(Originally written March 29, 2007 in Book 16)
"Phonography"
Lee B. Brown
Different technologies produce different sounds.
The phonophile will idealize canned music. He will prefer the recordings to live music.
The viaphile or phonophobe will idealize the live music experience.
Sonic Manipulation of Art
Can some manipulation be art? That is, can the art be the recording rather than the music itself.
Improvisational music is not reidentifiable.
Without recording improv music can be repeated only by imitation.
Test 2: Study Guide
Sibley
- Aesthetic features do not logically depend upon on-aesthetic features
- the impossibility of universal rules
- rule applying is non-aesthetic
- aesthetic terms: unified, balance, vivid, moving and tragic
- non-aesthetic terms
Walton
- historical considerations are crucial for categorizing and evaluation, artwork
- variable properties - non essential features to the piece's genre
- standard properties - essential failures of the piece's genre
- contra-standard properties - features that almost eliminate the piece from genre
- non-aesthetic considerations:
--number of standard features
--maximum aesthetic appeal
--artist intention
--well-established category
Collingwood
-Art is fundamentally an expression of one's emotion
-Art is spontaneous, it is the imagination coming to life
Bell
-Significant form: the lines and colors that which form the emotions in the viewer
Hagberg:
- 'Paradoxical Expression' - art is public. Emotion is private. Art is expression of emotion.
- Hagberg solves the paradox by denying that emotions are private via Wittgensteinian philosophical behaviorism. Emotions are disposition to "X".
Weitz
- Art is undefinable
- Art as a category bears the Wittgensteinian family resemblance model
- Defining criteria are necessary and sufficient conditions. Recognizing criteria are the "boundary conditions" for what is being recognized
Dickie
- Art as a social institution
- Art world - these who view and create art, publishers, artistic, critics, etc.
- Circularity problem: Art is that which deemed by the art world. To create art one must make an artifact and present it to the art world
- Solitary art problem: no first piece of art
Dante
- Art world is logically dependent on theory
- Art "is" vs. identity and prediction
Goodman
-Autographic - works that cannot be reproduced without it being forgery
-Allographic - repeated or copied work, the one as authentic as the original
Dutton
- Forgery is misrepresenting achievement
Two kinds of "philistinism"
1) All that matters is consideration of origin
2) All that matters is form
Eaton
-Aestheticism - art is immune to ethical judgments
-Moralism - art is good or bad based on the effect it has upon the viewer's/hearer's moral nature
-Ethicism - uses morality as a value criteria, but not as the sole criteria
Eagleton
Literature:
1) Is essentially imaginative
problem - some literature is historical. Some imaginative stuff is not literature.
2) Russian Formalism - literature is that which transforms and intensifies language
problem - presupposes knowledge of literary and ordinary language
3) non-useful writing
4) valued writings
1) Authorial intention - meaning is in the author's mind
problem - Author died, unknown
2) Structuralism - meaning in the text
problem: author intent is meaningless
3) Post-Structuralism - meaning in reader's understanding
problem: authorial intention and structuralism is meaningless, relative
Foucault
Author - concept of author emerged as way of wielding power
Author function - guides an institution of discourse determines the status of particular discourse within a society
Shusterman
Hermeneutic universalism - all experience is interpreted
Foundationalism - indubitable axioms deduction from aims we know we know when we know.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Original Monotheism Notes
Originally written March 27, 2007 in Book 15
Christian Presuppositions
1. The Authority of Scripture
2. The historical Christ
3. Mediation through Christ's atonement
4. Faith
- cognitive dimension of faith
- faith involves trust
Models of Relationship
Model 1: Complete Continuity
One way of looking at Christianity in comparison to other religions is to regard all religion as interwoven Christianity is distinctive in this model but, not more so than any other religion.
John Hick uses this model. He held that all religions are responses to an ultimate transcendent reality.
Hick believes all religions are equally imperfect in their ways of relating to the ultimate transcendent reality because "the Real" is beyond human concepts.
Model 2: Complete Discontinuity
Christianity shares nothing with other religions. And it is separate in every category.
J.A. DiNoia believes all religions are equally unique. He held that each religion exists in its own context and shows no similarity.
Karl Barth conceived of Christianity as being wholly unique from all other religions to the point where he felt it but to not consider Christianity as a religion.
He held all religions to be a human attempt to establish themselves as their own god.
Model 3: Certainty on the basis of superiority and inferiority
This model allows for all religions to be categorically similar while one religion can possess more truth.
The Catholic Church believes in a hierarchy of received grace from the God.
From top to bottom:
1. The Church
2. Orthodox & Protestants
3. Jews
4. Muslims
5. Polytheists & Animists
6. Moral Atheists
The Catholic Church has the most grace while the Moral Atheist has the least grace.
Model 4: Discontinuity on the whole with some commonalities
Christianity is categorically different from all other religions, but there is some overlap in some areas.
General Revelation and Original Monotheism
Christianity is both unique and not unique. In some ways Christianity is discontinuous with other religions, while it shares features with other religions.
Christianity is based on specific revelation: the Word of God and the person of Christ. But there is revelation outside of Christianity's specific revelation.
Two types of revelation:
- General Revelation - God is known via nature
- Special Revelation - God's direct self-disclosure to man.
The idea that God has persisted throughout the history of mankind is "original monotheism".
Precursor-non-Theistic Theories
In the 19th Century it was assumed that religions evolved alongside mankind. During the 20th century this assumption was largely abandoned.
Origin theories of Religion
- Celestial Phenomena: Religion began with deifying heavenly bodies.
- Natural Phenomena: Religion arose with endowing personhood on natural occurrences
- Manism - Religion began with venerating on deceased human beings
- Manaism - "Mana" is a power that human beings can tap into for magical energy. "mana" belief is the root of all religion.
- Magic: Magic was the origin of all religion.
-Totemism - Religion originated on the societal level.
- Animism - Religion began with the recognition of personal spirits (both natural and ancestral)
Problems with evolutionary theories of religion
1. Identifying which are truly the oldest human cultures so that the equivalence between oldest culture and oldest religion can be drawn.
- evolutionary theory arguments are often circular
2. Distinguishing between the rule and the exception
- Shaky data was used to support shaky theories
3. Allowing the theory to dictate the data
- Most of the theories had a philosophical or sociological background rater than an observational one.
Lang and Other Early Theories of Original Monotheism
Anthropology discovered that many preliterate cultures had a singular creator god who lived int the sky.
This sky god seemed to have many of the qualities associated with the monotheistic god.
Since the monotheistic God was seen as the top of the evolutionary process it was troublesome for the evolutionary theory that such primitive cultures would have such an evolved god.
Andrew Lang promoted the theory that the origin of religion lies in the knowledge of the single creator god.
Wilhelm Schmidt and Ethnohistory
Schmidt provided an anthropological method for deciding the relative age of cultures called ethnohistory.
His theory dispensed of the notion of a single global evolution.
Schmidt's development among preliterate societies:
Primordial - hunter/gatherers
Primary -
1) Hunter (patrilineal and totemism)
2) Horticulturalists (Matrilineal and fertility oriented)
3) Nomadic cattle herders
Secondary - Agriculturalists
Tertiary - Ancient City Builders
Schmidt held that original monotheism is the most basic religion and other parts of religion like polytheism and spirit worship evolved as the society became more advanced.
Schmidt's Expressions of God:
1. God - there is one God, but there could be many spirits (who are not worshipped as God)
2. Father - God is the Father of all
3. Skydweller - God lives in a celestial place.
4. Creator - God made what exists.
5. Superior one - God is not human, he does not have a human body.
6. Everlasting one - God is not subject to time the way man is.
7. All-knowing one - God knows what we say or think
8. All-good one - God is good. God made the moral rules.
9. All powerful one - God is not limited in his power to do anything.
Original Monotheism & Revelation (40)
One-sixth done!
Christian Presuppositions
1. The Authority of Scripture
2. The historical Christ
3. Mediation through Christ's atonement
4. Faith
- cognitive dimension of faith
- faith involves trust
Models of Relationship
Model 1: Complete Continuity
One way of looking at Christianity in comparison to other religions is to regard all religion as interwoven Christianity is distinctive in this model but, not more so than any other religion.
John Hick uses this model. He held that all religions are responses to an ultimate transcendent reality.
Hick believes all religions are equally imperfect in their ways of relating to the ultimate transcendent reality because "the Real" is beyond human concepts.
Model 2: Complete Discontinuity
Christianity shares nothing with other religions. And it is separate in every category.
J.A. DiNoia believes all religions are equally unique. He held that each religion exists in its own context and shows no similarity.
Karl Barth conceived of Christianity as being wholly unique from all other religions to the point where he felt it but to not consider Christianity as a religion.
He held all religions to be a human attempt to establish themselves as their own god.
Model 3: Certainty on the basis of superiority and inferiority
This model allows for all religions to be categorically similar while one religion can possess more truth.
The Catholic Church believes in a hierarchy of received grace from the God.
From top to bottom:
1. The Church
2. Orthodox & Protestants
3. Jews
4. Muslims
5. Polytheists & Animists
6. Moral Atheists
The Catholic Church has the most grace while the Moral Atheist has the least grace.
Model 4: Discontinuity on the whole with some commonalities
Christianity is categorically different from all other religions, but there is some overlap in some areas.
General Revelation and Original Monotheism
Christianity is both unique and not unique. In some ways Christianity is discontinuous with other religions, while it shares features with other religions.
Christianity is based on specific revelation: the Word of God and the person of Christ. But there is revelation outside of Christianity's specific revelation.
Two types of revelation:
- General Revelation - God is known via nature
- Special Revelation - God's direct self-disclosure to man.
The idea that God has persisted throughout the history of mankind is "original monotheism".
Precursor-non-Theistic Theories
In the 19th Century it was assumed that religions evolved alongside mankind. During the 20th century this assumption was largely abandoned.
Origin theories of Religion
- Celestial Phenomena: Religion began with deifying heavenly bodies.
- Natural Phenomena: Religion arose with endowing personhood on natural occurrences
- Manism - Religion began with venerating on deceased human beings
- Manaism - "Mana" is a power that human beings can tap into for magical energy. "mana" belief is the root of all religion.
- Magic: Magic was the origin of all religion.
-Totemism - Religion originated on the societal level.
- Animism - Religion began with the recognition of personal spirits (both natural and ancestral)
Problems with evolutionary theories of religion
1. Identifying which are truly the oldest human cultures so that the equivalence between oldest culture and oldest religion can be drawn.
- evolutionary theory arguments are often circular
2. Distinguishing between the rule and the exception
- Shaky data was used to support shaky theories
3. Allowing the theory to dictate the data
- Most of the theories had a philosophical or sociological background rater than an observational one.
Lang and Other Early Theories of Original Monotheism
Anthropology discovered that many preliterate cultures had a singular creator god who lived int the sky.
This sky god seemed to have many of the qualities associated with the monotheistic god.
Since the monotheistic God was seen as the top of the evolutionary process it was troublesome for the evolutionary theory that such primitive cultures would have such an evolved god.
Andrew Lang promoted the theory that the origin of religion lies in the knowledge of the single creator god.
Wilhelm Schmidt and Ethnohistory
Schmidt provided an anthropological method for deciding the relative age of cultures called ethnohistory.
His theory dispensed of the notion of a single global evolution.
Schmidt's development among preliterate societies:
Primordial - hunter/gatherers
Primary -
1) Hunter (patrilineal and totemism)
2) Horticulturalists (Matrilineal and fertility oriented)
3) Nomadic cattle herders
Secondary - Agriculturalists
Tertiary - Ancient City Builders
Schmidt held that original monotheism is the most basic religion and other parts of religion like polytheism and spirit worship evolved as the society became more advanced.
Schmidt's Expressions of God:
1. God - there is one God, but there could be many spirits (who are not worshipped as God)
2. Father - God is the Father of all
3. Skydweller - God lives in a celestial place.
4. Creator - God made what exists.
5. Superior one - God is not human, he does not have a human body.
6. Everlasting one - God is not subject to time the way man is.
7. All-knowing one - God knows what we say or think
8. All-good one - God is good. God made the moral rules.
9. All powerful one - God is not limited in his power to do anything.
Original Monotheism & Revelation (40)
One-sixth done!
Book notes on Shinto
(Originally written March 27, 2007 in Book 15)
A Tapestry of Faiths
Win Corduan
12: Shinto
Origin - Japanese traditional religion with no definitive origin
Essential beliefs and practices
- A system of practices, not doctrines, veneration of the Kami (spiritual reality)
Scriptures
- Kojiki, Nihongi, Amatsu Norito
Major Contemporary Divisions
- State, Shrine, Domestic and Sectarian. Other Shinto is fused with Buddhism.
A Tapestry of Faiths
Win Corduan
12: Shinto
Origin - Japanese traditional religion with no definitive origin
Essential beliefs and practices
- A system of practices, not doctrines, veneration of the Kami (spiritual reality)
Scriptures
- Kojiki, Nihongi, Amatsu Norito
Major Contemporary Divisions
- State, Shrine, Domestic and Sectarian. Other Shinto is fused with Buddhism.
Class notes on Augustine's division of history
(Originally written March 27, 2007 in Book 15)
Class notes
Salvation
The Christian emphasis on salvation being the most important part of religion is a criteria of differentiating it from all other religions.
