The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. II Christianity During the First Four Centuries
Christianity began as a reforming movement in Judaism and would have stayed such contentedly had it not been for St. Paul. St. Paul was able to keep what was good about the certainty of Judaism in an uncertain age without forcing the gentiles to take on the two most restrictive elements, dietary laws and circumcision.
Early Gnosticism taught that the Jews were bad and identified Yahweh with the god, Ialdabaoth. Ialdabaoth was a rebellious son of God and responsible for the evil, physical world. God then sent his spirit temporarily into Jesus to free the world from the false teachings of Moses. It was a fusion of Jewish theology and Platonic philosophy.
Manichean theology combined Christian and Zoroastrian elements and was what initially brought Augustine to the Catholic faith.
Early heresies like the Gnostics and Manicheans existed until Christianity took over the government. But some of their beliefs survived. Islam was founded with a Docetic (gnostic) belief that Jesus was a prophet who had the spirit of God in him until the spirit left him at the crucifixion.
As Christianity became Hellenized, it became theological. Even by the appearance of the Gospel of John, with Christ being identified with Logos, the Hellenization had begun.
Judaism did not have deep metaphysical mysteries. Christianity developed them in a Jewish context.
Origen, a contemporary of Plotinus, incorporated a lot of Neo-Platonism into his doctrine. In spite of being considered one of the Fathers of Christianity he was condemned for having believed four heresies:
1. The pre-existence of souls as Plato taught
2. Believed that the human nature of Christ existed before the Incarnation
3. At the resurrection our bodies will be transformed into completely ethereal bodies
4. That all men, even devils, shall be saved at least
Origen is the first to have the one-two punch for belief that is characteristic of Christian philosophy. First, pure reason, when exercised properly is sufficient to establish the basics of the Christian faith. Second, the Scriptures prove more and are proved by the fact that the prophets foretold of the Coming of the Messiah and that once believed the Christian life has tangible beneficent effects.
The Christians prior to Constantine had a high moral character. This high moral character is one of the reasons for the spread of Christianity.
The zeal which the Christians inherited from Judaism was vital to its spread. But, when the Christians acquired secular power they turned that zeal on one another to persecute heretics out of existence.
Two heresies, the Arian and the Sabellian forced the narrow line of the belief that the Father and the Son were one substance and distinct persons. Too much separation and you were advocating Arianism. Too much oneness and you were advocating Sabellianism.
The Arians were favored throughout much of the 4th century until Theodosius in 379 gave his full backing to the Catholic Christians with a cementing effect throughout the Empire. The Arians made a comeback in the West when the Vandals and the Goths, Arian Christians both of them, conquered much of the Western Empire. It took another century for the orthodoxy to prevail.
Showing posts with label Judaism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judaism. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
The Religious Development of the Jews
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book Two Catholic Philosophy
Introduction
The Middle Ages was dominated by the Church and thus intellectual thought was also dominated by churchmen.
There is a dualism present in the Middle Ages, the dualism of clergy and laity, of Latin & Teuton, of the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God, of spirit of flesh and of Pope and Emperor.
The early part of the Middle Ages is dominated by Augustine and Plato. The latter part is dominated with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.
The misery of the Middle Ages "heightened the intensity of religious feeling". Nothing in the world which was full of death and war and strife was of value except for virtue because that steadfast virtue would lead to eternal bliss.
Part I. The Fathers
Ch. I The Religious Development of the Jews
"The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians,
consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and
the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history
derived from the Jews; and thirdly, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were
on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism, and to kindred cults of
the Near East" (Russell, 308).
The most important Jewish elements in Christianity according to Russell:
1. A sacred history that justifies the ways of God to man
2. The existence of a select few whom God especially loves, i.e. The Chosen People or the elect
3. A new concept of what is righteousness. Practical philanthropy as part of the Christian concept of virtue comes from the Jews.
4. The Law
5. The Messiah, the Christians simply moved the prosperity from a temporal plane to a heavenly one
6. The Kingdom of Heaven
Judaism became different from other contemporary religions when it became exclusive and monotheistic. "Jeremiah and Ezekiel, especially, seem to have invented the idea that all religions except one are false, and that the Lord punishes idolatry" (Russell, 310).
The captivity periods in Jewish history were understood to be a justification of the nationalistic and doomsday prophets of earlier times.
The Jews looked to God as a parental relationship and the Jews could be purified through God's punishment.
Judaism also moved from a sacrificial religion to a non-sacrificial one when the Temple was destroyed.
Isaiah greatly increased the belief in a Messiah, possibly as a result of Persian influence.
The Hellenization of Jews was difficult. Jerusalem fell in between the Seleucid and the Ptolemies. When in 175 B.C. the Seleucid king Antiochus IV sought to fully hellenize the Jews he was met with resistance. In 170 B.C. the Jews revolted. This is the history told in the First Book of Maccabees.
It was during this time that the Jews started to believe in an immortality in order to account for the good suffering and the belief that God would reward the good.
Some Jews living in the diaspora were hellenized, but the survival of Judaism is the result of brave Jews in Jerusalem who fought to preserve the original and uniqueness of their monotheistic faith.
The Jewish focus on the Law made them an intensely conservative group.
Both Jews and Christians think a lot about sin, but Christians thought of themselves as sinners while Jews mainly did not.
After the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Jews of the Diaspora became increasingly important, especially the very Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
Philo, a contemporary of Christ, is the perfect illustration of Greek influence on Jews. Philo was orthodox in his religion and a Platonist in his philosophy. He was very important to the early Christian Fathers.
Bertrand Russell
Book Two Catholic Philosophy
Introduction
The Middle Ages was dominated by the Church and thus intellectual thought was also dominated by churchmen.
There is a dualism present in the Middle Ages, the dualism of clergy and laity, of Latin & Teuton, of the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God, of spirit of flesh and of Pope and Emperor.
The early part of the Middle Ages is dominated by Augustine and Plato. The latter part is dominated with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.
The misery of the Middle Ages "heightened the intensity of religious feeling". Nothing in the world which was full of death and war and strife was of value except for virtue because that steadfast virtue would lead to eternal bliss.
Part I. The Fathers
Ch. I The Religious Development of the Jews
"The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians,
consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and
the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history
derived from the Jews; and thirdly, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were
on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism, and to kindred cults of
the Near East" (Russell, 308).
The most important Jewish elements in Christianity according to Russell:
1. A sacred history that justifies the ways of God to man
2. The existence of a select few whom God especially loves, i.e. The Chosen People or the elect
3. A new concept of what is righteousness. Practical philanthropy as part of the Christian concept of virtue comes from the Jews.
4. The Law
5. The Messiah, the Christians simply moved the prosperity from a temporal plane to a heavenly one
6. The Kingdom of Heaven
Judaism became different from other contemporary religions when it became exclusive and monotheistic. "Jeremiah and Ezekiel, especially, seem to have invented the idea that all religions except one are false, and that the Lord punishes idolatry" (Russell, 310).
The captivity periods in Jewish history were understood to be a justification of the nationalistic and doomsday prophets of earlier times.
The Jews looked to God as a parental relationship and the Jews could be purified through God's punishment.
Judaism also moved from a sacrificial religion to a non-sacrificial one when the Temple was destroyed.
Isaiah greatly increased the belief in a Messiah, possibly as a result of Persian influence.
The Hellenization of Jews was difficult. Jerusalem fell in between the Seleucid and the Ptolemies. When in 175 B.C. the Seleucid king Antiochus IV sought to fully hellenize the Jews he was met with resistance. In 170 B.C. the Jews revolted. This is the history told in the First Book of Maccabees.
It was during this time that the Jews started to believe in an immortality in order to account for the good suffering and the belief that God would reward the good.
Some Jews living in the diaspora were hellenized, but the survival of Judaism is the result of brave Jews in Jerusalem who fought to preserve the original and uniqueness of their monotheistic faith.
The Jewish focus on the Law made them an intensely conservative group.
Both Jews and Christians think a lot about sin, but Christians thought of themselves as sinners while Jews mainly did not.
After the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Jews of the Diaspora became increasingly important, especially the very Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
Philo, a contemporary of Christ, is the perfect illustration of Greek influence on Jews. Philo was orthodox in his religion and a Platonist in his philosophy. He was very important to the early Christian Fathers.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Eschatology in various religions
(Originally written April 23, 2007 in Book 15)
Chapter 7: Eschatology & Hope for the Future
Time plays crucial and different roles in various religions.
A Geometry of Time
The modern secular view of time is entirely linear. Time is a sequence of moments.
Most believe that time had some origin (whatever they claim it to be), but others like the physicist Stephen Hawkins deny that time has a beginning or an end.
Conversely, the Western monotheistic religions believe time has both a beginning and an end. In addition Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism each have a mid point.
Pre-literate cultures believe that (according to Mircea Eliade) time was not linear, but circular. Time in our world mirrored the "time of the gods".
Eliade makes notice that as cultures move from preliterate to literate they drop the circular conception of, but not wholly. Anniversaries, holidays and birthdays are hold overs from circular time conceptions.
Eliade notes that archaic people (pre-Literates) have no hope or notion of the future. Likewise pure secularists have no hope for the future because they deny any telos (goal/end) for time.
Jainism's conception of time is divided into six ages and moves from best to worst then worst to best again.
Hinduism believes time is cyclical.
Buddhism also has a cyclical conception of time.
The Future in Traditional Religion
In African culture there are two modes of time:
1) Sasa - time of every day events
2) Zamani - Mythological time
People like in sass time. When they are born they are actualized into sass. When they die that actualization is completed and the process of de-actualization begins. As the ones who know them slowly die off the dead move further from the sasa into the zamani. Eventually they are engulfed in Zamani time.
Zamani gives purpose to sasa, but does not extend it.
The Christianization of Africa has taken two forms:
1) A traditional European style
2) A syncretism of traditional African religion and Christianity (independent churches).
The "independent churches" of Africa have adopted an eschatology, thus giving them hope for the future which traditional African conceptions of time denied them.
The Future in Western Religions
The future of Western Religions is tied into their messianic figures.
Judaism
Judaism had several messianic expectations by the time of Christ. Many the Messiah would liberate the Jews from Roman oppression and reestablish Israel.
The Essenes at Qumran expected at least two messiahs: a messianic king and a messianic priest.
The Saducees and the ruling priests might not have anticipated a messiah at all.
The messiah was expected to be human, but equal to God's first created being, the angel Metatron.
Also, the messiah would be the Son of David and heir to the throne.
The messiah would restore Israel politically and spiritually.
The messiah would liberate Jews from oppression.
Judaism has had a history of messianic pretenders. Bar Kokhba in the 2nd century and Sabbatai Zevi in the 17th century are the most notable two.
The Hasidic movement has shied away from claiming messianic status of their leaders and even opposed the creation of the modern state of Israel because they believed it was blasphemous to have Israel without a messianic king.
Reform Jews have given up the search for a Messiah.
Islam
Islam hopes for the Mahdi (the right guided one) as the last messenger of Allah.
The Mahdi is based on the Hadith, not the Qur'an.
The majority of Muslims are Sunni muslims and do not have a specific Mahdi theology.
The Shi'ite Muslims believe the Mahdi has a theological role.
Jesus Christ is the second most important prophet in Islam. Islam believes that Christ will return before the judgment and lead the faithful in prayer. But usually Jesus is not considered the Mahdi.
Shi'ite muslims claimed that the imams had the same spiritual authority as Muhammad. They have a super human standing.
The last imam to have this authority, according to the Shi'ites did not die, but went into hiding. He will return as the Mahdi.
Islam has had a number of Mahdi pretenders.
Umar II, one of the caliphs of the Umayyad dynasty was revered as the Mahdi for a while.
Mohammad Ahmad in the 19th century sought to overthrow the Ottoman Empire from Sudan. He claimed to be the Mahdi. His revolution was put down by the Turks, the British and a counter-Mahdi, Sanusi Al-Mahdi.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian claimed to be the Mahdi, the second coming of Christ and an avatar of Krishna. There are two groups that follow his teaching still.
Baha'i began as an offshoot of Shi'ites.
The Bab claimed to be the Mahdi in 1844.
Baha'ullah declared himself to be the successor of the Bab and established Baha'i.
In the future another manifestation of God will follow if there needs to be one.
Zoroastrianism
Zoroaster is to be succeeded every 1,000 years by his direct descendants.
Three times, a thousand years apart, a virgin will bathe in the lake and become impersonated with his sperm.
Aushetar, Aushetar mah, and Saoshyant will be born as prophets like Zoroaster. Saoshyant will restore true religion and usher in the purification of all human beings.
Chapter 7: Eschatology & Hope for the Future
Time plays crucial and different roles in various religions.
A Geometry of Time
The modern secular view of time is entirely linear. Time is a sequence of moments.
Most believe that time had some origin (whatever they claim it to be), but others like the physicist Stephen Hawkins deny that time has a beginning or an end.
Conversely, the Western monotheistic religions believe time has both a beginning and an end. In addition Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism each have a mid point.
Pre-literate cultures believe that (according to Mircea Eliade) time was not linear, but circular. Time in our world mirrored the "time of the gods".
Eliade makes notice that as cultures move from preliterate to literate they drop the circular conception of, but not wholly. Anniversaries, holidays and birthdays are hold overs from circular time conceptions.
Eliade notes that archaic people (pre-Literates) have no hope or notion of the future. Likewise pure secularists have no hope for the future because they deny any telos (goal/end) for time.
Jainism's conception of time is divided into six ages and moves from best to worst then worst to best again.
Hinduism believes time is cyclical.
Buddhism also has a cyclical conception of time.
The Future in Traditional Religion
In African culture there are two modes of time:
1) Sasa - time of every day events
2) Zamani - Mythological time
People like in sass time. When they are born they are actualized into sass. When they die that actualization is completed and the process of de-actualization begins. As the ones who know them slowly die off the dead move further from the sasa into the zamani. Eventually they are engulfed in Zamani time.
Zamani gives purpose to sasa, but does not extend it.
The Christianization of Africa has taken two forms:
1) A traditional European style
2) A syncretism of traditional African religion and Christianity (independent churches).
The "independent churches" of Africa have adopted an eschatology, thus giving them hope for the future which traditional African conceptions of time denied them.
The Future in Western Religions
The future of Western Religions is tied into their messianic figures.
Judaism
Judaism had several messianic expectations by the time of Christ. Many the Messiah would liberate the Jews from Roman oppression and reestablish Israel.
The Essenes at Qumran expected at least two messiahs: a messianic king and a messianic priest.
The Saducees and the ruling priests might not have anticipated a messiah at all.
The messiah was expected to be human, but equal to God's first created being, the angel Metatron.
Also, the messiah would be the Son of David and heir to the throne.
The messiah would restore Israel politically and spiritually.
The messiah would liberate Jews from oppression.
Judaism has had a history of messianic pretenders. Bar Kokhba in the 2nd century and Sabbatai Zevi in the 17th century are the most notable two.
The Hasidic movement has shied away from claiming messianic status of their leaders and even opposed the creation of the modern state of Israel because they believed it was blasphemous to have Israel without a messianic king.
Reform Jews have given up the search for a Messiah.
Islam
Islam hopes for the Mahdi (the right guided one) as the last messenger of Allah.
The Mahdi is based on the Hadith, not the Qur'an.
The majority of Muslims are Sunni muslims and do not have a specific Mahdi theology.
The Shi'ite Muslims believe the Mahdi has a theological role.
Jesus Christ is the second most important prophet in Islam. Islam believes that Christ will return before the judgment and lead the faithful in prayer. But usually Jesus is not considered the Mahdi.
Shi'ite muslims claimed that the imams had the same spiritual authority as Muhammad. They have a super human standing.
The last imam to have this authority, according to the Shi'ites did not die, but went into hiding. He will return as the Mahdi.
Islam has had a number of Mahdi pretenders.
Umar II, one of the caliphs of the Umayyad dynasty was revered as the Mahdi for a while.
Mohammad Ahmad in the 19th century sought to overthrow the Ottoman Empire from Sudan. He claimed to be the Mahdi. His revolution was put down by the Turks, the British and a counter-Mahdi, Sanusi Al-Mahdi.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian claimed to be the Mahdi, the second coming of Christ and an avatar of Krishna. There are two groups that follow his teaching still.
Baha'i began as an offshoot of Shi'ites.
The Bab claimed to be the Mahdi in 1844.
Baha'ullah declared himself to be the successor of the Bab and established Baha'i.
In the future another manifestation of God will follow if there needs to be one.
Zoroastrianism
Zoroaster is to be succeeded every 1,000 years by his direct descendants.
Three times, a thousand years apart, a virgin will bathe in the lake and become impersonated with his sperm.
Aushetar, Aushetar mah, and Saoshyant will be born as prophets like Zoroaster. Saoshyant will restore true religion and usher in the purification of all human beings.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 9
(Originally written April 20, 2007 in Book 7)
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
Chapter 9 - Human Destiny: Immortality and Resurrection
The Immortality of the Soul
Plato was the first to systematically develop the mind-body dichotomy and prove the immortality of the soul.
The soul (mind) as being conceived of as a simple substance is not an empirical fact, but a metaphysical theory. As such it cannot be used as proof for the immortality of the soul.
Cartesian mind-body theories have declined since WWIII due to attacks by the analytical school of philosophy.
The Re-Creation of the Psychophysical Person
Hebrew theology initially focused solely on the covenant between God and Israel and paid little attention to the individual. As the breakdown of Israel as a political entity Hebrew theology focused on the individual soul and on the after life.
Judaeo-Christian belief in immortality differs from Platonic belief in that the Judaeo-Christian conception includes a re-creation of the body.
St. Paul's conception of the resurrection concerns God's re-creation of the human psychophysical individual.
The major problem with this is providing criteria of personal identity.
Hell is a major part of the problem of evil. If God is all-good and uses evil for good then what is the purpose of eternal suffering?
Quick note: Hell is not itself evil. The suffering that befalls the men and women in hell is not evil. The torment they suffer is punitive action for the life they chose. Punishment is not evil; it is justice. Justice cannot be evil. Also, hell has a purpose for good. When all is finished and Hell is stalled, then all evil will be trapped and separated from good. As such, evil cannot escape from hell to corrupt what is good. Because evil exists and evil nearly inevitably corrupts good, hell is necessary to protect good from evil.
Does Parapsychology Help?
Spiritualists claims that life after death is proved by well-documented cases of communication between the living and the dead.
This section: pg 127-131 is really strange and obnoxious.
The supposed recalling of spirits from the land of the dead to the land of the living is explainable by a telepathic function of the medium. Mediums posses an ability to derive knowledge telepathically from their clients about whom they are "reaching". Though the medium may even feel this is a genuine connection it is merely a telepathic marvel.
Resuscitation Cases
People that have been resuscitated after being declared dead provide another interesting phenomenal experience.
People experience numerous similar things in the time they are dead. Often they are reluctant to speak about such strange things, but their view of death normally changes after the experience.
