"Like a Christian apologist (6-4513ff.), Casey misses the entire context of Galatians 4 and that Paul is speaking allegorically."
Alrighty. I want to point out that Christian apologists aren't the only ones who read the text this way. Nor do we dismiss context...we try to be as faithful as possible to the text. In fact this has been the dominant reading of the text until Carrier. Here's the text:
Sons and Heirs
[1] I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, [2] but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. [3] In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. [4] But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, [5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. [6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” [7] So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
Paul's Concern for the Galatians
[8] Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. [9] But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? [10] You observe days and months and seasons and years! [11] I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.
[12] Brothers, I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong. [13] You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, [14] and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. [15] What then has become of your blessedness? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me. [16] Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? [17] They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them. [18] It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, [19] my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! [20] I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.
Example of Hagar and Sarah
[21] Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? [22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. [23] But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. [24] Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. [25] Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. [26] But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. [27] For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”
[28] Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. [29] But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. [30] But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” [31] So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
(Galatians 4 ESV)
Carrier's position is that when Paul speaks of Jesus "emerging into being out of woman", he's talking metaphorically. His exegesis is essentially as follows. In verse 24, Paul highlights the fact that being born "according to the flesh" and being born "through the promise" are allegories. Those who are born according to the promise are born to their metaphorical mother, Jerusalem from above. Therefore, when the text speaks of Jesus emerging into existence (ginomai) out of woman, it's talking about his metaphorical status of being symbolically born, it's not talking about a literal birth.
This is a tortured argument-it's funny that Carrier tries to say "well leave it to Christian apologists to take the interpretation held almost universally up until I come along on the scene."
Correct Exegesis
Paul comes out of Galatians 3 talking about how we inherit Christ's status as the offspring of Abraham through faith in Him. In Galatians 4, Paul's aim is to further substantiate that claim. If we are a child of Abraham, we are a child of the promise, and therefore an heir of God (since that is what God promises in Christ-see Romans 8). In order to secure our status as sons (and therein release us from our slavery to the "elementary principles of this world", God had to do something in order to release us from slavery. We were heirs, and thus slaves, until the date set for us by our Father. When this date came (i.e in the fullness of time), God sent forth His Son to establish our sonship. Now why does Paul add to the phrase "emerged into existence out of woman" "emerged into existence under the law to redeem those under the law"? Because he's saying that Jesus was Jewish. The only types of people who were under the law were human beings. We have ZERO evidence for any non-human figure being held accountable to the law of God. However, Jesus Himself became subject to the law in order to redeem those subject to the law. We can establish this in terms of premises:
1.) Those who are subject to the law are humans
2.) Jesus became subject to the law
3.) Ergo, Jesus became a man
Carrier's interpretation falls flat because the concept of metaphor doesn't even come into play until verse 21, long after Paul has mentioned Jesus came into being out of woman. The point of the verse 21 is NOT to say that Jesus's birth was metaphorical. In verse 21, Paul's addressing Christians who are considering bowing to the demands of the law. He uses the two sons of Abraham metaphor to expound upon a larger point; those who are according to the flesh persecute those who are according to the promise (verse 28-31). The descendants of Ishmael often ran into conflict with the descendants of Isaac; the children born according to the flesh (Abraham's failure to trust God-by purely natural, human means) persecuted those born according to the promise. Therefore, this has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus not actually coming into being from woman as a human. The metaphor is located in the context of trying to convince the Galatians to not submit to the law as the basis of our right standing with God; Christ already has, and has therefore redeemed us from it. As I said, the only evidence we have for being "subject to the law" would entail that being subject to the law is a property of humans.
Ergo Carrier is a bad exegete. Or a dishonest one.
(As a side note, Paul views the law positively in Romans 7-his view has not changed. He simply is pointing out that because we fail to keep the law, we are under condemnation. Hence, Jesus redeems us from the curse of the law by taking it upon Himself in verse 13, and perfectly keeping it).
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Response to Basaam Zawadi
Okay, so here's an article I will be addressing by a Muslim apologist named "Basaam Zawadi". Namely, he addresses Surah 5:68, which many Christians take to mean that the Quran is telling Christians to judge it by the Gospel. His response is as such: http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_ordering_the_jews_and_christians_to_judge_by_their_scriptures
Zawadi's main argument is that the Torah and the Gospel came beforehand, but now the Quran is the standard, and thus previous revelations are subordinate. Therefore, when you have a Surah like 5:68 which says:
"Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith."
He takes that to mean that the Law and the Gospel are subordinate to "all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord", aka the Quran. First the phrase "all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord" isn't a reference to the Quran. In fact, given that this revelation didn't come to the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), but to Muhammad, this could not be a reference to the Quran. If this was supposed to be a reference to the Quran, why tell Israel to listen to that which has been revealed to them? Why not instead command them to listen to what has been revealed to Muhammad?
