All of us live a life of momentary experiences that come and go as fast as we can taste them or enjoy them. We are always seeking something to fill our time and desires with. But as many of us know solid joy cannot be found in physical pleasures. They fade and never totally satisfy us. Is there more to life then just having isolated events and experiences? How are we to connect all our experiences in life so that there is some meaning or context to our passing through time. Is there some ultimate explanation to our experiences, some interpretation some cause or value in them or are we just consuming time with random events. Can experiences be meaningful just by virtue of what they are?
I would say no, experiences cannot provide their own explanation. What we would need would be something that would explain our ever-changing experiences, but would not simply be one more experience.
Christopher Hitchens is his book “god is not great” tries to say that we have no need for God because we can explain everything now. He says “Religion has run out of justification. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of any thing important.” Hitchens seem to think that the telescope or microscope has replaced religion in its power of explanation. But can one explain the meaning of life by learning more and more of the size and place of planet earth in the cosmic expanse we call the universe. All that a microscope or telescope would do, would be to describe in more detail our disconnected experiences which still need an explanation. It is impossible to connect our experiences or facts without something that transcends them. Is there anything that can tell us not simply what our experiences are, but rather what they mean or why they are what they are. The only one that can do this is God who transcends all finite experiences and facts and sees them in the light of his eternal rational plan and interpretation. One can only really know a true fact in its relation to all the facts, and as God is the source of Truth all facts find they’re meaning in him. God is the one that gives eternal meaning to all our disconnected experiences, which at times seem random and worthless. Because all our experiences find there context in his eternal interpretation.
What we as Humans are trying to do is bring unity to our diversity, meaning to our subjectivism. True joy and meaning can never be found in this ever-changing world that fades, where pleasures come and go. This world is in constant finite change and you will never find solid joy in a physical world of things that you can see and touch, because they are passing away just like our bodies. So what is the purpose of our finite ever changing experiences. What is the goal when the minute we are born our bodies start to waste away and die. What is the purpose of our experiences and there relation to our declining bodies?
The Apostle Paul gives us a good answer,
“So we don’t lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are passing away, but the things that are unseen are eternal” ( Cor. 4;16-18)
What Paul is saying is that through our outer self is wasting away, our inner self (soul) is being renewed day by day by the experiences we encounter. During our life our outer body may waste away, but or inner soul grows day by day. He says that our momentary difficulties in life are shaping us in character for an eternal experience, that being standing in the presence of God being glorified and made perfect by the work of Christ so that we can experience eternal joy that dose not fade. That being satisfied in the fullness of God’s eternal love, beauty and glory. All our experiences in life are for us to shape our characters to draw love or mercy or compassion or perseverance out of us, so that we can be shown to be true and tested. Its is these things, such as unconditional love that we must seek which is unseen in the world and act it out to others on earth, knowing that in the end the unseen will be seen and experienced in heaven and it will be eternal and will not fade. It is in light of God that our momentary experiences have any value or worth. We either let them shape us for good or we get bitter and evil through them. Either way God will demonstrate his glory in the end.
By throwing God out of the picture of your life you will never find any connection to your individual meaningless experiences. You will always be longing for experiences that seem to always fade and disappoint. Let us put our faith in things that cannot be shaken those things that are eternal.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Is This World Beautiful or do We Just Think It Is?
When we look out into the world and reflect on its beauty are we making a claim that beauty exists outside of our mind. That beauty is more than just our inner awe of what we experience. Are we saying that an object is beautiful just because we think it is?
Our postmodern world would tell us that there is no inherent meaning or signification in the things of the world. So where does the desire, that longing feeling to worship an object find its connection. Is our desire of beauty just an empty concept we use to label a chaotic world. Is our longing a longing of nothing beautiful in itself?
David Hart in his book “The Beauty of the Infinite” says that beauty evokes desire. So if beauty does not exist in the world independent of our minds then what is it that has evoke our desires. To answer this we must look at what beauty is and why it attracts.
Have you every read a good book, which told such a beautiful story that it drawed you into its wonder and evoked desires from you of its beauty and goodness? If you have you know that the beauty is not in the book or in the ink on the pages, but transcends into the mind of the Author. Weather it’s a book or a song in which we thought the beauty was located, it will betray us if we trust in them, it was not in them, it only came through them and what came through them was longing.
As a book can make us want to connect to the beauty of the Author, this world is like a book written by the finger of God. Reflecting, representing and describing its maker. Creation is like another text, it has layers of meaning and points or signifies beyond itself. Beauty is a manifestation of a mind that evokes absolute awe and desire to be consumed and satisfied. If you reject this, then we are left we humans just thinking on their abstract thoughts which are desires relating to nothing that is beautiful. To talk of impersonal beauty would mean it has no form. Our ability to judge some thing as beautiful is a sign of our bearing God’s image, because these judgments point to an absolute Beauty. The visible world is made after an invisible mind who has made every thing good. Creation is a self-revelation of the personal Creator God.
The physical things take their image and design and structure from the artistic creations of God’s mind. Every structure and form is a sign pointing to its ontological source (God). As we look past a physical book of matter and go beyond it, so we should be moved beyond nature and see the master designer who has shined himself through all to evoke a longing that will draw us to his absolute beauty, goodness and love.