All of parapsychology's assertions must be handled with caution. They are not (yet) weighted enough to prove the immortality of the soul.
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
Chapter 9 - Human Destiny: Immortality and Resurrection
The Immortality of the Soul
Plato was the first to systematically develop the mind-body dichotomy and prove the immortality of the soul.
The soul (mind) as being conceived of as a simple substance is not an empirical fact, but a metaphysical theory. As such it cannot be used as proof for the immortality of the soul.
Cartesian mind-body theories have declined since WWIII due to attacks by the analytical school of philosophy.
The Re-Creation of the Psychophysical Person
Hebrew theology initially focused solely on the covenant between God and Israel and paid little attention to the individual. As the breakdown of Israel as a political entity Hebrew theology focused on the individual soul and on the after life.
Judaeo-Christian belief in immortality differs from Platonic belief in that the Judaeo-Christian conception includes a re-creation of the body.
St. Paul's conception of the resurrection concerns God's re-creation of the human psychophysical individual.
The major problem with this is providing criteria of personal identity.
Hell is a major part of the problem of evil. If God is all-good and uses evil for good then what is the purpose of eternal suffering?
Quick note: Hell is not itself evil. The suffering that befalls the men and women in hell is not evil. The torment they suffer is punitive action for the life they chose. Punishment is not evil; it is justice. Justice cannot be evil. Also, hell has a purpose for good. When all is finished and Hell is stalled, then all evil will be trapped and separated from good. As such, evil cannot escape from hell to corrupt what is good. Because evil exists and evil nearly inevitably corrupts good, hell is necessary to protect good from evil.
Does Parapsychology Help?
Spiritualists claims that life after death is proved by well-documented cases of communication between the living and the dead.
This section: pg 127-131 is really strange and obnoxious.
The supposed recalling of spirits from the land of the dead to the land of the living is explainable by a telepathic function of the medium. Mediums posses an ability to derive knowledge telepathically from their clients about whom they are "reaching". Though the medium may even feel this is a genuine connection it is merely a telepathic marvel.
Resuscitation Cases
People that have been resuscitated after being declared dead provide another interesting phenomenal experience.
People experience numerous similar things in the time they are dead. Often they are reluctant to speak about such strange things, but their view of death normally changes after the experience.
All of parapsychology's assertions must be handled with caution. They are not (yet) weighted enough to prove the immortality of the soul.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 8 (A)
(Originally written April 19, 2007 in Book 7)
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
Chapter 8 - The Conflicting Truth Claims of Different Religions
Many Faiths, All claiming to be true
Nearly every religion claims to be true, exclusively.
There cannot be multiple exclusively true religions.
These exclusivity claims of religious has led to widespread skepticism about all religions.
W.A. Christian's Analysis
W.A. Christian differentiates between a proposal for belief and a factual assertion.
Major Belief Proposals:
Jesus is Messiah
Atman is Brahman
Allah is merciful
All the Buddhas are one.
Do these belief proposals really contradict one another?
Christianity claims that Jesus is the Messiah and that the Jews hold that the Messiah is still expected. This appears to be two contrary statements.
But the conception of Messiah is different is Christianity and Judaism. Thus, the Jewish denial that Jesus is the Messiah does not contradict with the Christian assertion that He is the Messiah.
Wittgenstein claimed that each religion was its own unique and distinct language-game. Thus, nothing in Christianity can agree with or disagree with anything in Buddhism, etc.
Critique of the Concept of a "religion"
Wilfred Cantrell Smith challenges the traditional concept of religion. He claims that religion (an empirical entity) can be traced historically and mapped geographically. He holds that religion is a human phenomenon. Cantrell Smith claims that naming religions occurred in the Enlightenment of Europe (except for Islam).
He holds it is inappropriate to speak of religions as true or false. They are merely expressions of the diversity of human types and temperaments and thought forms.
He maintains that the complex religions developed differently because it was impossible to overcome cultural-historical boundaries because of poor communications.
Now that these boundaries are overcome-able, a new form of religious thinking can arise.
Toward a possible solution:
The human being is a naturally religious animal.
The world religions developed gradually as man's religious life evolved.
The multiplicity of religion in ancient times was inevitable because people were locked into geographic regions.
All the world's religions may be rooted in contact with the same ultimate reality, but that the different ways of relating to said reality developed because of geographic-historic-sociocultural circumstances.
The future developments of the World's religions (because of the One Worldedness of today's society) may be headed towards a unification.
There are three main points concerning varying truth claims of religions:
1) Differing modes of experiencing the ultimate reality
2) Differing philosophical and theological theory concerning the ultimate reality and the implications of religious experience
3) differing revelatory experiences that unify religious experience and thought
The most important difference is the experience of a personal deity and an impersonal one.
These personal and impersonal deities are anon-contradictory, but complementary. All religions hold the ultimate reality to be outside the scope of finite human categories.
Theology and philosophy are ever evolving. There is no one reason to deny that in a One World culture that the theological and philosophical differences may dissolve during subsequent development.
The differing revelatory experiences of the World religions is the most difficult difference to dissolve.
Christianity faces a difficulty in asserting the infinite love of God and that only those who have faith in Christ will have everlasting life. These seem incompatible.
"It seems that if the tension at the heart of the traditional Christian attitude to non-Christian faiths is to be resolved, Christian thinkers must give even more radical though to the problem than they have yet done" (Hick, 118).
This is the epitome of arrogant intellectualism. John H. Hick is demanding that a rigorously developed theological philosophical detail be dropped after 2,000 plus years of development!
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
Chapter 8 - The Conflicting Truth Claims of Different Religions
Many Faiths, All claiming to be true
Nearly every religion claims to be true, exclusively.
There cannot be multiple exclusively true religions.
These exclusivity claims of religious has led to widespread skepticism about all religions.
W.A. Christian's Analysis
W.A. Christian differentiates between a proposal for belief and a factual assertion.
Major Belief Proposals:
Jesus is Messiah
Atman is Brahman
Allah is merciful
All the Buddhas are one.
Do these belief proposals really contradict one another?
Christianity claims that Jesus is the Messiah and that the Jews hold that the Messiah is still expected. This appears to be two contrary statements.
But the conception of Messiah is different is Christianity and Judaism. Thus, the Jewish denial that Jesus is the Messiah does not contradict with the Christian assertion that He is the Messiah.
Wittgenstein claimed that each religion was its own unique and distinct language-game. Thus, nothing in Christianity can agree with or disagree with anything in Buddhism, etc.
Critique of the Concept of a "religion"
Wilfred Cantrell Smith challenges the traditional concept of religion. He claims that religion (an empirical entity) can be traced historically and mapped geographically. He holds that religion is a human phenomenon. Cantrell Smith claims that naming religions occurred in the Enlightenment of Europe (except for Islam).
He holds it is inappropriate to speak of religions as true or false. They are merely expressions of the diversity of human types and temperaments and thought forms.
He maintains that the complex religions developed differently because it was impossible to overcome cultural-historical boundaries because of poor communications.
Now that these boundaries are overcome-able, a new form of religious thinking can arise.
Toward a possible solution:
The human being is a naturally religious animal.
The world religions developed gradually as man's religious life evolved.
The multiplicity of religion in ancient times was inevitable because people were locked into geographic regions.
All the world's religions may be rooted in contact with the same ultimate reality, but that the different ways of relating to said reality developed because of geographic-historic-sociocultural circumstances.
The future developments of the World's religions (because of the One Worldedness of today's society) may be headed towards a unification.
There are three main points concerning varying truth claims of religions:
1) Differing modes of experiencing the ultimate reality
2) Differing philosophical and theological theory concerning the ultimate reality and the implications of religious experience
3) differing revelatory experiences that unify religious experience and thought
The most important difference is the experience of a personal deity and an impersonal one.
These personal and impersonal deities are anon-contradictory, but complementary. All religions hold the ultimate reality to be outside the scope of finite human categories.
Theology and philosophy are ever evolving. There is no one reason to deny that in a One World culture that the theological and philosophical differences may dissolve during subsequent development.
The differing revelatory experiences of the World religions is the most difficult difference to dissolve.
Christianity faces a difficulty in asserting the infinite love of God and that only those who have faith in Christ will have everlasting life. These seem incompatible.
"It seems that if the tension at the heart of the traditional Christian attitude to non-Christian faiths is to be resolved, Christian thinkers must give even more radical though to the problem than they have yet done" (Hick, 118).
This is the epitome of arrogant intellectualism. John H. Hick is demanding that a rigorously developed theological philosophical detail be dropped after 2,000 plus years of development!
Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 7
(Originally written April 19, 2007 in Book 7)
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
Chapter 7 - The Problem of Verification
The Question of Verifiability
Christianity and Judaism have always assumed that their assertions have a cognitive, factual basis.
According to logical positivism, to be able to be either true or false a statement must be meaningful. A statement is meaningful if it has a factual or cognitive meaning. It is meaningful if it is, at least in principle, verifiable.
John Wisdom held that the atheist and theist do not disagree about the empirical facts, but react in different ways to the facts. Under this method, Wisdom held that it is wrong-headed to claim that either is right or wrong.
Santayana held that religions are not true or false, but better or worse.
Wisdom points out that neither theism nor atheism is verifiable.
Antony Flew posed the question, "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?"
Two Suggested Solutions:
R.M. Hare introduced the notion of bliss in response to Flew. Hare claims that a blink is an unverifiable and non-falsifiable interpretation of one's experience.
A blik is not open to question. It is accepted no matter what the evidence is.
Hare distinguishes between a sane black and an insane blink.
A problem with this is that if bliss are by nature non-verifiableand unfalsifiable they cannot be distinguished from one another.
Basil Mitchell answered Flew that religious beliefs are genuinely factual in nature, but not straight-forwardly verifiable or falsifiable.
While Hare states that nothing can count against a blink, Mitchell maintains that things may count against a religious belief, but that faith bridges the gap.
Mitchell focuses on the similarity between religious and ordinary beliefs.
Mitchell uses the idea of eschatological verification.
The Idea of eschatological verification:
A verification of a factual assertion is different than a logical demonstration of it.
Just because a proposition is in principal verifiable, it does not follow that it will ever be verified.
A proposition may be in principle verifiable, but not in principle falsifiable.
The idea of a continued conscious existence after bodily death is a proposition that is verifiable in principal, but not falsifiable in principle. It may be false, but it cannot be known as a false statement via experience.
The universe as seen by the theists is totally different as the universe the atheists sees because of the notion of eschatological verification.
Some Difficulties and Complications
The notion that it makes sense to speak of continued existence after death is not rendered verifiable by a belief in God.
The continued existence of a dead man in a new universe in a new body does not prove the existence of a loving God.
Our present environment is religiously ambiguous.
There are difficulties in a finite creature claiming to have seen and recognized an infinite creature.
"Exists", "Fact", and "Real"
What does it mean to ask, Does God exist?
This is not a problem for any proponent of non cognitive religious language.
For the theist, the notion of God's existence is factual and thus, problematic.
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
Chapter 7 - The Problem of Verification
The Question of Verifiability
Christianity and Judaism have always assumed that their assertions have a cognitive, factual basis.
According to logical positivism, to be able to be either true or false a statement must be meaningful. A statement is meaningful if it has a factual or cognitive meaning. It is meaningful if it is, at least in principle, verifiable.
John Wisdom held that the atheist and theist do not disagree about the empirical facts, but react in different ways to the facts. Under this method, Wisdom held that it is wrong-headed to claim that either is right or wrong.
Santayana held that religions are not true or false, but better or worse.
Wisdom points out that neither theism nor atheism is verifiable.
Antony Flew posed the question, "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?"
Two Suggested Solutions:
R.M. Hare introduced the notion of bliss in response to Flew. Hare claims that a blink is an unverifiable and non-falsifiable interpretation of one's experience.
A blik is not open to question. It is accepted no matter what the evidence is.
Hare distinguishes between a sane black and an insane blink.
A problem with this is that if bliss are by nature non-verifiableand unfalsifiable they cannot be distinguished from one another.
Basil Mitchell answered Flew that religious beliefs are genuinely factual in nature, but not straight-forwardly verifiable or falsifiable.
While Hare states that nothing can count against a blink, Mitchell maintains that things may count against a religious belief, but that faith bridges the gap.
Mitchell focuses on the similarity between religious and ordinary beliefs.
Mitchell uses the idea of eschatological verification.
The Idea of eschatological verification:
A verification of a factual assertion is different than a logical demonstration of it.
Just because a proposition is in principal verifiable, it does not follow that it will ever be verified.
A proposition may be in principle verifiable, but not in principle falsifiable.
The idea of a continued conscious existence after bodily death is a proposition that is verifiable in principal, but not falsifiable in principle. It may be false, but it cannot be known as a false statement via experience.
The universe as seen by the theists is totally different as the universe the atheists sees because of the notion of eschatological verification.
Some Difficulties and Complications
The notion that it makes sense to speak of continued existence after death is not rendered verifiable by a belief in God.
The continued existence of a dead man in a new universe in a new body does not prove the existence of a loving God.
Our present environment is religiously ambiguous.
There are difficulties in a finite creature claiming to have seen and recognized an infinite creature.
"Exists", "Fact", and "Real"
What does it mean to ask, Does God exist?
This is not a problem for any proponent of non cognitive religious language.
For the theist, the notion of God's existence is factual and thus, problematic.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Creation & Redemption in Eastern Traditions, Mysticism
(Originally written April 16, 2007 in Book 15)
In Eastern Religions one needs to be redeemed from phenomenal existence.
In Vedantic monistic Hinduism the philosophy begins with the continual existence of a soul (jiva) in this present world. Maya (this world) is full of suffering. So as long as jiva exists in the Maya the jiva will suffer. As the jiva exists in the Maya it is operated from its true state of existence as oneness with the Bhraman.
Samsara, the cycle of reincarnation that keeps the soul anchored in Maya, keeping people trapped in a life of suffering.
Whether one comes back as an animal, human, demon or whatever depends on the amount of Karma one accumulates by committing disruptive actions (Klesha).
The view of Samsara is a hopeless one because they do not see it as very easy to get out of the cycle.
Another major problem in this view is that of ignorance. One may not know his true identity of atman-Brahma. Salvation must come through knowledge (advaita).
Salvation is achieved through knowledge in Vedantic Hinduism.
Moksha is the "release" from Samsara.
Moksha is salvation in the sense that it saves one from phenomenal existence.
Buddhism, Jainism and other forms of Hinduism follow similar lines of salvation, but in there own way.
In Buddhism, it is not the identity of atman (the true self) one hopes to achieve, but anatman (non-self) [This is Theravada Buddhism].
In Theravada Buddhism salvation occurs when one recognizes that one does not exist and stop clinging to this realm of existence.
In Jainism we exist in the realm because of the accumulated karma (which in Jainism is actually physical matter clinging to our souls).
Karma is accumulated by our actions that harm other creatures.
To achieve salvation in Jainism one must cease doing things that accumulates dust on one's soul.
Jainism salvation also starts with knowledge. The soul that knows the truth and then acts on it is the soul that gains release from the cycle of reincarnation.
Chinese and Japanese traditions have no notion of salvation within themselves. Buddhism in these cultures has grafted the notion of salvation into them.
Christianity
Christianity is differentiated from all other religions by its notion of original sin.
Original sin rules out any neutral status of humanity. But, it is not Eastern in that original sin results from phenomenal existence, but fallen phenomenal existence.
The Fall of man resulted in a disruption of the God-man relationship. Salvation in Christianity is the restoration of this all important relationship.
Man is helpless and unable to restore this relationship through his own power.
Christianity holds that all human beings are fallen as a result of Adam's original sin.
Christianity emphasizes the fallenness of all human beings.
In Indic religions the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt; in Christianity the human soul is what is corrupt and if the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt it is because of the result of human fallenness.
The way to salvation in Christianity is through mediation via the atoning death of Christ.
Salvation entails a number of facets:
1) Justification - declaration of the sinner as righteous by God on the basis of Christ's work.
2) Regeneration - God implants a new nature in the person enabling him to live a righteous life.
3) Conversion - sinner turns from sin and trusts in God
4) Adoption - new believer is made a member of God's family
5) Indwelling - The Holy Spirit dwells within the believer
6) Glorification - Elevating the relationship between God and man to a higher status then Adam and God initially enjoyed.
In Christianity faith cannot be supplemented by works, but faith results in good works.
Grace in other religions
Christianity is not the only religion in where one is saved by faith alone.
There is a difference between grace and mercy.
Most religions have a concept of mercy which is usually a central concept.
Grace is entirely the result of the divine person's actions and is unaided by human efforts whatsoever.
Along with Christianity there are two classic examples of grace in world religions:
1) The cat school of Bhakti Hinduism
- Southern school of devotion to Rama
- Rama saves us the way a cat carries her young (in her mouth)
2) The Jodo-Shin-Shu school of Buddhism
- most popular school in Japan
- salvation comes from the buddha Amida
- The legend goes that Amido was a ruler under the influence of the Buddha Lokesvararaja and took up a monkshood. As a monk he went by the name Dharmakara and vowed not to achieve enlightenment until he made it possible for all creatures to achieve it. Thus, he created the pure land in which all would be reborn into and achieve nirvana in the next life.
- The monk Honen in the 12th century A.D. made this legend the core of his buddhism.
- One can enter the pure land in one's next life by stating "Namu Amida Butsu" (I worship the Buddha Amida (or "nembutsu" for short).
- Honen taught to recite nembutsu frequently to achieve rebirth as a male in the pure land.
- The Buddhist monk Shinran actually built on Honen's ideas and formed the Jodo-Shin-Shu school.
- Shinran taught that there is nothing a person can do to enter the Pure Land other than completely trusting in Amida.
Christian Response
In Christianity salvation comes via faith in Jesus Christ. In the cat school of Bhakti Hinduism comes through faith in Rama/Ishvana and in Jodo-Shin-Shu Buddhism grace comes through faith in Amida Butsu.
Christianity's concept of grace is tied to its concept of redemptive salvation which makes it drastically different than Eastern concepts of grace.
Christianity differentiates itself from all other religions in the role that its founder plays as a historical figure.
Islam could exist without Muhammad. Muhammad taught that Islam was practiced long before him, but it had been corrupted.
Muhammad plays an important role in Islam, but not an essential one.
The Buddha is neither unique nor essential to Buddhism. There were many Buddhas.
Jainism can exist without its founder Mahavira because he is non-essential.
Without the historicity of Christianity is a religion of impossible moral exhortations.
Without Jesus and his death on the cross and his resurrection there can be no Christian atonement.
Christianity is a wholly unique religion because it is falsifiable (Jesus' body could be found and falsify the resurrection) and because it can be shown as plausible because of historical evidence.
Cosmos & Mysticism
Mysticism exists in Eastern & Western Religions.
The essence of a mystical experience is that one participates in an unmediated link with something absolute.
