Philosophy
Qua Rationality
08/13/08 10:29
Lately I have been perusing Alistair McGrath and Richard Dawkins’ debates/interviews on YouTube. They have been deeply disturbing, namely because Dawkins reveals in a very obvious manner the irrationality of Christianity. This is an extremely difficult aspect of Christianity. We try as hard as hard as we can to maintain our rationality with mixed results. Let me layout the problem, propose some underlying theses, and some (potential) solutions.
The essential problem revolves around the Resurrection. If we understand rationality as logical thinking (logical meaning able to be tested in terms of validity), then how can the resurrection (much less the incarnation) ever be a rationally understood enterprise? This is particularly true from our station as humans! Perhaps if we had some supernatural vision of the world, then we could use different tests of validity than those at our disposal. This sort of wishful thinking may not be pragmatic, but hopefully it reminds us, as thinkers, that the greatest pursuits we can engage in are limited. I stray from my point.
Dawkins cornered McGrath on the issue of God’s action. It is a deeply inexplicable problem, and one of many that Dawkins could have used. In this particular case, Dawkins asked how one can be rational while holding the proposition that God saves (in a very real sense, such as from the catastrophe of 9/11) some people and not others while at the same time believing that God had no direct action in the death of the thousands of other. If God is really God, why would he save that one person, or this few people, and let the many die? This appears inherently irrational.
The essential problem revolves around the Resurrection. If we understand rationality as logical thinking (logical meaning able to be tested in terms of validity), then how can the resurrection (much less the incarnation) ever be a rationally understood enterprise? This is particularly true from our station as humans! Perhaps if we had some supernatural vision of the world, then we could use different tests of validity than those at our disposal. This sort of wishful thinking may not be pragmatic, but hopefully it reminds us, as thinkers, that the greatest pursuits we can engage in are limited. I stray from my point.
Dawkins cornered McGrath on the issue of God’s action. It is a deeply inexplicable problem, and one of many that Dawkins could have used. In this particular case, Dawkins asked how one can be rational while holding the proposition that God saves (in a very real sense, such as from the catastrophe of 9/11) some people and not others while at the same time believing that God had no direct action in the death of the thousands of other. If God is really God, why would he save that one person, or this few people, and let the many die? This appears inherently irrational.
|
What do we really know?
08/06/08 18:02
In the Old Testament, there is only one God. Yahweh. The evidence is not monolithic, and some point to different hintings at the Trinity, but truly any good Jew knows that the Lord is one. However, in the New Testament, we learn a deeper truth - a deeper revelation of reality. God is one, but in a very mysterious way - the trinity. He is one and three at the same time. Is this the final revelation? Certainly not.
In the Old Testament, the Messiah seems to imply someone who is going to come from the line of David and establish the kingdom of Israel again (like David). When Jesus shows up, those are not his intentions at all (at least in the sense of creating an earthly Kingdom). The Jews are not able to recognize him as the Messiah for that very reason!
My point is this: what do we know? What of our understanding of God is a bit off (or significantly off in the case of political power!)? What if our traditional understanding of salvation is not quite right? What if the traditional understanding of God as a warrior or as a peacemaker is not quite right.
If the New Testament is a partial corrective to the Hebrew Scriptures (and Jesus very much see himself as a corrective, i.e., when it comes to the understanding of Sabbath), then how much can we trust the Bible? Moreover, Paul’s own philosophical and theological musings - how are they more accurate than Calvin or Barth? I do not mean that in an arrogant sense, but were not Calvin and Barth followers of Christ seeking God’s purpose/will? Couldn’t Paul be slightly mistaken in his understanding of eschatology, soteriology or salvation?
In the Old Testament, the Messiah seems to imply someone who is going to come from the line of David and establish the kingdom of Israel again (like David). When Jesus shows up, those are not his intentions at all (at least in the sense of creating an earthly Kingdom). The Jews are not able to recognize him as the Messiah for that very reason!
My point is this: what do we know? What of our understanding of God is a bit off (or significantly off in the case of political power!)? What if our traditional understanding of salvation is not quite right? What if the traditional understanding of God as a warrior or as a peacemaker is not quite right.
If the New Testament is a partial corrective to the Hebrew Scriptures (and Jesus very much see himself as a corrective, i.e., when it comes to the understanding of Sabbath), then how much can we trust the Bible? Moreover, Paul’s own philosophical and theological musings - how are they more accurate than Calvin or Barth? I do not mean that in an arrogant sense, but were not Calvin and Barth followers of Christ seeking God’s purpose/will? Couldn’t Paul be slightly mistaken in his understanding of eschatology, soteriology or salvation?
The End of Time
07/31/08 00:15
We know that one day the universe will end. This is not just the theological conjecture of someone who has read the book of Revelation. It is more or less an undeniable fact of physics. So, knowing that there is an end to the universe, that has some serious implications at how one looks at life. Assuming one is a theist, and more so a Christian, this thought may not be so alarming. Most Christians expect some sort of an end to come with the return of Jesus to setup the full-blown Kingdom of God. At that time Christ will judge everyone (though I will not speculate into the specifics of that judgment now). Essentially, the hope in another life, another world, that Christians have is crucial to looking forward to the end of time. We hope, trust and believe that there is a heaven - there is another place for us to go, and it is going to be even better than this beautiful earth.