The one difference between a book and ourselves is that we don’t just look past people and just see God, we value each person for who they are as image bearers and then worship the creator who has made us. If you have a beautiful spouse you have a gift, but your gift also is reflecting back to its giver (the creator) who is the original author and mind of all beauty as he is the absolute desire that we all need to be complete in. God evokes desires so we will be drawn into his glory and love. The rest of creation is beautiful too but draws us beyond its physical nature.
Our postmodern world would tell us that there is no inherent meaning or signification in the things of the world. So where does the desire, that longing feeling to worship an object find its connection. Is our desire of beauty just an empty concept we use to label a chaotic world. Is our longing a longing of nothing beautiful in itself?
David Hart in his book “The Beauty of the Infinite” says that beauty evokes desire. So if beauty does not exist in the world independent of our minds then what is it that has evoke our desires. To answer this we must look at what beauty is and why it attracts.
Have you every read a good book, which told such a beautiful story that it drawed you into its wonder and evoked desires from you of its beauty and goodness? If you have you know that the beauty is not in the book or in the ink on the pages, but transcends into the mind of the Author. Weather it’s a book or a song in which we thought the beauty was located, it will betray us if we trust in them, it was not in them, it only came through them and what came through them was longing.
As a book can make us want to connect to the beauty of the Author, this world is like a book written by the finger of God. Reflecting, representing and describing its maker. Creation is like another text, it has layers of meaning and points or signifies beyond itself. Beauty is a manifestation of a mind that evokes absolute awe and desire to be consumed and satisfied. If you reject this, then we are left we humans just thinking on their abstract thoughts which are desires relating to nothing that is beautiful. To talk of impersonal beauty would mean it has no form. Our ability to judge some thing as beautiful is a sign of our bearing God’s image, because these judgments point to an absolute Beauty. The visible world is made after an invisible mind who has made every thing good. Creation is a self-revelation of the personal Creator God.
The physical things take their image and design and structure from the artistic creations of God’s mind. Every structure and form is a sign pointing to its ontological source (God). As we look past a physical book of matter and go beyond it, so we should be moved beyond nature and see the master designer who has shined himself through all to evoke a longing that will draw us to his absolute beauty, goodness and love.
The one difference between a book and ourselves is that we don’t just look past people and just see God, we value each person for who they are as image bearers and then worship the creator who has made us. If you have a beautiful spouse you have a gift, but your gift also is reflecting back to its giver (the creator) who is the original author and mind of all beauty as he is the absolute desire that we all need to be complete in. God evokes desires so we will be drawn into his glory and love. The rest of creation is beautiful too but draws us beyond its physical nature.
Friday, July 25, 2008
What is the Image?
In this blog I hope to define what it is to be created in the image of God. One of my good friends asked me a good question over the issue of being created in the image of God. My friend said “but I have always felt that I am me, and not some other image.” It’s an interesting question as it asks whether being created in the image of God strips us of individual personality.
To answer this I would say that you are you, but what is a “You”. I would say the real you is a soul in a body. This soul must have some “form” or image that it takes on as nothing is non-physical and formless. When I say one is created in the image of God, I’m not saying you are not You. ‘Im saying that every one is an individual but our soul like powers, the abilities of rational thoughts, free will, emotions and imagination and value and worth and understanding of goodness and love come from the personal image we are reflecting. We are not them, but they are a part of our make up. We find that we have these powers which are a copy of the original image (God’s). This does not mean we are God, but it does mean we have God like finite personality traits.
In my last post on “Finding Youself” I said that when we try to eradicate the image that we are created in, we engage in eradicated ourselves. All these personality abilities can not be reduce to impersonal matter. The physical world of matter cannot produce these qualities. No scientist has shown how non-conscious matter has become conscious, or that non-intelligence can produce rational intelligent intentional meaningful acts. How matter or brain states can be “Of” or “About’ something, of which thoughts are. Also matter is not moral or responsible in character. The simple truth is that the impersonal will not produce the personal. If we are to believe the story of evolution that we have evolved from impersonal matter then we have many gaps, which just cannot be answered. And if one follows its conclusions then we have no reason to believe that our thoughts are rational or free (as shown is my blog “Atheism and the Illusion of free will). The only source that can explain our personality is the original absolute personality the creator of the universe, God.
To answer this I would say that you are you, but what is a “You”. I would say the real you is a soul in a body. This soul must have some “form” or image that it takes on as nothing is non-physical and formless. When I say one is created in the image of God, I’m not saying you are not You. ‘Im saying that every one is an individual but our soul like powers, the abilities of rational thoughts, free will, emotions and imagination and value and worth and understanding of goodness and love come from the personal image we are reflecting. We are not them, but they are a part of our make up. We find that we have these powers which are a copy of the original image (God’s). This does not mean we are God, but it does mean we have God like finite personality traits.
In my last post on “Finding Youself” I said that when we try to eradicate the image that we are created in, we engage in eradicated ourselves. All these personality abilities can not be reduce to impersonal matter. The physical world of matter cannot produce these qualities. No scientist has shown how non-conscious matter has become conscious, or that non-intelligence can produce rational intelligent intentional meaningful acts. How matter or brain states can be “Of” or “About’ something, of which thoughts are. Also matter is not moral or responsible in character. The simple truth is that the impersonal will not produce the personal. If we are to believe the story of evolution that we have evolved from impersonal matter then we have many gaps, which just cannot be answered. And if one follows its conclusions then we have no reason to believe that our thoughts are rational or free (as shown is my blog “Atheism and the Illusion of free will). The only source that can explain our personality is the original absolute personality the creator of the universe, God.