Examples of Mysticism
1) A Sufi (Islam) experiences the closeness of Allah
2) A Kabbalist (Judaism) sees God on his throne (the devekuth)
3) The Vedantic Hindu who realizes the absorption of his atman in Brahman
4) The Bhakti Hindu who has a direct vision (darshan) of his deity
5) The Buddhist who comes to awareness in nirvana
6) The Daoist who yields all to the Dao
Eastern mystical experiences deal with paths of redemption whereas Western mystical experiences merely enhance the total spiritual picture.
There is no good reason to infer that Christian mystics encounter the same reality as non-Christian ones (contra the "Perennial Philosophy")
Mystics do not encounter "Reality" they encounter a deity.
There should not be too much significance placed on mystical experiences within Christianity.
Mystical experiences are not a part of Christianity's theological concept of redemption.
Cosmic Redemption
While there is no notion of Original Sin in Judaism, it stresses the fallen nature of the present world order.
In addition to human beings each needing individual redemption, the cosmos as a whole needs redemption.
In Western Traditions the cosmos will eventually be redeemed: Islam- Heaven & Hell; Judaism - kingdom of God; Christianity - New Heaven & Earth; Zoroastrianism - reclaiming of the universe. But, in Eastern traditions the cosmos are continually renewed, but never redeemed.
In Eastern Religions one needs to be redeemed from phenomenal existence.
In Vedantic monistic Hinduism the philosophy begins with the continual existence of a soul (jiva) in this present world. Maya (this world) is full of suffering. So as long as jiva exists in the Maya the jiva will suffer. As the jiva exists in the Maya it is operated from its true state of existence as oneness with the Bhraman.
Samsara, the cycle of reincarnation that keeps the soul anchored in Maya, keeping people trapped in a life of suffering.
Whether one comes back as an animal, human, demon or whatever depends on the amount of Karma one accumulates by committing disruptive actions (Klesha).
The view of Samsara is a hopeless one because they do not see it as very easy to get out of the cycle.
Another major problem in this view is that of ignorance. One may not know his true identity of atman-Brahma. Salvation must come through knowledge (advaita).
Salvation is achieved through knowledge in Vedantic Hinduism.
Moksha is the "release" from Samsara.
Moksha is salvation in the sense that it saves one from phenomenal existence.
Buddhism, Jainism and other forms of Hinduism follow similar lines of salvation, but in there own way.
In Buddhism, it is not the identity of atman (the true self) one hopes to achieve, but anatman (non-self) [This is Theravada Buddhism].
In Theravada Buddhism salvation occurs when one recognizes that one does not exist and stop clinging to this realm of existence.
In Jainism we exist in the realm because of the accumulated karma (which in Jainism is actually physical matter clinging to our souls).
Karma is accumulated by our actions that harm other creatures.
To achieve salvation in Jainism one must cease doing things that accumulates dust on one's soul.
Jainism salvation also starts with knowledge. The soul that knows the truth and then acts on it is the soul that gains release from the cycle of reincarnation.
Chinese and Japanese traditions have no notion of salvation within themselves. Buddhism in these cultures has grafted the notion of salvation into them.
Christianity
Christianity is differentiated from all other religions by its notion of original sin.
Original sin rules out any neutral status of humanity. But, it is not Eastern in that original sin results from phenomenal existence, but fallen phenomenal existence.
The Fall of man resulted in a disruption of the God-man relationship. Salvation in Christianity is the restoration of this all important relationship.
Man is helpless and unable to restore this relationship through his own power.
Christianity holds that all human beings are fallen as a result of Adam's original sin.
Christianity emphasizes the fallenness of all human beings.
In Indic religions the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt; in Christianity the human soul is what is corrupt and if the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt it is because of the result of human fallenness.
The way to salvation in Christianity is through mediation via the atoning death of Christ.
Salvation entails a number of facets:
1) Justification - declaration of the sinner as righteous by God on the basis of Christ's work.
2) Regeneration - God implants a new nature in the person enabling him to live a righteous life.
3) Conversion - sinner turns from sin and trusts in God
4) Adoption - new believer is made a member of God's family
5) Indwelling - The Holy Spirit dwells within the believer
6) Glorification - Elevating the relationship between God and man to a higher status then Adam and God initially enjoyed.
In Christianity faith cannot be supplemented by works, but faith results in good works.
Grace in other religions
Christianity is not the only religion in where one is saved by faith alone.
There is a difference between grace and mercy.
Most religions have a concept of mercy which is usually a central concept.
Grace is entirely the result of the divine person's actions and is unaided by human efforts whatsoever.
Along with Christianity there are two classic examples of grace in world religions:
1) The cat school of Bhakti Hinduism
- Southern school of devotion to Rama
- Rama saves us the way a cat carries her young (in her mouth)
2) The Jodo-Shin-Shu school of Buddhism
- most popular school in Japan
- salvation comes from the buddha Amida
- The legend goes that Amido was a ruler under the influence of the Buddha Lokesvararaja and took up a monkshood. As a monk he went by the name Dharmakara and vowed not to achieve enlightenment until he made it possible for all creatures to achieve it. Thus, he created the pure land in which all would be reborn into and achieve nirvana in the next life.
- The monk Honen in the 12th century A.D. made this legend the core of his buddhism.
- One can enter the pure land in one's next life by stating "Namu Amida Butsu" (I worship the Buddha Amida (or "nembutsu" for short).
- Honen taught to recite nembutsu frequently to achieve rebirth as a male in the pure land.
- The Buddhist monk Shinran actually built on Honen's ideas and formed the Jodo-Shin-Shu school.
- Shinran taught that there is nothing a person can do to enter the Pure Land other than completely trusting in Amida.
Christian Response
In Christianity salvation comes via faith in Jesus Christ. In the cat school of Bhakti Hinduism comes through faith in Rama/Ishvana and in Jodo-Shin-Shu Buddhism grace comes through faith in Amida Butsu.
Christianity's concept of grace is tied to its concept of redemptive salvation which makes it drastically different than Eastern concepts of grace.
Christianity differentiates itself from all other religions in the role that its founder plays as a historical figure.
Islam could exist without Muhammad. Muhammad taught that Islam was practiced long before him, but it had been corrupted.
Muhammad plays an important role in Islam, but not an essential one.
The Buddha is neither unique nor essential to Buddhism. There were many Buddhas.
Jainism can exist without its founder Mahavira because he is non-essential.
Without the historicity of Christianity is a religion of impossible moral exhortations.
Without Jesus and his death on the cross and his resurrection there can be no Christian atonement.
Christianity is a wholly unique religion because it is falsifiable (Jesus' body could be found and falsify the resurrection) and because it can be shown as plausible because of historical evidence.
Cosmos & Mysticism
Mysticism exists in Eastern & Western Religions.
The essence of a mystical experience is that one participates in an unmediated link with something absolute.
Examples of Mysticism
1) A Sufi (Islam) experiences the closeness of Allah
2) A Kabbalist (Judaism) sees God on his throne (the devekuth)
3) The Vedantic Hindu who realizes the absorption of his atman in Brahman
4) The Bhakti Hindu who has a direct vision (darshan) of his deity
5) The Buddhist who comes to awareness in nirvana
6) The Daoist who yields all to the Dao
Eastern mystical experiences deal with paths of redemption whereas Western mystical experiences merely enhance the total spiritual picture.
There is no good reason to infer that Christian mystics encounter the same reality as non-Christian ones (contra the "Perennial Philosophy")
Mystics do not encounter "Reality" they encounter a deity.
There should not be too much significance placed on mystical experiences within Christianity.
Mystical experiences are not a part of Christianity's theological concept of redemption.
Cosmic Redemption
While there is no notion of Original Sin in Judaism, it stresses the fallen nature of the present world order.
In addition to human beings each needing individual redemption, the cosmos as a whole needs redemption.
In Western Traditions the cosmos will eventually be redeemed: Islam- Heaven & Hell; Judaism - kingdom of God; Christianity - New Heaven & Earth; Zoroastrianism - reclaiming of the universe. But, in Eastern traditions the cosmos are continually renewed, but never redeemed.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Morality & Guilt in various religions
(Originally written April 11, 2007 in book 15)
Chapter 4 - Morality & Guilt
Some fundamental distinctions
There are many moral concepts that are universal to all religions.
Duties in Religion
1. Moral Norms
2. Religious Norms
A. Obligatory Actions
B. Ritual avoidances
i. Defilement of self
ii. Defilement of the Holy
The Common Core
There are similarities in moral codes from religion to religion, but upon closer examination they can be seriously different.
Some principles may seem similar like Thou Shall Not Kill of Judaism & Christianity and the principle of ahimsa - the 10 precepts of Buddhism. But, "Thou shall not kill" means do not murder, while ahimsa is no harming of life whatsoever.
Other principles are completely contrary from religion to religion. The second commandment, "Thou shall not bow down before any graven images" is contrary to the statues of Buddhas, an integral part of Buddhism. Ahimsa is contrary to the animal sacrifice of the Old Testament.
Religious and ethical considerations go hand in hand. An ethical concept of a religion cannot be isolated from the overall context of that religion.
The Ceremonial Dimension
Sin and defilement are very different. Sin (a breaking of a moral rule) involves intent, whereas defilement (a breaking of a ceremonial rule) completely disregards intent.
Moral, religious, and ceremonial concepts can be isolated only in theory. In practice they work hand in hand and no such distinction is found among practitioners.
Case in point: Christianity
Christianity is not an ethical religion like Judaism or Islam. It is a redemptive religion The heart of Christianity is not its moral code (it does have one) but a historical event leading to the salvation of men.
The Law within Christianity operates in a few ways:
1) It governs life so that life is actually livable.
2) It functions as a "schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:24). It prepares us for adoption into God's family. It shows us that we are incapable of earning admittance into God's family and that we can enter only by Grace.
3) The keeping of the law is only possible via the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
"Christian ethics apart from a Christian supernatural setting is pointless" (Corduan, 88).
Christian religion and Christian ethics are utterly and wholly intertwined. Without the theological underpinnings of Christianity all that is left is an impossible moral code.
From its inception Christianity ahas been against many of the ritual prohibitions that were integral parts of Jewish and Gentile societies.
The only occurrence of ceremonial purity in the New Testament is Paul's admonishment of the Corinthians' treatment of the Lord's supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34).
Corduan believes that this admonition is not so much a command for personal holiness prior to partaking of Communion, but a mandate to understand communion correctly and to treat it with proper respect. Linehan feels that this is a ceremonial purity issue right now (subject to change of course).
Side not: It may not be a call to become personally holy before partaking communion because that would in fact deny the nature of communion, but a more inner ceremonial purity in being ready to partake of communion. As for what communion is I am not ready to give it the Catholic transubstantiation status, but neither do I want to reduce it to a mere remembrance of the event. I think it is a true partaking of something holy and not merely a remembrance of something holy.
In various aspects of Christendom throughout history some ceremonial purity has emerged, but is not a part of the New Testament.
Ethics in the religious universe
Judaism & Islam have similar ethical codes.
Judaism has a longer history and a much more detailed set of codes.
The moral codes function differently in Islam and Judaism. Adherence to the moral code in Judaism is an expression of the relationship between the Jew and YHWH whereas adherence to the moral code in Islam is the way to enter Heaven for the Muslim.
The standards of Judaism also apply solely to the Jews whereas the moral codes of Islam we taken as universally binding.
Zoroastrianism's moral code is similar to Islamic & Jewish codes. All three were revealed by God to a prophet (Zoroastrianism - Zoroaster, Islam - Muhammad, Judaism - Moses).
Zoroastrianism however is preoccupied with ceremonial purity more than ethical obligations.
In Indic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) there is a two-tiered arrangement. Monks have stricter codes than the laity.
The Hindu code is hinged on the caste system. All ethical and moral obligations are tied to one's caste.
Hinduism also has duties associated with stages of life.
A man must become a sannyasin and renounce everything, his name, his family, his caste, etc. in order to achieve moksha (release, liberation).
The monks in Buddhism and Jainism are the only ones capable of release from the cycle of reincarnation. The laity can work to have a better rebirth, but cannot achieve nirvana.
Jainism is harshly ascetic. Eventually a monk will starve himself to achieve his goal.
Buddhism considers itself the "middle way" and is not as ascetic as Jainism.
Buddhism teaches that harsh asceticism can be a hinderance to spiritual enlightenment.
Confucianism is above all else a code of behavior.
Confucianism came to exist within other religions (Daoism/Buddhism in China, Shinto in Japan), not along side it.
Confucianism focuses on human behavior and teaches that proper individual behavior will alleviate societal problems.
Confucianism does not possess within itself any religious doctrine.
Violations and their Consequences
There are two major trajectories in the world's religions:
1) Western/Abrahamic Traditions
- Judaism
- Zoroastrianism
- Islam
- Baha'i
- Christianity
2) Eastern/Indic Traditions
- Hinduism
- Buddhism
- Jainism
- Sikhism
- Daoism
These two groups differ radically on the conception of sin.
In Abrahamic religions sin is an offending of God and breaking the human-God relationship.
In Indic religion sin is a negative Karmic effect.
God is the source of moral rules in monotheistic traditions.
The character of moral law is prescriptive and proscriptive, not descriptive in Abrahamic traditions.
Punishment occurs after sin in the West. It could be a warning, salutary, or be a making of an example out of the person.
Punitive action results out of a decree of a personal God. A personal God can also provide mercy or grace to the sinner.
Sin in the Indic traditions is similar to breaking a natural law.
Indic religions have the concept of Karma, which is not tied to a personal God.
In Hinduism, Karma is tied to Samsara, the cycle of rebirths. One's present life is the result of one's previous life.
Karma is not deterministic or fatalistic in Hinduism. One controls one's karma.
Karma is automated in Hinduism. It is not (usually) a judgment passed by a deity.
Karma is negative and pessimistic. It is viewed as perpetual suffering.
The goal of Hinduism is not to accumulate good karma, but to escape the samsara cycle.
There can be a divine intervention in samsara and karma. This is what the Bhagavad Gita tells Hindus.
The negative aspect of karma is even more noticeable in Buddhism and Jainism.
Buddha taught that there is no individual soul and that each person's an aggregate of effects.
Good karma in Buddhism is karma nonetheless and must be balanced out in another life. The goal is to have no karma at all.
In Jainism, Karma is a dust that accumulates on one's soul.
Only a complet abnégation of life leads to release from samsara.
The goal of a Jain monk is to do nothing and to starve himself to death.
Sin belongs within the framework of a system with a personal God. Karma fits into a framework without a personal deity much better.
Christianity alone possesses the notion of "original sin". At first blush this can appear similar to karma in that everyone is born into a state of condemnation through no fault of our own.
The major misunderstanding with original sin is to tie it to finitude. Our finitude makes it impossible not to sin is a common erroneous belief.
Christ proved that human being can live a sinless life.
Original Sin describes the broken relationship between man and God, not the introduction of finitude.
Healing the Breach
Ronal M. Green distinguishes between four senses of reason
1) Theoretical reason - our conceptualization of the world around us
2) Prudential reason - our capacity for living successfully in the world as we understand it
3) Moral reason - places our priorities in order
4) Religious reason - attempts to reconcile the conflict between prudential and moral reason
Response to the World Parliament Statement
Only the most minimal code seems to be fairly universal (truth-property-life-sex) and even these must not be abstracted from their religious context lest they become equivocations and meaningless.
The statement, originally by Hans Küng calls for an end to prejudice and hate. This is all well and good unless it denies objective truth on matters like abortion and homosexuality. Many Christians are labeled as bigots for their stances on these issues.
Likewise, Küng demands that religions denounce their fundamentalists because they deny peace among religions and without religious peace there can be no world peace. But this world be a denouncement of objective truth on many vital issues.
The 1997 Declaration of a Global Ethic affirms an universal moral code and locates it where it ought to be, within a religious context. But, it does not give any implementation strategy and leave evangelical Christians in a place where they cannot agree with it without giving away too much.
Chapter 4 - Morality & Guilt
Some fundamental distinctions
There are many moral concepts that are universal to all religions.
Duties in Religion
1. Moral Norms
2. Religious Norms
A. Obligatory Actions
B. Ritual avoidances
i. Defilement of self
ii. Defilement of the Holy
The Common Core
There are similarities in moral codes from religion to religion, but upon closer examination they can be seriously different.
Some principles may seem similar like Thou Shall Not Kill of Judaism & Christianity and the principle of ahimsa - the 10 precepts of Buddhism. But, "Thou shall not kill" means do not murder, while ahimsa is no harming of life whatsoever.
Other principles are completely contrary from religion to religion. The second commandment, "Thou shall not bow down before any graven images" is contrary to the statues of Buddhas, an integral part of Buddhism. Ahimsa is contrary to the animal sacrifice of the Old Testament.
Religious and ethical considerations go hand in hand. An ethical concept of a religion cannot be isolated from the overall context of that religion.
The Ceremonial Dimension
Sin and defilement are very different. Sin (a breaking of a moral rule) involves intent, whereas defilement (a breaking of a ceremonial rule) completely disregards intent.
Moral, religious, and ceremonial concepts can be isolated only in theory. In practice they work hand in hand and no such distinction is found among practitioners.
Case in point: Christianity
Christianity is not an ethical religion like Judaism or Islam. It is a redemptive religion The heart of Christianity is not its moral code (it does have one) but a historical event leading to the salvation of men.
The Law within Christianity operates in a few ways:
1) It governs life so that life is actually livable.
2) It functions as a "schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:24). It prepares us for adoption into God's family. It shows us that we are incapable of earning admittance into God's family and that we can enter only by Grace.
3) The keeping of the law is only possible via the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
"Christian ethics apart from a Christian supernatural setting is pointless" (Corduan, 88).
Christian religion and Christian ethics are utterly and wholly intertwined. Without the theological underpinnings of Christianity all that is left is an impossible moral code.
From its inception Christianity ahas been against many of the ritual prohibitions that were integral parts of Jewish and Gentile societies.
The only occurrence of ceremonial purity in the New Testament is Paul's admonishment of the Corinthians' treatment of the Lord's supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34).
Corduan believes that this admonition is not so much a command for personal holiness prior to partaking of Communion, but a mandate to understand communion correctly and to treat it with proper respect. Linehan feels that this is a ceremonial purity issue right now (subject to change of course).
Side not: It may not be a call to become personally holy before partaking communion because that would in fact deny the nature of communion, but a more inner ceremonial purity in being ready to partake of communion. As for what communion is I am not ready to give it the Catholic transubstantiation status, but neither do I want to reduce it to a mere remembrance of the event. I think it is a true partaking of something holy and not merely a remembrance of something holy.
In various aspects of Christendom throughout history some ceremonial purity has emerged, but is not a part of the New Testament.
Ethics in the religious universe
Judaism & Islam have similar ethical codes.
Judaism has a longer history and a much more detailed set of codes.
The moral codes function differently in Islam and Judaism. Adherence to the moral code in Judaism is an expression of the relationship between the Jew and YHWH whereas adherence to the moral code in Islam is the way to enter Heaven for the Muslim.