The problem that I envision for the certainty of the end of time is that of the conundrum set before atheists and deists who do not think that God cares about us at all. For, due to this inevitable end, what meaning does life have? Not only is it hard to live everyday knowing that humanity has the capacity to blow itself to smithereens with a few nukes, but now we know that even if we manage note to blow ourselves up, it will all come to an end nonetheless! This is a very deep question on a great number of levels: it forces us to ask what life is all about. Not only in the very pragmatic sense of what legacy one wants to leave behind, or engaging in that most pedestrian need to propagate one’s genes (to put it... bluntly?), but in the philosophical and theological senses of purpose. I suppose what it really breaks down to is a question of ethics: How should we live knowing what we know?
This is a not a new question of ethics, but it is a different question than one asked in the millennia before us because now we know that there is an end. No longer does the humanist-modernist idea of perfecting humanity matter. Even if we gain perfection, it ends. No longer does the arrogant quest for immortality matter (it is still very much alive), because there is an impenetrable end to immortality.
Oddly enough, this question is one that was entertained in Scripture. Qohelet, the author of Ecclesiastes, came head-to-head with this very question. His conclusions are not necessarily for enlightening, but they definitely ring true: Hevel hevel, everything is hevel. Hevel is often translated meaningless, but it could mean so many things! It could mean wisp, or fleetingness, or a breath... The point being that even this writer from at least a score of centuries ago was able to realize that what we do on earth, but for very few of us, will have little lasting impact. (However, what we all do together can have a great lasting impact - such a global warming or deforestation, etc.). My point is this: the purpose of living life cannot be found in anything other than living it. That is, when God gives you blessings - enjoy them. When God allows your trials, endure them. It is not for the present that they matter - they matter because who you are, and what character you have, is being created, shaped and refined by those experiences. Life is lived best because who you are is eternal, and what you do now does affect who you are in that eternity.
The problem that I envision for the certainty of the end of time is that of the conundrum set before atheists and deists who do not think that God cares about us at all. For, due to this inevitable end, what meaning does life have? Not only is it hard to live everyday knowing that humanity has the capacity to blow itself to smithereens with a few nukes, but now we know that even if we manage note to blow ourselves up, it will all come to an end nonetheless! This is a very deep question on a great number of levels: it forces us to ask what life is all about. Not only in the very pragmatic sense of what legacy one wants to leave behind, or engaging in that most pedestrian need to propagate one’s genes (to put it... bluntly?), but in the philosophical and theological senses of purpose. I suppose what it really breaks down to is a question of ethics: How should we live knowing what we know?
This is a not a new question of ethics, but it is a different question than one asked in the millennia before us because now we know that there is an end. No longer does the humanist-modernist idea of perfecting humanity matter. Even if we gain perfection, it ends. No longer does the arrogant quest for immortality matter (it is still very much alive), because there is an impenetrable end to immortality.
Oddly enough, this question is one that was entertained in Scripture. Qohelet, the author of Ecclesiastes, came head-to-head with this very question. His conclusions are not necessarily for enlightening, but they definitely ring true: Hevel hevel, everything is hevel. Hevel is often translated meaningless, but it could mean so many things! It could mean wisp, or fleetingness, or a breath... The point being that even this writer from at least a score of centuries ago was able to realize that what we do on earth, but for very few of us, will have little lasting impact. (However, what we all do together can have a great lasting impact - such a global warming or deforestation, etc.). My point is this: the purpose of living life cannot be found in anything other than living it. That is, when God gives you blessings - enjoy them. When God allows your trials, endure them. It is not for the present that they matter - they matter because who you are, and what character you have, is being created, shaped and refined by those experiences. Life is lived best because who you are is eternal, and what you do now does affect who you are in that eternity.
Seeking Truth
05/15/08 08:09
Maybe life is not so much about figuring out what is truth. Maybe it is more about figuring about what is false. There is little truth that is in any sense ‘provable’ in any ultimate or definite sense. Berkeley’s solipsism is difficult to refute, though I have never met anyone who actually believes in it. Even pragmatism does not function well as a decisive rubric for analyzing truth claims - there are a great many truths that are deeply impractical. The first that comes to mind is to love others as yourself, which truly leads to a better way of living life. At first, it is apparent that the most pragmatic way of doing life is to only look out for oneself, but the resulting life is disastrous (eventually). Nietzche’s Ubermensch would be another example - Hitler is not exactly the sort of person that few would morally tolerate, but according to Nietzche’s ethic, he is a perfectly moral character.
The Ambiguous
11/06/07 11:34
It came to represent everything that postmodernity is. Theologically, the feminist, womanist, black, liberation and other theological movements have sought to treat the Bible like it is one of these pictures - it is wholly possible to read it and see a whole new aspect or picture depending on what lines you choose are dominant. As far as praxis goes, I really only have a couple things to say: on one level, this ambiguity downright sucks. It makes for arguments, it reduces everything from clearcut to unsettling, it can be a deep cause of doubt and uncertainty. At the same time, life would be miserable otherwise. How could we trade disagreements for uniformity? Rather, we must learn to separate the disagreement from the relationship - something that I am horrible at. It is completely possible, and necessary, to learn how to love, befriend and care for those that we completely disagree with and even dislike. Essentially, we become truly people of compassion when we are able to love those who are our enemies. We become people of love when we cannot only tolerate, but enjoy and engage with those who frustrate, annoy, and would try to make us hate. Moreover, then we truly become a light to the world - not only because our example is so wonderful, but we are showing another way of living which is akin to the way that Jesus lives.