But there's an even more central problem. The aiya says to stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, AND all the revelation that has come from your Lord. In other words, it doesn't say to subordinate the Law and the Gospel to the revelation. The People of the book are to stand behind all three, not one over the other. Now, the other Surah's he cites certainly demonstrates that the author of the Quran meant for the Quran to be a revelation from Allah. It is also true that the author sees the Quran as confirming that which came before. But it's not true that the Quran judges the Law and the Gospel; according to 5:68, if we take "revelation" to be the Quran (which I dispute), then Christians are supposed to stand behind all three. Zawadi seems to see this, but he doesn't realize the problem: to stand behind all three is impossible. Why would Allah tell us to stand behind the Law and the Gospel when all that's needed to stand behind is the Quran? Why would he say to stand behind the Law, the Gospel, AND the Quran rather than just tell us to stand by the Quran, and judge the Law and the Gospel by the Quran? It seems to me much more likely that the author of the Quran thought that the Law and the Gospel as it was supported the Quran.
Really quick, I want to address his mis-inference from a hadith. He says:
"They said, "In the Torah, we find that if four men testify that they saw his male organ in her womb, similar to when the eyeliner is inserted inside the eyeliner container; in this case they are stoned." The Prophet peace be upon him said, "What made you stop stoning?" They said, "Our kingship (meaning Jewish) was taken from us and we hated killing." The Messenger of Allah asked for four witnesses and they brought four men who testified that they saw his penis in her womb like the eyeliner is inserted in the eyeliner container. The Messenger of Allah ordered that the two [adulterers] are stoned"
He says this provides indirect evidence that the Torah has been toyed with because we find no such thing in the Torah about four men or eyeliner. However, we do find something about witnesses: "“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established." - Deuteronomy 19:15
Zawadi's main argument is that the Torah and the Gospel came beforehand, but now the Quran is the standard, and thus previous revelations are subordinate. Therefore, when you have a Surah like 5:68 which says:
"Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith."
He takes that to mean that the Law and the Gospel are subordinate to "all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord", aka the Quran. First the phrase "all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord" isn't a reference to the Quran. In fact, given that this revelation didn't come to the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), but to Muhammad, this could not be a reference to the Quran. If this was supposed to be a reference to the Quran, why tell Israel to listen to that which has been revealed to them? Why not instead command them to listen to what has been revealed to Muhammad?
But there's an even more central problem. The aiya says to stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, AND all the revelation that has come from your Lord. In other words, it doesn't say to subordinate the Law and the Gospel to the revelation. The People of the book are to stand behind all three, not one over the other. Now, the other Surah's he cites certainly demonstrates that the author of the Quran meant for the Quran to be a revelation from Allah. It is also true that the author sees the Quran as confirming that which came before. But it's not true that the Quran judges the Law and the Gospel; according to 5:68, if we take "revelation" to be the Quran (which I dispute), then Christians are supposed to stand behind all three. Zawadi seems to see this, but he doesn't realize the problem: to stand behind all three is impossible. Why would Allah tell us to stand behind the Law and the Gospel when all that's needed to stand behind is the Quran? Why would he say to stand behind the Law, the Gospel, AND the Quran rather than just tell us to stand by the Quran, and judge the Law and the Gospel by the Quran? It seems to me much more likely that the author of the Quran thought that the Law and the Gospel as it was supported the Quran.
Really quick, I want to address his mis-inference from a hadith. He says:
"They said, "In the Torah, we find that if four men testify that they saw his male organ in her womb, similar to when the eyeliner is inserted inside the eyeliner container; in this case they are stoned." The Prophet peace be upon him said, "What made you stop stoning?" They said, "Our kingship (meaning Jewish) was taken from us and we hated killing." The Messenger of Allah asked for four witnesses and they brought four men who testified that they saw his penis in her womb like the eyeliner is inserted in the eyeliner container. The Messenger of Allah ordered that the two [adulterers] are stoned"
He says this provides indirect evidence that the Torah has been toyed with because we find no such thing in the Torah about four men or eyeliner. However, we do find something about witnesses: "“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established." - Deuteronomy 19:15
In order for someone to be convicted of a crime, this verse set a minimum. Obviously, if one had more than two or three witnesses to a crime, it would be outlandish to think that the criminal wouldn't be punished. Hence, these men were right; if four men testified to another man's crime of adultery, this would constitute evidence. The eyeliner line is simply a crude analogy describe sexual intercourse-it's not describing what was in the law.
Moving on.
Let's take a look at Surah 5:47. Zawadi argues that this verse applies to everyone because of the second half of the verse, which is a universal condemnatory statement. So it's referring to the undistorted version of the Gospel. However, this doesn't work. Let's look at verses 46-48.And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a guardian over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
In context, what was revealed therein is was the Gospel. And Muhammad-not the Jews-is supposed to judge between them by the Book in truth (i.e the Quran). Again, the question still stands: why, if the Gospel the Christians possessed at the time was corrupted, would Allah tell them to judge by it? The verse isn't saying to judge the Gospel by the Quran-it's saying to do it the other way around. I want to press this point further. Surah 4:136:
"O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah , His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray."