The standards of Judaism also apply solely to the Jews whereas the moral codes of Islam we taken as universally binding.
Zoroastrianism's moral code is similar to Islamic & Jewish codes. All three were revealed by God to a prophet (Zoroastrianism - Zoroaster, Islam - Muhammad, Judaism - Moses).
Zoroastrianism however is preoccupied with ceremonial purity more than ethical obligations.
In Indic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) there is a two-tiered arrangement. Monks have stricter codes than the laity.
The Hindu code is hinged on the caste system. All ethical and moral obligations are tied to one's caste.
Hinduism also has duties associated with stages of life.
A man must become a sannyasin and renounce everything, his name, his family, his caste, etc. in order to achieve moksha (release, liberation).
The monks in Buddhism and Jainism are the only ones capable of release from the cycle of reincarnation. The laity can work to have a better rebirth, but cannot achieve nirvana.
Jainism is harshly ascetic. Eventually a monk will starve himself to achieve his goal.
Buddhism considers itself the "middle way" and is not as ascetic as Jainism.
Buddhism teaches that harsh asceticism can be a hinderance to spiritual enlightenment.
Confucianism is above all else a code of behavior.
Confucianism came to exist within other religions (Daoism/Buddhism in China, Shinto in Japan), not along side it.
Confucianism focuses on human behavior and teaches that proper individual behavior will alleviate societal problems.
Confucianism does not possess within itself any religious doctrine.
Violations and their Consequences
There are two major trajectories in the world's religions:
1) Western/Abrahamic Traditions
- Judaism
- Zoroastrianism
- Islam
- Baha'i
- Christianity
2) Eastern/Indic Traditions
- Hinduism
- Buddhism
- Jainism
- Sikhism
- Daoism
These two groups differ radically on the conception of sin.
In Abrahamic religions sin is an offending of God and breaking the human-God relationship.
In Indic religion sin is a negative Karmic effect.
God is the source of moral rules in monotheistic traditions.
The character of moral law is prescriptive and proscriptive, not descriptive in Abrahamic traditions.
Punishment occurs after sin in the West. It could be a warning, salutary, or be a making of an example out of the person.
Punitive action results out of a decree of a personal God. A personal God can also provide mercy or grace to the sinner.
Sin in the Indic traditions is similar to breaking a natural law.
Indic religions have the concept of Karma, which is not tied to a personal God.
In Hinduism, Karma is tied to Samsara, the cycle of rebirths. One's present life is the result of one's previous life.
Karma is not deterministic or fatalistic in Hinduism. One controls one's karma.
Karma is automated in Hinduism. It is not (usually) a judgment passed by a deity.
Karma is negative and pessimistic. It is viewed as perpetual suffering.
The goal of Hinduism is not to accumulate good karma, but to escape the samsara cycle.
There can be a divine intervention in samsara and karma. This is what the Bhagavad Gita tells Hindus.
The negative aspect of karma is even more noticeable in Buddhism and Jainism.
Buddha taught that there is no individual soul and that each person's an aggregate of effects.
Good karma in Buddhism is karma nonetheless and must be balanced out in another life. The goal is to have no karma at all.
In Jainism, Karma is a dust that accumulates on one's soul.
Only a complet abnégation of life leads to release from samsara.
The goal of a Jain monk is to do nothing and to starve himself to death.
Sin belongs within the framework of a system with a personal God. Karma fits into a framework without a personal deity much better.
Christianity alone possesses the notion of "original sin". At first blush this can appear similar to karma in that everyone is born into a state of condemnation through no fault of our own.
The major misunderstanding with original sin is to tie it to finitude. Our finitude makes it impossible not to sin is a common erroneous belief.
Christ proved that human being can live a sinless life.
Original Sin describes the broken relationship between man and God, not the introduction of finitude.
Healing the Breach
Ronal M. Green distinguishes between four senses of reason
1) Theoretical reason - our conceptualization of the world around us
2) Prudential reason - our capacity for living successfully in the world as we understand it
3) Moral reason - places our priorities in order
4) Religious reason - attempts to reconcile the conflict between prudential and moral reason
Response to the World Parliament Statement
Only the most minimal code seems to be fairly universal (truth-property-life-sex) and even these must not be abstracted from their religious context lest they become equivocations and meaningless.
The statement, originally by Hans Küng calls for an end to prejudice and hate. This is all well and good unless it denies objective truth on matters like abortion and homosexuality. Many Christians are labeled as bigots for their stances on these issues.
Likewise, Küng demands that religions denounce their fundamentalists because they deny peace among religions and without religious peace there can be no world peace. But this world be a denouncement of objective truth on many vital issues.
The 1997 Declaration of a Global Ethic affirms an universal moral code and locates it where it ought to be, within a religious context. But, it does not give any implementation strategy and leave evangelical Christians in a place where they cannot agree with it without giving away too much.
Original Monotheism, Special Revelation and other Scriptures
(Originally written April 11, 2007 in Book 15)
Subsequent Reaction to Schmidt & Original Monotheism
Whether or not one accepts Schmidt's theory it is no longer possible to strictly adhere to an evolutionary theory of religion in light of Schmidt's anthropological evidence.
The most common reaction to Schmidt is to reject his conclusions on an idealogical basis.
Joseph M. Kitasawa claims that while historical evidence is good in the origin theory, any religion's origin is ultimately answerable with metaphysical answers.
Others, like many post-modernists, including David Adams Leeming, claim that religion arises out of a specific social context. Historical investigation is wholly absent from this type of analysis.
Raffaele Pettazzoni attempts to bridge the gap of extreme historistic theories and purely a historical phenomenology. He gave history its due place, but did not draw such strong conclusions as Schmidt.
Pettazzoni maintained that the Supreme god of primitive cultures did not constitute monotheistic religion because that god was a creator and sustainer god, but a remote god nonetheless. He argued that only reform from polytheism could lead to true monotheism.
Summary
There is good reason to believe that religion began with the awareness of a single, creator God.
The God of original monotheism is identical to the God of Scripture in his basic attributes.
The persistence of monotheism can be attributed to the historical continuity with the awareness of God by the first human beings and its reinforcement in general revelation.
General revelation has two dimensions:
1) An intuitive one
2) A rational one
Both yield:
1) Knowledge of the existence of God
2) Knowledge of God's attributes
3) Knowledge of a fundamental moral sense
Chapter 3 - Special Revelation and Non-Christian Scriptures
Christianity maintains that special revelation is located in the Old Testament and New Testament, as well as in Jesus Christ himself.
There are many non-Christian scriptures, but the nature of Scripture is radically different in each religion.
Corduan's "The Protestant Fallacy" is reading other religions' scriptures as one would read the Christian Scriptures. Since scriptural nature varies from religion to religion there can be no single way of reading or regarding Scriptures. One cannot assume the role of Scripture in any religion is identical to the role of Scripture in Christianity.
The Protestant Fallacy
Classical Protestantism holds that the Bible is the literal Word of God and thus, the text is inspired by God.
Protestantism asserts "sola scriptura". That is, there is no other source for propositional revelation other than the Bible.
Protestant Christianity is an "extremely book-bound form of religion" (Corduan, 57-58).
Protestant Christianity stands or falls by Scriptural assertions.
The Protestant fallacy is applying this "sola scriptura" mentality (which is appropriate for the Bible) to other religion's scriptures.
Judaism: The Deuterocanon as key to the Canon
The Protestant fallacy manifests itself when one assumes that to understand Judaism one must simply study the Old Testament.
This can lead to assertions like, "since the Jews no longer perform the ritual sacrifices they are required by their own scriptures, Judaism is internally incoherent".
The Scriptures of Judaism are identical with the Old Testament Canon of Christianity. These books are known in Judaism as the Tanak (TNK).
The Tanak is an acronym based on the Hebrew names of the three divisions of writings:
1) the Law - Torah
2) the Prophets - Nebiim
3) the Writings - Ketubim
When Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70 the Jews began writing down the interpretations of the Tanak which had been entirely oral before.
The Mishnah was produced around A.D. 500. Later, the Talmud was produced.
Since the production of the Talmud, all Judaism is Talmudic Judaism.
Orthodox Judaism holds that the Talmud, though not inspired, is expendable, but not revisable.
Other sects of Judaism, like Cabalistic movements accepted the Zohar as a supplement, but not a replacement, to the Talmud.
While the Tanak is the only Scripture in Judaism, all governance of life is done via the Talmud.
The Jewish Scriptures (for better or worse) must be interpreted through the lens of the Talmud.
Islam: The Qur'an as Event
The Qur'an is the compilation of what was revealed to Muhammad.
The Qur'an is merely excerpts from God's full book in heaven, the umm-al-kitub.
Muslims believe the Qur'an is as it is exactly as it was when it was revealed to Muhammad.
Despite its lofty place in Islam, the Qur'an was supplemented easy on by another book. The Hadith is a collection of the acts and sayings of Muhammad.
While the Hadith is not considered to be revealed like the Qur'an, it is nonetheless as binding as the Qur'an.
The value of the Qur'an within Islam has little to do with its content. The value lies in its very occurrence.
The Qur'an is utterly pristine, whereas other men's revelatory books like Moses' Law, David's Psalms and Jesus' Gospels while being products of revelation were distorted by their followers.
TO recognize the Qur'an is more important than to read it.
The Qur'an is not a human book at all; whereas, the Bible is wholly human and wholly divine.
Muslims believe that the Qur'an mediates God's presence into their lives.
Even in non-Arabic speaking countries the Qur'an is devoutly recited in Arabic. Recitation of the Qur'an is the most important function of the Qur'an in the Muslim community.
Zoroastrianism: A Ritual Accumulation
Similar to the Bible, the canon of Zoroastrianism is a collection of works spanning many centuries.
The Zoroastrianism Scripture is called the Avesta.
The oldest part of the Avesta is the Yasna, which contains hymns called the Gathas, some of which date back to Zoroaster (6th century B.C.).
The Videvdat is the newest part of the Avesta and dates from when Zoroastrianism was the State religion of Iran (A.D. 226 - 637).
The Avesta is not a great source for authoritative information about Zoroastrianism because the language is so impenetrable.
The language of the Gathas is called Avesta because it is simply so different from any other languages.
"One scholar of Iranian religion [H.S. Nybers] has maintained that the Gathas are so difficult to understand because they are intentional gibberish" (Corduan, 62).
Even in the Zoroastrian community, the Avesta is not supposed to be a source of information.
The Avesta is a ritual text used to recite as worship and purification.
Sikhism: A day in the Life of the Book
The Adi Granth is the Scripture of Sikhism.
Nanak (1469-1539) founded Sikhism as a way to bridge Hinduism and Islam. He taught that there is only one God whose nature lies beyond human reason and religious imagery.
Nanak was considered a holy guru by his followers. He was then followed by 9 other holy gurus, each seen as the embodiment of divine light.
Arjan Dev, the 5th Guru compiled all his and the previous gurus' chants and hymns into the Adi Granth.
Gobind Singh (1666-1708) the 10th and final guru, declared that there would be no more gurus and the Adi Granth would be the guru forever more.
From then on the book itself, which is displayed in the Golden Shrine of Amritsa has been recognized as true and binding by all Sikhs.
The Adi Granth is the very embodiment of God.
The Adi Granth functions in two ways:
1) It is the hymn book of the congregation
2) It is venerated as the holy guru.
The actual book is put to sleep in a bed at night and woken up and placed on an altar each morning.
"The basic function of the Adi Granth is an object of veneration, not as a record of revelation" (Corduan, 65).
Baha'i : A Canon Plus a Canon
Baha'i is a young religion founded by Baha'ullah.
Baha'ullah is considered to be a manifestation of God. He was the 9th manifestation after Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'ullah.
Baha'ullah taught that all these other prophets had inspired writings and that his own writings complete the canon of world Scriptures for the time being.
The Baha'i Scriptures should be read in a similar fashion as the Protestant Christian Bible is, but the Baha'i Scriptures are paralleled by all the other 8 world Scriptures, whereas the Bible stands alone.
Hinduism: A Protean Canon
Eastern religions have sacred texts in a very different way then to Western religions, especially Christianity.
Hindu sacred texts are divided into two groups:
1) The Shruti
2) The Smriti
The Shruti are "seen", they were directly revealed to the semi-divine rishis of old who passed them down.
The Smriti are "heard", they are merely passed down as tradition only.
Shruti:
- Vedas
- Brahmanas
- Upanishads
Smriti:
- Ramayana
- Mahabharata
- Bhagavad Gita
The Smriti are epic poems and the deuterocanon, while the canon is the Vedic complex.
The distinction is much more ambiguous in reality then in theory.
Buddhism: Canon by Selection
Two major books:
1) Poli Canon
2) Lotus Sutra
The Poli Canon contains the Tripitaka (Three Baskets) and is the oldest Buddhist writings.
The Tripitaka is associated with the older, more traditional form of Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism.
The Lotus Sutra is associated with the more recent and more innovative form of Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism.
Chinese and Japanese Religions
Scriptures and Canon are not easily adapted for Far East Religions.
Religion/Scriptures
Daoism - The Doodejing & the Zhuangzi
Confucianism - The Analects
Shinto - The Kojiki, the Nihong and the Amatsu Narito
The Daodejing contains the wisdom of Lao Tzu, the founder of Daoism.
The Zhuangzi is a collection of anecdotal essays by the teacher Laozi (but probably not the same Laozi/Lao-Tzu)
The Analects is the teachings of Confucius.
The Kojiki is the official Japanese traditional myth. The Nihangi is a supplement to the Kojiki. The Amatsu Nihong is a book of standard prayers and rituals of Shinto.
The Singularity of the Christian Scriptures
The Christian Scriptures is different from all other Scriptures and all Scriptures are unique in their own way.
All Scriptures contain some truths, if truth is meant as that which corresponds to reality.
However, if truth is understood under the coherence theory of truth rather than the correspondence theory of truth then no religions can share truth because they will be truths from differing systems.
Cornelius van Til argued that even knowledge of a flower is different for a Christian and non-Christian. To the Christian, a flower is the creation of a personal God whereas it is a product of chance formation of matter to a non-Christian.
Other Scriptures also contain some wisdom. They also contain some religious truths.
That said, the Bible is sufficient. All we (as Christians) have is the Bible and all we need is the Bible.
There is no deuterocannon in Christianity.
Religious truths in other Scriptures can only be duplications of revealed truths in the Bible.
Other Scriptures do not contain special revelation. But other Scriptures can have a basis in general revelation.
Subsequent Reaction to Schmidt & Original Monotheism
Whether or not one accepts Schmidt's theory it is no longer possible to strictly adhere to an evolutionary theory of religion in light of Schmidt's anthropological evidence.
The most common reaction to Schmidt is to reject his conclusions on an idealogical basis.
Joseph M. Kitasawa claims that while historical evidence is good in the origin theory, any religion's origin is ultimately answerable with metaphysical answers.
Others, like many post-modernists, including David Adams Leeming, claim that religion arises out of a specific social context. Historical investigation is wholly absent from this type of analysis.
Raffaele Pettazzoni attempts to bridge the gap of extreme historistic theories and purely a historical phenomenology. He gave history its due place, but did not draw such strong conclusions as Schmidt.
Pettazzoni maintained that the Supreme god of primitive cultures did not constitute monotheistic religion because that god was a creator and sustainer god, but a remote god nonetheless. He argued that only reform from polytheism could lead to true monotheism.
Summary
There is good reason to believe that religion began with the awareness of a single, creator God.
The God of original monotheism is identical to the God of Scripture in his basic attributes.
The persistence of monotheism can be attributed to the historical continuity with the awareness of God by the first human beings and its reinforcement in general revelation.
General revelation has two dimensions:
1) An intuitive one
2) A rational one
Both yield:
1) Knowledge of the existence of God
2) Knowledge of God's attributes
3) Knowledge of a fundamental moral sense
Chapter 3 - Special Revelation and Non-Christian Scriptures
Christianity maintains that special revelation is located in the Old Testament and New Testament, as well as in Jesus Christ himself.
There are many non-Christian scriptures, but the nature of Scripture is radically different in each religion.
Corduan's "The Protestant Fallacy" is reading other religions' scriptures as one would read the Christian Scriptures. Since scriptural nature varies from religion to religion there can be no single way of reading or regarding Scriptures. One cannot assume the role of Scripture in any religion is identical to the role of Scripture in Christianity.
The Protestant Fallacy
Classical Protestantism holds that the Bible is the literal Word of God and thus, the text is inspired by God.
Protestantism asserts "sola scriptura". That is, there is no other source for propositional revelation other than the Bible.
Protestant Christianity is an "extremely book-bound form of religion" (Corduan, 57-58).
Protestant Christianity stands or falls by Scriptural assertions.
The Protestant fallacy is applying this "sola scriptura" mentality (which is appropriate for the Bible) to other religion's scriptures.
Judaism: The Deuterocanon as key to the Canon
The Protestant fallacy manifests itself when one assumes that to understand Judaism one must simply study the Old Testament.
This can lead to assertions like, "since the Jews no longer perform the ritual sacrifices they are required by their own scriptures, Judaism is internally incoherent".
The Scriptures of Judaism are identical with the Old Testament Canon of Christianity. These books are known in Judaism as the Tanak (TNK).
The Tanak is an acronym based on the Hebrew names of the three divisions of writings:
1) the Law - Torah
2) the Prophets - Nebiim
3) the Writings - Ketubim
When Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70 the Jews began writing down the interpretations of the Tanak which had been entirely oral before.
The Mishnah was produced around A.D. 500. Later, the Talmud was produced.
Since the production of the Talmud, all Judaism is Talmudic Judaism.
Orthodox Judaism holds that the Talmud, though not inspired, is expendable, but not revisable.
Other sects of Judaism, like Cabalistic movements accepted the Zohar as a supplement, but not a replacement, to the Talmud.
While the Tanak is the only Scripture in Judaism, all governance of life is done via the Talmud.
The Jewish Scriptures (for better or worse) must be interpreted through the lens of the Talmud.
Islam: The Qur'an as Event
The Qur'an is the compilation of what was revealed to Muhammad.
The Qur'an is merely excerpts from God's full book in heaven, the umm-al-kitub.
Muslims believe the Qur'an is as it is exactly as it was when it was revealed to Muhammad.
Despite its lofty place in Islam, the Qur'an was supplemented easy on by another book. The Hadith is a collection of the acts and sayings of Muhammad.
While the Hadith is not considered to be revealed like the Qur'an, it is nonetheless as binding as the Qur'an.
The value of the Qur'an within Islam has little to do with its content. The value lies in its very occurrence.
The Qur'an is utterly pristine, whereas other men's revelatory books like Moses' Law, David's Psalms and Jesus' Gospels while being products of revelation were distorted by their followers.
TO recognize the Qur'an is more important than to read it.
The Qur'an is not a human book at all; whereas, the Bible is wholly human and wholly divine.
Muslims believe that the Qur'an mediates God's presence into their lives.