Finding Yourself!
Finding yourself
We live in age driven by the media and the academic world that has soaked us a diet so heavy in tolerance and inclusiveness. To accept the ultimate authority of any person, or institution is to be bigoted, intolerant, unloving, and self-righteous. The idea that one can be right about reality seems to be an option one must try not to share with others.
The very fact that this claim is promoting that “No one has the truth” is itself a truth statement implying some one is able to define truth. Maybe be it has nothing to do with being skeptical, maybe it has something to do with the nature of mankind who seems to hate the light of truth. How could all views be true, this is intellectual suicide. Why are we so sacred to admit that truth does exist. I believe it is because our nature is bent on suppressing truth due to a fallen nature.
We have all likely known people who have said “I need some time away to try and find myself.” Perhaps we have friends who are tirelessly trying to figure out who they are. These inward journeys and explorations raise a basic question; Why is it that we don’t know who we are as we live our lives in the context of the here and now.
This struggle is not a new one and takes us all the way back to the garden. There we find we are lost, because in our sins we hope not to be found, so we hide form truth.
For those who say “How dare you label me with the word sinner or that myth of Sin nature in humans”. I would say that some thing is wrong with this world! People are taking a long time to get the basic things right. I don’t think it’s a lack of education!
Because of sin, we are no different from Adam and Eve hiding in the garden. Like them we are created in God’s image. Because we are images of God, we cannot be removed from him without at the same time ceasing to “be”. Yet if we act according to our sins, we try to hide from him, we think it best to try to remove him from us. This tragedy of this self-deception is that in thinking we can eradicate God from out thoughts and lives, we engage in the attempted eradication of our true selves.
This is very important to see “We engage in the attempted eradication of our true selves by this self-deception.”
As I have shown in all my other Blogs, when you eradicate God from being the foundation of the universe, you leave it in the hands of the impersonal. You strip the universe of all rationality and personality. Man finds himself in an impersonal universe, which has no meaning to it at all. Man’s own nature is then striped from personality to be explained by the impersonal laws of random nature. Your thoughts have no logical meaning for being here and have no reason to correspond to anything. As I showed in my blog “Atheism and the illusion of free will”, if you are a part of an impersonal universe then your thoughts and actions are not personal or rational, but just part of a determined irrational process. We are not even free and our thoughts have no free intentionality or purpose in them. When we try and eradicate God’s image from our being we find that we are nothing, we are lost with no rational foundation. Because we have eradicated God from the universe and left reality with no ultimate interpretation for us to find ourlsevs in or to help us interpret our selves we lose our personality and humanness and even our ontological value and worth.
Only in the light of God can there be Truth, Goodness and Beauty, reject him and you lose your self into the void of the impersonal nothingness.
The order of these three transcendental’s of truth, goodness and beauty is ontologically founded. Truth is defined by Being, for truth is effulgence of Being, the revelation (Mind) of Being, the word of Being (God). Truth is not defined by consciousness, which conforms to Being in knowing it. Goodness is defined by truth, not by will, which is good only when it conforms to the truth of Being. And beauty is defined by goodness, objectively real goodness, not by subjective desire or pleasure or feeling or imagination, all of which should conform to it. It is God who makes things beautiful in character as he sanctifies his saints on the earth and polishes his gems.
If one rejects the eternal personal rational God then he strips the universe of the following, as they cannot be produced from the impersonal,
1. Rationality
2. Meaning
3. Order (Is a concept of mind)
4. Morality (love, goodness, faithfulness, …)
5. Design.
6. Laws of nature ( A law is a description, a minds description on how something is to function or act)
7. Personality
If we wish to find ourselves we must see our selves in the light of the personal and rational Being of the universe. The essential human components of mind, emotions and will were deadened at the fall. Therefore if we remain cut of from God it is impossible for us to think correctly about ourselves. If you are not an image or reflection of something personal you will never find yourself because you are a blankness.
We spend our lives seeking wrong affections in an effect to enhance our lives with relationships and enjoyable things and circumstances. Pleasing self to find peace and pleasure. In seeking our felt needs we ignore our unfelt need, which is the true answer behind the felt needs. Power and control is often expressed in eating disorders. Some have said that the need to be accepted by one’s peers can be demonstrated by drinking to excess. Promiscuity as a cure for loneliness is seen in the upsurge of all kinds of sexual perversions, confusion and multiple sex partners without commitment. Why do kids cut themselves with razor blades to make them feel good? Using pain to bring pleasure to pain. It is because we are broken and our human soul is sacred and deformed. Bent on resisting God’s revelation.
What is it that lies beneath all our emotional broken-ness. Is it “Oh well this is just my own truth, my pathway”, or is it a fallen-ness from losing one’s self. Why do we perceive a need for control, power, and acceptance? Why are there relational breakdowns? What causes these perceived feelings of emptiness? Behind all these felt needs seem’s to be one primary unfelt need and that is our spiritual DNA in the make up of human beings, which must be established in a right relationship to be whole. You are lost and you need to be found in the eternal interpretation of creation (Gods mind and heart). Seek the personal creator of the universe and you will find yourself and the image that you try and find. Then yourself will shine forth with value, purpose, and meaning. Surrender your shame and guilt and fall on the cross of Christ, and drench yourself in his unconditional love. Once you have him everything else comes in to harmony. The eternal personality comes and abides in the soul of the finite image and illuminates it manifesting himself through ourselves, so we can see who we are, the reflecting of God’s image.
