity and the negation of all judgments.
Book 6 7/20/06-09/04/06
Epistemology continued in Book 8
I leave you with this Descartes' quote: "And indeed it is no purpose that God, in creating me, should have placed this idea in me to be, as it were, the mark of the craftsman stamped on His work - not that the mark need be anything distinct from the work itself. But the mere fact that God created me is a very strong basis for believing that I am somehow made in his image and likeness, which includes the idea of God" (Pojman, 35).
Sunday, September 3, 2006
Skepticism (B)
(Originally written September 3, 2006 in Book 6)
I can't do anymore. My mind is heavy and I have a sensory perception of pain. Do I know why my head hurts? I don't care if I know, it feels as much and that is good enough for me tonight.
Continuing on Descartes' Third Meditation
Ideas - thoughts which are images of things
Other thoughts are particulars that also have some form of thought process in them. These are volitions or emotions or judgments.
Judgments are in danger of being false, whereas ideas, emotions or wills are not.
The biggest danger of a false judgment is believing that internal idea resembles something outside of my self.
There are innate and adventitious and self-invented ideas.
Understanding what a thing is, what truth is, and what thought is are innate ideas.
Sense perceptions are adventitious.
Imagination ideas (unicorns) are self-invented ideas.
But, it could be that all ideas are of one category.
What reasons do I have for believing that things outside of me that cause sense perceptions resemble one another?
-Nature taught me to think this.
Since all knowledge I have comes from within me, something greater than I must have put these ideas in me, this is God's role in creation.
Since I am less perfect than God, that is I have less reality in me than God, I could not get the idea of him from within myself.
It must be concluded that the mere fact that I exist and have within me an idea of a most perfect being, that is, God, provides a very clear proof that God indeed exists.
The idea of God is innate.
"And indeed it is no surprise that God, in creating me, should have placed this idea in me to be, as it were, the mark of the craftsman stamped on his work - not that the mark need be anything distinct from the work itself. But the mere fact that God created me is a very strong basis for believing that I am somehow made in his image and likeness, and that I perceive that likeness, which includes the idea of God, by the same faculty which enables me to perceive myself. That is, when I turn my mind's eye upon myself, I understand that I am a thing which is incomplete and dependent on another and which aspires without limit to ever greater and better things; but I also understand at the same time that he on whom I depend has within him all those greater things, not just indefinitely and potentially but actually and infinitely, and hence that he is God" (Polman, 34-35). This is very good.
Fourth Meditation
"Truth and falsity"
What we know about corporeal things is not through perception.
Knowledge of God is the most distinct and clear knowledge man has.
God provides me with all the knowledge and capability for knowledge to make judgments. If I use the judgment correctly, I can't err.
I make mistakes because I exist somewhere between God and nothingness. God is the ultimate reality and nothingness is no reality. Since I tend to make judgments towards the scale of no reality, I am prone to err.
Error is a privation of some knowledge which ought to be in me.
The will is the ability to do or not to do something.
To behave correctly I must withheld my judgment on what I do not have indubitable knowledge of.
I cannot complain that God has not provided me with more knowledge or a greater capacity for knowledge because I am a finite being.
Every perception comes from God and to avoid error I simply have to withhold judgment on that which I do not have indubitable knowledge of.
Skepticism regarding the senses
David Hume
-Scottish Empiricist
-1711 - 1776
-Accepts there are truths of reason, mathematical truths and logical truths
-He doubts empirical and metaphysical knowledge
-Learning is based on sensory impressions
-Ideas are representations of sensory impressions
-Complex ideas are mere composites of ideas and we have no way of knowing if complex ideas accurately represent reality/
I can't do anymore. My mind is heavy and I have a sensory perception of pain. Do I know why my head hurts? I don't care if I know, it feels as much and that is good enough for me tonight.
Continuing on Descartes' Third Meditation
Ideas - thoughts which are images of things
Other thoughts are particulars that also have some form of thought process in them. These are volitions or emotions or judgments.
Judgments are in danger of being false, whereas ideas, emotions or wills are not.
The biggest danger of a false judgment is believing that internal idea resembles something outside of my self.
There are innate and adventitious and self-invented ideas.
Understanding what a thing is, what truth is, and what thought is are innate ideas.
Sense perceptions are adventitious.
Imagination ideas (unicorns) are self-invented ideas.