Even in non-Arabic speaking countries the Qur'an is devoutly recited in Arabic. Recitation of the Qur'an is the most important function of the Qur'an in the Muslim community.
Zoroastrianism: A Ritual Accumulation
Similar to the Bible, the canon of Zoroastrianism is a collection of works spanning many centuries.
The Zoroastrianism Scripture is called the Avesta.
The oldest part of the Avesta is the Yasna, which contains hymns called the Gathas, some of which date back to Zoroaster (6th century B.C.).
The Videvdat is the newest part of the Avesta and dates from when Zoroastrianism was the State religion of Iran (A.D. 226 - 637).
The Avesta is not a great source for authoritative information about Zoroastrianism because the language is so impenetrable.
The language of the Gathas is called Avesta because it is simply so different from any other languages.
"One scholar of Iranian religion [H.S. Nybers] has maintained that the Gathas are so difficult to understand because they are intentional gibberish" (Corduan, 62).
Even in the Zoroastrian community, the Avesta is not supposed to be a source of information.
The Avesta is a ritual text used to recite as worship and purification.
Sikhism: A day in the Life of the Book
The Adi Granth is the Scripture of Sikhism.
Nanak (1469-1539) founded Sikhism as a way to bridge Hinduism and Islam. He taught that there is only one God whose nature lies beyond human reason and religious imagery.
Nanak was considered a holy guru by his followers. He was then followed by 9 other holy gurus, each seen as the embodiment of divine light.
Arjan Dev, the 5th Guru compiled all his and the previous gurus' chants and hymns into the Adi Granth.
Gobind Singh (1666-1708) the 10th and final guru, declared that there would be no more gurus and the Adi Granth would be the guru forever more.
From then on the book itself, which is displayed in the Golden Shrine of Amritsa has been recognized as true and binding by all Sikhs.
The Adi Granth is the very embodiment of God.
The Adi Granth functions in two ways:
1) It is the hymn book of the congregation
2) It is venerated as the holy guru.
The actual book is put to sleep in a bed at night and woken up and placed on an altar each morning.
"The basic function of the Adi Granth is an object of veneration, not as a record of revelation" (Corduan, 65).
Baha'i : A Canon Plus a Canon
Baha'i is a young religion founded by Baha'ullah.
Baha'ullah is considered to be a manifestation of God. He was the 9th manifestation after Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'ullah.
Baha'ullah taught that all these other prophets had inspired writings and that his own writings complete the canon of world Scriptures for the time being.
The Baha'i Scriptures should be read in a similar fashion as the Protestant Christian Bible is, but the Baha'i Scriptures are paralleled by all the other 8 world Scriptures, whereas the Bible stands alone.
Hinduism: A Protean Canon
Eastern religions have sacred texts in a very different way then to Western religions, especially Christianity.
Hindu sacred texts are divided into two groups:
1) The Shruti
2) The Smriti
The Shruti are "seen", they were directly revealed to the semi-divine rishis of old who passed them down.
The Smriti are "heard", they are merely passed down as tradition only.
Shruti:
- Vedas
- Brahmanas
- Upanishads
Smriti:
- Ramayana
- Mahabharata
- Bhagavad Gita
The Smriti are epic poems and the deuterocanon, while the canon is the Vedic complex.
The distinction is much more ambiguous in reality then in theory.
Buddhism: Canon by Selection
Two major books:
1) Poli Canon
2) Lotus Sutra
The Poli Canon contains the Tripitaka (Three Baskets) and is the oldest Buddhist writings.
The Tripitaka is associated with the older, more traditional form of Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism.
The Lotus Sutra is associated with the more recent and more innovative form of Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism.
Chinese and Japanese Religions
Scriptures and Canon are not easily adapted for Far East Religions.
Religion/Scriptures
Daoism - The Doodejing & the Zhuangzi
Confucianism - The Analects
Shinto - The Kojiki, the Nihong and the Amatsu Narito
The Daodejing contains the wisdom of Lao Tzu, the founder of Daoism.
The Zhuangzi is a collection of anecdotal essays by the teacher Laozi (but probably not the same Laozi/Lao-Tzu)
The Analects is the teachings of Confucius.
The Kojiki is the official Japanese traditional myth. The Nihangi is a supplement to the Kojiki. The Amatsu Nihong is a book of standard prayers and rituals of Shinto.
The Singularity of the Christian Scriptures
The Christian Scriptures is different from all other Scriptures and all Scriptures are unique in their own way.
All Scriptures contain some truths, if truth is meant as that which corresponds to reality.
However, if truth is understood under the coherence theory of truth rather than the correspondence theory of truth then no religions can share truth because they will be truths from differing systems.
Cornelius van Til argued that even knowledge of a flower is different for a Christian and non-Christian. To the Christian, a flower is the creation of a personal God whereas it is a product of chance formation of matter to a non-Christian.
Other Scriptures also contain some wisdom. They also contain some religious truths.
That said, the Bible is sufficient. All we (as Christians) have is the Bible and all we need is the Bible.
There is no deuterocannon in Christianity.
Religious truths in other Scriptures can only be duplications of revealed truths in the Bible.
Other Scriptures do not contain special revelation. But other Scriptures can have a basis in general revelation.
Creation & Redemption in Western Traditions
(Originally written April 11, 2007 in Book 15)
Chapter 5 - Creation & Redemption
The need for redemption in Christianity did not arise from phenomenal existence (existence as material and finite being).
In some religions though redemption is needed precisely because we have a phenomenal existence.
Phenomenal existence implies a creation, but not all religions have a specific doctrine of creation where a god or gods created phenomenal existence.
No religion has a concept of redemption that is identical to Christianity's.
The Created Order: What went wrong and what went right:
There are two ways of viewing creation:
1) Creation as positive work
2) Creation as unfortunate work
In cases where creation is viewed as an unfortunate work, redemption is merely an escape from phenomenal existence (Eastern Tradition).
In cases where creation is viewed as a positive work, redemption deals with how phenomenal existence became defective (Western Tradition).
Western traditions view creation as good and pure phenomenal existence as good.
Islam has no original sin. All children are born innocent. Sin enters a person through volition.
As humans have left Allah by will so they can return to Allah by will.
In Judaism creation and phenomenal existence is good. There is no specific mechanism for salvation. There is no concept of Original Sin.
In Judaism, Jews must maintain all 613 commandments of the Torah as a witness to God for Gentiles.
Gentiles are not held to the strict standards of Judaism because they are not the chosen people.
In Zoroastrianism, one must aid God (Ahura Mazda) and repudiate Satan (Angro Mainyu or Ahriman).
Salvation depends purely on what a person does in response to Ahura Mazda.
In the end, the final prophet will come (Saoshyant) and the world will be engulfed as molten metal. The good will enjoy the experience, but the evil will be in immense pain. All will come out pristinely pure though.
Good physical existence was created by Ahura Mazda. Bad physical existence was created by Ahriman. Creation is not evil in this sense.
In summation, Western Religions teach creation is good by nature and that evil emerged via volitional misuse.
Chapter 5 - Creation & Redemption
The need for redemption in Christianity did not arise from phenomenal existence (existence as material and finite being).
In some religions though redemption is needed precisely because we have a phenomenal existence.
Phenomenal existence implies a creation, but not all religions have a specific doctrine of creation where a god or gods created phenomenal existence.
No religion has a concept of redemption that is identical to Christianity's.
The Created Order: What went wrong and what went right:
There are two ways of viewing creation:
1) Creation as positive work
2) Creation as unfortunate work
In cases where creation is viewed as an unfortunate work, redemption is merely an escape from phenomenal existence (Eastern Tradition).
In cases where creation is viewed as a positive work, redemption deals with how phenomenal existence became defective (Western Tradition).
Western traditions view creation as good and pure phenomenal existence as good.
Islam has no original sin. All children are born innocent. Sin enters a person through volition.
As humans have left Allah by will so they can return to Allah by will.
In Judaism creation and phenomenal existence is good. There is no specific mechanism for salvation. There is no concept of Original Sin.
In Judaism, Jews must maintain all 613 commandments of the Torah as a witness to God for Gentiles.
Gentiles are not held to the strict standards of Judaism because they are not the chosen people.
In Zoroastrianism, one must aid God (Ahura Mazda) and repudiate Satan (Angro Mainyu or Ahriman).
Salvation depends purely on what a person does in response to Ahura Mazda.
In the end, the final prophet will come (Saoshyant) and the world will be engulfed as molten metal. The good will enjoy the experience, but the evil will be in immense pain. All will come out pristinely pure though.
Good physical existence was created by Ahura Mazda. Bad physical existence was created by Ahriman. Creation is not evil in this sense.
In summation, Western Religions teach creation is good by nature and that evil emerged via volitional misuse.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Class notes on Salvation
(Originally written April 10, 2007 in Book 15)
(Test Thursday: 4/12/07)
Salvation: Different Concepts
Gandhi - "Religions are different roads converging to the same point".
Two main traditions:
1) Western
- Middle East Originated/Abrahamic
- Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam
- Problem: Our spiritual condition
2) Eastern
- Indic
- Subcontinent originated
- Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism,
- Problem: Our very existence (karma)
Christianity problem of salvation:
-Utter inability to restore a relationship with God (total depravity)
Islam: Test of Submission
-Life is a test to see how obedient we can be to Allah
The Hindu Dilemma
-Salvation is the escape from the never ending cycle of reincarnation (moksha)
How do you escape?
Vedantic Monism: Atman = Brahman
- Find how to become identical with God
Principles of Bhakti (Way of Devotion)
- Cling to one particular god to escape from the cycle of samsara
- This is not parallel to a holy God or a parallel to sin offending the god
3 Main Bhakti Sects
Vaishnavites - Worship of Vishnu or his avatars (incarnations) i.e. Krishna/Rama
Shaivites - Worship of Shiva
Shakti - Worship goddesses like Kali
Salvation from Rama, "Grace" in Hinduism
Monkey School: We must cling to Rama to achieve salvation
Cat School - Rama saves us apart from our works
Often when people refer to the "grace" of other religions they are using it to mean "mercy", not a synonymous term with the Christian concept of Grace.
Major Splits in Hinduism
Way of Works:
- Karma marga
- Brahminical Ritual
Way of Knowledge:
- Jñana Marga
- Vedanta
- Atman-Brahman
Way of Devotion:
- Bhakti Marga
Buddhist conception of salvation:
4 Noble Truths:
1) To live is to suffer
2) Suffering is caused by desire
3) To eliminate suffering one must eliminate desire
4) To eliminate desire one must follow the 8-fold path
- Right concentration
- Right View
- Right intention
- Right speech
- Right action (10 Precepts)
- Right livelihood
- Right effort
- Right meditation
Salvation is ultimately elimination of one's self
Pure Land Buddhism- conception of "grace"
"Jodo-Shin-Shu" aka Pure Land
- Worships the Buddha Amida
- Amdia became a buddha in Heaven (Dhyani Buddha)
- Buddha of the West
- Amida created a "pure land" for people who chant to him. Anyone who chants to him will be reborn in this pure land as a male so as to be closer to achieving nirvana.
Obviously, the Pure Land Buddhism's conception of grace is drastically different from Christianity's conception of Grace.
Jainism
Goal: to escape from the cycle of reincarnation and the elimination of karma.
Mahavira (6th Century B.C.) founded Jainism. His story is similar to the Buddha. Mahavira received enlightenment, but unlike the Buddha, retained his ascetic lifestyle.
Tirthankaras - teachers of Jainism
Mahavira was the last of the 24 Tirthankaras.
Two Main Divisions:
1) Shvetambara - "Clad in White"
2) Disambara - "Clad in atmosphere"
In the Shvetambara women are are eligible for salvation, but in the Disambara women are ineligible for salvation.
Karma: Jainism believes in individual souls (as opposed to Buddhism and Hinduism). This is the Jiva.
Jiva, left to itself would rise to the top of the universe. But, Karma adds physical Ajiva to the soul, weighing it down. Ajiva causes the soul to sink.
Salvation is the removing of Ajiva (dead matter) from one's soul.
The most important principle of Jainism is ahimsa.
Conclusion
Religions do not just have different ways of salvation, but their conceptions of salvation are very different.
(Test Thursday: 4/12/07)
Salvation: Different Concepts
Gandhi - "Religions are different roads converging to the same point".
Two main traditions:
1) Western
- Middle East Originated/Abrahamic
- Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam
- Problem: Our spiritual condition
2) Eastern
- Indic
- Subcontinent originated
- Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism,
- Problem: Our very existence (karma)
Christianity problem of salvation:
-Utter inability to restore a relationship with God (total depravity)
Islam: Test of Submission
-Life is a test to see how obedient we can be to Allah
The Hindu Dilemma
-Salvation is the escape from the never ending cycle of reincarnation (moksha)
How do you escape?
Vedantic Monism: Atman = Brahman
- Find how to become identical with God
Principles of Bhakti (Way of Devotion)
- Cling to one particular god to escape from the cycle of samsara
- This is not parallel to a holy God or a parallel to sin offending the god
3 Main Bhakti Sects
Vaishnavites - Worship of Vishnu or his avatars (incarnations) i.e. Krishna/Rama
Shaivites - Worship of Shiva
Shakti - Worship goddesses like Kali
Salvation from Rama, "Grace" in Hinduism
Monkey School: We must cling to Rama to achieve salvation
Cat School - Rama saves us apart from our works
Often when people refer to the "grace" of other religions they are using it to mean "mercy", not a synonymous term with the Christian concept of Grace.
Major Splits in Hinduism
Way of Works:
- Karma marga
- Brahminical Ritual
Way of Knowledge:
- Jñana Marga
- Vedanta
- Atman-Brahman
Way of Devotion:
- Bhakti Marga
Buddhist conception of salvation:
4 Noble Truths:
1) To live is to suffer
2) Suffering is caused by desire
3) To eliminate suffering one must eliminate desire
4) To eliminate desire one must follow the 8-fold path
- Right concentration
- Right View
- Right intention
- Right speech
- Right action (10 Precepts)
- Right livelihood
- Right effort
- Right meditation
Salvation is ultimately elimination of one's self
Pure Land Buddhism- conception of "grace"
"Jodo-Shin-Shu" aka Pure Land
- Worships the Buddha Amida
- Amdia became a buddha in Heaven (Dhyani Buddha)
- Buddha of the West
- Amida created a "pure land" for people who chant to him. Anyone who chants to him will be reborn in this pure land as a male so as to be closer to achieving nirvana.
Obviously, the Pure Land Buddhism's conception of grace is drastically different from Christianity's conception of Grace.
Jainism
Goal: to escape from the cycle of reincarnation and the elimination of karma.
Mahavira (6th Century B.C.) founded Jainism. His story is similar to the Buddha. Mahavira received enlightenment, but unlike the Buddha, retained his ascetic lifestyle.
Tirthankaras - teachers of Jainism
Mahavira was the last of the 24 Tirthankaras.
Two Main Divisions:
1) Shvetambara - "Clad in White"
2) Disambara - "Clad in atmosphere"
In the Shvetambara women are are eligible for salvation, but in the Disambara women are ineligible for salvation.
Karma: Jainism believes in individual souls (as opposed to Buddhism and Hinduism). This is the Jiva.
Jiva, left to itself would rise to the top of the universe. But, Karma adds physical Ajiva to the soul, weighing it down. Ajiva causes the soul to sink.
Salvation is the removing of Ajiva (dead matter) from one's soul.
The most important principle of Jainism is ahimsa.
Conclusion
Religions do not just have different ways of salvation, but their conceptions of salvation are very different.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Quick survey of world religions
(Originally Written March 26, 2007 in Book 15)
A Tapestry of Faiths
The Common Threads Between Christianity & World Religions
Winfried Corduan
Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2002
Chapter 1: Asking the right Questions
Insofar as Christianity is the religion that expresses the preeminence of Christ, Christianity alone is true and worthwhile.
The relationship between Christianity and other religions have many dimensions of similarity.
1. The Soteriological Dimension
2. The Content Dimension
There are many beliefs that Christianity shares with other religions.
3. The Revelatory Dimension
Many religions claim truth is grounded in revelation.
4. The Apologetic Dimension
5. The Moral Dimension
Most religions include a moral system and many areas resemble each other.
6. The Communication Dimension
A Very Brief History of Religion
Traditional/tribal religions in contrast to enscripturated religions:
Traditional religions are closely tied to their local culture.
Traditional religions tend to be animistic and ritualistic.
They recognize nature spirits and ancestor spirits. Frequently they recognize a high god in the sky.
Western Religions in contrast to Eastern Traditions
Western traditions are largely monotheistic like Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam and Baha'i.
Monotheistic Western Religions Normally have:
1. A strong monotheistic emphasis
2. A strong ethical emphasis
3. A positive approach to history. History is an unfolding of divine revelation and action.
Eastern religions are religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Daoism, Confucianism and Shinto.
Buddhism and Jainism are direct offshoots of Hinduism.
Eastern religions are more divers in belief than Western Religions.
3. Beliefs in Contrast to Cultus:
Cultus is the rituals, altars, hymns, temples, offerings and modes of prayer.
The relationship between a belief system and its cultus can be extremely elastic.
I. Judaism
Origin: Moses, 15th Century B.C.
Essential Beliefs and Practices:
- Monotheism
- obedience to a divinely revealed law
Scriptures:
- The Hebrew Scriptures
- Interpretations of the Scriptures (i.e. the Talmud)
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Orthodox
- Conservative
- Reform
II. Zoroastrianism
Origin: Zoroaster, 6th Century B.C.
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Monotheism
- Conflict between God (Ahura Mazda) and the evil Spirt (Angra Mainyu)
- Ethical purity
- Ritual cleanliness
Major Contemporary Division
- None
III. Christianity
Origin: Christ, 1st Century A.D.
Essential Beliefs and Practices:
- Trinitarian Monotheism
- Jesus as the Messiah
Scriptures:
- The Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Major Contemporary Divisions:
- Eastern Orthodox
- Roman Catholic
- Protestant
IV. Islam
Origin: Muhammad, (A.D. 570 - 632)
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Monotheism
- Allah
- Judgment based on their obedience to God's requirement
Scriptures
- The Qu'ran
- Hadith
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Sunnite
- Shi'ites
V. Baha'i
Origin: Baha'ullah 19th Century
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Baha'ullah was the manifestation of God
- Unity of all religions
- New World Order
Scriptures:
- The writings of Baha'ullah
Major Contemporary Divisions
- None
VI. Hinduism
Origin: 1500 B.C., religion of the Aryans who invaded the Indian subcontinent
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Extremely diverse
- Samsara (reincarnation)
- Karma
Scriptures
- The Vedas
- The Ramayana
- The Mahabharata
- Brahmans
- Sutras
- Puranas
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Monastic Groups
- Bhakti (personalistic)
- Vaishnavitas
- Shaivites
- Shaktites
VII. Buddhism
Origin: Gautama Buddha (600 B.C.)