Christianity is unique in its conception of Original Sin (or Fallenness or Total Depravity).Christians cannot save themselves nor do they believe man is desiring of salvation.
Atonement (makes possible) grace. Grace (how we receive it) is faith.
Augustine vs. Pelagius (c.a. 400 A.D.)
Pelagius held that we must be able to achieve the righteousness required to go to Heaven or else God couldn't have given the Commandments.
Augustine held that the commandments are given so as to show our fallenness in order to receive grace from God.
Pelagianism - possible to earn salvation, but salvation via grace is a secondary option.
Semi-Pelagianism - Grace is essential to salvation; once one has received the grace of God then one has the ability to earn one's salvation.
Receiving God's grace is not merely the forgiving of all our sins, it includes a transformation of the receiver's nature.
Regeneration - 2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come; the old has gone, the new is here!
Augustine's 4 divisions of history
1) Adam & Eve in the Garden
- "posse pecare" - it is possible to sin
2) Fallenness pre-Christ
- "non posse non pecare" - not possible not to sin
3) Fallenness post-Christ
- " posse non pecare" - it is possible to not sin
4) In Heaven
- "non posse pecare" - not possible to sin
Justification - God declares us to be righteous in the light of the work of Christ
Conversion - a change in the will.
Class notes
Salvation
The Christian emphasis on salvation being the most important part of religion is a criteria of differentiating it from all other religions.
Christianity is unique in its conception of Original Sin (or Fallenness or Total Depravity).Christians cannot save themselves nor do they believe man is desiring of salvation.
Atonement (makes possible) grace. Grace (how we receive it) is faith.
Augustine vs. Pelagius (c.a. 400 A.D.)
Pelagius held that we must be able to achieve the righteousness required to go to Heaven or else God couldn't have given the Commandments.
Augustine held that the commandments are given so as to show our fallenness in order to receive grace from God.
Pelagianism - possible to earn salvation, but salvation via grace is a secondary option.
Semi-Pelagianism - Grace is essential to salvation; once one has received the grace of God then one has the ability to earn one's salvation.
Receiving God's grace is not merely the forgiving of all our sins, it includes a transformation of the receiver's nature.
Regeneration - 2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come; the old has gone, the new is here!
Augustine's 4 divisions of history
1) Adam & Eve in the Garden
- "posse pecare" - it is possible to sin
2) Fallenness pre-Christ
- "non posse non pecare" - not possible not to sin
3) Fallenness post-Christ
- " posse non pecare" - it is possible to not sin
4) In Heaven
- "non posse pecare" - not possible to sin
Justification - God declares us to be righteous in the light of the work of Christ
Conversion - a change in the will.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Physical & Moral Evil
(Originally written March 26, 2007 in Book 25)
The Question of Freedom
Plantinga holds that man cannot be caused to have his actions come out in anyway by God's direct or indirect influence.
Plantinga's argument hinges on the belief that humans are significantly free creatures.
The Structure of This Theodicy
Theism acknowledges that God could have chose not to create, that God could have chosen to create a moral world and that God could have created a moral world with free creatures who never chose to sin.
A world with evil is a morally necessary prerequisite to the most perfect world possible.
Theistic Answers to the Problem of Moral Evil
The Theist must prove three things to answer the problem of moral evil:
1) This world is the best way to obtain the best world possible
2) No other possibility is more probable
3) Sufficient reason to believe the best possible world is achievable
The Possibility of a Theistic answer to Evil
If it can be demonstrated that this present world is not the best of al possible ways to achieve the best of all possible moral worlds than this answer to the problem of evil is refuted.
The evil of this world is part of a greater good. If the evil of this world were an end not a means than theism would have a problem.
Disproofs of God from evil are self-defeating because they assume an ultimate (divine) perspective in order to disprove such a perspective
There is no logical contradiction in stating this evil world is a condition for achieving a better one.
The theistic solution to the moral problem of evil is at least possible
The probability of a theistic answer to evil
The probability of the theistic solution to evil (this world is the best way to achieve the best of all possible moral worlds) can be established three ways:
1) Inference from the nature of God as the best Being coupled with the fact that this is not the best possible world leads us to infer that this world must be the best way to achieve the best world
2) By comparing the available alternatives to the theistic God it can be concluded that the morally best world is better than a morally good world or no moral world at all
3) By examining human history one can see the evidence of the probability of this best world to come
The Argument from the Nature of God and this world
1) God is an absolutely perfect Being
2) Producing less than a best possible world would be an evil for God
3) God cannot produce evil
4) God produced this world
5) This world as is, is not the best possible world
6) Therefore, there must be a perfect world to come
The Argument from the alternatives open to God
God had four possibilities in creating a moral world:
1) Not to create a world at all
2) Create an amoral world
3) Create a moral world with free beings who would not choose evil
4) Create a moral world with free beings who would choose evil.
Not to create a world at all cannot be better than choice 4 (the way God created) because nothing cannot be assumed to be better than something
No world could not be metaphysically better than some world because no world would have no metaphysical status
No world could not be morally better than some world because no world is not a moral world at all
There is no way of comparing an amoral world to a moral world. An amoral world is spoken about meaninglessly
The problems for an anti-theist in arguing that a morally perfect world is better than a morally good or morally bad world is that in order to make this judgment the anti-theist must assume a moral objective standard which can only be had by a God
The anti-theist really can only insist that theism is not internally consistent
The theist can reply in two ways:
1) A world with the greater number of virtues is morally better than a world with less virtues and moral viruses like courage, fortitude, mercy and forgiveness are only possible in a sinful/evil world
2) A world with a higher attainment of moral virtues is morally better than a world with a lower attainment and virtues like love and kindness are heightened by the presence of evil
1) God must produce the morally best world he can produce
2) A world where evil serves as a condition for the attainment of higher virtues is a better tone than where less than the highest virtues are attained
3) This world is a world wherein evil serves as such a condition
4) Therefore, this world is better than a world where evil never occurred
A non-evil world versus an evil world
Theists can argue agains this in two ways
1) A world with fully free creatures who chose never to sin may be logically possible, but not actually so
2) Even if such a world occurred it would not be morally better than this one
1) God would not produce a world where free beings will always do evil if it were possible to produce one where they will never more do evil
2) This is a world where free beings do evil
3) Therefore, the world is not God's final production
1) It is morally better for God to create the morally best world possible
2) A world with higher moral virtues is a morally better world
3) A world where humans are permitted to sin as a precondition to a better world is better than one where they are not
4) This present world is one where humans are free and do sin
5) Therefore, this present world is better than a world where humans never sin
God cannot do the impossible and to create a morally perfect world without creating the preconditions for such a world is impossible.
1) God cannot do what is impossible
2) It is impossible to create conditional virtues directly
3) A world with the highest moral virtues is conditioned on the presence of evil
4) Therefore, God cannot create directly a world with the highest moral virtues in it
A world of good and evil is a necessary condition for choosing either good or evil.
It is impossible for God to create directly a world with achieved moral values of the highest nature.
Eschatological verification of this theodicy
A skeptic may challenge this theodicy in claiming that something that is only verifiable in the future is of no assistance to us here and now in deciding what is true
There are two types of obtainable evidence for this theodicy:
1) Human experience is witness to the fact that free beings achieve higher moral perfection through suffering
2) Divine intervention is an evidence that something has ben done to reverse the course of world events for the better
The Attainability of a Theistic Answer to Evil
Is it possible that evil will eventually be totally overcome?
How is it logistically possible to achieve the maximum moral good out of the abuse of moral freedom?
How can we account for the moral evil that never brought about a greater good?
What explanation is offer able for the evils that do not result from an abuse of moral freedom?
How God brings good out of evil is not a serious problem for theism.
William James put it well when he wrote, "The word is all the richer for having a devil in it, so long as we keep our feet upon his neck" (357).
Only an all powerful being is capable of eradicating evil completely. Only an omniscient Being can utilize good and evil for the greatest good. Only an all-loving God would grant creatures the freedom to reject Him.
1) It is logically possible for evil to turn out for a greater good.
2) An all powerful God has the ability to bring the greatest good out of evil.
3) An all-loving God has the desire to bring the greatest good out of evil.
4) An all-knowing God possesses the wisdom to bring out the greatest good from evil
5) Therefore, the greatest good will be brought out of evil.
All moral evil is a necessary condition to achieving a greater good.
But, why does God permit unnecessary suffering or unnecessary moral evil?
Theism is the only solution to the moral problem of evil and the success of it hinges on the guarantee of an infinite God.
A world capable of optimal moral perfection implies a world of optimal moral freedom. The highest moral perfection depends on the presence of evil obstacles. Thus, there must be a permanent heaven (when evil will nevermore be done) and a permanent hell (where evil will evermore be done, but can never spread).
"Demanding that a man consent to love God against his will would be divine rape. It is better that each person be given the free choice to love or not love God" (362).
An optimally perfect moral world should contain four components:
1. The process leading to the final achievement of a world where humans are free but never will do any evil.
2. A world wherein is permitted the full and final uncorked exercise of moral freedom
3. A world in which there is permitted the presence of enough evil to provide both the condition for the achievement of higher moral virtues and a comprehensive lesson of the wrongness of evil for creatures.
4. A world where free creatures learn for themselves why evil is wrong.
The Physical Problem of Evil
The Problem of Physical Evil for Theism
It appears that not all evil results directly or indirectly from the abuse of human freedom.
Posing the problem of physical evil
Albert Camus' Plague is the most widely used problem of physical evil.
1) Either one must join the Doctor and fight the plague or else he must join the priest and not fight the plague.
2) Not to fight the plague is anti humanitarian
3) To fight the plague is to fight against God who sent it
4) Therefore, if humanitarianism is right, theism is wrong
5) Humanitarianism is right
6) Therefore, theism is wrong
The dilemma for the theist is this: if suffering is a condition of the greater good than we ought not to eliminate suffering so as to indirectly work against the greatest good.
Proposed Theistic Solutions to Physical Evil
1. Evil is a necessary contrast to Good
- without pain one cannot fully appreciate pleasure
- problems: it only explains pain, less pain would accomplish the same thing, even if evil depends on good, experience show that one can know the good without participating in evil
2. Evil is a necessary byproduct of laws that bring good results
problems: -only explains some kinds of evil, an omnipotent God could have created a world without evil byproducts. an omnipotent God could intervene and stop evil byproducts
3. Evil is necessary to punish the wicked
problems: - Job suffered innocently, Jesus said sin si not the cause of all suffering (Luke 13:4), babies are born with deformities
4. Evil is a necessary example to others
problems: - accounts for only a tiny portion of suffering
5. Evil is necessary to warn the wicked
problems: physical disasters often turn people away from God, not to God, Natural disasters are inconsistent with a benevolent God
6. Evil is a necessary part of the best possible world
problems: - an all powerful God could make a world without evil, the unjust distribution of evil could be distributed justly
7. Evil is necessary for ultimate harmony
problems: it makes evil only prima facie and eliminates reform, it makes evil illusionary because it is not evil in God's eyes, it gives God a double standard
8. Evil is a necessary condition for achieving the best world
Problems: - it does not explain first order evil, the price for long run goods is too high, some long run consequences are evil, immortal bliss does not justify suffering
9. Evil is a necessary conflict among natural systems
problems: God could have created a world without conflicting systems
10. Evil is necessary to build character
Problems: character building does not apply to all evil, the price is too high to make character building worthwhile
A Theistic Solution to the Problem of Physical Evil
Many of the anti-theistic criticism gain weight only by assuming false pretexts
- an all powerful God is capable of creating the best possible world without suffering
- the greater good does not result from suffering
- evil cannot be explained as necessary to human freedom
- the best world possible is not worth the high price to achieve it
Unnecessary evil of any kind is inconsistent with an absolutely perfect God. Thus, all evil is somehow necessary
One major criticism of the theistic solution to physical evil is that theists try to use a combination of all these tactics. They cannot achieve success because each is like a leaky bucket and no matter how many leaky buckets are used to catch water, water will still seep through. But, in reality each of these is like a bucket that has no leaks, but can only hold so much water. All the buckets together can hold all the water and all the solutions can explain all the evil.
Some physical evils are necessary conditions for moral perfections. There are second order goods that are unachievable without first order evils.
Some physical evils are a necessary consequence of human free choice.
The elimination of pain would eliminate all pleasure. One cannot have a painful experience without knowing the meaning of non-pain and one cannot have a pleasurable experience without knowing a non-pleasurable experience (i.e. pain).
Some physical evil is a necessary consequence of the free choice of demons.
Why doesn't God eliminate demonic powers? The best way to defeat evil is to let it expires itself because it is ultimately self-defeating.
Some physical evil is a necessary moral warning.
C.S. Lewis held that 'God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is his megaphone to rouse the deaf world" (376)
While it is true that not all persons respond positively to pain, it still remains an opportunity to respond positively.
God would be morally accountable if he did not warn us with pain as a doctor would be morally accountable not to warn sexually actively clients of the danger of AIDS.
Some physical evils are necessary components of a physical world. The pain of lower life forms is a necessary condition for the sustaining of higher life forms.
Objections to the Theistic solution to Physical evil
1) This theodicy implies that the ends justify the means.