But, it could be that all ideas are of one category.
What reasons do I have for believing that things outside of me that cause sense perceptions resemble one another?
-Nature taught me to think this.
Since all knowledge I have comes from within me, something greater than I must have put these ideas in me, this is God's role in creation.
Since I am less perfect than God, that is I have less reality in me than God, I could not get the idea of him from within myself.
It must be concluded that the mere fact that I exist and have within me an idea of a most perfect being, that is, God, provides a very clear proof that God indeed exists.
The idea of God is innate.
"And indeed it is no surprise that God, in creating me, should have placed this idea in me to be, as it were, the mark of the craftsman stamped on his work - not that the mark need be anything distinct from the work itself. But the mere fact that God created me is a very strong basis for believing that I am somehow made in his image and likeness, and that I perceive that likeness, which includes the idea of God, by the same faculty which enables me to perceive myself. That is, when I turn my mind's eye upon myself, I understand that I am a thing which is incomplete and dependent on another and which aspires without limit to ever greater and better things; but I also understand at the same time that he on whom I depend has within him all those greater things, not just indefinitely and potentially but actually and infinitely, and hence that he is God" (Polman, 34-35). This is very good.
Fourth Meditation
"Truth and falsity"
What we know about corporeal things is not through perception.
Knowledge of God is the most distinct and clear knowledge man has.
God provides me with all the knowledge and capability for knowledge to make judgments. If I use the judgment correctly, I can't err.
I make mistakes because I exist somewhere between God and nothingness. God is the ultimate reality and nothingness is no reality. Since I tend to make judgments towards the scale of no reality, I am prone to err.
Error is a privation of some knowledge which ought to be in me.
The will is the ability to do or not to do something.
To behave correctly I must withheld my judgment on what I do not have indubitable knowledge of.
I cannot complain that God has not provided me with more knowledge or a greater capacity for knowledge because I am a finite being.
Every perception comes from God and to avoid error I simply have to withhold judgment on that which I do not have indubitable knowledge of.
Skepticism regarding the senses
David Hume
-Scottish Empiricist
-1711 - 1776
-Accepts there are truths of reason, mathematical truths and logical truths
-He doubts empirical and metaphysical knowledge
-Learning is based on sensory impressions
-Ideas are representations of sensory impressions
-Complex ideas are mere composites of ideas and we have no way of knowing if complex ideas accurately represent reality/
Friday, July 28, 2006
My beliefs circa July 28, 2006
(Originally written July 28, 2006 in Book 7)
Heart not broken, just bruised.
Love will never fail.
A number of short presuppositions
1. What is philosophy?
Philosophy is the process of discovering innate concepts in this world. It is the formulation of opinions, belief and acquisition of knowledge practiced by all human beings. It is speculation, and a way of thinking. It is necessary for all humans to function properly. It is using the limited faculty of reason and rationality that we all have.
2. What is not philosophy?
A) an exact science
B) An inexhaustible and infinite wealth of knowledge
C) A substitution for faith
D) A tool of suppressions or terror
3. Is there a God?
A god (whatever it is) necessarily exists. I turn to cosmological evidence and the first cause for this conclusion. The existence of a god does not demand the existence of God directly.
But through natural theology and scientific observance I would readily infer that some supreme mind must exist to facilitate the creation of such an orderly universe. A supreme mind infers a Supreme Being God (not yet defined by a religion) is the only being that would be able to possess a Supreme Mind.
My faith bridges the chasm between a God (Supreme Being) necessarily existing and the belief in the Christian God. A true Christian who has truly felt God (a prerequisite) cannot be swayed by any argument that God does not exist. Faith can falter or even be undermined totally, but that is an account of the weakness and fallibility of man, not an argument against God's existence.
4. What is my philosophy of philosophy?
It is a process, a means. It is not an end. If it becomes an end it contradicts itself. (A process cannot be the culmination). Philosophy is a road to Truth. Truth is the goal; philosophy is one of many means. But, philosophy or any other means to Truth is hopeless if it is not supplemented by faith.
5. What then is Truth?
Truth is God. Only through God can we grasp the Truth. The truths we grab from God is fragmentary. Thus, Truth is God, truths are man's comprehensions of bits of that Truth.