We live in age driven by the media and the academic world that has soaked us a diet so heavy in tolerance and inclusiveness. To accept the ultimate authority of any person, or institution is to be bigoted, intolerant, unloving, and self-righteous. The idea that one can be right about reality seems to be an option one must try not to share with others.
The very fact that this claim is promoting that “No one has the truth” is itself a truth statement implying some one is able to define truth. Maybe be it has nothing to do with being skeptical, maybe it has something to do with the nature of mankind who seems to hate the light of truth. How could all views be true, this is intellectual suicide. Why are we so sacred to admit that truth does exist. I believe it is because our nature is bent on suppressing truth due to a fallen nature.
We have all likely known people who have said “I need some time away to try and find myself.” Perhaps we have friends who are tirelessly trying to figure out who they are. These inward journeys and explorations raise a basic question; Why is it that we don’t know who we are as we live our lives in the context of the here and now.
This struggle is not a new one and takes us all the way back to the garden. There we find we are lost, because in our sins we hope not to be found, so we hide form truth.
For those who say “How dare you label me with the word sinner or that myth of Sin nature in humans”. I would say that some thing is wrong with this world! People are taking a long time to get the basic things right. I don’t think it’s a lack of education!
Because of sin, we are no different from Adam and Eve hiding in the garden. Like them we are created in God’s image. Because we are images of God, we cannot be removed from him without at the same time ceasing to “be”. Yet if we act according to our sins, we try to hide from him, we think it best to try to remove him from us. This tragedy of this self-deception is that in thinking we can eradicate God from out thoughts and lives, we engage in the attempted eradication of our true selves.
This is very important to see “We engage in the attempted eradication of our true selves by this self-deception.”
As I have shown in all my other Blogs, when you eradicate God from being the foundation of the universe, you leave it in the hands of the impersonal. You strip the universe of all rationality and personality. Man finds himself in an impersonal universe, which has no meaning to it at all. Man’s own nature is then striped from personality to be explained by the impersonal laws of random nature. Your thoughts have no logical meaning for being here and have no reason to correspond to anything. As I showed in my blog “Atheism and the illusion of free will”, if you are a part of an impersonal universe then your thoughts and actions are not personal or rational, but just part of a determined irrational process. We are not even free and our thoughts have no free intentionality or purpose in them. When we try and eradicate God’s image from our being we find that we are nothing, we are lost with no rational foundation. Because we have eradicated God from the universe and left reality with no ultimate interpretation for us to find ourlsevs in or to help us interpret our selves we lose our personality and humanness and even our ontological value and worth.
Only in the light of God can there be Truth, Goodness and Beauty, reject him and you lose your self into the void of the impersonal nothingness.
The order of these three transcendental’s of truth, goodness and beauty is ontologically founded. Truth is defined by Being, for truth is effulgence of Being, the revelation (Mind) of Being, the word of Being (God). Truth is not defined by consciousness, which conforms to Being in knowing it. Goodness is defined by truth, not by will, which is good only when it conforms to the truth of Being. And beauty is defined by goodness, objectively real goodness, not by subjective desire or pleasure or feeling or imagination, all of which should conform to it. It is God who makes things beautiful in character as he sanctifies his saints on the earth and polishes his gems.
If one rejects the eternal personal rational God then he strips the universe of the following, as they cannot be produced from the impersonal,
1. Rationality
2. Meaning
3. Order (Is a concept of mind)
4. Morality (love, goodness, faithfulness, …)
5. Design.
6. Laws of nature ( A law is a description, a minds description on how something is to function or act)
7. Personality
If we wish to find ourselves we must see our selves in the light of the personal and rational Being of the universe. The essential human components of mind, emotions and will were deadened at the fall. Therefore if we remain cut of from God it is impossible for us to think correctly about ourselves. If you are not an image or reflection of something personal you will never find yourself because you are a blankness.
We spend our lives seeking wrong affections in an effect to enhance our lives with relationships and enjoyable things and circumstances. Pleasing self to find peace and pleasure. In seeking our felt needs we ignore our unfelt need, which is the true answer behind the felt needs. Power and control is often expressed in eating disorders. Some have said that the need to be accepted by one’s peers can be demonstrated by drinking to excess. Promiscuity as a cure for loneliness is seen in the upsurge of all kinds of sexual perversions, confusion and multiple sex partners without commitment. Why do kids cut themselves with razor blades to make them feel good? Using pain to bring pleasure to pain. It is because we are broken and our human soul is sacred and deformed. Bent on resisting God’s revelation.
What is it that lies beneath all our emotional broken-ness. Is it “Oh well this is just my own truth, my pathway”, or is it a fallen-ness from losing one’s self. Why do we perceive a need for control, power, and acceptance? Why are there relational breakdowns? What causes these perceived feelings of emptiness? Behind all these felt needs seem’s to be one primary unfelt need and that is our spiritual DNA in the make up of human beings, which must be established in a right relationship to be whole. You are lost and you need to be found in the eternal interpretation of creation (Gods mind and heart). Seek the personal creator of the universe and you will find yourself and the image that you try and find. Then yourself will shine forth with value, purpose, and meaning. Surrender your shame and guilt and fall on the cross of Christ, and drench yourself in his unconditional love. Once you have him everything else comes in to harmony. The eternal personality comes and abides in the soul of the finite image and illuminates it manifesting himself through ourselves, so we can see who we are, the reflecting of God’s image.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Atheism and the Illusion of Free Will
When one denies that man has a soul and is just part of this materialistic world of mater, that being random atoms colliding together by impersonal forces (The process of evolving by cause and effect mutations).