Response: God has utilitarian goals, but does not use utilitarian means. That is, He allows evil to happen and uses it to create the ultimate good but does not use evil (commit it) to achieve such an end.
2) The theodicy does not account for the vastness of evil or the unequal distribution of it.
Respones:
1) No finite mind can really press this point
2) This theodicy need not measure evil quantitatively
3) This theodicy entails a double standard
Response: God does not commit the evil acts, only permits them. There is only one standard and that is God Himself. God cannot break that standard because he cannot contradict himself
4) This theodicy implies it is wrong to alleviate human suffering
Respones: when man is working against evil he is not frustrating God's effort, but fulfilling them. God does not send human suffering. Man's free choice causes suffering.
5) This theodicy exalts human freedom at the expense of divine sovereignty
Response: Moral acts are self-determined. Human self-determination enhances God's sovereignty and human dignity.
Finished!! Done! Praise God!
My thoughts on Evil:
1) Evil is a privation
2) Evil is only existent in the absence of good
3) God is good
4) The world contains evil.
5) The world is not wholly evil
6) Therefore, God is neither wholly present nor wholly absent from the world
Physical evil and moral evil are subcategories of metaphysical evils
All evil regardless of it being physical or moral is a result of human choice.
Moral evil is a direct result of human choice. But who the vil befalls may not be the direct choice maker, i.e. the Nazis chose to kill the Jews. The Jews suffered a moral evil because of a direct choice of the Nazis. But the Nazis eventually suffered for their choices.
Physical Evil is an indirect result of human choice. The flood (the first natural disaster) was a direct result of human choice to be wicked. Subsequent disasters are a result of the ecosystem being traumatized by the flood. Thus while no wicked acts may be directly responsible for Katrina or the Tsunami of 2004, they are nonetheless a recurring punitive measure for human wickedness.
All evil is inherited. We are all relatives in that we are all descendent of Adam and Eve. Their moral sin had physical and spiritual consequences. We inherit the physical consequences (death) in our DNA, but we also inherit the spiritual consequences (fallenness) via our inherited spiritual DNA.
Yes, I am advocating that souls, like physical bodies are created via reproduction. This is a very plausible explanation of how all men have fallen short of the glory of God and for the sins of the father. Souls are created from father and mother history. The sins of all ancestors are passed down to each generation. This also explains why Jesus Christ did not inherit a sin nature or fallenness because
because he was not born of a man. Thus, he did not inherit the sins of the Father because his father is God and thus, sinless.
The Question of Freedom
Plantinga holds that man cannot be caused to have his actions come out in anyway by God's direct or indirect influence.
Plantinga's argument hinges on the belief that humans are significantly free creatures.
The Structure of This Theodicy
Theism acknowledges that God could have chose not to create, that God could have chosen to create a moral world and that God could have created a moral world with free creatures who never chose to sin.
A world with evil is a morally necessary prerequisite to the most perfect world possible.
Theistic Answers to the Problem of Moral Evil
The Theist must prove three things to answer the problem of moral evil:
1) This world is the best way to obtain the best world possible
2) No other possibility is more probable
3) Sufficient reason to believe the best possible world is achievable
The Possibility of a Theistic answer to Evil
If it can be demonstrated that this present world is not the best of al possible ways to achieve the best of all possible moral worlds than this answer to the problem of evil is refuted.
The evil of this world is part of a greater good. If the evil of this world were an end not a means than theism would have a problem.
Disproofs of God from evil are self-defeating because they assume an ultimate (divine) perspective in order to disprove such a perspective
There is no logical contradiction in stating this evil world is a condition for achieving a better one.
The theistic solution to the moral problem of evil is at least possible
The probability of a theistic answer to evil
The probability of the theistic solution to evil (this world is the best way to achieve the best of all possible moral worlds) can be established three ways:
1) Inference from the nature of God as the best Being coupled with the fact that this is not the best possible world leads us to infer that this world must be the best way to achieve the best world
2) By comparing the available alternatives to the theistic God it can be concluded that the morally best world is better than a morally good world or no moral world at all
3) By examining human history one can see the evidence of the probability of this best world to come
The Argument from the Nature of God and this world
1) God is an absolutely perfect Being
2) Producing less than a best possible world would be an evil for God
3) God cannot produce evil
4) God produced this world
5) This world as is, is not the best possible world
6) Therefore, there must be a perfect world to come
The Argument from the alternatives open to God
God had four possibilities in creating a moral world:
1) Not to create a world at all
2) Create an amoral world
3) Create a moral world with free beings who would not choose evil
4) Create a moral world with free beings who would choose evil.
Not to create a world at all cannot be better than choice 4 (the way God created) because nothing cannot be assumed to be better than something
No world could not be metaphysically better than some world because no world would have no metaphysical status
No world could not be morally better than some world because no world is not a moral world at all
There is no way of comparing an amoral world to a moral world. An amoral world is spoken about meaninglessly
The problems for an anti-theist in arguing that a morally perfect world is better than a morally good or morally bad world is that in order to make this judgment the anti-theist must assume a moral objective standard which can only be had by a God
The anti-theist really can only insist that theism is not internally consistent
The theist can reply in two ways:
1) A world with the greater number of virtues is morally better than a world with less virtues and moral viruses like courage, fortitude, mercy and forgiveness are only possible in a sinful/evil world
2) A world with a higher attainment of moral virtues is morally better than a world with a lower attainment and virtues like love and kindness are heightened by the presence of evil
1) God must produce the morally best world he can produce
2) A world where evil serves as a condition for the attainment of higher virtues is a better tone than where less than the highest virtues are attained
3) This world is a world wherein evil serves as such a condition
4) Therefore, this world is better than a world where evil never occurred
A non-evil world versus an evil world
Theists can argue agains this in two ways
1) A world with fully free creatures who chose never to sin may be logically possible, but not actually so
2) Even if such a world occurred it would not be morally better than this one
1) God would not produce a world where free beings will always do evil if it were possible to produce one where they will never more do evil
2) This is a world where free beings do evil
3) Therefore, the world is not God's final production
1) It is morally better for God to create the morally best world possible
2) A world with higher moral virtues is a morally better world
3) A world where humans are permitted to sin as a precondition to a better world is better than one where they are not
4) This present world is one where humans are free and do sin
5) Therefore, this present world is better than a world where humans never sin
God cannot do the impossible and to create a morally perfect world without creating the preconditions for such a world is impossible.
1) God cannot do what is impossible
2) It is impossible to create conditional virtues directly
3) A world with the highest moral virtues is conditioned on the presence of evil
4) Therefore, God cannot create directly a world with the highest moral virtues in it
A world of good and evil is a necessary condition for choosing either good or evil.
It is impossible for God to create directly a world with achieved moral values of the highest nature.
Eschatological verification of this theodicy
A skeptic may challenge this theodicy in claiming that something that is only verifiable in the future is of no assistance to us here and now in deciding what is true
There are two types of obtainable evidence for this theodicy:
1) Human experience is witness to the fact that free beings achieve higher moral perfection through suffering
2) Divine intervention is an evidence that something has ben done to reverse the course of world events for the better
The Attainability of a Theistic Answer to Evil
Is it possible that evil will eventually be totally overcome?
How is it logistically possible to achieve the maximum moral good out of the abuse of moral freedom?
How can we account for the moral evil that never brought about a greater good?
What explanation is offer able for the evils that do not result from an abuse of moral freedom?
How God brings good out of evil is not a serious problem for theism.
William James put it well when he wrote, "The word is all the richer for having a devil in it, so long as we keep our feet upon his neck" (357).
Only an all powerful being is capable of eradicating evil completely. Only an omniscient Being can utilize good and evil for the greatest good. Only an all-loving God would grant creatures the freedom to reject Him.
1) It is logically possible for evil to turn out for a greater good.
2) An all powerful God has the ability to bring the greatest good out of evil.
3) An all-loving God has the desire to bring the greatest good out of evil.
4) An all-knowing God possesses the wisdom to bring out the greatest good from evil
5) Therefore, the greatest good will be brought out of evil.
All moral evil is a necessary condition to achieving a greater good.
But, why does God permit unnecessary suffering or unnecessary moral evil?
Theism is the only solution to the moral problem of evil and the success of it hinges on the guarantee of an infinite God.
A world capable of optimal moral perfection implies a world of optimal moral freedom. The highest moral perfection depends on the presence of evil obstacles. Thus, there must be a permanent heaven (when evil will nevermore be done) and a permanent hell (where evil will evermore be done, but can never spread).
"Demanding that a man consent to love God against his will would be divine rape. It is better that each person be given the free choice to love or not love God" (362).
An optimally perfect moral world should contain four components:
1. The process leading to the final achievement of a world where humans are free but never will do any evil.
2. A world wherein is permitted the full and final uncorked exercise of moral freedom
3. A world in which there is permitted the presence of enough evil to provide both the condition for the achievement of higher moral virtues and a comprehensive lesson of the wrongness of evil for creatures.
4. A world where free creatures learn for themselves why evil is wrong.
The Physical Problem of Evil
The Problem of Physical Evil for Theism
It appears that not all evil results directly or indirectly from the abuse of human freedom.
Posing the problem of physical evil
Albert Camus' Plague is the most widely used problem of physical evil.
1) Either one must join the Doctor and fight the plague or else he must join the priest and not fight the plague.
2) Not to fight the plague is anti humanitarian
3) To fight the plague is to fight against God who sent it
4) Therefore, if humanitarianism is right, theism is wrong
5) Humanitarianism is right
6) Therefore, theism is wrong
The dilemma for the theist is this: if suffering is a condition of the greater good than we ought not to eliminate suffering so as to indirectly work against the greatest good.
Proposed Theistic Solutions to Physical Evil
1. Evil is a necessary contrast to Good
- without pain one cannot fully appreciate pleasure
- problems: it only explains pain, less pain would accomplish the same thing, even if evil depends on good, experience show that one can know the good without participating in evil
2. Evil is a necessary byproduct of laws that bring good results
problems: -only explains some kinds of evil, an omnipotent God could have created a world without evil byproducts. an omnipotent God could intervene and stop evil byproducts
3. Evil is necessary to punish the wicked
problems: - Job suffered innocently, Jesus said sin si not the cause of all suffering (Luke 13:4), babies are born with deformities
4. Evil is a necessary example to others
problems: - accounts for only a tiny portion of suffering
5. Evil is necessary to warn the wicked
problems: physical disasters often turn people away from God, not to God, Natural disasters are inconsistent with a benevolent God
6. Evil is a necessary part of the best possible world
problems: - an all powerful God could make a world without evil, the unjust distribution of evil could be distributed justly
7. Evil is necessary for ultimate harmony
problems: it makes evil only prima facie and eliminates reform, it makes evil illusionary because it is not evil in God's eyes, it gives God a double standard
8. Evil is a necessary condition for achieving the best world
Problems: - it does not explain first order evil, the price for long run goods is too high, some long run consequences are evil, immortal bliss does not justify suffering
9. Evil is a necessary conflict among natural systems
problems: God could have created a world without conflicting systems
10. Evil is necessary to build character
Problems: character building does not apply to all evil, the price is too high to make character building worthwhile
A Theistic Solution to the Problem of Physical Evil
Many of the anti-theistic criticism gain weight only by assuming false pretexts
- an all powerful God is capable of creating the best possible world without suffering
- the greater good does not result from suffering
- evil cannot be explained as necessary to human freedom
- the best world possible is not worth the high price to achieve it
Unnecessary evil of any kind is inconsistent with an absolutely perfect God. Thus, all evil is somehow necessary
One major criticism of the theistic solution to physical evil is that theists try to use a combination of all these tactics. They cannot achieve success because each is like a leaky bucket and no matter how many leaky buckets are used to catch water, water will still seep through. But, in reality each of these is like a bucket that has no leaks, but can only hold so much water. All the buckets together can hold all the water and all the solutions can explain all the evil.
Some physical evils are necessary conditions for moral perfections. There are second order goods that are unachievable without first order evils.
Some physical evils are a necessary consequence of human free choice.
The elimination of pain would eliminate all pleasure. One cannot have a painful experience without knowing the meaning of non-pain and one cannot have a pleasurable experience without knowing a non-pleasurable experience (i.e. pain).
Some physical evil is a necessary consequence of the free choice of demons.
Why doesn't God eliminate demonic powers? The best way to defeat evil is to let it expires itself because it is ultimately self-defeating.
Some physical evil is a necessary moral warning.
C.S. Lewis held that 'God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is his megaphone to rouse the deaf world" (376)
While it is true that not all persons respond positively to pain, it still remains an opportunity to respond positively.
God would be morally accountable if he did not warn us with pain as a doctor would be morally accountable not to warn sexually actively clients of the danger of AIDS.
Some physical evils are necessary components of a physical world. The pain of lower life forms is a necessary condition for the sustaining of higher life forms.
Objections to the Theistic solution to Physical evil
1) This theodicy implies that the ends justify the means.
Response: God has utilitarian goals, but does not use utilitarian means. That is, He allows evil to happen and uses it to create the ultimate good but does not use evil (commit it) to achieve such an end.
2) The theodicy does not account for the vastness of evil or the unequal distribution of it.