6. What is knowledge?
Knowledge is not Truth or truth. Truth exists independently, thus any truth that exists, exists as a piece of the Truth. Knowledge is the comprehension of a truth. Knowledge cannot exist independently; it requires a host to comprehend truth. Absolute knowledge is the comprehension of the Truth in its entirety. Only God (the Truth) has full comprehension of the Truth. Absolute knowledge is unattainable for man, but should be strived for.
7. Philosophy of History
History is cyclical. It isn't because of some reincarnation, but because there are similar variables and one constant. God is the constant. Every individual human being that has existed is unique, but has many familiar characteristics that he or she shares with all other humans. The probability of similar things happening in various cultures or ages is likely because they all contain the same constant (God) and similar variables (humans). While history is cyclical it is not identically cyclical.
8. Philosophy of Language
Language is a universal. It has always existed and will always exist. A particular language is a sub-universal. An individual's usage of any sub-universal (i.e. English, Spanish, etc.) is the particular. Thus language, when used becomes purely subjective. Because no human being is perfectly identical, their subjective use of language causes ambiguities and thus, difficulties. Ambiguity is unavoidable, but clarification should always be used to minimize ambiguity.
9. Philosophy of Religion
Religion is the systematized rules surrounding a belief in a supreme being. It is subjective because it involves an individual's belief in God. Religion is also concerned with Ethics and Morality. While any particular set of religious beliefs is subjective and then subjective to any particular individual it does not follow that religion is relative. Relativism does not have any place in this world.
10. Ethics
Ethics are the primary concern of philosophy because they are the core of every individual human being. Ethics precede (or at least ought to precede) every action. It is for this reason that they are of the utmost importance.
The purpose of Ethics are to provide direction to every individual human being. Since Ethics are to be personal guides they are subjective. But, as in the case of religion, subjectivism does not equate relativism. Some Ethical beliefs are better than others and some systems are wrong. The correctness of an Ethical belief is measured by its close relationship to the teachings of Christ and the nature of God. God is Truth, an objective reality. Thus, any subjective set of ethics can be measured against the Objective Truth for accuracy. The measurement is called morality and immorality. An ethical system is mostly moral when it correlates closely to the nature of God, it is immoral when it contradicts the nature of God.
11. I exist
To doubt my existence is absurd. How I exist is another matter completely.
12. Man
Man is distinct from other individual animals because man was created in the image of God. This gives man a unique balance of responsibility and supremacy.
The image of God is a capacity for rationality. This does not mean that man is a rational being. Man is capable of rationality and reason, but often chooses not to follow it. Man is by nature, irrational. Sin is a testament to the irrationality of man.
13. Evil
Evil is a privation of the Good (God). Without the presence of the Good, man is evil.
Heart not broken, just bruised.
Love will never fail.
A number of short presuppositions
1. What is philosophy?
Philosophy is the process of discovering innate concepts in this world. It is the formulation of opinions, belief and acquisition of knowledge practiced by all human beings. It is speculation, and a way of thinking. It is necessary for all humans to function properly. It is using the limited faculty of reason and rationality that we all have.
2. What is not philosophy?
A) an exact science
B) An inexhaustible and infinite wealth of knowledge
C) A substitution for faith
D) A tool of suppressions or terror
3. Is there a God?
A god (whatever it is) necessarily exists. I turn to cosmological evidence and the first cause for this conclusion. The existence of a god does not demand the existence of God directly.
But through natural theology and scientific observance I would readily infer that some supreme mind must exist to facilitate the creation of such an orderly universe. A supreme mind infers a Supreme Being God (not yet defined by a religion) is the only being that would be able to possess a Supreme Mind.
My faith bridges the chasm between a God (Supreme Being) necessarily existing and the belief in the Christian God. A true Christian who has truly felt God (a prerequisite) cannot be swayed by any argument that God does not exist. Faith can falter or even be undermined totally, but that is an account of the weakness and fallibility of man, not an argument against God's existence.
4. What is my philosophy of philosophy?
It is a process, a means. It is not an end. If it becomes an end it contradicts itself. (A process cannot be the culmination). Philosophy is a road to Truth. Truth is the goal; philosophy is one of many means. But, philosophy or any other means to Truth is hopeless if it is not supplemented by faith.
5. What then is Truth?
Truth is God. Only through God can we grasp the Truth. The truths we grab from God is fragmentary. Thus, Truth is God, truths are man's comprehensions of bits of that Truth.