The idea that Humans from the chain of evolution have Free Will becomes an Illusion. The idea of responsibility also becomes an illusion and also does the concept of good and evil, right and wrong. One is left stuck in the impersonal, irrational void of chance.
Determinism
The naturalistic view sees human beings as part of the machinery of the universe. In such a world every event is caused by preceding events, which in turn were caused by still earlier events, ad infinitum. Since man is part of this causal chain, his actions are also determined by antecedent causes. Some of these causes are the environment and man's genetic make - up. These are so determinative of what man does that no one could rightly say that a given human action could have been performed otherwise than it in fact was performed. Thus, according to determinism, Bob's sitting on the brown chair rather than the blue sofa is not a free choice but is fully determined by previous factors.
A contemporary example of naturalistic determinism is B F Skinner, the author of Beyond Freedom and Dignity and About Behaviorism. Skinner believes that all human behavior is completely controlled by genetic and environmental factors. These factors do not rule out the fact that human beings make choices; however, they do rule out the possibility that human choices are free. For Skinner, all human choices are determined by antecedent physical causes. Hence, man is viewed as an instrumental cause of his behavior. He is like a knife in the hands of a butcher or a hammer in the grip of a carpenter; he does not originate action but is the instrument through which some other agent performs the action.
A philosophical argument often given for determinism can be stated as follows. All human behavior is either completely uncaused, selfcaused, or caused by something external. Now human behavior cannot be uncaused, for nothing can happen without a cause, nothing cannot cause something. Human behavior cannot be self - caused either, for each act would have to exist prior to itself to cause itself, which is impossible. Thus the only alternative is that all human behavior must be completely caused by something external. Naturalistic determinists maintain that such things as heredity and environment are the external causes, whereas theistic determinists believe that God is the external cause of all human behavior.
There are several problems with this argument. First, the argument misinterprets self determinism as teaching that human acts cause themselves. Self determinists, for example, do not believe that the plays in a football game cause themselves. Rather they maintain that the players execute the plays in a football game. Indeed it is the players that choose to play the game. Thus the cause of a football game being played is to be found within the players of the game. Self determinists would not deny that outside factors, such as heredity, environment, or God, had any influence. However, they would maintain that any one of the people involved in the game could have decided not to play if they had chosen to do so.
Second, the argument for determinisim is self defeating. A determinist must contend that both he and the nondeterminist are determined to believe what they believe. Yet the determinist attempts to convince the nondeterminist that determinism is true and thus ought to be believed. However, on the basis of pure determinism "ought" has no meaning. For "ought" means "could have and should have done otherwise." But this is impossible according to determinism. A way around this objection is for the determinist to argue that he was determined to say that one ought to accept his view. However, his opponent can respond by saying that he was determined to accept a contrary view. Thus determinism cannot eliminate an opposing position. This allows the possibility for a free will position.
Third, and finally, if naturalistic determinism were true, it would be self defeating, false, or be no view at all. For in order to determine whether determinism was true there would need to be a rational basis for thought, otherwise no one could know what was true or false. But naturalistic determinists believe that all thought is the product of nonrational causes, such as the environment, thus making all thought nonrational. On this basis no one could ever know if determinism were true or not. And if one argued that determinism was true, then the position would be self defeating, for a truth claim is being made to the effect that no truth claims can be made. Now if determinism is false, then it can be rationally rejected and other positions considered. But if it is neither true or false, then it is no view at all, since no claim to truth is being made. In either case, naturalistic determinism could not reasonably be held to be true.
Indeterminism
This view contends that human behavior is totally uncaused. There are no antecedent or simultaneous causes of man's actions. Hence, all of man's acts are uncaused; hence, any given human act could have been otherwise. Some indeterminists extend their view beyond human affairs to the entire universe. In support of the indeterminacy of all events Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty is often invoked. This principle states that it is impossible to predict where a subatomic particle is and how fast it is moving at any given moment. Thus, it is argued, since subatomic events are inherently unpredictable, how much more so are complex human acts. From this they conclude that human and nonhuman events are uncaused. Two noted exponents of indeterminism are William James and Charles Peirce.
There are at least three problems with this view. First, Heisenberg's principle does not deal with causality but with predictability. Heisenberg maintained that the movement of subatomic particles was unpredictable and unmeasurable; he did not maintain that their movement was uncaused. Thus this principle cannot be used to support indeterminism. Second, indeterminism unreasonably denies the principle of causality, namely, that every event has a cause. Simply because one does not know what the cause is, is not proof that an event is not caused. Such lack of knowledge only reflects our ignorance. Third, indeterminism strips man of any responsible behavior. If human behavior is uncaused, then no one could be praised or blamed for anything he did. All human acts would be nonrational and nonmoral, thus no act could ever be a reasonable or responsible one.
The idea that Humans from the chain of evolution have Free Will becomes an Illusion. The idea of responsibility also becomes an illusion and also does the concept of good and evil, right and wrong. One is left stuck in the impersonal, irrational void of chance.