Respones:
1) No finite mind can really press this point
2) This theodicy need not measure evil quantitatively
3) This theodicy entails a double standard
Response: God does not commit the evil acts, only permits them. There is only one standard and that is God Himself. God cannot break that standard because he cannot contradict himself
4) This theodicy implies it is wrong to alleviate human suffering
Respones: when man is working against evil he is not frustrating God's effort, but fulfilling them. God does not send human suffering. Man's free choice causes suffering.
5) This theodicy exalts human freedom at the expense of divine sovereignty
Response: Moral acts are self-determined. Human self-determination enhances God's sovereignty and human dignity.
Finished!! Done! Praise God!
My thoughts on Evil:
1) Evil is a privation
2) Evil is only existent in the absence of good
3) God is good
4) The world contains evil.
5) The world is not wholly evil
6) Therefore, God is neither wholly present nor wholly absent from the world
Physical evil and moral evil are subcategories of metaphysical evils
All evil regardless of it being physical or moral is a result of human choice.
Moral evil is a direct result of human choice. But who the vil befalls may not be the direct choice maker, i.e. the Nazis chose to kill the Jews. The Jews suffered a moral evil because of a direct choice of the Nazis. But the Nazis eventually suffered for their choices.
Physical Evil is an indirect result of human choice. The flood (the first natural disaster) was a direct result of human choice to be wicked. Subsequent disasters are a result of the ecosystem being traumatized by the flood. Thus while no wicked acts may be directly responsible for Katrina or the Tsunami of 2004, they are nonetheless a recurring punitive measure for human wickedness.
All evil is inherited. We are all relatives in that we are all descendent of Adam and Eve. Their moral sin had physical and spiritual consequences. We inherit the physical consequences (death) in our DNA, but we also inherit the spiritual consequences (fallenness) via our inherited spiritual DNA.
Yes, I am advocating that souls, like physical bodies are created via reproduction. This is a very plausible explanation of how all men have fallen short of the glory of God and for the sins of the father. Souls are created from father and mother history. The sins of all ancestors are passed down to each generation. This also explains why Jesus Christ did not inherit a sin nature or fallenness because
because he was not born of a man. Thus, he did not inherit the sins of the Father because his father is God and thus, sinless.
Class notes on God as a causal agent
(Originally written March 26, 2007 in Book 25)
Class Notes
Objections to God as a direct causal agent
1. Laws of nature cannot be violated; miracles are a violation
2. If miracles can occur, God would be changeable
3. Miracles are correctives to our understanding of the laws of nature, not violations of the laws
4. Miracles are not rationally believed in
5. Providence violates the the simplicity of God
6. God is eternal, how can an infinite God contain a finite attribute?
7. If God has to intervene in what he created to fix it it implies a defect in his creation
8. Miracles can be explained by natural occurrences; we just don't understand them
9. Miracles are always a result of natural causes
10. How can a non-physical being directly cause a physical change
11. If God is directly intervening in the world, and there is evil in the world, then God is not good.
12. Anomalies in nature do not prove direct intervention
13. Miracles intervene in human freedom
14. Every actualization of a potential through an immediate contingent cause; therefore, a remote cause is not necessary
15. If God governed directly it would destroy the perfection of the causal order
16. If God is outside of time but his causal action would have to be inside of time
Divine Providence and Miracles
Is God a direct causal agent in the world?
Views of God's interaction:
Classical theology
Deist
Neo-Thomism (primary cause working through secondary causes)
Kenotic God (limiting his power willingly)
Existential theology
Linguistic theology
Process theology
Neo-Thomism and Divine Providence
God as an end for everything
Action <- Man <- God
Miracles
- an effect in the physical world that surpasses all known human powers and beyond natural powers
Objection to miracles
- Principle of uniformity
Spinoza:
1. Miracles are a violation of natural laws
2. Natural laws are immutable
3. It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible
Hume, Kant and Flew all argued agains miracles based on the principle of uniformity
God can't do anything against nature
Evidence for miracles is scarce and unpredictable by nature
God cannot violate the law of nature because the law of nature stems from God. So any violation of the law of nature is a violation of God's personal nature.
What is a secondary cause?
Could quantum mechanics explain God's intervening in human/natural affairs?
God effects the secondary cause (quantum mechanics) in effecting the probability at the molecular level.
Problems with this is that new technology is discovered accounting for previously unexplainable events.
Antony Flew
Science:
- Laws from observation
- Limited to this method by definition
Unexplained events are either miracles (outside of science) or anomaly (inside of science)
No unexplained event can ever be considered a miracle. At worst it is a not yet explained anomaly.
Are miracles possible?
Are miracles knowable?
Are miracles recognizable?
Hume critiqued miracles on the basis of whether they are knowable. Flew critiqued miracles on rather they are recognizable.
Superseding Miracles - where the laws of nature are superseded, direct action by God
Constellation Miracle - no law of nature is violated, but many circumstances come together in such away that they could have occurred by accident is less probable than it occurring by divine intervention
Reasonable presumption - reasonableness of a presumption
Worldview
If you do not have a worldview favorable to theism then you will not be convinced of miracles existing.
Circumstances, reasonable presumption and whether or not divine agency is the best explanation for the event all play a part in regarding something as a miracle.
Class Notes
Objections to God as a direct causal agent
1. Laws of nature cannot be violated; miracles are a violation
2. If miracles can occur, God would be changeable
3. Miracles are correctives to our understanding of the laws of nature, not violations of the laws
4. Miracles are not rationally believed in
5. Providence violates the the simplicity of God
6. God is eternal, how can an infinite God contain a finite attribute?
7. If God has to intervene in what he created to fix it it implies a defect in his creation
8. Miracles can be explained by natural occurrences; we just don't understand them
9. Miracles are always a result of natural causes
10. How can a non-physical being directly cause a physical change
11. If God is directly intervening in the world, and there is evil in the world, then God is not good.
12. Anomalies in nature do not prove direct intervention
13. Miracles intervene in human freedom
14. Every actualization of a potential through an immediate contingent cause; therefore, a remote cause is not necessary
15. If God governed directly it would destroy the perfection of the causal order
16. If God is outside of time but his causal action would have to be inside of time
Divine Providence and Miracles
Is God a direct causal agent in the world?
Views of God's interaction:
Classical theology
Deist
Neo-Thomism (primary cause working through secondary causes)
Kenotic God (limiting his power willingly)
Existential theology
Linguistic theology
Process theology
Neo-Thomism and Divine Providence
God as an end for everything
Action <- Man <- God
Miracles
- an effect in the physical world that surpasses all known human powers and beyond natural powers
Objection to miracles
- Principle of uniformity
Spinoza:
1. Miracles are a violation of natural laws
2. Natural laws are immutable
3. It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible
Hume, Kant and Flew all argued agains miracles based on the principle of uniformity
God can't do anything against nature
Evidence for miracles is scarce and unpredictable by nature
God cannot violate the law of nature because the law of nature stems from God. So any violation of the law of nature is a violation of God's personal nature.
What is a secondary cause?
Could quantum mechanics explain God's intervening in human/natural affairs?
God effects the secondary cause (quantum mechanics) in effecting the probability at the molecular level.
Problems with this is that new technology is discovered accounting for previously unexplainable events.
Antony Flew
Science:
- Laws from observation
- Limited to this method by definition
Unexplained events are either miracles (outside of science) or anomaly (inside of science)
No unexplained event can ever be considered a miracle. At worst it is a not yet explained anomaly.
Are miracles possible?
Are miracles knowable?
Are miracles recognizable?
Hume critiqued miracles on the basis of whether they are knowable. Flew critiqued miracles on rather they are recognizable.
Superseding Miracles - where the laws of nature are superseded, direct action by God
Constellation Miracle - no law of nature is violated, but many circumstances come together in such away that they could have occurred by accident is less probable than it occurring by divine intervention
Reasonable presumption - reasonableness of a presumption
Worldview
If you do not have a worldview favorable to theism then you will not be convinced of miracles existing.
Circumstances, reasonable presumption and whether or not divine agency is the best explanation for the event all play a part in regarding something as a miracle.
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
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Metaphysical & Moral Evil
(Originally written March 25, 2007 in Book 25)
Augustine: All things are Metaphysically Good
All things (substances) are good because God created them.
He denied the dualist contention of an all good substance and an all evil substance because God is supreme existence and if the were an opposite of God it would be superman non-existence. Hence, there is no two great powers dualism.
"Every substance as such is good" - Augustine
God, the supreme Good is incorruptible. he is the standard by which evil is measured and cannot be evil.
All created goods are corruptible because they are not simple, they are composite.
Created beings by their nature contain the possibility (but not the necessity) of metaphysical evil.
Creation makes evil possible, but evil is actualized by creatures, not the Creator.
Evil is not a substance. It is simply the loss of good. It is a privation of substance.
Evil is a deficiency in some substance. It has no existence of its own, it subsists within another.
Any substance that has been corrupted by evil may be said to be an evil substance, but whatever substance it still possess is nonetheless good. The same is true of anything's nature.
God is not the cause of metaphysical evil.
Augustine held that the efficient cause of evil is unknowable because what is nothing cannot be known.
Being cannot corrupt itself or any other being. Nonbeing cannot corrupt being.
Freedom is the cause of evil. The ultimate cause of evil is moral. The cause of privation is pride.
If freedom is the cause of sin it is meaningless to ask what is the cause of freedom because freedom is the first cause of sin.
The meaningful question is 'how did evil come about?'
Augustine used the example of Satan to illustrate how evil came about. Satan, being conscious of himself took a perverted pleasure in himself in imitating God. Pride was the origin of Satan's sin.
Evil never completely corrupts a good.
Even though God did not create evil he orders it for his own good purpose.
Evil is part of a total picture of good.
Aquinas: Evil is a metaphysical privation
Aquinas held that metaphysical evil is a metaphysical privation with no formal cause and only an indirect efficient cause.
Evil is a privation in a good. A thing is evil in that it lacks a perfection it ought to have.
Utter evil is impossible. Evil has no essence of its own.
Nothing can be essentially evil.
Evil has no formal cause. Evil has no form; it is disorder, not order.
Evil is a privation of form.
Evil has no final cause.
Evil has a material cause, but its material cause is good because matter is good.
Evil has an indirect efficient cause. Evil is a byproduct of causality.
God caused evil incidentally. Through his creative power he indirectly caused either because through creating some things God must destroy others or because there is an incapacity in what he causes.
Human nature is neither diminished nor destroyed by evil.
A fallen human being is metaphysically good but weakened morally.
Conclusions from the Augustinian-Thomistic Solution
Metaphysically, evil has no essence or being of its own. Evil has no form or formal cause.
God is not the direct, efficient cause of evil.
Moral evil is rooted in human freedom.
The nature of human beings cannot be totally corrupted.
Human metaphysical nature is not diminished to the point that a person is no longer rationally and morally responsible for his actions.
The grace of God enables the person to overcome whatever propensities to evil he has so he is able to not sin.
Finitude makes evil possible, but not necessary.
The theistic answer to metaphysical evil solves the existence of evil without retreating to dualism, but does not answer why evil exists.
The theistic answer to metaphysical illusionism.
Evil may not be a real entity but it is a reality.
Metaphysical evil is not nothing. It indicates that something ought to be there.
Contemporary rejoinders
G. Stanley Kane states that the notion of evil as privation is almost universally ignored or misunderstood. He holds that any attempt of refuting the privation theory makes elementary mistakes:
1) it confuses privation with illusion
2) demands that God is the efficient cause of privation
3) asserts that the privation theory does not comfort those who suffer
Kane however argues against it like this
1) The theory of evil as privation has been advanced as a general theory to account for all evils
2) Some evils are clearly not privations
a) pain is a positive evil
b) moral evil is a positive evil
3) Therefore, the privation theory does not fulfill its intended purpose
Linehan response:
Pain is not a positive evil:
1) Pain is the result of something that occurs (i.e. I have a headache because I have not had my coffee today or I have a toothache because I have a cavity)
2) Pain derives its existence in a substance, it does not exist apart from any substance
3) Pain is thus, not a substance
4) Whatever is not a substance cannot have a positive existence of its own
5) Pain is therefore, some deficiency or privation of a normal state within a substance
Moral evil is not a positive evil
1) Whatever is a moral evil must exist within a moral creature
2) There can be no absolutely morally evil creature because absolute evil entails non-existence
3) Thus, if any creature possess or commits a moral evil they do not do so absolutely
4) If there is no absolute moral evil there must be degrees of moral evil because there are some moral evils and not all are equal in quantity (while they may be so qualitatively)
5) If there are degrees of quantity within moral evil they cannot exist on their own right because there are no degrees between existence and non-existence. Either something exists fully or it does not exist at all
6) Whatever does not have its own existence cannot be a substance
7) Whatever is not a substance cannot have positive standing
8) Therefore, moral evil is not a positive evil
16 The Moral Problem of Evil
3 Kinds of evil:
1) Moral
2) Metaphysical
3) Physical
It seems obvious that some nonmoral evil is not the result of human free will.
Natural evil is evil that does not result from human choice. Moral evil is resulted of human choice.
The problem of moral evil and the Alternatives for theism
Moral Evil: The Problem and Actual Alternatives
1) Evil exists
2) An omnipotent God could destroy evil
3) A benevolent God would destroy evil
4) Therefore, Either God is benevolent and impotent, malevolent, or impotent and malevolent or God does not exit
The theist objects to premise three and states God is actually working to eliminate evil.