6. What is knowledge?
Knowledge is not Truth or truth. Truth exists independently, thus any truth that exists, exists as a piece of the Truth. Knowledge is the comprehension of a truth. Knowledge cannot exist independently; it requires a host to comprehend truth. Absolute knowledge is the comprehension of the Truth in its entirety. Only God (the Truth) has full comprehension of the Truth. Absolute knowledge is unattainable for man, but should be strived for.
7. Philosophy of History
History is cyclical. It isn't because of some reincarnation, but because there are similar variables and one constant. God is the constant. Every individual human being that has existed is unique, but has many familiar characteristics that he or she shares with all other humans. The probability of similar things happening in various cultures or ages is likely because they all contain the same constant (God) and similar variables (humans). While history is cyclical it is not identically cyclical.
8. Philosophy of Language
Language is a universal. It has always existed and will always exist. A particular language is a sub-universal. An individual's usage of any sub-universal (i.e. English, Spanish, etc.) is the particular. Thus language, when used becomes purely subjective. Because no human being is perfectly identical, their subjective use of language causes ambiguities and thus, difficulties. Ambiguity is unavoidable, but clarification should always be used to minimize ambiguity.
9. Philosophy of Religion
Religion is the systematized rules surrounding a belief in a supreme being. It is subjective because it involves an individual's belief in God. Religion is also concerned with Ethics and Morality. While any particular set of religious beliefs is subjective and then subjective to any particular individual it does not follow that religion is relative. Relativism does not have any place in this world.
10. Ethics
Ethics are the primary concern of philosophy because they are the core of every individual human being. Ethics precede (or at least ought to precede) every action. It is for this reason that they are of the utmost importance.
The purpose of Ethics are to provide direction to every individual human being. Since Ethics are to be personal guides they are subjective. But, as in the case of religion, subjectivism does not equate relativism. Some Ethical beliefs are better than others and some systems are wrong. The correctness of an Ethical belief is measured by its close relationship to the teachings of Christ and the nature of God. God is Truth, an objective reality. Thus, any subjective set of ethics can be measured against the Objective Truth for accuracy. The measurement is called morality and immorality. An ethical system is mostly moral when it correlates closely to the nature of God, it is immoral when it contradicts the nature of God.
11. I exist
To doubt my existence is absurd. How I exist is another matter completely.
12. Man
Man is distinct from other individual animals because man was created in the image of God. This gives man a unique balance of responsibility and supremacy.
The image of God is a capacity for rationality. This does not mean that man is a rational being. Man is capable of rationality and reason, but often chooses not to follow it. Man is by nature, irrational. Sin is a testament to the irrationality of man.
13. Evil
Evil is a privation of the Good (God). Without the presence of the Good, man is evil.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Beginning to grapple with Original Sin & the Problem of Evil
This little outline/essay hits on the vast majority of the things that interested me most ten years ago (and still do). We hit the Problem of Evil, some epistemology, some theology that reconciles the problem of Evil in a Christian context, what it means to be a philosopher and how one should use their philosophical 'powers', the dichotomy (which I believe to be false) between faith and knowledge and the intersection of all of these topics, my own little theory of everything. While some of the word choices are that of a young, but enthusiastic kid aren't perfect I still think I agree with much of it. Although, upon reading it a little closer I feel I might have strayed a bit into a dualism that I didn't mean to. But, I think that is more of the clunky usage of Evil/evil and Good/good. (2/10/16)
(Originally written July 20, 2006 in Book 3)
This is an outline for what I believe about man.
I. The Beginnings of Man
A. God is completely perfect
B. God creates man perfect, but not completely perfect
-mirror analogy
C. God and man exist in a perfect harmony. Man is dependent on God for existence and God explicitly provides it.
II. The Fall of Man
A. Man perceives his perfection as completely perfect. Thus, having no need of God.
B. Man wittingly rebels against God, breaking God's commandment.
C. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil provides man with truth he is incapable of understanding.
Knowledge is the comprehension of truth.
Sin occurs as the breaking of the commandments of God. In the beginning there is only one explicit commandment - do not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil.
Once man had eaten of Tree two things happened:
1) Man sinned against God
2) Man was endowed with more truth of good and evil than he was capable of understanding.
As man was now overwhelmed with more knowledge of Good and Evil than he was capable of processing sin was inevitable.