Determinism
The naturalistic view sees human beings as part of the machinery of the universe. In such a world every event is caused by preceding events, which in turn were caused by still earlier events, ad infinitum. Since man is part of this causal chain, his actions are also determined by antecedent causes. Some of these causes are the environment and man's genetic make - up. These are so determinative of what man does that no one could rightly say that a given human action could have been performed otherwise than it in fact was performed. Thus, according to determinism, Bob's sitting on the brown chair rather than the blue sofa is not a free choice but is fully determined by previous factors.
A contemporary example of naturalistic determinism is B F Skinner, the author of Beyond Freedom and Dignity and About Behaviorism. Skinner believes that all human behavior is completely controlled by genetic and environmental factors. These factors do not rule out the fact that human beings make choices; however, they do rule out the possibility that human choices are free. For Skinner, all human choices are determined by antecedent physical causes. Hence, man is viewed as an instrumental cause of his behavior. He is like a knife in the hands of a butcher or a hammer in the grip of a carpenter; he does not originate action but is the instrument through which some other agent performs the action.
A philosophical argument often given for determinism can be stated as follows. All human behavior is either completely uncaused, selfcaused, or caused by something external. Now human behavior cannot be uncaused, for nothing can happen without a cause, nothing cannot cause something. Human behavior cannot be self - caused either, for each act would have to exist prior to itself to cause itself, which is impossible. Thus the only alternative is that all human behavior must be completely caused by something external. Naturalistic determinists maintain that such things as heredity and environment are the external causes, whereas theistic determinists believe that God is the external cause of all human behavior.
There are several problems with this argument. First, the argument misinterprets self determinism as teaching that human acts cause themselves. Self determinists, for example, do not believe that the plays in a football game cause themselves. Rather they maintain that the players execute the plays in a football game. Indeed it is the players that choose to play the game. Thus the cause of a football game being played is to be found within the players of the game. Self determinists would not deny that outside factors, such as heredity, environment, or God, had any influence. However, they would maintain that any one of the people involved in the game could have decided not to play if they had chosen to do so.
Second, the argument for determinisim is self defeating. A determinist must contend that both he and the nondeterminist are determined to believe what they believe. Yet the determinist attempts to convince the nondeterminist that determinism is true and thus ought to be believed. However, on the basis of pure determinism "ought" has no meaning. For "ought" means "could have and should have done otherwise." But this is impossible according to determinism. A way around this objection is for the determinist to argue that he was determined to say that one ought to accept his view. However, his opponent can respond by saying that he was determined to accept a contrary view. Thus determinism cannot eliminate an opposing position. This allows the possibility for a free will position.
Third, and finally, if naturalistic determinism were true, it would be self defeating, false, or be no view at all. For in order to determine whether determinism was true there would need to be a rational basis for thought, otherwise no one could know what was true or false. But naturalistic determinists believe that all thought is the product of nonrational causes, such as the environment, thus making all thought nonrational. On this basis no one could ever know if determinism were true or not. And if one argued that determinism was true, then the position would be self defeating, for a truth claim is being made to the effect that no truth claims can be made. Now if determinism is false, then it can be rationally rejected and other positions considered. But if it is neither true or false, then it is no view at all, since no claim to truth is being made. In either case, naturalistic determinism could not reasonably be held to be true.
Indeterminism
This view contends that human behavior is totally uncaused. There are no antecedent or simultaneous causes of man's actions. Hence, all of man's acts are uncaused; hence, any given human act could have been otherwise. Some indeterminists extend their view beyond human affairs to the entire universe. In support of the indeterminacy of all events Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty is often invoked. This principle states that it is impossible to predict where a subatomic particle is and how fast it is moving at any given moment. Thus, it is argued, since subatomic events are inherently unpredictable, how much more so are complex human acts. From this they conclude that human and nonhuman events are uncaused. Two noted exponents of indeterminism are William James and Charles Peirce.
There are at least three problems with this view. First, Heisenberg's principle does not deal with causality but with predictability. Heisenberg maintained that the movement of subatomic particles was unpredictable and unmeasurable; he did not maintain that their movement was uncaused. Thus this principle cannot be used to support indeterminism. Second, indeterminism unreasonably denies the principle of causality, namely, that every event has a cause. Simply because one does not know what the cause is, is not proof that an event is not caused. Such lack of knowledge only reflects our ignorance. Third, indeterminism strips man of any responsible behavior. If human behavior is uncaused, then no one could be praised or blamed for anything he did. All human acts would be nonrational and nonmoral, thus no act could ever be a reasonable or responsible one.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The God of Ethics
That which is finite must have an eternal foundation for its existence, as what comes into being from nothing cannot be the source of its coming into existence. Therefore there must be a cause for its existence, that being eternal. If science is right with its theory of the Big Bang, that the universe came into being from nothing (non-being) then its existence must have an eternal cause. This eternal cause of course doesn’t need a cause for its existence because it is eternal, beyond the limits of time.
As I have said in other writings this eternal standard is either impersonal or personal implying that the eternal cause is either an irrational source (cause) or a rational source (cause) for the existence of the universe and all life and its functions.