Moral Evil: The Bind of the Hypothetical Alternatives
Plantinga and the Free Will Defense
Plantinga holds that in order for the world to be morally good it must possess creatures who can do moral good. Only free creatures are capable of doing morally good work.
Augustine: All things are Metaphysically Good
All things (substances) are good because God created them.
He denied the dualist contention of an all good substance and an all evil substance because God is supreme existence and if the were an opposite of God it would be superman non-existence. Hence, there is no two great powers dualism.
"Every substance as such is good" - Augustine
God, the supreme Good is incorruptible. he is the standard by which evil is measured and cannot be evil.
All created goods are corruptible because they are not simple, they are composite.
Created beings by their nature contain the possibility (but not the necessity) of metaphysical evil.
Creation makes evil possible, but evil is actualized by creatures, not the Creator.
Evil is not a substance. It is simply the loss of good. It is a privation of substance.
Evil is a deficiency in some substance. It has no existence of its own, it subsists within another.
Any substance that has been corrupted by evil may be said to be an evil substance, but whatever substance it still possess is nonetheless good. The same is true of anything's nature.
God is not the cause of metaphysical evil.
Augustine held that the efficient cause of evil is unknowable because what is nothing cannot be known.
Being cannot corrupt itself or any other being. Nonbeing cannot corrupt being.
Freedom is the cause of evil. The ultimate cause of evil is moral. The cause of privation is pride.
If freedom is the cause of sin it is meaningless to ask what is the cause of freedom because freedom is the first cause of sin.
The meaningful question is 'how did evil come about?'
Augustine used the example of Satan to illustrate how evil came about. Satan, being conscious of himself took a perverted pleasure in himself in imitating God. Pride was the origin of Satan's sin.
Evil never completely corrupts a good.
Even though God did not create evil he orders it for his own good purpose.
Evil is part of a total picture of good.
Aquinas: Evil is a metaphysical privation
Aquinas held that metaphysical evil is a metaphysical privation with no formal cause and only an indirect efficient cause.
Evil is a privation in a good. A thing is evil in that it lacks a perfection it ought to have.
Utter evil is impossible. Evil has no essence of its own.
Nothing can be essentially evil.
Evil has no formal cause. Evil has no form; it is disorder, not order.
Evil is a privation of form.
Evil has no final cause.
Evil has a material cause, but its material cause is good because matter is good.
Evil has an indirect efficient cause. Evil is a byproduct of causality.
God caused evil incidentally. Through his creative power he indirectly caused either because through creating some things God must destroy others or because there is an incapacity in what he causes.
Human nature is neither diminished nor destroyed by evil.
A fallen human being is metaphysically good but weakened morally.
Conclusions from the Augustinian-Thomistic Solution
Metaphysically, evil has no essence or being of its own. Evil has no form or formal cause.
God is not the direct, efficient cause of evil.
Moral evil is rooted in human freedom.
The nature of human beings cannot be totally corrupted.
Human metaphysical nature is not diminished to the point that a person is no longer rationally and morally responsible for his actions.
The grace of God enables the person to overcome whatever propensities to evil he has so he is able to not sin.
Finitude makes evil possible, but not necessary.
The theistic answer to metaphysical evil solves the existence of evil without retreating to dualism, but does not answer why evil exists.
The theistic answer to metaphysical illusionism.
Evil may not be a real entity but it is a reality.
Metaphysical evil is not nothing. It indicates that something ought to be there.
Contemporary rejoinders
G. Stanley Kane states that the notion of evil as privation is almost universally ignored or misunderstood. He holds that any attempt of refuting the privation theory makes elementary mistakes:
1) it confuses privation with illusion
2) demands that God is the efficient cause of privation
3) asserts that the privation theory does not comfort those who suffer
Kane however argues against it like this
1) The theory of evil as privation has been advanced as a general theory to account for all evils
2) Some evils are clearly not privations
a) pain is a positive evil
b) moral evil is a positive evil
3) Therefore, the privation theory does not fulfill its intended purpose
Linehan response:
Pain is not a positive evil:
1) Pain is the result of something that occurs (i.e. I have a headache because I have not had my coffee today or I have a toothache because I have a cavity)
2) Pain derives its existence in a substance, it does not exist apart from any substance
3) Pain is thus, not a substance
4) Whatever is not a substance cannot have a positive existence of its own
5) Pain is therefore, some deficiency or privation of a normal state within a substance
Moral evil is not a positive evil
1) Whatever is a moral evil must exist within a moral creature
2) There can be no absolutely morally evil creature because absolute evil entails non-existence
3) Thus, if any creature possess or commits a moral evil they do not do so absolutely
4) If there is no absolute moral evil there must be degrees of moral evil because there are some moral evils and not all are equal in quantity (while they may be so qualitatively)
5) If there are degrees of quantity within moral evil they cannot exist on their own right because there are no degrees between existence and non-existence. Either something exists fully or it does not exist at all
6) Whatever does not have its own existence cannot be a substance
7) Whatever is not a substance cannot have positive standing
8) Therefore, moral evil is not a positive evil
16 The Moral Problem of Evil
3 Kinds of evil:
1) Moral
2) Metaphysical
3) Physical
It seems obvious that some nonmoral evil is not the result of human free will.
Natural evil is evil that does not result from human choice. Moral evil is resulted of human choice.
The problem of moral evil and the Alternatives for theism
Moral Evil: The Problem and Actual Alternatives
1) Evil exists
2) An omnipotent God could destroy evil
3) A benevolent God would destroy evil
4) Therefore, Either God is benevolent and impotent, malevolent, or impotent and malevolent or God does not exit
The theist objects to premise three and states God is actually working to eliminate evil.
Moral Evil: The Bind of the Hypothetical Alternatives
Plantinga and the Free Will Defense
Plantinga holds that in order for the world to be morally good it must possess creatures who can do moral good. Only free creatures are capable of doing morally good work.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Metaphysical Problem of Evil
(Originally written March 24, 2007 in book 25)
The Metaphysical Problem of Evil
Metaphysical problem: If God created everything that exists and evil exists did God create evil?
In denying that God created evil, theists are open to criticisms of dualism and illusionism.
The Problem of Metaphysical Evil and Alternatives for Theism
1. God is the cause of everything that exists
2. Evil is something that exists
3. Therefore, God is the cause of evil
If anyone denies premise one they accept dualism. If anyone denies premise two they accept illusionism. The theist can do neither.
Illusionism is a Denial of theism: accepting illusionism is accepting pantheism.
Dualism is a denial of theism. Christianity rejects panentheism and quasi-theism. So it cannot accept dualism.
A Christianized Platonic dualism is not an option for Christians.
The Theistic Answers to Metaphysical Dualism: Evil is not a real entity
1) God is only the efficient cause of every finite substance
2) Evil is not a substance
3) Therefore, God is not the efficient cause of evil
Evil has no existence of its own. It exists only in created substances.
The Metaphysical Problem of Evil
Metaphysical problem: If God created everything that exists and evil exists did God create evil?
In denying that God created evil, theists are open to criticisms of dualism and illusionism.
The Problem of Metaphysical Evil and Alternatives for Theism
1. God is the cause of everything that exists
2. Evil is something that exists
3. Therefore, God is the cause of evil
If anyone denies premise one they accept dualism. If anyone denies premise two they accept illusionism. The theist can do neither.
Illusionism is a Denial of theism: accepting illusionism is accepting pantheism.
Dualism is a denial of theism. Christianity rejects panentheism and quasi-theism. So it cannot accept dualism.
A Christianized Platonic dualism is not an option for Christians.
The Theistic Answers to Metaphysical Dualism: Evil is not a real entity
1) God is only the efficient cause of every finite substance
2) Evil is not a substance
3) Therefore, God is not the efficient cause of evil
Evil has no existence of its own. It exists only in created substances.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Class Notes on Foucault and Foundationalism
(Originally written March 22, 2007 in Book 16)
Foucault
Post-Modern French Philosopher
Language can alter our senses of reality.
Language is power.
Institutions that we construct is a way to wield power.
The concept of author is that which has emerged as a means of wielding power.
Foucault spent his lifetime deconstructing institutions so that we can live free of oppression by various powers.
"Author function" - guides an institution of discourse determines the status of particular discourse within a society.
Criticism: It's not really an argument. It has no evidence or justification. It's merely analysis and conclusion.
He can't live according to his thesis. Did He ever object to being called an author of his own books?
Criticism as revision (P-S impulse)
Criticism as scrutiny (Structural impulse)
Schusterman
Hermeneutic Universals - All experience is interpreted
Classical Foundationalism:
1) Indubitable Axioms
2) Deduce from indubitable axioms lots of other things with certainty
3) When we know that we know when you know (2nd order knowledge)
He argues that just because classical foundationalism is incorrect does not follow that hermeneutic universalism necessarily follows.
Foucault
Post-Modern French Philosopher
Language can alter our senses of reality.
Language is power.
Institutions that we construct is a way to wield power.
The concept of author is that which has emerged as a means of wielding power.
Foucault spent his lifetime deconstructing institutions so that we can live free of oppression by various powers.
"Author function" - guides an institution of discourse determines the status of particular discourse within a society.
Criticism: It's not really an argument. It has no evidence or justification. It's merely analysis and conclusion.
He can't live according to his thesis. Did He ever object to being called an author of his own books?
Criticism as revision (P-S impulse)
Criticism as scrutiny (Structural impulse)
Schusterman
Hermeneutic Universals - All experience is interpreted
Classical Foundationalism:
1) Indubitable Axioms
2) Deduce from indubitable axioms lots of other things with certainty
3) When we know that we know when you know (2nd order knowledge)
He argues that just because classical foundationalism is incorrect does not follow that hermeneutic universalism necessarily follows.
Combining Aquinas & Wittgenstien
(Originally written March 22, 2007 in Book 25)
Burrell: Combining Aquinas & Wittgenstien
1) Univocal language may be understood as ordinary language usage in a Wittgenstienian setting. Family resemblance is strongly similar to analogy.
2) Transcendental terms are trans-categorical. These terms derive their meaning from their particular language games and as they re trans-categorical they are analogical.
3) Appraisal terms (i.e. "good") function similar to transcendental terms.
4) Transcendental and appraisal terms are crucial for language about God ontologically and semantically.
a) Ontologically, God is the cause of the world and thus there is an analogy between talk of God and talk of the world.
b) Semantically, the transcendental and appraisal terms are applied to God without their usual predication
5) Analogical language lies in a decision. It originates out of the community of the speaker/listener.
Burrell gives analogy the deserved ontological setting while engaging Wittgenstein's concepts.
But, Burrell has dropped univocal concepts and is not entirely immune to equivocation charges.
There must be a univocal concept underneath all analogy to avoid equivocation.
Burrell: Combining Aquinas & Wittgenstien
1) Univocal language may be understood as ordinary language usage in a Wittgenstienian setting. Family resemblance is strongly similar to analogy.
2) Transcendental terms are trans-categorical. These terms derive their meaning from their particular language games and as they re trans-categorical they are analogical.
3) Appraisal terms (i.e. "good") function similar to transcendental terms.
4) Transcendental and appraisal terms are crucial for language about God ontologically and semantically.
a) Ontologically, God is the cause of the world and thus there is an analogy between talk of God and talk of the world.
b) Semantically, the transcendental and appraisal terms are applied to God without their usual predication
5) Analogical language lies in a decision. It originates out of the community of the speaker/listener.
Burrell gives analogy the deserved ontological setting while engaging Wittgenstein's concepts.
But, Burrell has dropped univocal concepts and is not entirely immune to equivocation charges.
There must be a univocal concept underneath all analogy to avoid equivocation.
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
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Class Notes on Eagleton's aesthetic theories
(Originally written March 20, 2007 in Book 16)
Class Notes
Terry Eagleton
What is literature?
1) Literature is essentially imaginative
problem - some literature is historical. Some imaginative works are not literature.
2) Russian Formalism - we should define literature as that which transforms and intensifies language.
problem - we must presuppose what is literary language and ordinary language is
3) Literature is non-useful writing
4) Literature is valued writing
Where is the meaning?
4 Views:
1) Authorial Intention - meaning resides in the author's mind
2) Structuralism (semantic autonomy of language) meaning resides in the text
3) Post-Structuralism (reader response theory, deconstructionalism) - meaning resides in the reader's understanding
4) "Reflective equilibrium" - a combination of all other tree with a heavier emphasis on authorial intention and structuralism.
Problems
With Authorial intention - it implies that once the author is dead we'll never know what the text meant
With Structuralism - the author's intent is rendered completely irrelevant
With Post-Structuralism - it removes all meaning from the author and his/her text
Class Notes
Terry Eagleton
What is literature?
1) Literature is essentially imaginative
problem - some literature is historical. Some imaginative works are not literature.
2) Russian Formalism - we should define literature as that which transforms and intensifies language.
problem - we must presuppose what is literary language and ordinary language is
3) Literature is non-useful writing
4) Literature is valued writing
Where is the meaning?
4 Views:
1) Authorial Intention - meaning resides in the author's mind
2) Structuralism (semantic autonomy of language) meaning resides in the text
3) Post-Structuralism (reader response theory, deconstructionalism) - meaning resides in the reader's understanding
4) "Reflective equilibrium" - a combination of all other tree with a heavier emphasis on authorial intention and structuralism.