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Salvation = deliverance from the reincarnation cycle
- Nirvana
Scriptures:
- The Tripitaka
- The Lotus Sutra
- Other sutras
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Theravada (Hinayana)
- Mahayana
- Zen
- Pure Land
- Soka Gakkai
- Tibetan
VIII. Jainism
Origin: Mahavira (600 BC)
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Redemption by elimination of solid karma matter from one's soul
- Worship of the Tirthankaras
Scriptures
- The Agamas
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Digambaras
- Svetambaras
IX. Sikhism
Origin: Guru Nanak (16th Century A.D.)
Essential beliefs and Practices:
- There is one God who is represented on earth by the Holy Book the Adi Granth.
- Escape from the reincarnation cycle
Scriptures
- Adi Granth
Major Contemporary Divisions
- None
X. Daoism
Origins - Lao Zi (Lao-Tzu)
Essential beliefs and practices
- Yin & Yang
Scriptures
- Daodejing
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Daoism is interconnected with other religions, especially Buddhism and Confucianism
XI. Confucianism
Origins: Confucius (6th Century B.C.)
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Ethical System
Scriptures
- Analects
Major Contemporary Divisions
- None
XII. Shinto
A Tapestry of Faiths
The Common Threads Between Christianity & World Religions
Winfried Corduan
Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2002
Chapter 1: Asking the right Questions
Insofar as Christianity is the religion that expresses the preeminence of Christ, Christianity alone is true and worthwhile.
The relationship between Christianity and other religions have many dimensions of similarity.
1. The Soteriological Dimension
2. The Content Dimension
There are many beliefs that Christianity shares with other religions.
3. The Revelatory Dimension
Many religions claim truth is grounded in revelation.
4. The Apologetic Dimension
5. The Moral Dimension
Most religions include a moral system and many areas resemble each other.
6. The Communication Dimension
A Very Brief History of Religion
Traditional/tribal religions in contrast to enscripturated religions:
Traditional religions are closely tied to their local culture.
Traditional religions tend to be animistic and ritualistic.
They recognize nature spirits and ancestor spirits. Frequently they recognize a high god in the sky.
Western Religions in contrast to Eastern Traditions
Western traditions are largely monotheistic like Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam and Baha'i.
Monotheistic Western Religions Normally have:
1. A strong monotheistic emphasis
2. A strong ethical emphasis
3. A positive approach to history. History is an unfolding of divine revelation and action.
Eastern religions are religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Daoism, Confucianism and Shinto.
Buddhism and Jainism are direct offshoots of Hinduism.
Eastern religions are more divers in belief than Western Religions.
3. Beliefs in Contrast to Cultus:
Cultus is the rituals, altars, hymns, temples, offerings and modes of prayer.
The relationship between a belief system and its cultus can be extremely elastic.
I. Judaism
Origin: Moses, 15th Century B.C.
Essential Beliefs and Practices:
- Monotheism
- obedience to a divinely revealed law
Scriptures:
- The Hebrew Scriptures
- Interpretations of the Scriptures (i.e. the Talmud)
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Orthodox
- Conservative
- Reform
II. Zoroastrianism
Origin: Zoroaster, 6th Century B.C.
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Monotheism
- Conflict between God (Ahura Mazda) and the evil Spirt (Angra Mainyu)
- Ethical purity
- Ritual cleanliness
Major Contemporary Division
- None
III. Christianity
Origin: Christ, 1st Century A.D.
Essential Beliefs and Practices:
- Trinitarian Monotheism
- Jesus as the Messiah
Scriptures:
- The Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Major Contemporary Divisions:
- Eastern Orthodox
- Roman Catholic
- Protestant
IV. Islam
Origin: Muhammad, (A.D. 570 - 632)
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Monotheism
- Allah
- Judgment based on their obedience to God's requirement
Scriptures
- The Qu'ran
- Hadith
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Sunnite
- Shi'ites
V. Baha'i
Origin: Baha'ullah 19th Century
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Baha'ullah was the manifestation of God
- Unity of all religions
- New World Order
Scriptures:
- The writings of Baha'ullah
Major Contemporary Divisions
- None
VI. Hinduism
Origin: 1500 B.C., religion of the Aryans who invaded the Indian subcontinent
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Extremely diverse
- Samsara (reincarnation)
- Karma
Scriptures
- The Vedas
- The Ramayana
- The Mahabharata
- Brahmans
- Sutras
- Puranas
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Monastic Groups
- Bhakti (personalistic)
- Vaishnavitas
- Shaivites
- Shaktites
VII. Buddhism
Origin: Gautama Buddha (600 B.C.)
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Salvation = deliverance from the reincarnation cycle
- Nirvana
Scriptures:
- The Tripitaka
- The Lotus Sutra
- Other sutras
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Theravada (Hinayana)
- Mahayana
- Zen
- Pure Land
- Soka Gakkai
- Tibetan
VIII. Jainism
Origin: Mahavira (600 BC)
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Redemption by elimination of solid karma matter from one's soul
- Worship of the Tirthankaras
Scriptures
- The Agamas
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Digambaras
- Svetambaras
IX. Sikhism
Origin: Guru Nanak (16th Century A.D.)
Essential beliefs and Practices:
- There is one God who is represented on earth by the Holy Book the Adi Granth.
- Escape from the reincarnation cycle
Scriptures
- Adi Granth
Major Contemporary Divisions
- None
X. Daoism
Origins - Lao Zi (Lao-Tzu)
Essential beliefs and practices
- Yin & Yang
Scriptures
- Daodejing
Major Contemporary Divisions
- Daoism is interconnected with other religions, especially Buddhism and Confucianism
XI. Confucianism
Origins: Confucius (6th Century B.C.)
Essential Beliefs and Practices
- Ethical System
Scriptures
- Analects
Major Contemporary Divisions
- None
XII. Shinto
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Sin in various religions
(Originally written March 22, 2007 in Book 15)
Effects of the Breach of the Rules
Western Religions - disrupts the relationship between God and man. Therefore, the need to restore the relationship.
Eastern religions: caught up in the endless cycle of karma-samsara (reincarnation). Therefore, the need to escape the cycle
Christianity
- Fallenness (Original Sin, Total Depravity)
- We are not sinful because we are finite
- Sin is not tied to finitude or creation
- Fallenness effects our spirit, mind and will
- Need for forgiveness
Judaism & Islam
- No fallenness/original sin
- sin constitutes damage
- need for greater effort
Hinduism
- The problems are engendered by the very fact that one exists as an entity in the universe
- The Hindu conception of sin:
PAAPA or ENAS > "sin" against the gods or against the rules of Dharma
- But, sin (PAAPA or ENAS) is not the central issue of Hinduism
- Karma is the central focus
- Karma originally meant "motion", then "duties", then "duties of your caste"
- Karma has consequences. What you do influences what you will be in your next life.
- Samsara (reincarnation) is a very negative and oppressive concept in the east.
Entrapment by karma (personal)
- Evil people must be reincarnated
- "I hurl these monsters, cruel... people into the never-ending cycle of rebirths (Bhagavad Gita)
- Good people can continue in heaven, but then must be reincarnated (Bhagavad Gita 9:20-21)
- People who do nothing must be reincarnated
- One does not attain freedom from the bondage of Karma by merely abstain from work (Bhagavad Gita 3:4).
Cosmic entrapment by Karma
- The same multitude of beings comes into existence again and again at the arrival of the creative cycle and is annihilated, inevitably, at the arrival of the destructive cycle (Bhagavad Gita 8:19).
Conclusion
- There is some similarity among the religions as to the basic values of life, marriage, truth and property.
- These values are embedded in different contexts
- The values are expressed in rules that play different roles in the religions
- The effects of breaking the rules are very different from religion to religion
Effects of the Breach of the Rules
Western Religions - disrupts the relationship between God and man. Therefore, the need to restore the relationship.
Eastern religions: caught up in the endless cycle of karma-samsara (reincarnation). Therefore, the need to escape the cycle
Christianity
- Fallenness (Original Sin, Total Depravity)
- We are not sinful because we are finite
- Sin is not tied to finitude or creation
- Fallenness effects our spirit, mind and will
- Need for forgiveness
Judaism & Islam
- No fallenness/original sin
- sin constitutes damage
- need for greater effort
Hinduism
- The problems are engendered by the very fact that one exists as an entity in the universe
- The Hindu conception of sin:
PAAPA or ENAS > "sin" against the gods or against the rules of Dharma
- But, sin (PAAPA or ENAS) is not the central issue of Hinduism
- Karma is the central focus
- Karma originally meant "motion", then "duties", then "duties of your caste"
- Karma has consequences. What you do influences what you will be in your next life.
- Samsara (reincarnation) is a very negative and oppressive concept in the east.
Entrapment by karma (personal)
- Evil people must be reincarnated
- "I hurl these monsters, cruel... people into the never-ending cycle of rebirths (Bhagavad Gita)
- Good people can continue in heaven, but then must be reincarnated (Bhagavad Gita 9:20-21)
- People who do nothing must be reincarnated
- One does not attain freedom from the bondage of Karma by merely abstain from work (Bhagavad Gita 3:4).
Cosmic entrapment by Karma
- The same multitude of beings comes into existence again and again at the arrival of the creative cycle and is annihilated, inevitably, at the arrival of the destructive cycle (Bhagavad Gita 8:19).
Conclusion
- There is some similarity among the religions as to the basic values of life, marriage, truth and property.
- These values are embedded in different contexts
- The values are expressed in rules that play different roles in the religions
- The effects of breaking the rules are very different from religion to religion
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Univocal, Equivocal, Analogous and Negative Language
(Originally written March 17, 2007 in Book 13)
From Unity to Multiplicity
All multiplicity presupposes some prior unity, thus there must be some absolute simplicity as the source of all multiplicity. God is this absolute simplicity.
God does not have being because being involves multiplicity.
God is the One beyond all being.
Creation is the process of the One becoming multiplicity. When it gains knowledge of itself it creates mind. The Mind produces other minds when minds reflect outwards it creates Soul and Soul gives rises to other souls.
Souls create matter. Matter is the most multiplicity.
Being is good; matter is evil. Matter possesses no good in it, only the mere capacity for good.
Eventually all multiplicity will return to unity and evil will give way to good.
From Multiplicity to Unity
Humans are matter and soul, thus good and evil.
In order to travel towrads unity a person must turn from the multiplicity of matter to the unity of soul. Hue must become ascetic.
The Soul must move from what is sensible to what is intellectual. For, what is intellectual is touched by Mind which is almost pure unity.
Once one has achieved union with mind by moving from sensible to intellectual one must move from intellectual to intuitional to achieve whole unity because even mind is multiplicity (knower and known).
The goal is to become one with the One.
The Need for Negative Language of the One (God)
Plotinus states that there can be no positive descriptions about the One.
All the properties Plotinus ascribes the One he denies that he has.
In calling God the One he means, "not many". In calling him good he means, "not evil". But the One is not the first of any series and the One is not good in the sense that anything else is good.
"The One is nothing but itself and cannot be named in terms of anything else" (237).
Plotinus maintains that we "know" God via two ways:
1. Indirectly from his effects
2. by direct mystical intuitions which transcend all cognitive knowledge and provides a positive being for all cognitive negations of God.
Naming God from his Emanational Effects
All that comes from the One is a trace of the transcendent ONe.
If something comes from the One that is beauty then we can God is beautiful in the sense that He causally creates beauty. Thus, his effect is beauty and he therefore is Beauty, but greater.
God is called goodness because causes goodness, not because he possesses goodness.
Unity (God) is beyond Being because he caused being.
The intuitional basis for all naming of God
Giving God positive names from his extrinsically related effects does not provide any proper knowledge of God.
Rational and cognitive through can only point in the direction of God who is knowable only by mystical intuition.
Intuitional knowledge of God comes by purification of all multiplicity and the knower becomes one with the One in a temporary mystical union.
Negative language about God is wholly dependent on a prior positive intuition of God gained via mystical union with the One.
Pseudo-Dionysius brought Plotinus to Christianity in the 6th century A.D.
He affirmed the incomprehensibility of God. He stated God cannot be known directly but He can be known indirectly 3 ways:
1. Affirmation of the God of the Bible (positive theology)
2. Deny that these qualities apply to God in the same sense they apply to the created order (negative theology)
3. Apply these terms to God in a higher way
Moses Maimonides: Negative Attributes of God
Maimonides believed that the literal interpretations of Scripture were the heart of all problematic theology.
The way to positively attribute something to God
He had five ways to attribute a positive quality of God. The first four he felt inconsistent with the monotheistic God of Judaism. So he worked out the fifth way.
1. An object is described by its definition
2. An object is described by part of its definition
3. An object is described by something other than its true essence
4. An object is described by its relation to another object
5. An object is described by its action.
He claimed that Biblical language is anthropomorphic.
The knowledge o the works of God is the knowledge of His attributes.
The Use of Negative Attributes to Describe God
Maimonides held that negative attributes of God are true attributes and that positive attributes imply polytheism.
The function of negative attributes is that they are necessary to direct the mind to the truths necessary to believe concerning God. With each negative attribute learned one inches closer to knowledge of God.
He held that only YHWH indicates God's true essence and its meaning is wholly unknowable.
Mysticism: Ineffability
A definition of Mysticism
F.C. Haploid outlined the nature of mysticism in four points:
1. The phenomenal world is a manifestation of an Absolute and as such this world is not true reality. Only the Absolute is true reality.
2. Human beings can know the Absolute by a direct intuition. In this intuition a union between the human and the absolute occurs.
3. This intuition is a unique function of the true human self, which is usually obscured by the phenomenal self.
4. The possibility is the main goal of human existence and is the door to the experience of ultimate reality.
William James described the mystical union with four points:
1. Ineffability - the experience cannot be contained in words
2. Noetic quality - The impression of having received absolute truth is part of the experience
3. Transiency - The experience will not last very long
4. Passivity - The experience is received by or given to the person. He does not create it.
The mystic does not allow for a difference between the experience of the Absolute and the Absolute.
In the way one cannot doubt he is having a headache, a mystic cannot doubt he is having (or had) a mystical experience.
The problem with mystical experiences is that no one who has not had a mystical experience can know what it is like. Secondly, the mystic cannot describe it because it is ineffable by nature.
Stace's Theories of Ineffability
W.T. Stace provides a number of theories on ineffable experiences:
1. The emotion theory: mystical experience is ineffable because it essentially contains emotions that are too deep for words.
2. The spiritual blindness theory: mystical experience is ineffable because those who have not had it cannot understand it.
Stace rejects these two common sense theories because
a) mystical experience is not merely an empirical perception that must be held to understand
b) mystics themselves admit that it is ineffable, not the fault of their audience
c) The Dionysian Theory: positive language does not apply literally. God is described as "X" because he causes "X", not because he is "X".
d) The Metaphor theory: positive language is merely metaphorical
But, Stace rejects these four as well because if the mystic speaks metaphorically he uses either reducible metaphors (reducible to literal understanding) in which case it is not ineffable or irreducible metaphors in which case he speakings meaninglessly. He rejects c) because it is odd to label the cause of a property with the name of that property.
e) They mystic, during his experience is beyond words, but in describing his experience he is forced to use words which describe his experience as contradictory. But, while this makes it something ineffable, mystical experiences are in fact somewhat contradictory. "The language is paradoxical because the experience is paradoxical" (249).
Thomas Aquinas: Via Negativa
Thomas Aquinas agreed with Maimonides that no one in this life could grasp the essence of God in a positive way.
The knowledge of God by remotion is Aquinas' process of deriving the distinction of God from other beings by way of negative differences.
A creature can be admitted to be God-like but God cannot be creature-like.
Aquinas did hold that one can make position affirmations about God through intrinsic causal similarities between God and his creatures.
The via negativa is the denial of any imperfections in him.
The idea of negation is always based on a positive affirmation.
Positive affirmation are made possible by the intrinsic causal relation between Creator and creatures.
A totally negative God-talk is meaningless.
Complete negation without any affirmation is total skepticism about God.
But, without some kind of negation there is no way to preserve the transcendence of the theistic God.
12: Positive Language About God
There are two basic attempts to develop positive language about God:
1. Univocal (Scotus)
2. Analogous (Aquinas)
The Scotistic Insistence on Univocal Concepts
John Duns Scotus maintained that there can be no meaningful positive talk bout God unless it is univocal.
The Impossibility of Analogous Concepts
Henry of Ghent defended his "analogous concept of being" while Scotus was alive.
Henry claimed that God is known in a universal concept that is analogically common to himself and to creatures.
He claimed that God and creatures are distinguishable by negation of determination. Man is determined, God is undetermined.
Scotus rejects this on a few grounds
1. Differentiation by negation is no different at all
2. The concept of Henry's analogous concept is two concepts and thus equivocal
The Necessity of Univocal Concepts of God
Scouts chose univocal language because it avoids skepticism and meaninglessness.
Univocal to Scotus is that which possess sufficient unity in itself.
He gives four arguments to why concepts of God and man must be understood univocally:
1) The intellect can be certain about the concept of being without knowing it refers to created or uncreated being.
2) It is impossible to have natural knowledge of God without univocal concepts. We have natural knowledge of God. Thus, there are univocal concepts.
3) We would have no proper concept of God without univocal concepts. We have a proper concept of the Trinity, thus of God. Thus, we have univocal concepts.
4) Pure perfection applies wholly proper to God and not to creatures. Thus there must be universal understanding of pure perfection.
Scotus held that if there is no univocity in concepts of God there is no knowledge of God.
Scotus held that there is equivocal talk about God, which is meaningless. There is analogous talk about God which is either equivocal or univocal. If it is equivocal it is meaningless. If it is univocal it is not really analogical.
Thomistic Contention for Analogous Predication
Aquinas held that it was impossible for anything to be predicated of God and a creature in a univocal sense.
Aquinas' rejection of Univocal Predication
Aquinas had 6 arguments against univocality
1. Nothing may be said if God and other things univocally because the forms of the things God has made do not measure up to any specific likeness of God.
2. No creature has the same mode as God thus nothing can be predicated of God and other things universally.
3. Whatever is predicated of many things is a genus or species, but there exists no genus or species of God.
4. Whatever is predicated of many things univocally is simpler in concept than that which it is predicated of. God is wholly simple, thus there can be nothing predicated of God univocally.
5. Whatever is predicated univocally in many things belongs through participation to each of things of which it is predicated. But nothing participates with God, only through God.
6. Nothing is predicated of God and creation in the same order, but rather according to priority and posteriority.
Aquinas also argued that the difference between an infinitely perfect being an a finitely perfect being is infinite and thus, there can be no univocal predication of such beings.
The Need for the Via Negative
God cannot possess perfections in the way crated things possess them.
Properly speaking God dos not posses the properties of perfections; those perfections are the very essence of God.
Univocal predication removes the necessary distance between Creator and created. If any property were univocally attributed to God and created thing it would either limit God or delimit the created thing.
Aquinas' Rejecting of Equivocal Predication
Both Aquinas and Scotus agreed that equivocal predication lends no knowledge of God.