The three most common beliefs of the cause and governing of the universe have been commonly known as,
1. An eternal irrational impersonal force
2. A eternal rational Mind
3. An eternal irrational universe (This view rejects the Big Bang theory)
If one takes option 1 or 3 the belief implies that the universe is governed and run (including evolving) by irrational blind fate making the universe and the world ultimately irrational and meaningless. For them somehow our rational mind has evolved from the irrational, leading us to try and interpret the objective irrational world. This of course is impossible as it implies that non-intelligence produce intelligence which makes our rational thought to be based on the irrational. Also how is reason supposed to interpret an objective irrational world. All one would be doing is reasoning upon his own mental states or reasons, which also are the result of the irrational. Thought has no system of logic or truth. As one true fact must relate to another and they all must relate to the whole.
If one takes option 2 then he believes that the universe is governed by a rational mind behind the universe directing all finite objects according to a rational plan and goal. That finite objects relate to one another on a rational bases reacting and functioning according to a designed purpose, and not on irrational fate. If there is an eternal rational mind behind the universe, Who is also the creator of the universe who has created according to his rational plan then all finite reality has been infused with meaning. This eternal interpretation is what relates all finite visible or invisible realities to a unit of truth, God’s mind. Humans are rational and intelligent because they have been created in the image of their creator, who is the ultimate standard of rationality and truth. Truth is the correspondence of our thoughts to God’s eternal interpretation of his creation.
The problem with the other options is that it tries to find objective foundations and knowledge in the irrational or impersonal. If man is to find true knowledge he must relate his thoughts and concepts to the norms of reality, which is God’s interpretation.
One can only find knowledge in a “knower’ so if we are seeking to find knowledge in this universe we must find a mind of revelation, as knowledge is held in a mind. This world can only be understood if there is a mind’s interpretation infused throughout it for us to find facts otherwise we are just labeling impersonal matter with our own concepts and forms. For man to understand himself and his place in the universe he must see himself in the light of God. God has created us with minds full of finite knowledge to seek truth (God’s norms and interpretation). We can find true knowledge in this world because God has fashioned our minds to think God’s thoughts on a finite level. Creation and the Biblical Scriptures are revelation speaking to us to give us light to interpret ourselves in-light of the ultimate interpretation of reality.
If one rejects the eternal personal rational foundation then he strips the universe of the following, as they cannot be produced from the impersonal,
1. Rationality
2. Meaning
3. Order (Is a concept of mind)
4. Morality (love, goodness, faithfulness, …)
5. Design.
6. Laws of nature ( A law is a description, a minds description on how something is to function or act)
7. Personality
God has implanted two important points of contact in the heart of every person, a knowledge of his existence and a sense of right and wrong.
All these properties are bound to personality, and are based in the structure of the Biblical Personal Trinity, God. The Biblical God is One being with Three Persons. It is this eternal Oneness and Three-ness that gives meaning to moral concepts. Without this Trinity these concepts are just abstract concepts. But in the Trinity they have contents and application as each member of the Trinity is manifesting them to the others, so we can say that God is faithful, is good, and is love because he is rational, personal and bound in an eternal relationship. Without this relationship God could not be love as who would he be loving from eternity before he had created the world. The same goes with all the other moral concepts, they only have meaning in the context of application. That is why God’s nature is interpersonal.
Basing Human Ethics on Impersonal Fate
The problem with the history of secular ethics has been on how to determine what is right and what is wrong, good or evil. Many theories have been asserted, but without an absolute interpretation given to reality how is man able to justify what he thinks is right or wrong. How is one to justify that an impersonal action that has no correct standard or correct way to function be right or wrong when it comes from an impersonal universe. If we grant the Atheist the claim that non-intelligence can produce rational thought, what can rational thought say about impersonal actions. If fate is governing the universe, it does not speak or reveal anything, since it is impersonal. It just makes things happen and not according to some rational law. Basing ethics on fate is essentially empirical but highly inconsistent in its rewards.
Another problem is that observing facts of nature of which we are a part of does not reveal to us moral facts. The attempt to derive moral principles from impersonal realities is also a violation of logic. Facts can be learned through observation and the scientific method. But moral obligations cannot be seen and heard. They cannot be observed. So all man is doing is labeling impersonal matter with abstract concepts and what is the relationship between the rational and the irrational, nothing! They don’t connect in any rational way. Without a “norm” our concepts are just subjective thoughts floating in our heads relating to nothing.
One may deduce moral conclusions from moral facts, but not from non-moral facts.
Moral conclusions from moral facts
In Christian ethics, this insight is based on God’s lordship attribute of control. It is God who arranges nature and history so that good act’s have beneficial consequences, to himself, to the ethical agent, and to other persons. God’s personal moral interpretation of his creation is the eternal foundation, which establishes moral facts in the universe. The job for humans is to seek and judge his subjective sense of moral actions against the light of God’s moral facts and norms for his creation. Our moral conclusion then can be deduce and justified in the light of God’s eternal standard as God is the ultimate fact that interprets all finite facts.
How God governs our Ethical Life
First, by his control, God plans and rules nature and history, so that certain human acts are conducive to his glory and others are not.
Second, by his authority, he speaks to us clearly, telling us what norms govern our behavior.
Third, by his covenant presence he commits himself to be with us in our ethical walk, blessings our obedience and punishing our disobedience.
As I have said in other writings this eternal standard is either impersonal or personal implying that the eternal cause is either an irrational source (cause) or a rational source (cause) for the existence of the universe and all life and its functions.