Problems
With Authorial intention - it implies that once the author is dead we'll never know what the text meant
With Structuralism - the author's intent is rendered completely irrelevant
With Post-Structuralism - it removes all meaning from the author and his/her text
Monday, March 19, 2007
Allegorical & Contemporary Language Problems
(Originally written March 19, 2007 in Book 13)
Analogical Predication: The Only Alternative
If terms cannot be applied to God in a univocal or an equivocal sense, they must be applied analogically.
The analogical way of speaking about God helps to solve Parmenides' paradox because being is not taken as univocal. Being is analogical and thus things essentially differ in being.
Being cannot be univocal because it would mean that everything that hath being would be one. Being cannot be equivocal because whatever hath being hath being and what else cannot hath being or they are one. Therefore, Being must analogical.
God does not have properties at all. "God is the perfections that his creatures only have by causal participation" (263).
Univocal Concepts but Analogical Predication
Scotus was correct that any concept applied to men and God must be univocally understood. Aquinas was correct in stating that concepts must be analogically affirmed of God.
The attribute of man and God are same but the application of that attribute differs in God and man.
Whatever concept is understood of God must be understood univocally, but must be predicated (attributed to) of God must be predicated analogically.
Finite Concepts and Finite Predications
Aquinas held God is one in reality, but many things logically.
We cannot know the substance of God, but we can predicate many things about God substantively.
While there is an infinite difference in perfection between Creator and creatures, there is not a total dissimilarity. Thus, concepts are univocally understood.
A creature must bear some similarity to its creator.
The Causal Basis for Analogy Between God and Creatures
Analogy is based on intrinsic causality.
Analogy is based on efficient causality.
Analogy is based on essential causality. God is the cause of the very being of the world, not only its beginning.
Analogy is not based on material causality. God is the cause of the existence of matter, but he is not material. God is the cause of all perfections in the world, but not the imperfection resulting from the limiting conditions of a material world.
Analogy is based on principal, not instrumental causality.
God is the principal, intrinsic, essential and efficient cause of the being and perfection of the world.
Objections and Responses
1) Why select some, but not all qualities drawn from the world and apply them to God?
- Only some things flow from God's efficient, principal, essential and intrinsic causality.
2) Words are divorced from their finite mode or conditions are devoid of meaning.
- The univocal concept of the words remains the same while the way in which they are predicated charges.
-Terms applied to God are not made meaningless only extended without limitations
3) Analogy rests on the assumption that causality provides without limitations.
-If something is caused it must be caused by something. God cannot give what he does not have. Thus if God does not have existence He cannot give existence.
4) Any analogous predication of God as a "First cause" involves an infinite regress of meaning to identify the univocal element.
-The only way to predicate something of a finite being and an infinite being must be analogous because if it is univocal it predicates it equivocally. An infinite being cannot have the same mode as a finite being. It must be predicated analogously.
5) Even assuming the metaphysical assumption that there is a similarity among beings, that ontology is not univocally expressible.
-This is not a mere theistic. It is the only alternative to monism.
6) Since Wittgenstein the distinction between equivocal and univocal is obsolete, and thus, the notion of analogy is obsolete.
7) A general theory of analogy does not work.
This is not an analogical theory, but rather a metaphysical scheme in which language fits. This metaphysical scheme is rooted in reality and thus, the language is so rooted.
13. Model Religious Language
The Background of the Contemporary Language Problem
Hume is the source of the contemporary problems of religious language.
Hume: Two kinds of propositions
There are only two kinds of meaningful statements:
1. Statements expressing elation of ideas
- true by definition
- not informative about the real world
2. Statements about matters of fact
Kant called he former analytic and the latter synthetic.
Wittgenstein: Linguistic Silence
Wittgenstein held that what was mystical (religious experience) cannot be expressed in words.
He held that we are to eliminate religious language, not religious experience.
Ayer: Religious Language and Verification
In Language, Truth and Logic A. J. Ayer attempted to eliminate all metaphysics and theology.
He held that no statement can be meaningful unless it is tautological or empirically verifiable.
But Ayer's principle of verifiability is neither tautological nor verifiable and thus, meaningless on his grounds.
Ayer was neither atheistic nor agnostic. He was non-cognitivistic. He held that no cognitively meaningful statement can be made about a transcendent reality.
2/15/07 - 3/19/07
Analogical Predication: The Only Alternative
If terms cannot be applied to God in a univocal or an equivocal sense, they must be applied analogically.
The analogical way of speaking about God helps to solve Parmenides' paradox because being is not taken as univocal. Being is analogical and thus things essentially differ in being.
Being cannot be univocal because it would mean that everything that hath being would be one. Being cannot be equivocal because whatever hath being hath being and what else cannot hath being or they are one. Therefore, Being must analogical.
God does not have properties at all. "God is the perfections that his creatures only have by causal participation" (263).
Univocal Concepts but Analogical Predication
Scotus was correct that any concept applied to men and God must be univocally understood. Aquinas was correct in stating that concepts must be analogically affirmed of God.
The attribute of man and God are same but the application of that attribute differs in God and man.
Whatever concept is understood of God must be understood univocally, but must be predicated (attributed to) of God must be predicated analogically.
Finite Concepts and Finite Predications
Aquinas held God is one in reality, but many things logically.
We cannot know the substance of God, but we can predicate many things about God substantively.
While there is an infinite difference in perfection between Creator and creatures, there is not a total dissimilarity. Thus, concepts are univocally understood.
A creature must bear some similarity to its creator.
The Causal Basis for Analogy Between God and Creatures
Analogy is based on intrinsic causality.
Analogy is based on efficient causality.
Analogy is based on essential causality. God is the cause of the very being of the world, not only its beginning.
Analogy is not based on material causality. God is the cause of the existence of matter, but he is not material. God is the cause of all perfections in the world, but not the imperfection resulting from the limiting conditions of a material world.
Analogy is based on principal, not instrumental causality.
God is the principal, intrinsic, essential and efficient cause of the being and perfection of the world.
Objections and Responses
1) Why select some, but not all qualities drawn from the world and apply them to God?
- Only some things flow from God's efficient, principal, essential and intrinsic causality.
2) Words are divorced from their finite mode or conditions are devoid of meaning.
- The univocal concept of the words remains the same while the way in which they are predicated charges.
-Terms applied to God are not made meaningless only extended without limitations
3) Analogy rests on the assumption that causality provides without limitations.
-If something is caused it must be caused by something. God cannot give what he does not have. Thus if God does not have existence He cannot give existence.
4) Any analogous predication of God as a "First cause" involves an infinite regress of meaning to identify the univocal element.
-The only way to predicate something of a finite being and an infinite being must be analogous because if it is univocal it predicates it equivocally. An infinite being cannot have the same mode as a finite being. It must be predicated analogously.
5) Even assuming the metaphysical assumption that there is a similarity among beings, that ontology is not univocally expressible.
-This is not a mere theistic. It is the only alternative to monism.
6) Since Wittgenstein the distinction between equivocal and univocal is obsolete, and thus, the notion of analogy is obsolete.
7) A general theory of analogy does not work.
This is not an analogical theory, but rather a metaphysical scheme in which language fits. This metaphysical scheme is rooted in reality and thus, the language is so rooted.
13. Model Religious Language
The Background of the Contemporary Language Problem
Hume is the source of the contemporary problems of religious language.
Hume: Two kinds of propositions
There are only two kinds of meaningful statements:
1. Statements expressing elation of ideas
- true by definition
- not informative about the real world
2. Statements about matters of fact
Kant called he former analytic and the latter synthetic.
Wittgenstein: Linguistic Silence
Wittgenstein held that what was mystical (religious experience) cannot be expressed in words.
He held that we are to eliminate religious language, not religious experience.
Ayer: Religious Language and Verification
In Language, Truth and Logic A. J. Ayer attempted to eliminate all metaphysics and theology.
He held that no statement can be meaningful unless it is tautological or empirically verifiable.
But Ayer's principle of verifiability is neither tautological nor verifiable and thus, meaningless on his grounds.
Ayer was neither atheistic nor agnostic. He was non-cognitivistic. He held that no cognitively meaningful statement can be made about a transcendent reality.
2/15/07 - 3/19/07
Teleological, Analogical and Models in Religious Language
(Originally written March 19, 2007 in Book 25)
Class notes
The Teleological Argument
Transcendental Logic
Given a phenomena 'X'
What are the conditions that make X possible?
Unless there is Y, there cannot be X
Given the fact that all things act for an end
What are the conditions that make it possible for all things to act for an end?
Unless there were an intelligent being that directs all things to their end, ti would not be possible.
Aristotle's Four Questions and their answers
1) What is its purpose? Final Cause (Telos)
2) What is it made of? Material Cause
3) What is its shape (form)? Formal Cause
4) Who or what made it? Efficient Cause
Substance - the total thing with all of its attributes (Aristotelian, not Cartesian)
Paley's Argument from analogy
The watch did not grow there.
It did not just happen.
Because of its complexity and purposiveness we know that it was made by a human being.
The very properties that lead us to infer that the watch was made by a watchmaker lead us to infer the universe was made by a universe-maker.
Inductive Analogy
Set A consists of member {a, b, c, d, e...}
All these members share property X
"F" is also a member of set A
Therefore, F probably has property X
In the General sample you want a "high negative analogy"
But when the General sample is extended to one particular thing you want a "high positive analogy".
The teleological argument of Paley depends on the universe being as much like a clock as possible.
Criticism of Paley's Argument
Hume:
-Even if the analogy holds, it doesn't prove the existence of God
- Even if there is a strong analogy between the watch and the universe we have not ruled out the possibility that it could have come about by chance
Post-Humean Versions
- tend to become disjunctions rather than analogy
- which is the better explanation: the universe came by chance or by purpose?
Stuart Hackett
Teleological argument from the "Macroscopic point of view"
From a conspicuous adaptation to an intelligent creator
examples:
1) The fitness of the inorganic material world to be an environment for both the production and maintenance of organic life. Chance is not a sufficient explanation because chance is tied to the consistent make-up of the inorganic material.
2) The internal adaptedness of organic beings, both in their structure of specialized functions and in their general orientation for self-maintenance or subservience to some other form of organic life. Chance is ruled out as a proximate cause. Chance would postal minute, non-advantageous changes.
3) The intelligibility of the world and its instrumentality in the realization of humanly provisioned ends. Chance ruled out because minds are not the logical outcome of our evolutionary process. Minds are so transcendent that they cannot have arisen from matter.
4) The temporal progressiveness of the cosmic progress through levels of matter, life and mind, in an order of increasing valuation significance.
Anthropic Principle
What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the condition necessary for our presence as observers. (Weak Version)
The universe would have had to passed some very tiny probabilities of window in order to be observed. (Strong version)
Generation of Carbon Post- Big Bang
- Needs to combine three helium nuclei
- May not exceed three helium nuclei
- If it becomes four it becomes oxygen and then "boom", nothing is left
The universe seems to have moved in a deliberate direction. Therefore, it seems more plausible that the universe arose from a creator and not from chance.
Ramsey: Qualified Disclosure Models
Ramsey built his religious language out of an empirical setting and tests it by its empirical adequacy.
Disclosure-Commitment Situations
There are two aspects to the kind of experiences that are religious in nature:
1) An empirical situation that evokes discernment
2) A total commitment to what is discerned
The empirical situations that evoke discernment are the experiential grounding for the meaning of religious language.
Discernment situations:
Ramsey holds that metaphors and odd words have the disclosure poor to make the "ice break" or the "light down".
The literary and logical oddity of "I-Religion" or tautologies like "I am I", "Duty for duty's sake" or "love for love's sake" do not render them meaningless.
To Ramsey there is more in empirical language and situations than meets the eye.
Commitment Situations:
Not every disclosure situation provides religious disclosure.
Religious disclosure evokes a total commitment.
Total commitment is a total commitment to the whole universe, not a total commitment to a part of the universe or a partial commitment to the whole universe.
Ramsey holds religious experience to be one in which one responds to a discernment situation with a total commitment.
Religious Language: Qualified Models
Since religious experience in and of itself is odd, religious language will in turn be odd.
The Meaning and Use of Models
A disclosure model does not seek to describe anything. It enables us to articulate what we once could not express.
Language about God is not declarative; it is evocative.
The Qualification of Models
Ramsey calls qualifiers "words which multiply models without end and with subtle changes" (279).
Models and qualifiers create what Wittgenstien calls family resemblances.
Ramsey develops three groups of qualified models:
1) The negative attributes of God - i.e. God is immutable
2) One word positive attributes of God - i.e. perfection
3) Two-word positive attributes of God - i.e. first cause or infinitely good
Ramsey holds the term "God" to be an integrative term, bringing together the separate discernment-commitment disclosures into a unified whole.
The term "God" functions like the term "I" in everyday language.
The Adequacy of Models: Empirical Fit
Models help to articulate theology in a reliable way when:
1) They arise in a moment of insight or disclosure
2) It empirically fits, it is able to incorporate diverse phenomena consistently
Evaluation of Ramsey's View
Ramsey's master model of God, a combination of many individual models, answers the problem of empirically grounded God-talk.