He held that if all knowledge of God came from equivocal terms then there would be no chance of rising from finite things to the infinite.
Equivocal language is false because if it were true there would be nothing known or demonstrable about God.
From Unity to Multiplicity
All multiplicity presupposes some prior unity, thus there must be some absolute simplicity as the source of all multiplicity. God is this absolute simplicity.
God does not have being because being involves multiplicity.
God is the One beyond all being.
Creation is the process of the One becoming multiplicity. When it gains knowledge of itself it creates mind. The Mind produces other minds when minds reflect outwards it creates Soul and Soul gives rises to other souls.
Souls create matter. Matter is the most multiplicity.
Being is good; matter is evil. Matter possesses no good in it, only the mere capacity for good.
Eventually all multiplicity will return to unity and evil will give way to good.
From Multiplicity to Unity
Humans are matter and soul, thus good and evil.
In order to travel towrads unity a person must turn from the multiplicity of matter to the unity of soul. Hue must become ascetic.
The Soul must move from what is sensible to what is intellectual. For, what is intellectual is touched by Mind which is almost pure unity.
Once one has achieved union with mind by moving from sensible to intellectual one must move from intellectual to intuitional to achieve whole unity because even mind is multiplicity (knower and known).
The goal is to become one with the One.
The Need for Negative Language of the One (God)
Plotinus states that there can be no positive descriptions about the One.
All the properties Plotinus ascribes the One he denies that he has.
In calling God the One he means, "not many". In calling him good he means, "not evil". But the One is not the first of any series and the One is not good in the sense that anything else is good.
"The One is nothing but itself and cannot be named in terms of anything else" (237).
Plotinus maintains that we "know" God via two ways:
1. Indirectly from his effects
2. by direct mystical intuitions which transcend all cognitive knowledge and provides a positive being for all cognitive negations of God.
Naming God from his Emanational Effects
All that comes from the One is a trace of the transcendent ONe.
If something comes from the One that is beauty then we can God is beautiful in the sense that He causally creates beauty. Thus, his effect is beauty and he therefore is Beauty, but greater.
God is called goodness because causes goodness, not because he possesses goodness.
Unity (God) is beyond Being because he caused being.
The intuitional basis for all naming of God
Giving God positive names from his extrinsically related effects does not provide any proper knowledge of God.
Rational and cognitive through can only point in the direction of God who is knowable only by mystical intuition.
Intuitional knowledge of God comes by purification of all multiplicity and the knower becomes one with the One in a temporary mystical union.
Negative language about God is wholly dependent on a prior positive intuition of God gained via mystical union with the One.
Pseudo-Dionysius brought Plotinus to Christianity in the 6th century A.D.
He affirmed the incomprehensibility of God. He stated God cannot be known directly but He can be known indirectly 3 ways:
1. Affirmation of the God of the Bible (positive theology)
2. Deny that these qualities apply to God in the same sense they apply to the created order (negative theology)
3. Apply these terms to God in a higher way
Moses Maimonides: Negative Attributes of God
Maimonides believed that the literal interpretations of Scripture were the heart of all problematic theology.
The way to positively attribute something to God
He had five ways to attribute a positive quality of God. The first four he felt inconsistent with the monotheistic God of Judaism. So he worked out the fifth way.
1. An object is described by its definition
2. An object is described by part of its definition
3. An object is described by something other than its true essence
4. An object is described by its relation to another object
5. An object is described by its action.
He claimed that Biblical language is anthropomorphic.
The knowledge o the works of God is the knowledge of His attributes.
The Use of Negative Attributes to Describe God
Maimonides held that negative attributes of God are true attributes and that positive attributes imply polytheism.
The function of negative attributes is that they are necessary to direct the mind to the truths necessary to believe concerning God. With each negative attribute learned one inches closer to knowledge of God.
He held that only YHWH indicates God's true essence and its meaning is wholly unknowable.
Mysticism: Ineffability
A definition of Mysticism
F.C. Haploid outlined the nature of mysticism in four points:
1. The phenomenal world is a manifestation of an Absolute and as such this world is not true reality. Only the Absolute is true reality.
2. Human beings can know the Absolute by a direct intuition. In this intuition a union between the human and the absolute occurs.
3. This intuition is a unique function of the true human self, which is usually obscured by the phenomenal self.
4. The possibility is the main goal of human existence and is the door to the experience of ultimate reality.
William James described the mystical union with four points:
1. Ineffability - the experience cannot be contained in words
2. Noetic quality - The impression of having received absolute truth is part of the experience
3. Transiency - The experience will not last very long
4. Passivity - The experience is received by or given to the person. He does not create it.
The mystic does not allow for a difference between the experience of the Absolute and the Absolute.
In the way one cannot doubt he is having a headache, a mystic cannot doubt he is having (or had) a mystical experience.
The problem with mystical experiences is that no one who has not had a mystical experience can know what it is like. Secondly, the mystic cannot describe it because it is ineffable by nature.
Stace's Theories of Ineffability
W.T. Stace provides a number of theories on ineffable experiences:
1. The emotion theory: mystical experience is ineffable because it essentially contains emotions that are too deep for words.
2. The spiritual blindness theory: mystical experience is ineffable because those who have not had it cannot understand it.
Stace rejects these two common sense theories because
a) mystical experience is not merely an empirical perception that must be held to understand
b) mystics themselves admit that it is ineffable, not the fault of their audience
c) The Dionysian Theory: positive language does not apply literally. God is described as "X" because he causes "X", not because he is "X".
d) The Metaphor theory: positive language is merely metaphorical
But, Stace rejects these four as well because if the mystic speaks metaphorically he uses either reducible metaphors (reducible to literal understanding) in which case it is not ineffable or irreducible metaphors in which case he speakings meaninglessly. He rejects c) because it is odd to label the cause of a property with the name of that property.
e) They mystic, during his experience is beyond words, but in describing his experience he is forced to use words which describe his experience as contradictory. But, while this makes it something ineffable, mystical experiences are in fact somewhat contradictory. "The language is paradoxical because the experience is paradoxical" (249).
Thomas Aquinas: Via Negativa
Thomas Aquinas agreed with Maimonides that no one in this life could grasp the essence of God in a positive way.
The knowledge of God by remotion is Aquinas' process of deriving the distinction of God from other beings by way of negative differences.
A creature can be admitted to be God-like but God cannot be creature-like.
Aquinas did hold that one can make position affirmations about God through intrinsic causal similarities between God and his creatures.
The via negativa is the denial of any imperfections in him.
The idea of negation is always based on a positive affirmation.
Positive affirmation are made possible by the intrinsic causal relation between Creator and creatures.
A totally negative God-talk is meaningless.
Complete negation without any affirmation is total skepticism about God.
But, without some kind of negation there is no way to preserve the transcendence of the theistic God.
12: Positive Language About God
There are two basic attempts to develop positive language about God:
1. Univocal (Scotus)
2. Analogous (Aquinas)
The Scotistic Insistence on Univocal Concepts
John Duns Scotus maintained that there can be no meaningful positive talk bout God unless it is univocal.
The Impossibility of Analogous Concepts
Henry of Ghent defended his "analogous concept of being" while Scotus was alive.
Henry claimed that God is known in a universal concept that is analogically common to himself and to creatures.
He claimed that God and creatures are distinguishable by negation of determination. Man is determined, God is undetermined.
Scotus rejects this on a few grounds
1. Differentiation by negation is no different at all
2. The concept of Henry's analogous concept is two concepts and thus equivocal
The Necessity of Univocal Concepts of God
Scouts chose univocal language because it avoids skepticism and meaninglessness.
Univocal to Scotus is that which possess sufficient unity in itself.
He gives four arguments to why concepts of God and man must be understood univocally:
1) The intellect can be certain about the concept of being without knowing it refers to created or uncreated being.
2) It is impossible to have natural knowledge of God without univocal concepts. We have natural knowledge of God. Thus, there are univocal concepts.
3) We would have no proper concept of God without univocal concepts. We have a proper concept of the Trinity, thus of God. Thus, we have univocal concepts.
4) Pure perfection applies wholly proper to God and not to creatures. Thus there must be universal understanding of pure perfection.
Scotus held that if there is no univocity in concepts of God there is no knowledge of God.
Scotus held that there is equivocal talk about God, which is meaningless. There is analogous talk about God which is either equivocal or univocal. If it is equivocal it is meaningless. If it is univocal it is not really analogical.
Thomistic Contention for Analogous Predication
Aquinas held that it was impossible for anything to be predicated of God and a creature in a univocal sense.
Aquinas' rejection of Univocal Predication
Aquinas had 6 arguments against univocality
1. Nothing may be said if God and other things univocally because the forms of the things God has made do not measure up to any specific likeness of God.
2. No creature has the same mode as God thus nothing can be predicated of God and other things universally.
3. Whatever is predicated of many things is a genus or species, but there exists no genus or species of God.
4. Whatever is predicated of many things univocally is simpler in concept than that which it is predicated of. God is wholly simple, thus there can be nothing predicated of God univocally.
5. Whatever is predicated univocally in many things belongs through participation to each of things of which it is predicated. But nothing participates with God, only through God.
6. Nothing is predicated of God and creation in the same order, but rather according to priority and posteriority.
Aquinas also argued that the difference between an infinitely perfect being an a finitely perfect being is infinite and thus, there can be no univocal predication of such beings.
The Need for the Via Negative
God cannot possess perfections in the way crated things possess them.
Properly speaking God dos not posses the properties of perfections; those perfections are the very essence of God.
Univocal predication removes the necessary distance between Creator and created. If any property were univocally attributed to God and created thing it would either limit God or delimit the created thing.
Aquinas' Rejecting of Equivocal Predication
Both Aquinas and Scotus agreed that equivocal predication lends no knowledge of God.
He held that if all knowledge of God came from equivocal terms then there would be no chance of rising from finite things to the infinite.
Equivocal language is false because if it were true there would be nothing known or demonstrable about God.
Functions of Rules in Various Religions
(Originally written March 17, 2007 in Book 15)
Class Notes
Moral purity vs. Ceremonial Purity
Ritual defilement can:
1) Occur if something is so evil that it may not be touched
2) Occur if something is so holy that it may not be touched
Defilement results in either
1) of one's self
2) of the holy object
Taboo - ultimate form of ritual defilement
Functions of the Rules in Various Religions
Western Religions:
- God as Lawgiver
- People are accountable to God
- Includes interpersonal dimension
Eastern Religions
- Rules are intrinsic to the universe
Lutheran Conception of Law
- 1st use of the Law: makes possible a livable society
- 2nd use of the Law: "Schoolmaster" - display our sinfulness to drive us to the Grace in Christ
- 3rd use of the law: evidence of regeneration
Judaism conception of Law
- The law demonstrates the righteousness that is characteristic for the people of God.
- makes the world a better place
- limited demands on Gentiles
- not tied to heaven or hell in a strict sense
Islamic conception of Law
- Rules as a test to qualify for paradise
5 Pillars of Islam:
1) Confession
2) Prayer
3) Fasting
4) Almsgiving
5) Pilgrimage
Indic Religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism
- Rules are intrinsic to the universe
- divinity revealed the law
- binding on all beings, including gods
Confucianism's conception of rules
- rules bring about harmony among people
- harmony among people brings harmony in the universe
Class Notes
Moral purity vs. Ceremonial Purity
Ritual defilement can:
1) Occur if something is so evil that it may not be touched
2) Occur if something is so holy that it may not be touched
Defilement results in either
1) of one's self
2) of the holy object
Taboo - ultimate form of ritual defilement
Functions of the Rules in Various Religions
Western Religions:
- God as Lawgiver
- People are accountable to God
- Includes interpersonal dimension
Eastern Religions
- Rules are intrinsic to the universe
Lutheran Conception of Law
- 1st use of the Law: makes possible a livable society
- 2nd use of the Law: "Schoolmaster" - display our sinfulness to drive us to the Grace in Christ
- 3rd use of the law: evidence of regeneration
Judaism conception of Law
- The law demonstrates the righteousness that is characteristic for the people of God.
- makes the world a better place
- limited demands on Gentiles
- not tied to heaven or hell in a strict sense
Islamic conception of Law
- Rules as a test to qualify for paradise
5 Pillars of Islam:
1) Confession
2) Prayer
3) Fasting
4) Almsgiving
5) Pilgrimage
Indic Religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism
- Rules are intrinsic to the universe
- divinity revealed the law
- binding on all beings, including gods
Confucianism's conception of rules
- rules bring about harmony among people
- harmony among people brings harmony in the universe
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Cosmological Arguments and Rebuttals
(Originally written March 13, 2007 in Book 13)
Al-Farabi's Necessary Existence Argument
Arabian and Jewish forms of the cosmological argument later influenced Christian arguments
The Islamic Philosopher Al-Farabi distinguished between existence and essence. He argued:
1) There exists beings whose essence is distinct from their existence. These are possible beings.
2) These beings have existence only accidentally. It is not part of their very essence to exist. It is logically possible that they might not have existed.
3) Anything that exists accidentally (not essentially) must have derived their existence from another.
4) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of existence.
5) Therefore, there must be a first cause of existence whose essence and existence are identical. This being must be a necessary being because the First Cause cannot be a mere possible being since all possible beings do not explain their own existence.
Avicenna's First Cause Argument
1) There are possible beings
2) Whatever possible beings exist have a cause for their being
3) There cannot be an infinite series of being.
4) Therefore, there must be a first cause for all possible things.
5) This first Cause must be a necessary Being because that which is the cause of all possible beings cannot itself be a possible being.
6) Whatever is essentially One can create immediately only one effect (intelligence)
7) Thinking is creating and God necessarily thinks, since he is a necessary being
8) Therefore, there is an necessary emanation from God of ten intelligences (Angels) that control the various spheres of the universe and the last of which (called Agent Intellect) forms the four elements of the cosmos and by which the human mind (possible intellect) is informed of all truth.
Avicenna's God was a necessary being who created 10 gods who created everything else.
The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) argued for a first mover, a first Cause and a Necessary Being.
He argued that "I AM" implied absolute existence which applied to God alone.
Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove God's Existence
Aquinas' arguments were not entirely new
1) Maimonides had arguments similar to the first three
2) Al-Farabi and Avicenna had the first two
3) Anselm had an argument similar to the 4th argument
4) Aquinas' 5th argument was similar to Thierry of Chartes and William of Conches' adaptation of Plato's Timaeus argument
Aquinas was much more Aristotelian in his thought than any of his Christian predecessors.
He argued from:
1) Motion
2) Efficient Causality
3) Possibility and necessity
4) Gradation (perfection)
5) to a First Cause
Duns Scotus: Argument from Producibility
John Duns Scotus modified Aquinas' argument in two ways:
1) He began with the producibility of being, not merely from produced beings
2) He amplified the argument against an invite regress of dependent causes
Duns Scotus' arg.
1) Some being is produced
a) This is learned via experience
b) This is true independent of experience
c) It would be true even if God had not willed to create anything
2) What is produced is producible either by itself, by nothing or by something else
3) No being can produce itself
4) Something cannot be caused by nothing
5) Therefore, being is producible only by some being that is productive
6) There cannot be an infinite regress of productive beings, each producing the being of the one following it because
a) this is an essentially related series of causes, not an accidentally related one
-where the primary cause is more nearly perfect than the secondary one
-where the secondary cause depends on the primary one for its very causality
-where the cause must be simultaneously present to the effect
b) An infinite series of essentially related causes is impossible because:
-if the whole series is dependent for its causalities then there must be something beyond the series that counts for the causality in the series
-If the infinite series were causing the effect, then there would have to be an infinite number of causes simultaneously causing a single effect, and this is impossible
-where ever there are prior causes there must be a prime cause
-higher causes are more nearly perfect than lower causes and this implies a perfect cause at the head of all other less-than-perfect causes
-an infinite regress of causes implies imperfection. But an imperfect series implies something perfect beyond the series as ground for the imperfect
7) Therefore, there must be a first productive cause of all producible beings
8) This first Cause of all producible beings must be one because:
-It is perfect in knowledge and there cannot be two beings that know everything perfectly
-It is perfect in will, hence it loves itself more completely than anything else
-It is infinitely good and there cannot be two as such because one would be more than infinitely good which is impossible
-It is infinite in power. If there were two that were infinite in power than there would be two primary causes of the same effect, and this is impossible
-Absolutely infinite cannot be excelled in perfection because there cannot be anything more perfect than that which is wholly perfect
-There cannot be two necessary beings because one would possess what the other lacked and if it lacked any perfection it would not be necessary
-Omnipotent will cannot be in two beings because then one could render the other impotent
Ockham's Reservations about the Cosmological Argument
William of Ockham (1290-1350) raised three objections to the cosmological argument:
1) He denied that an essentially related infinite series was impossible
2) He argued that efficient causes are only known via experience. (Causality is "that whose existence or presence is followed by something")
3) He denied that one could prove that there was only one God in the absolute sense of the word. Christian theists insist that the unity of God refers to the "most perfect" Being possible. But the proposition "God exists" is not self evident because a self-evident proposition cannot be doubted and "God exists" is doubted. Since God's unity rests on the proposition "God exists" and it is impossible to know via experience and it is not self-evident there is no way to demonstrate that God is absolutely one.
Descartes' A posteriori Proof for God
Descartes' Proof
1) I am doubting
2) If I am doubting, I am thinking
3) Doubt is an imperfect form of thinking
4) But if I know the imperfect, then I must be aware of the perfect
5) But my imperfect mind cannot be the cause of the idea of perfection that I have
6) Only a perfect Mind is an adequate cause for the idea of perfection
7) Therefore, a perfect mind must exist as the cause of this perfection.
Both Augustine and Descartes have a posteriori arguments for the existence of God which is platonic and has an affinity for the ontological argument.
Leibniz: The argument from Sufficient Reason
Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) provided the most influential form of the cosmological argument in modern times. He argued:
1. The entire world is changing
2. Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence.
3. There is a sufficient reason for its own existence.
4. Therefore, there must be a cause beyond this world for its existence.
5. This cause is either its own sufficient cause or beyond it.
6. There cannot be an infinite regress of sufficient reasons.
7. Therefore, there must be a first Cause that is its own sufficient reason.
Christian Wolff (1679-1754), Leibniz's disciple offered the proof that became the pattern of the cosmological argument for the modern world.
1. The human soul exists.
2. Nothing exists without a sufficient reason why it exists.
3. The reason for our existence must be contained in ourselves or beyond ourselves.
4. The reason for our existence is not in ourselves.
5. The reason for our existence thus lies beyond ourselves.
6. One does not arrive at sufficient reason for his existence until he reaches a being that has its reason for existence within itself.
7. A being that has its reason for existence within itself is a necessary being.
8. Therefore, there must be a necessary being beyond us that is the sufficient reason for our existence.
9. It is logically impossible for a necessary being not to exist.
10. Therefore, this necessary being is identical with the self-existent God of Scripture.
Leibniz's argument (and Wolff's) rests on the principle of sufficient reason which posits itself as a self-evidently true analytic principle.