The three most common beliefs of the cause and governing of the universe have been commonly known as,
1. An eternal irrational impersonal force
2. A eternal rational Mind
3. An eternal irrational universe (This view rejects the Big Bang theory)
If one takes option 1 or 3 the belief implies that the universe is governed and run (including evolving) by irrational blind fate making the universe and the world ultimately irrational and meaningless. For them somehow our rational mind has evolved from the irrational, leading us to try and interpret the objective irrational world. This of course is impossible as it implies that non-intelligence produce intelligence which makes our rational thought to be based on the irrational. Also how is reason supposed to interpret an objective irrational world. All one would be doing is reasoning upon his own mental states or reasons, which also are the result of the irrational. Thought has no system of logic or truth. As one true fact must relate to another and they all must relate to the whole.
If one takes option 2 then he believes that the universe is governed by a rational mind behind the universe directing all finite objects according to a rational plan and goal. That finite objects relate to one another on a rational bases reacting and functioning according to a designed purpose, and not on irrational fate. If there is an eternal rational mind behind the universe, Who is also the creator of the universe who has created according to his rational plan then all finite reality has been infused with meaning. This eternal interpretation is what relates all finite visible or invisible realities to a unit of truth, God’s mind. Humans are rational and intelligent because they have been created in the image of their creator, who is the ultimate standard of rationality and truth. Truth is the correspondence of our thoughts to God’s eternal interpretation of his creation.
The problem with the other options is that it tries to find objective foundations and knowledge in the irrational or impersonal. If man is to find true knowledge he must relate his thoughts and concepts to the norms of reality, which is God’s interpretation.
One can only find knowledge in a “knower’ so if we are seeking to find knowledge in this universe we must find a mind of revelation, as knowledge is held in a mind. This world can only be understood if there is a mind’s interpretation infused throughout it for us to find facts otherwise we are just labeling impersonal matter with our own concepts and forms. For man to understand himself and his place in the universe he must see himself in the light of God. God has created us with minds full of finite knowledge to seek truth (God’s norms and interpretation). We can find true knowledge in this world because God has fashioned our minds to think God’s thoughts on a finite level. Creation and the Biblical Scriptures are revelation speaking to us to give us light to interpret ourselves in-light of the ultimate interpretation of reality.
If one rejects the eternal personal rational foundation then he strips the universe of the following, as they cannot be produced from the impersonal,
1. Rationality
2. Meaning
3. Order (Is a concept of mind)
4. Morality (love, goodness, faithfulness, …)
5. Design.
6. Laws of nature ( A law is a description, a minds description on how something is to function or act)
7. Personality
God has implanted two important points of contact in the heart of every person, a knowledge of his existence and a sense of right and wrong.
All these properties are bound to personality, and are based in the structure of the Biblical Personal Trinity, God. The Biblical God is One being with Three Persons. It is this eternal Oneness and Three-ness that gives meaning to moral concepts. Without this Trinity these concepts are just abstract concepts. But in the Trinity they have contents and application as each member of the Trinity is manifesting them to the others, so we can say that God is faithful, is good, and is love because he is rational, personal and bound in an eternal relationship. Without this relationship God could not be love as who would he be loving from eternity before he had created the world. The same goes with all the other moral concepts, they only have meaning in the context of application. That is why God’s nature is interpersonal.
Basing Human Ethics on Impersonal Fate
The problem with the history of secular ethics has been on how to determine what is right and what is wrong, good or evil. Many theories have been asserted, but without an absolute interpretation given to reality how is man able to justify what he thinks is right or wrong. How is one to justify that an impersonal action that has no correct standard or correct way to function be right or wrong when it comes from an impersonal universe. If we grant the Atheist the claim that non-intelligence can produce rational thought, what can rational thought say about impersonal actions. If fate is governing the universe, it does not speak or reveal anything, since it is impersonal. It just makes things happen and not according to some rational law. Basing ethics on fate is essentially empirical but highly inconsistent in its rewards.
Another problem is that observing facts of nature of which we are a part of does not reveal to us moral facts. The attempt to derive moral principles from impersonal realities is also a violation of logic. Facts can be learned through observation and the scientific method. But moral obligations cannot be seen and heard. They cannot be observed. So all man is doing is labeling impersonal matter with abstract concepts and what is the relationship between the rational and the irrational, nothing! They don’t connect in any rational way. Without a “norm” our concepts are just subjective thoughts floating in our heads relating to nothing.
One may deduce moral conclusions from moral facts, but not from non-moral facts.
Moral conclusions from moral facts
In Christian ethics, this insight is based on God’s lordship attribute of control. It is God who arranges nature and history so that good act’s have beneficial consequences, to himself, to the ethical agent, and to other persons. God’s personal moral interpretation of his creation is the eternal foundation, which establishes moral facts in the universe. The job for humans is to seek and judge his subjective sense of moral actions against the light of God’s moral facts and norms for his creation. Our moral conclusion then can be deduce and justified in the light of God’s eternal standard as God is the ultimate fact that interprets all finite facts.
How God governs our Ethical Life
First, by his control, God plans and rules nature and history, so that certain human acts are conducive to his glory and others are not.
Second, by his authority, he speaks to us clearly, telling us what norms govern our behavior.
Third, by his covenant presence he commits himself to be with us in our ethical walk, blessings our obedience and punishing our disobedience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)