Without an analogy built on the ontological similarity of Creator and creature, God-talk is purely equivocal.
Only metaphysical analogy can save qualified models from equivocation.
Ferré Metaphysical Models
Ferré builds a metaphysical synthesis based on the religious model, which is subject to truth tests.
The Nature and Function of Models
To Ferré, a model y is that "which provides epistemological vividness or immediacy to a theory by offering as an interpretation of the abstract or unfamiliar theory-structure that both fits the logical form of the theory and is well-known" (283).
Models are similar to metaphors in two ways:
1) Their language is literally false
2) They have a point nonetheless
Ferré divides models threefold:
1) Type - the degree of concreteness the model has
2) Scope - degree of inclusiveness the model has
3) Status - how important the model is
Ferré holds there are three functions for models:
1) Suggest point-by-point resemblance
2) Serve heuristic value
3) Fulfill the holistic desire of man to have an explanatory model of his experience
Models in Religions Language
A scientific mode can separate reality and the observer, whereas a theological model cannot
Scientific models are judged on how helpful they are
Theological models must be judged on truth and falsity
Theological models draw upon a different set of facts than scientific models.
Ferré holds the religious imagery of the Scriptures, the creeds, and traditions of the believing community to be a "metaphysical model"
God-Language is not literal, it is anthropomorphic
The theistic model incorporates data from other areas of knowledge, but religious imagery is always the core.
Testing Religious Models
Ferré denies that religious language is purely non cognitive while admitting it serves many non-cognitive functions.
No metaphysical model (world view) should be adopted arbitrarily
There are three strata in one's total account of things:
1) Preverbal metaphysical model of symbol (taken from the imagery of Scripture)
2) Set of propositions that attempt to express this metaphysical model in a cognitive way
3) A range of functions (cognitive and non-cognitive, verbal and nonverbal) that constitute the religious language game.
Only the second strata is applicable to the truth tests
Ferry offers five truth tests for the truth of total synthesis built on religious models:
1) Consistency - it must be non-contradictory
2) Coherence - consistency must be external as well as internal
3) Applicability - masut be relatable to individual experience
4) Adequacy - must be applicable to all domains of feeling and perception
5) Effectiveness - the synthesis must be a useable instrument for coping with the total environment of human experiences
A metaphysical synthesis is adequate (according to Ferré) only if it is capable of putting all experience into a whole, pervasive and adequate pattern.
Ferré notes that nay falsification of a metaphysical position is like an erosion, not an explosion.
Ferré states that:
1) Christianity has been effective in the past, but there is doubt about its effectiveness in the present and future.
2) Few would dispute the applicability of love and reverence. But this is only a minimal test.
3) Adequacy is a complex test involving many levels that Christianity appears to meet fairly well.
4) No clear contradictions have been demonstrated in Christianity but the proposed solutions have not gained universal acceptance.
5) Christianity has a "striking internal coherence" but the external coherence is not as obvious. There are almost certainly some empirical statements in Scripture that are false (i.e. the sun standing still for Joshua)
Evaluation of Ferré's Metaphysical Model
Ferré is not in the univocal camp. No literal descriptions of God, anthropomorphic Bible, etc.
Ferré denied the analogical intrinsic causal connection of the Thomists but his concentration on truth statements suggests he does not mean to make religious language equivocal.
Ferré would need to rethink his stance on analogy to save his theory from equivocation.
Recent Trends Retreating from models
Much of contemporary religious language has been shaped by Hume, the logical positivists and young Wittgenstein
Gill: Mediation and Metaphor
Jerry H. Gill attempts to build a holistic comprehension of humanity and human knowledge, instead of a purely cognitive or empirical basis.
He held that:
1) Religious language is linguistically constituted, we cannot know religious reality apart from it being covered to us in words and concepts
2) Religious language is social activity. Many uses are more important than descriptive.
3) Religious language is meaningful with significant, not absolute precision
4) Religious language is primarily metaphorical
Gill's Proposal Evaluated
Analogy must be grounded in metaphysical reality, but Gill denies this ontological link.
Gill has made a strong analysis of the function of religious language but has forfeited any guard against it being equivocal.
Class notes
The Teleological Argument
Transcendental Logic
Given a phenomena 'X'
What are the conditions that make X possible?
Unless there is Y, there cannot be X
Given the fact that all things act for an end
What are the conditions that make it possible for all things to act for an end?
Unless there were an intelligent being that directs all things to their end, ti would not be possible.
Aristotle's Four Questions and their answers
1) What is its purpose? Final Cause (Telos)
2) What is it made of? Material Cause
3) What is its shape (form)? Formal Cause
4) Who or what made it? Efficient Cause
Substance - the total thing with all of its attributes (Aristotelian, not Cartesian)
Paley's Argument from analogy
The watch did not grow there.
It did not just happen.
Because of its complexity and purposiveness we know that it was made by a human being.
The very properties that lead us to infer that the watch was made by a watchmaker lead us to infer the universe was made by a universe-maker.
Inductive Analogy
Set A consists of member {a, b, c, d, e...}
All these members share property X
"F" is also a member of set A
Therefore, F probably has property X
In the General sample you want a "high negative analogy"
But when the General sample is extended to one particular thing you want a "high positive analogy".
The teleological argument of Paley depends on the universe being as much like a clock as possible.
Criticism of Paley's Argument
Hume:
-Even if the analogy holds, it doesn't prove the existence of God
- Even if there is a strong analogy between the watch and the universe we have not ruled out the possibility that it could have come about by chance
Post-Humean Versions
- tend to become disjunctions rather than analogy
- which is the better explanation: the universe came by chance or by purpose?
Stuart Hackett
Teleological argument from the "Macroscopic point of view"
From a conspicuous adaptation to an intelligent creator
examples:
1) The fitness of the inorganic material world to be an environment for both the production and maintenance of organic life. Chance is not a sufficient explanation because chance is tied to the consistent make-up of the inorganic material.
2) The internal adaptedness of organic beings, both in their structure of specialized functions and in their general orientation for self-maintenance or subservience to some other form of organic life. Chance is ruled out as a proximate cause. Chance would postal minute, non-advantageous changes.
3) The intelligibility of the world and its instrumentality in the realization of humanly provisioned ends. Chance ruled out because minds are not the logical outcome of our evolutionary process. Minds are so transcendent that they cannot have arisen from matter.
4) The temporal progressiveness of the cosmic progress through levels of matter, life and mind, in an order of increasing valuation significance.
Anthropic Principle
What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the condition necessary for our presence as observers. (Weak Version)
The universe would have had to passed some very tiny probabilities of window in order to be observed. (Strong version)
Generation of Carbon Post- Big Bang
- Needs to combine three helium nuclei
- May not exceed three helium nuclei
- If it becomes four it becomes oxygen and then "boom", nothing is left
The universe seems to have moved in a deliberate direction. Therefore, it seems more plausible that the universe arose from a creator and not from chance.
Ramsey: Qualified Disclosure Models
Ramsey built his religious language out of an empirical setting and tests it by its empirical adequacy.
Disclosure-Commitment Situations
There are two aspects to the kind of experiences that are religious in nature:
1) An empirical situation that evokes discernment
2) A total commitment to what is discerned
The empirical situations that evoke discernment are the experiential grounding for the meaning of religious language.
Discernment situations:
Ramsey holds that metaphors and odd words have the disclosure poor to make the "ice break" or the "light down".
The literary and logical oddity of "I-Religion" or tautologies like "I am I", "Duty for duty's sake" or "love for love's sake" do not render them meaningless.
To Ramsey there is more in empirical language and situations than meets the eye.
Commitment Situations:
Not every disclosure situation provides religious disclosure.
Religious disclosure evokes a total commitment.
Total commitment is a total commitment to the whole universe, not a total commitment to a part of the universe or a partial commitment to the whole universe.
Ramsey holds religious experience to be one in which one responds to a discernment situation with a total commitment.
Religious Language: Qualified Models
Since religious experience in and of itself is odd, religious language will in turn be odd.
The Meaning and Use of Models
A disclosure model does not seek to describe anything. It enables us to articulate what we once could not express.
Language about God is not declarative; it is evocative.
The Qualification of Models
Ramsey calls qualifiers "words which multiply models without end and with subtle changes" (279).
Models and qualifiers create what Wittgenstien calls family resemblances.
Ramsey develops three groups of qualified models:
1) The negative attributes of God - i.e. God is immutable
2) One word positive attributes of God - i.e. perfection
3) Two-word positive attributes of God - i.e. first cause or infinitely good
Ramsey holds the term "God" to be an integrative term, bringing together the separate discernment-commitment disclosures into a unified whole.
The term "God" functions like the term "I" in everyday language.
The Adequacy of Models: Empirical Fit
Models help to articulate theology in a reliable way when:
1) They arise in a moment of insight or disclosure
2) It empirically fits, it is able to incorporate diverse phenomena consistently
Evaluation of Ramsey's View
Ramsey's master model of God, a combination of many individual models, answers the problem of empirically grounded God-talk.
Without an analogy built on the ontological similarity of Creator and creature, God-talk is purely equivocal.
Only metaphysical analogy can save qualified models from equivocation.
Ferré Metaphysical Models
Ferré builds a metaphysical synthesis based on the religious model, which is subject to truth tests.
The Nature and Function of Models
To Ferré, a model y is that "which provides epistemological vividness or immediacy to a theory by offering as an interpretation of the abstract or unfamiliar theory-structure that both fits the logical form of the theory and is well-known" (283).
Models are similar to metaphors in two ways:
1) Their language is literally false
2) They have a point nonetheless
Ferré divides models threefold:
1) Type - the degree of concreteness the model has
2) Scope - degree of inclusiveness the model has
3) Status - how important the model is
Ferré holds there are three functions for models:
1) Suggest point-by-point resemblance
2) Serve heuristic value
3) Fulfill the holistic desire of man to have an explanatory model of his experience
Models in Religions Language
A scientific mode can separate reality and the observer, whereas a theological model cannot
Scientific models are judged on how helpful they are
Theological models must be judged on truth and falsity
Theological models draw upon a different set of facts than scientific models.
Ferré holds the religious imagery of the Scriptures, the creeds, and traditions of the believing community to be a "metaphysical model"
God-Language is not literal, it is anthropomorphic
The theistic model incorporates data from other areas of knowledge, but religious imagery is always the core.
Testing Religious Models
Ferré denies that religious language is purely non cognitive while admitting it serves many non-cognitive functions.
No metaphysical model (world view) should be adopted arbitrarily
There are three strata in one's total account of things:
1) Preverbal metaphysical model of symbol (taken from the imagery of Scripture)
2) Set of propositions that attempt to express this metaphysical model in a cognitive way
3) A range of functions (cognitive and non-cognitive, verbal and nonverbal) that constitute the religious language game.
Only the second strata is applicable to the truth tests
Ferry offers five truth tests for the truth of total synthesis built on religious models:
1) Consistency - it must be non-contradictory
2) Coherence - consistency must be external as well as internal
3) Applicability - masut be relatable to individual experience
4) Adequacy - must be applicable to all domains of feeling and perception
5) Effectiveness - the synthesis must be a useable instrument for coping with the total environment of human experiences
A metaphysical synthesis is adequate (according to Ferré) only if it is capable of putting all experience into a whole, pervasive and adequate pattern.
Ferré notes that nay falsification of a metaphysical position is like an erosion, not an explosion.
Ferré states that:
1) Christianity has been effective in the past, but there is doubt about its effectiveness in the present and future.
2) Few would dispute the applicability of love and reverence. But this is only a minimal test.
3) Adequacy is a complex test involving many levels that Christianity appears to meet fairly well.
4) No clear contradictions have been demonstrated in Christianity but the proposed solutions have not gained universal acceptance.
5) Christianity has a "striking internal coherence" but the external coherence is not as obvious. There are almost certainly some empirical statements in Scripture that are false (i.e. the sun standing still for Joshua)
Evaluation of Ferré's Metaphysical Model
Ferré is not in the univocal camp. No literal descriptions of God, anthropomorphic Bible, etc.
Ferré denied the analogical intrinsic causal connection of the Thomists but his concentration on truth statements suggests he does not mean to make religious language equivocal.
Ferré would need to rethink his stance on analogy to save his theory from equivocation.
Recent Trends Retreating from models
Much of contemporary religious language has been shaped by Hume, the logical positivists and young Wittgenstein
Gill: Mediation and Metaphor
Jerry H. Gill attempts to build a holistic comprehension of humanity and human knowledge, instead of a purely cognitive or empirical basis.
He held that:
1) Religious language is linguistically constituted, we cannot know religious reality apart from it being covered to us in words and concepts
2) Religious language is social activity. Many uses are more important than descriptive.
3) Religious language is meaningful with significant, not absolute precision
4) Religious language is primarily metaphorical
Gill's Proposal Evaluated
Analogy must be grounded in metaphysical reality, but Gill denies this ontological link.
Gill has made a strong analysis of the function of religious language but has forfeited any guard against it being equivocal.
Semantical Atheism
(Originally written March 19, 2007)
Philosophy of Religion
Norman Geisler & Winfried Corduan
Ch. 13 p. 275
Van Buren: Semantical Atheism
Paul M. Van Buren held that if we do not know what God is then we cannot know how the word God is being used.