Sin is the Original Sin, the direct breaking of God's commandment to Adam. Now, sin is the inevitable consequence of men with all the knowledge of the truth of good and evil and none of the faculty to process it all into knowledge.
The Original Sin caused man to demand autonomy, an existence not dependent on God. Man demanded to be God. Rather than exacting vengeance, God in his mercy, acquiesced. But, man did not (nor could he have) understood the ramifications of his demand.
Man deprived himself of God, thus depriving himself of Good. The deprivation of Good is Evil.
A good is derivative of the Good. An evil is a derivative of the Evil. Thus in reality: an evil is an action done in the deprivation oft he Good.
God is Good. Only God is Good. Man, pre-Fall, was good and was in the presence of the Good. Thus, there was no deprivation and therefore no Evil or any possibility for evil.
When man committed the Original Sin, he deprived himself (and the physical world) of the Good. The deprivation caused a void which was filled by Evil.
But God created man in His own image. Man was created good. Even after man was deprived of the Good and subjected to Evil, he was still good.
The Good sustained the good of man. But without the Good of God, man's good was insufficient to stop the corruptive power of the Evil.
Since Evil is merely the deprivation of Good, ti cannot have any power over the Good. It can only exist where the Good has abdicated the throne?
Why then would God (the Good) abdicate the throne of earth?
God, justly could have retained the earth, but would have to purge it of anything impure. Man's Original Sin made him impure. Justice demanded man be purged from earth (as Satan was purged from Heaven). God instead chose mercy and removed Himself from the earth. Thus, Evil filled the void left on earth by the deprivation of the Good.
Man did not become Evil, because just as the Good can only exist as a single entity, Evil can only exist as a single entity. If man were ever Good, he would be God. If man were to become Evil, then he would become anti-God, equal in power, but with malicious intent and essence. For something to be equal in power with God is logically absurd.
What then is Evil?
Evil is the deprivation of Good. It is not embodied in any individual being. Evil is a formless vacuum.
So then, who is Evil?
Nothing is Evil. No one is Evil.
What of Satan?
Satan is evil.
What of man?
Man, in the presence of God (the Good) is good. Man in the presence of Evil (not in the presence of the Good) is evil.
So if man is evil and the devil is evil, what is the difference between the two?
Satan and all fallen angels are evil, with no hope of redemption. They have no chance for becoming good again. Man, all fallen men are evil with the hope for redemption. Through Christ, the human embodiment of the Good, man can once again become good, but only through the Good.
Good cannot become good because more cannot be less. A good cannot become Good because less cannot become more.
Good cannot become Evil, because God (the only Good) cannot be Evil. Likewise Good cannot become evil because no trace of Evil or evil is in God.
But, good becoming evil in the presence of Evil and evil becomes good in the presence of Good.
The scope of philosophy is to attempt to comprehend as much of Good and Evil as is possible without forgetting that total knowledge is impossible. The process of evil becoming good is not in the realm of philosophy, only God can accomplish this. Therefore both faith (the bridge between the end of knowledge and the beginning of God) and knowledge are needed in salvation.
Faith is all that man truly needs in redemption. But the corruption of Evil has made man so evil that knowledge usually precedes faith.
Unfortunately, knowledge sometimes undercuts a possibility for faith to exist. It is the responsibility of every philosopher to use knowledge (the comprehension of truth) to lead to faith. Thus, precaution is needed in the acquisition of knowledge. Any philosopher who is using knowledge to undermine faith does himself and the world a disservice. Whoa to the fate of those false prophets.
Since knowledge is not truth, it can never be complete in incomplete beings. Truth is complete and complete comprehension of it would be complete knowledge.
An incomplete being can never acquire anything complete. Complete knowledge is reserved for God.
One must never forget this or the purpose for which knowledge serves. Knowledge is to precede faith, never to substitute for it. This has been the error in many philosophers and philosophies. It's substitution has been the root of many consequences. This error has been much of the pains in sin.
(Originally written July 20, 2006 in Book 3)
This is an outline for what I believe about man.
I. The Beginnings of Man
A. God is completely perfect
B. God creates man perfect, but not completely perfect
-mirror analogy
C. God and man exist in a perfect harmony. Man is dependent on God for existence and God explicitly provides it.
II. The Fall of Man
A. Man perceives his perfection as completely perfect. Thus, having no need of God.
B. Man wittingly rebels against God, breaking God's commandment.
C. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil provides man with truth he is incapable of understanding.