The argument is a posteriori, but not existential. The necessity of its conclusion is based on a conceptually certainty, not an existential (actual) certainty.
Hume's Skeptical Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument
David Hume (1711-1776) laid down the most fundamental arguments against the cosmological argument:
1) Only a finite cause need be inferred from finite effects
2) No propositions about existence can be logically necessary
3) The words "necessary being" have no consistent meaning. It is possible to think of anything of not existing, even God; and, what might not exist does not need to exist.
4) If "necessary being" means only imperishable, then the universe may be the necessary being.
5) An infinite series is possible. An eternal series cannot have a cause because causes imply priority in time, but nothing can be prior in time to an eternal series. Thus, an eternal series is possible.
6) There is no way to establish the principle of causality
7) The universe as a whole does not need a cause, only the parts do.
8) Theistic argument convince only those who like abstract reasoning.
Kant's Agnosticism on Theistic Argumentation
1) The cosmological argument depends on the invalid ontological argument
2) Existential statements are not necessary
3) A noumenal (real) cause cannot be derived from a phenomenal effect
4) What is logically necessary is not ontologically necessary
5) The cosmological argument leads to metaphysical contradictions
6) The concept of a "necessary being" is not self-clarifying
7) An infinite regress is logically possible
Taylor's restatement of the cosmological argument:
1) The Universe as a whole does not explain its own existence
2) Whatever does not explain its own existence calls for an explanation beyond itself.
3) An infinite regress of reasons is impossible
4) Therefore, there must be a first self-sufficient (independent)_ cause of the whole universe
Taylor's conclusion is rationally inescapable, but it is Leibnizian in that it relies on the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, it is open to similar criticisms.
Hackett's Arguments Based on Explanation
Samuel C. Hackett offered two arguments in the Leibnizian tradition.
The first conceptual argument:
1) The world order is possible only on the basis of several necessary conditions:
- There need to be objective a priori principles of knowledge
- There need to objective essences that define the properties of things in the world
- There needs to be a reason why of all the possible worlds this is the one that exists
2) These realities show all of the properties that are associated with the structuring activity of a mind
3) Therefore, these realities can be understood as the workings of an absolute mind.
4) Therefore, there exists an absolute mind as necessary condition to the logical possibility of this world.
His second, causal argument:
1) If anything exists, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
2) Something exists
3) Therefore, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
Hackett's arguments suffer from an unwarranted assumption that a sufficient cause must be an ultimate cause. A finite cause may suffice.
Ross' argument based on Explanation
James F. Ross provided two versions of the argument based on explanation
First:
1) If something is not the case, there must be an explanation for it not being so.
2) Considering the state of affairs, "God does not exist" cannot be the case.
3) Therefore, since "God dos not exist" cannot be the case, "God exists" must be the case. Thus, God exists.
Craig's Kalam Argument
William Lane Craig has produced an argument based on the need to posit an original cause for the universe. He has three premises:
1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise 1 seems intuit, but is questionable and uneasy to prove via demonstration
Premise 2 is completely questionable.
The argument, if it stands, does not prove theism because it does not eliminate pantheism.
Teleological and moral arguments depend on the principle of sufficient reason and/or causality. Both of which are questionable.
The ontological argument depends on the cosmological argument because it is theoretically possible that nothing ever existed at all.
The cosmological argument (in Leibnizian form) is rationally inescapable only if the principle of sufficient reason is rationally inescapable. But the principle of sufficient reason is neither analytically or self-evidently true.
The cosmological arguments leaves the actual for the conceptual at call thing world contingent and stating a necessary Being is one whose non-existence is logically impossible. This opens it to Kant's criticism that it confuses the principle of existential causality with the principle of sufficient reason.
The Kalam argument does not prove a theistic God, but a God that could be pantheistic.
9: The Cosmological Argument Reevaluated
Most attempts to defend the cosmological argument in a non-Leibnizian way emanate from Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas did not base his argument on the principle of sufficient reason, but on existential causality.
The Leibnizian type argument is built on logical necessity, whereas the Thomistic argument is based on existential undeniability.
The Cosmological Argument Restated
1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings
5. The first cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchanging and one
6. The first uncaused cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
It is logically possible that nothing ever existed. That is, it is possible to conceive of the nonexistence of everything.
Linehan: But logic is an affirmation of existence, so to conceive of the nonexistence of everything is a logical inference and thus, self-defeating?
Any being that undergoes a change is a contingent being. Necessary Beings are immutable.
Whatever changes in existence must be composed of actuality and potentiality.
The fact that there is change is proof that there is potential and actualization of potential.
No potential actualizes itself.
There must be some actuality outside of composed beings (beings possessing potential and actuality) to explain why they exist.
Actuality is a thing's existence and its potentiality is its essence.
An efficient cause is a necessary and sufficient condition to account for the actualization of a potential.
An infinite regress is a series without a first or beginning cause.
A self-caused thing is impossible because it would have had to exist before it existed in order to cause itself.
A way out of this dilemma is to argue that the infinite regress is circular or mutually dependent.
But this argument is obviously circular and thus, fallacious.
To deny causality within an infinite regress is simply an attempt to explain away the need for an explanation (a real need) on ground for the ungrounded finite being.
A being that needs ground for his own existence cannot be the ground of another being that needs to be grounded. One contingent being cannot ground another contingent being.
There must be a first Cause of the existence of every finite thing that exists.
The first Cause is the efficient Cause.
The Frist Cause is an uncaused cause. It can neither be self-caused (impossible) or caused by another (thus negating its status as the first cause).
The uncaused cause must be an unlimited being. If caused things are limited, uncaused things must be unlimited.
An unlimited Being must be a Necessary Being because it can not be limited by contingency.
God is not a logically necessary Being, He is an ontologically necessary being.
The uncaused Being must be an eternal Being. If nothing ever existed (a logical possibility) then nothing would ever exist because nothing can cause itself.
The uncaused Cause must be a simple, undivided Being. The uncaused Cause is pure actuality with no potentiality.
The uncaused Cause of existence must be immutable. What is changeable possess potentiality, thus pure actuality is unchangeable.
An uncaused Cause must be one Being. There cannot be two pure actualities. Pure actuality is indivisible.
The pure actuality possess all of the perfections of being infinite. Thus, the uncaused cause is the source of all perfections.
Al-Farabi's Necessary Existence Argument
Arabian and Jewish forms of the cosmological argument later influenced Christian arguments
The Islamic Philosopher Al-Farabi distinguished between existence and essence. He argued:
1) There exists beings whose essence is distinct from their existence. These are possible beings.
2) These beings have existence only accidentally. It is not part of their very essence to exist. It is logically possible that they might not have existed.
3) Anything that exists accidentally (not essentially) must have derived their existence from another.
4) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of existence.
5) Therefore, there must be a first cause of existence whose essence and existence are identical. This being must be a necessary being because the First Cause cannot be a mere possible being since all possible beings do not explain their own existence.
Avicenna's First Cause Argument
1) There are possible beings
2) Whatever possible beings exist have a cause for their being
3) There cannot be an infinite series of being.
4) Therefore, there must be a first cause for all possible things.
5) This first Cause must be a necessary Being because that which is the cause of all possible beings cannot itself be a possible being.
6) Whatever is essentially One can create immediately only one effect (intelligence)
7) Thinking is creating and God necessarily thinks, since he is a necessary being
8) Therefore, there is an necessary emanation from God of ten intelligences (Angels) that control the various spheres of the universe and the last of which (called Agent Intellect) forms the four elements of the cosmos and by which the human mind (possible intellect) is informed of all truth.
Avicenna's God was a necessary being who created 10 gods who created everything else.
The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) argued for a first mover, a first Cause and a Necessary Being.
He argued that "I AM" implied absolute existence which applied to God alone.
Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove God's Existence
Aquinas' arguments were not entirely new
1) Maimonides had arguments similar to the first three
2) Al-Farabi and Avicenna had the first two
3) Anselm had an argument similar to the 4th argument
4) Aquinas' 5th argument was similar to Thierry of Chartes and William of Conches' adaptation of Plato's Timaeus argument
Aquinas was much more Aristotelian in his thought than any of his Christian predecessors.
He argued from:
1) Motion
2) Efficient Causality
3) Possibility and necessity
4) Gradation (perfection)
5) to a First Cause
Duns Scotus: Argument from Producibility
John Duns Scotus modified Aquinas' argument in two ways:
1) He began with the producibility of being, not merely from produced beings
2) He amplified the argument against an invite regress of dependent causes
Duns Scotus' arg.
1) Some being is produced
a) This is learned via experience
b) This is true independent of experience
c) It would be true even if God had not willed to create anything
2) What is produced is producible either by itself, by nothing or by something else
3) No being can produce itself
4) Something cannot be caused by nothing
5) Therefore, being is producible only by some being that is productive
6) There cannot be an infinite regress of productive beings, each producing the being of the one following it because
a) this is an essentially related series of causes, not an accidentally related one
-where the primary cause is more nearly perfect than the secondary one
-where the secondary cause depends on the primary one for its very causality
-where the cause must be simultaneously present to the effect
b) An infinite series of essentially related causes is impossible because:
-if the whole series is dependent for its causalities then there must be something beyond the series that counts for the causality in the series
-If the infinite series were causing the effect, then there would have to be an infinite number of causes simultaneously causing a single effect, and this is impossible
-where ever there are prior causes there must be a prime cause
-higher causes are more nearly perfect than lower causes and this implies a perfect cause at the head of all other less-than-perfect causes
-an infinite regress of causes implies imperfection. But an imperfect series implies something perfect beyond the series as ground for the imperfect
7) Therefore, there must be a first productive cause of all producible beings
8) This first Cause of all producible beings must be one because:
-It is perfect in knowledge and there cannot be two beings that know everything perfectly
-It is perfect in will, hence it loves itself more completely than anything else
-It is infinitely good and there cannot be two as such because one would be more than infinitely good which is impossible
-It is infinite in power. If there were two that were infinite in power than there would be two primary causes of the same effect, and this is impossible
-Absolutely infinite cannot be excelled in perfection because there cannot be anything more perfect than that which is wholly perfect
-There cannot be two necessary beings because one would possess what the other lacked and if it lacked any perfection it would not be necessary
-Omnipotent will cannot be in two beings because then one could render the other impotent
Ockham's Reservations about the Cosmological Argument
William of Ockham (1290-1350) raised three objections to the cosmological argument:
1) He denied that an essentially related infinite series was impossible
2) He argued that efficient causes are only known via experience. (Causality is "that whose existence or presence is followed by something")
3) He denied that one could prove that there was only one God in the absolute sense of the word. Christian theists insist that the unity of God refers to the "most perfect" Being possible. But the proposition "God exists" is not self evident because a self-evident proposition cannot be doubted and "God exists" is doubted. Since God's unity rests on the proposition "God exists" and it is impossible to know via experience and it is not self-evident there is no way to demonstrate that God is absolutely one.
Descartes' A posteriori Proof for God
Descartes' Proof
1) I am doubting
2) If I am doubting, I am thinking
3) Doubt is an imperfect form of thinking
4) But if I know the imperfect, then I must be aware of the perfect
5) But my imperfect mind cannot be the cause of the idea of perfection that I have
6) Only a perfect Mind is an adequate cause for the idea of perfection
7) Therefore, a perfect mind must exist as the cause of this perfection.
Both Augustine and Descartes have a posteriori arguments for the existence of God which is platonic and has an affinity for the ontological argument.
Leibniz: The argument from Sufficient Reason
Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) provided the most influential form of the cosmological argument in modern times. He argued:
1. The entire world is changing
2. Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence.
3. There is a sufficient reason for its own existence.
4. Therefore, there must be a cause beyond this world for its existence.
5. This cause is either its own sufficient cause or beyond it.
6. There cannot be an infinite regress of sufficient reasons.
7. Therefore, there must be a first Cause that is its own sufficient reason.
Christian Wolff (1679-1754), Leibniz's disciple offered the proof that became the pattern of the cosmological argument for the modern world.
1. The human soul exists.
2. Nothing exists without a sufficient reason why it exists.
3. The reason for our existence must be contained in ourselves or beyond ourselves.
4. The reason for our existence is not in ourselves.
5. The reason for our existence thus lies beyond ourselves.
6. One does not arrive at sufficient reason for his existence until he reaches a being that has its reason for existence within itself.
7. A being that has its reason for existence within itself is a necessary being.
8. Therefore, there must be a necessary being beyond us that is the sufficient reason for our existence.
9. It is logically impossible for a necessary being not to exist.
10. Therefore, this necessary being is identical with the self-existent God of Scripture.
Leibniz's argument (and Wolff's) rests on the principle of sufficient reason which posits itself as a self-evidently true analytic principle.
The argument is a posteriori, but not existential. The necessity of its conclusion is based on a conceptually certainty, not an existential (actual) certainty.
Hume's Skeptical Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument
David Hume (1711-1776) laid down the most fundamental arguments against the cosmological argument:
1) Only a finite cause need be inferred from finite effects
2) No propositions about existence can be logically necessary
3) The words "necessary being" have no consistent meaning. It is possible to think of anything of not existing, even God; and, what might not exist does not need to exist.
4) If "necessary being" means only imperishable, then the universe may be the necessary being.
5) An infinite series is possible. An eternal series cannot have a cause because causes imply priority in time, but nothing can be prior in time to an eternal series. Thus, an eternal series is possible.
6) There is no way to establish the principle of causality
7) The universe as a whole does not need a cause, only the parts do.
8) Theistic argument convince only those who like abstract reasoning.
Kant's Agnosticism on Theistic Argumentation
1) The cosmological argument depends on the invalid ontological argument
2) Existential statements are not necessary
3) A noumenal (real) cause cannot be derived from a phenomenal effect
4) What is logically necessary is not ontologically necessary
5) The cosmological argument leads to metaphysical contradictions
6) The concept of a "necessary being" is not self-clarifying
7) An infinite regress is logically possible
Taylor's restatement of the cosmological argument:
1) The Universe as a whole does not explain its own existence
2) Whatever does not explain its own existence calls for an explanation beyond itself.
3) An infinite regress of reasons is impossible
4) Therefore, there must be a first self-sufficient (independent)_ cause of the whole universe
Taylor's conclusion is rationally inescapable, but it is Leibnizian in that it relies on the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, it is open to similar criticisms.
Hackett's Arguments Based on Explanation
Samuel C. Hackett offered two arguments in the Leibnizian tradition.
The first conceptual argument:
1) The world order is possible only on the basis of several necessary conditions:
- There need to be objective a priori principles of knowledge
- There need to objective essences that define the properties of things in the world
- There needs to be a reason why of all the possible worlds this is the one that exists
2) These realities show all of the properties that are associated with the structuring activity of a mind
3) Therefore, these realities can be understood as the workings of an absolute mind.
4) Therefore, there exists an absolute mind as necessary condition to the logical possibility of this world.
His second, causal argument:
1) If anything exists, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
2) Something exists
3) Therefore, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
Hackett's arguments suffer from an unwarranted assumption that a sufficient cause must be an ultimate cause. A finite cause may suffice.
Ross' argument based on Explanation
James F. Ross provided two versions of the argument based on explanation
First:
1) If something is not the case, there must be an explanation for it not being so.
2) Considering the state of affairs, "God does not exist" cannot be the case.
3) Therefore, since "God dos not exist" cannot be the case, "God exists" must be the case. Thus, God exists.
Craig's Kalam Argument
William Lane Craig has produced an argument based on the need to posit an original cause for the universe. He has three premises:
1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise 1 seems intuit, but is questionable and uneasy to prove via demonstration
Premise 2 is completely questionable.
The argument, if it stands, does not prove theism because it does not eliminate pantheism.
Teleological and moral arguments depend on the principle of sufficient reason and/or causality. Both of which are questionable.
The ontological argument depends on the cosmological argument because it is theoretically possible that nothing ever existed at all.
The cosmological argument (in Leibnizian form) is rationally inescapable only if the principle of sufficient reason is rationally inescapable. But the principle of sufficient reason is neither analytically or self-evidently true.
The cosmological arguments leaves the actual for the conceptual at call thing world contingent and stating a necessary Being is one whose non-existence is logically impossible. This opens it to Kant's criticism that it confuses the principle of existential causality with the principle of sufficient reason.
The Kalam argument does not prove a theistic God, but a God that could be pantheistic.
9: The Cosmological Argument Reevaluated
Most attempts to defend the cosmological argument in a non-Leibnizian way emanate from Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas did not base his argument on the principle of sufficient reason, but on existential causality.
The Leibnizian type argument is built on logical necessity, whereas the Thomistic argument is based on existential undeniability.
The Cosmological Argument Restated
1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings
5. The first cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchanging and one
6. The first uncaused cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
It is logically possible that nothing ever existed. That is, it is possible to conceive of the nonexistence of everything.
Linehan: But logic is an affirmation of existence, so to conceive of the nonexistence of everything is a logical inference and thus, self-defeating?
Any being that undergoes a change is a contingent being. Necessary Beings are immutable.
Whatever changes in existence must be composed of actuality and potentiality.
The fact that there is change is proof that there is potential and actualization of potential.
No potential actualizes itself.
There must be some actuality outside of composed beings (beings possessing potential and actuality) to explain why they exist.
Actuality is a thing's existence and its potentiality is its essence.
An efficient cause is a necessary and sufficient condition to account for the actualization of a potential.
An infinite regress is a series without a first or beginning cause.
A self-caused thing is impossible because it would have had to exist before it existed in order to cause itself.
A way out of this dilemma is to argue that the infinite regress is circular or mutually dependent.
But this argument is obviously circular and thus, fallacious.
To deny causality within an infinite regress is simply an attempt to explain away the need for an explanation (a real need) on ground for the ungrounded finite being.
A being that needs ground for his own existence cannot be the ground of another being that needs to be grounded. One contingent being cannot ground another contingent being.
There must be a first Cause of the existence of every finite thing that exists.
The first Cause is the efficient Cause.
The Frist Cause is an uncaused cause. It can neither be self-caused (impossible) or caused by another (thus negating its status as the first cause).
The uncaused cause must be an unlimited being. If caused things are limited, uncaused things must be unlimited.
An unlimited Being must be a Necessary Being because it can not be limited by contingency.
God is not a logically necessary Being, He is an ontologically necessary being.
The uncaused Being must be an eternal Being. If nothing ever existed (a logical possibility) then nothing would ever exist because nothing can cause itself.
The uncaused Cause must be a simple, undivided Being. The uncaused Cause is pure actuality with no potentiality.
The uncaused Cause of existence must be immutable. What is changeable possess potentiality, thus pure actuality is unchangeable.
An uncaused Cause must be one Being. There cannot be two pure actualities. Pure actuality is indivisible.
The pure actuality possess all of the perfections of being infinite. Thus, the uncaused cause is the source of all perfections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)