Van Buren held that the term "God", not God himself, was dead.
Thus we are left with a God we cannot talk about. We are left with semantical atheism.
Ramsey: Qualified Disclosure Models
Philosophy of Religion
Norman Geisler & Winfried Corduan
Ch. 13 p. 275
Van Buren: Semantical Atheism
Paul M. Van Buren held that if we do not know what God is then we cannot know how the word God is being used.
Van Buren held that the term "God", not God himself, was dead.
Thus we are left with a God we cannot talk about. We are left with semantical atheism.
Ramsey: Qualified Disclosure Models
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.
Two-Fold God Language
(Originally written March 17, 2007 in Book 25)
A framework for an essay idea.
God-language is two-fold. The first part is a general use of language. Theists, atheists, non-theists, pantheists, polytheists, panentheists and all other "ints" can speak about God using philosophical God-language. This usage of language is descriptive of God in that it aims to either positively or negatively attribute qualities to God. It has all the trappings of petty philosophy. It can be argued whether or not it is solely negative, solely positive or a combination thereof. It can be argued whether it is analogical, univocal, equivocal, modal or what have you. It can follow Scotus, Aquinas, Wittgenstien or Ramsey or whomever. It is an arduous process in developing a philosophical God-Language, but luckily it is not the crucial part of God-Language.
Alongside, maybe even contrary to philosophical God-Language is prayer God-Language. This can be anthropomorphic, mystical, ineffable or even contradictory. It is not bound by logic or language itself. It is beyond language. It is metaphorical and literal, univocal and equivocal and analogical all at once. It can be descriptive about God, but that is not its purpose. Its purpose is the communication between the Transcendent and those who wish to transcend.
Philosophical God-Language is aimed at describing the concept of God; whereas prayer God-Language is aimed at communicating with God. Prayer language is mystical in nature in that those who do not have the experience of prayer can never fully comprehend it. But, beyond that those who pray to Buddha or Allah do not experience what those who pray to YHWH or Jesus Christ and visa versa. Philosophical God-Language can be meaningless, but prayer God-Language cannot. Prayer language can be powerful even if it is empty. Prayer is mystical and emotional. Even if a prayer is offered to a deity that is not there it can stir such emotion to make the emotional experience ineffable. But prayer to a deity that is attentive is beyond emotional, it is mystical.
The ineffability of prayer experience is so because we are ill-equipped to describe it to one another. Not because we do not comprehend mystical experiences or that mystical experiences are non-empirical but because we cannot translate prayer language into philosophical language. Philosophical God-Language is spoken from man-to-man. Prayer language is spoken from man-to-God. Without God all God-Language is philosophical, thus we cannot speak cognitively about prayer language in philosophical terms.
A framework for an essay idea.
God-language is two-fold. The first part is a general use of language. Theists, atheists, non-theists, pantheists, polytheists, panentheists and all other "ints" can speak about God using philosophical God-language. This usage of language is descriptive of God in that it aims to either positively or negatively attribute qualities to God. It has all the trappings of petty philosophy. It can be argued whether or not it is solely negative, solely positive or a combination thereof. It can be argued whether it is analogical, univocal, equivocal, modal or what have you. It can follow Scotus, Aquinas, Wittgenstien or Ramsey or whomever. It is an arduous process in developing a philosophical God-Language, but luckily it is not the crucial part of God-Language.
Alongside, maybe even contrary to philosophical God-Language is prayer God-Language. This can be anthropomorphic, mystical, ineffable or even contradictory. It is not bound by logic or language itself. It is beyond language. It is metaphorical and literal, univocal and equivocal and analogical all at once. It can be descriptive about God, but that is not its purpose. Its purpose is the communication between the Transcendent and those who wish to transcend.
Philosophical God-Language is aimed at describing the concept of God; whereas prayer God-Language is aimed at communicating with God. Prayer language is mystical in nature in that those who do not have the experience of prayer can never fully comprehend it. But, beyond that those who pray to Buddha or Allah do not experience what those who pray to YHWH or Jesus Christ and visa versa. Philosophical God-Language can be meaningless, but prayer God-Language cannot. Prayer language can be powerful even if it is empty. Prayer is mystical and emotional. Even if a prayer is offered to a deity that is not there it can stir such emotion to make the emotional experience ineffable. But prayer to a deity that is attentive is beyond emotional, it is mystical.
The ineffability of prayer experience is so because we are ill-equipped to describe it to one another. Not because we do not comprehend mystical experiences or that mystical experiences are non-empirical but because we cannot translate prayer language into philosophical language. Philosophical God-Language is spoken from man-to-man. Prayer language is spoken from man-to-God. Without God all God-Language is philosophical, thus we cannot speak cognitively about prayer language in philosophical terms.
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
Friday, March 16, 2007
More Notes on God-Language
(Originally written March 16, 2007 in Book 13)
Some Attempts at Building an Adequate Religious Language
Negative Language of God
The classic example of Negative theology in the West is Plotinus.
Plotinus felt that the One was so far beyond sensibility and intellectual awareness that it could never be spoken of or written about.
Negative religious assertions avoid verbal idolatry.
Finite concepts cannot be applied to an infinite Being.
But, the problem with Negative language is that it presupposes some positive understanding.
Univocal Language of God
John Duns Scotus believed that language used to describe finite creatures are wholly different then that describing the infinite.
He maintained that unless there is univocity in concepts of God there can be no certain knowledge of God.
Analogous Language about God
Thomas Aquinas pointed out the problem with univocal language. He showed that a created concept cannot be expressed univocally about an uncreated Being.
Aquinas advocated analogous language about God to avoid total skepticism and complete dogmatics.
If language is univocal, having a totally different meaning then we have no true knowledge of God.
He held that finite concepts are adequate in describing God if their finitude can be removed, that is to say if we can remove the limitations of concepts (like goodness, justice, etc.). Then we can apply them to God.
Model Language about God
Analogy of intrinsic attribution has not been widely accepted outside of Thomistic circles.
Frederick Ferré offered six objections to analogous language
1. A wholly extrinsic analogy says nothing about the intrinsic properties of God
2. If there is an extrinsic causal relation between God and the world, why are not all qualities drawn from the world applicable to God?
3. When words are disengaged from their finite mode of signification and applied to God they become meaningless.
4. Analogy is based on the challengeable assumption that the causal relation assumption that the causal relation between God and the world provides a basis for their similarity.
5. Even if analogy could be based on some Platonic ontological similarity between cause and effect, properties dawn from finite creatures could not be attributed to an infinite creature in a univocal sense and if they were attributed in a non-univocal sense then it is an equivocation of the word "cause".
6. If the ontology of similarity is not univocally expressed, it is an infinite regress of equivocations. If it is univocal then there is no need of analogy.
Ian T. Ramsey claims God is revealed via disclosure models.
"Disclosure models are the means by which the inverse reveals itself to men" (227).
Disclosure models point to mystery and allow one to speak about God, even if one cannot describe him.
While disclosure models are not ontologically they help to build 'family resemblances'.
In the disclosure model approach, God-language is the result of family resemblances built out of disclosure models integrated into the term, "God".
Autonomous Language about God
This movement denies that religious language needs to be judged by scientific or any other type of language.
In using Wittgenstein concepts they hold that one who is not religious cannot pass judgment on the meaningfulness of the religious language game.
D.Z. Phillips argued that the believer is under no obligation to the unbeliever to account for his beliefs, but the believer cannot impeach the non-believer's non belief on rational grounds.
Under Phillips' context religious language is justified internally, not externally.
Many believers and nonbelievers are unsatisfied with using Wittgenstein's concepts because it makes religious language completely isolated and some argue completely non-cognitive.
The basic problem of religious language is how one can speak meaningfully about God (infinite) by using finite concepts.
Mystics use the "via negative" - no positive affirmations about God are possible.
Scouts and others argue that if there are no positive assertions about God we are left with utter skepticism.
Thomas's argue that finite concepts have only an analogous meaning to the infinite.
11: Negative Religious Language
Negation has been used in philosophical though since Plato
Plato: Determination and Non-Being
The Parmenidean Problem
Parmenides was the first monist.
He held that there can be only One Being in the Universe because if there is more than One being they must differ by something (being) or nothing (non-being). They cannot differ by non-being because they wouldn't differ. They cannot differ by being because that is the only respect that they are similar. Thus, there is only one Being.
Plato's answer to the Parmenidean Problem
Plato held that things differ from each other by negation. A horse is not a chair.
There are two problems with Plato's negation:
1. One must have a positive understanding of what a chair is if a horse is not a chair.
2. All possibilities of a things characteristics must be negated before that this is truly known.
But, Plato, by placing all differences through negation only left differences in being as not happening. Thus everything that has being is identical and Monism necessarily follows.
Plotinus - Negation by Intuition of the Beyond-Being
Plotinus held that being had degrees and kinds, unlike Parmenides' assumption that being was pure and simple.
A brief sketch of the Plotinus' Solution
"The way things differ is by the degree of unity they have. The more unity something has, the higher degree of being it possess".
All Being begins with absolute unity, which is God.
Some Attempts at Building an Adequate Religious Language
Negative Language of God
The classic example of Negative theology in the West is Plotinus.
Plotinus felt that the One was so far beyond sensibility and intellectual awareness that it could never be spoken of or written about.
Negative religious assertions avoid verbal idolatry.
Finite concepts cannot be applied to an infinite Being.
But, the problem with Negative language is that it presupposes some positive understanding.
Univocal Language of God
John Duns Scotus believed that language used to describe finite creatures are wholly different then that describing the infinite.
He maintained that unless there is univocity in concepts of God there can be no certain knowledge of God.
Analogous Language about God
Thomas Aquinas pointed out the problem with univocal language. He showed that a created concept cannot be expressed univocally about an uncreated Being.
Aquinas advocated analogous language about God to avoid total skepticism and complete dogmatics.
If language is univocal, having a totally different meaning then we have no true knowledge of God.
He held that finite concepts are adequate in describing God if their finitude can be removed, that is to say if we can remove the limitations of concepts (like goodness, justice, etc.). Then we can apply them to God.
Model Language about God
Analogy of intrinsic attribution has not been widely accepted outside of Thomistic circles.
Frederick Ferré offered six objections to analogous language
1. A wholly extrinsic analogy says nothing about the intrinsic properties of God
2. If there is an extrinsic causal relation between God and the world, why are not all qualities drawn from the world applicable to God?
3. When words are disengaged from their finite mode of signification and applied to God they become meaningless.
4. Analogy is based on the challengeable assumption that the causal relation assumption that the causal relation between God and the world provides a basis for their similarity.
5. Even if analogy could be based on some Platonic ontological similarity between cause and effect, properties dawn from finite creatures could not be attributed to an infinite creature in a univocal sense and if they were attributed in a non-univocal sense then it is an equivocation of the word "cause".
6. If the ontology of similarity is not univocally expressed, it is an infinite regress of equivocations. If it is univocal then there is no need of analogy.
Ian T. Ramsey claims God is revealed via disclosure models.
"Disclosure models are the means by which the inverse reveals itself to men" (227).
Disclosure models point to mystery and allow one to speak about God, even if one cannot describe him.
While disclosure models are not ontologically they help to build 'family resemblances'.
In the disclosure model approach, God-language is the result of family resemblances built out of disclosure models integrated into the term, "God".
Autonomous Language about God
This movement denies that religious language needs to be judged by scientific or any other type of language.
In using Wittgenstein concepts they hold that one who is not religious cannot pass judgment on the meaningfulness of the religious language game.
D.Z. Phillips argued that the believer is under no obligation to the unbeliever to account for his beliefs, but the believer cannot impeach the non-believer's non belief on rational grounds.
Under Phillips' context religious language is justified internally, not externally.
Many believers and nonbelievers are unsatisfied with using Wittgenstein's concepts because it makes religious language completely isolated and some argue completely non-cognitive.
The basic problem of religious language is how one can speak meaningfully about God (infinite) by using finite concepts.
Mystics use the "via negative" - no positive affirmations about God are possible.
Scouts and others argue that if there are no positive assertions about God we are left with utter skepticism.
Thomas's argue that finite concepts have only an analogous meaning to the infinite.
11: Negative Religious Language
Negation has been used in philosophical though since Plato
Plato: Determination and Non-Being
The Parmenidean Problem
Parmenides was the first monist.
He held that there can be only One Being in the Universe because if there is more than One being they must differ by something (being) or nothing (non-being). They cannot differ by non-being because they wouldn't differ. They cannot differ by being because that is the only respect that they are similar. Thus, there is only one Being.
Plato's answer to the Parmenidean Problem
Plato held that things differ from each other by negation. A horse is not a chair.
There are two problems with Plato's negation:
1. One must have a positive understanding of what a chair is if a horse is not a chair.
2. All possibilities of a things characteristics must be negated before that this is truly known.
But, Plato, by placing all differences through negation only left differences in being as not happening. Thus everything that has being is identical and Monism necessarily follows.
Plotinus - Negation by Intuition of the Beyond-Being
Plotinus held that being had degrees and kinds, unlike Parmenides' assumption that being was pure and simple.
A brief sketch of the Plotinus' Solution
"The way things differ is by the degree of unity they have. The more unity something has, the higher degree of being it possess".
All Being begins with absolute unity, which is God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)