Knowledge is the comprehension of truth.
Sin occurs as the breaking of the commandments of God. In the beginning there is only one explicit commandment - do not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil.
Once man had eaten of Tree two things happened:
1) Man sinned against God
2) Man was endowed with more truth of good and evil than he was capable of understanding.
As man was now overwhelmed with more knowledge of Good and Evil than he was capable of processing sin was inevitable.
Sin is the Original Sin, the direct breaking of God's commandment to Adam. Now, sin is the inevitable consequence of men with all the knowledge of the truth of good and evil and none of the faculty to process it all into knowledge.
The Original Sin caused man to demand autonomy, an existence not dependent on God. Man demanded to be God. Rather than exacting vengeance, God in his mercy, acquiesced. But, man did not (nor could he have) understood the ramifications of his demand.
Man deprived himself of God, thus depriving himself of Good. The deprivation of Good is Evil.
A good is derivative of the Good. An evil is a derivative of the Evil. Thus in reality: an evil is an action done in the deprivation oft he Good.
God is Good. Only God is Good. Man, pre-Fall, was good and was in the presence of the Good. Thus, there was no deprivation and therefore no Evil or any possibility for evil.
When man committed the Original Sin, he deprived himself (and the physical world) of the Good. The deprivation caused a void which was filled by Evil.
But God created man in His own image. Man was created good. Even after man was deprived of the Good and subjected to Evil, he was still good.
The Good sustained the good of man. But without the Good of God, man's good was insufficient to stop the corruptive power of the Evil.
Since Evil is merely the deprivation of Good, ti cannot have any power over the Good. It can only exist where the Good has abdicated the throne?
Why then would God (the Good) abdicate the throne of earth?
God, justly could have retained the earth, but would have to purge it of anything impure. Man's Original Sin made him impure. Justice demanded man be purged from earth (as Satan was purged from Heaven). God instead chose mercy and removed Himself from the earth. Thus, Evil filled the void left on earth by the deprivation of the Good.
Man did not become Evil, because just as the Good can only exist as a single entity, Evil can only exist as a single entity. If man were ever Good, he would be God. If man were to become Evil, then he would become anti-God, equal in power, but with malicious intent and essence. For something to be equal in power with God is logically absurd.
What then is Evil?
Evil is the deprivation of Good. It is not embodied in any individual being. Evil is a formless vacuum.
So then, who is Evil?
Nothing is Evil. No one is Evil.
What of Satan?
Satan is evil.
What of man?
Man, in the presence of God (the Good) is good. Man in the presence of Evil (not in the presence of the Good) is evil.
So if man is evil and the devil is evil, what is the difference between the two?
Satan and all fallen angels are evil, with no hope of redemption. They have no chance for becoming good again. Man, all fallen men are evil with the hope for redemption. Through Christ, the human embodiment of the Good, man can once again become good, but only through the Good.
Good cannot become good because more cannot be less. A good cannot become Good because less cannot become more.
Good cannot become Evil, because God (the only Good) cannot be Evil. Likewise Good cannot become evil because no trace of Evil or evil is in God.
But, good becoming evil in the presence of Evil and evil becomes good in the presence of Good.
The scope of philosophy is to attempt to comprehend as much of Good and Evil as is possible without forgetting that total knowledge is impossible. The process of evil becoming good is not in the realm of philosophy, only God can accomplish this. Therefore both faith (the bridge between the end of knowledge and the beginning of God) and knowledge are needed in salvation.
Faith is all that man truly needs in redemption. But the corruption of Evil has made man so evil that knowledge usually precedes faith.
Unfortunately, knowledge sometimes undercuts a possibility for faith to exist. It is the responsibility of every philosopher to use knowledge (the comprehension of truth) to lead to faith. Thus, precaution is needed in the acquisition of knowledge. Any philosopher who is using knowledge to undermine faith does himself and the world a disservice. Whoa to the fate of those false prophets.
Since knowledge is not truth, it can never be complete in incomplete beings. Truth is complete and complete comprehension of it would be complete knowledge.
An incomplete being can never acquire anything complete. Complete knowledge is reserved for God.
One must never forget this or the purpose for which knowledge serves. Knowledge is to precede faith, never to substitute for it. This has been the error in many philosophers and philosophies. It's substitution has been the root of many consequences. This error has been much of the pains in sin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)