Now, could one argue that this verse is saying to use the Book to judge the Scripture He sent down before? No, because the verse is saying to believe the book that He sent down AND the Scripture which He sent before. Why would Allah distinguish between the two, and then tell Muslims to believe both if the Scriptures were corrupt? Why not just tell Muslims to believe in the Book and to judge that which came before? If the author of the Quran really believed that the Scriptures were corrupt, why would he have told Muslims to believe both?
Moving on.
Let's take a look at Surah 5:47. Zawadi argues that this verse applies to everyone because of the second half of the verse, which is a universal condemnatory statement. So it's referring to the undistorted version of the Gospel. However, this doesn't work. Let's look at verses 46-48.And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a guardian over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
In context, what was revealed therein is was the Gospel. And Muhammad-not the Jews-is supposed to judge between them by the Book in truth (i.e the Quran). Again, the question still stands: why, if the Gospel the Christians possessed at the time was corrupted, would Allah tell them to judge by it? The verse isn't saying to judge the Gospel by the Quran-it's saying to do it the other way around. I want to press this point further. Surah 4:136:
"O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah , His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray."
Now, could one argue that this verse is saying to use the Book to judge the Scripture He sent down before? No, because the verse is saying to believe the book that He sent down AND the Scripture which He sent before. Why would Allah distinguish between the two, and then tell Muslims to believe both if the Scriptures were corrupt? Why not just tell Muslims to believe in the Book and to judge that which came before? If the author of the Quran really believed that the Scriptures were corrupt, why would he have told Muslims to believe both?
And of course, if Christian Scriptures weren't corrupt, that presents a problem since we know what they said. Allah would be telling people to believe contradictory messages. Moreover, Allah says that we find Muhammad mentioned in our own Scriptures. Of course, we don't though. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/muhammad_in_bible.htm
Now, let us suppose that Zawadi is right in interpreting the verse to mean that Christians should judge by the Quran. In that case, Surah 5:68 (and the 47 I think), which tell us to judge by the Gospel, are really telling us to judge the Quran...by the Quran. But in that case, why tell us to judge by the Gospel at all? Why tell Christians to judge by the Gospel if Allah really meant by that to judge by the Quran? That doesn't work.
So it seems that the argument still stands.
Now, let us suppose that Zawadi is right in interpreting the verse to mean that Christians should judge by the Quran. In that case, Surah 5:68 (and the 47 I think), which tell us to judge by the Gospel, are really telling us to judge the Quran...by the Quran. But in that case, why tell us to judge by the Gospel at all? Why tell Christians to judge by the Gospel if Allah really meant by that to judge by the Quran? That doesn't work.
So it seems that the argument still stands.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Consciousness and Blue/Black/White/Gold/Rainbow Dresses
Well last night the interwebz was set aflame because of a dress. Yes, it's a fab dress. But more importantly, people throughout the country could not agree on the color of the dress.
I won't speculate here about what color it is (it was blue and black), but rather I want to focus on what this tells us about the mind and consciousness.....woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo *explodes*.
Qualia
We need to lay out a few definitions. Qualia is subjective experience/sensations. They are the experiences your self conscious self (your "ego", or your "I"). So everything I feel, touch, here-all experiences of my consciousness are "qualia". The sensation of redness, the feel of the cold wind, my emotions-all of the experiences.
Leibniz Law
(I posted this in an earlier blogpost about consciousness)
Who was Leibniz? Well, he's an old dead dude. But he came up with a lot of neat math stuff...you know, Calculus? He was one of the key people in advancing mathematics to the modern place. He was also a kick-butt philosopher. He came up with a very intuitive law called "Leibniz Law" (-_-). It goes like this:
Let A be some entity/property/process. A = whatever placeholder you want it to be.
If A = A, then whatever is true of A will be true of A. Shocked? It goes on.
If A = A, whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of A. Shocked yet? Just wait.
Really quick, we need to understand what philosophers mean by "possible worlds". Possible worlds are the way the world could have been, or the way the world may be. They are semantic tools for philosophers to describe possibility. So, for example, if I say "it's possible that in the future, I may buy a dog", I can say that because in my mind, that's a perfectly coherent scenario. That is, there is nothing internally contradictory about the possibility that I may buy a dog sometime in the future. Thus, because this is possible, there is a possible world where I own a dog. Let's make one more application. Suppose I say "it's possible that God exists." That's because I can envision that as a possible scenario in my mind, and there's nothing logically incoherent about that possibility (all attempts to prove God to be logically incoherent have been abject failures). Hence, there is a possible world where God exists. This is the essence of modal logic-the logic of possibilities. So let's apply that Leibniz Law. If A = God, whenever I talk about God, God must be God in all possible worlds (duh). I can't envision any non-God entity and call that God (duh). So here's what that means for Leibniz's Law:
If A = A, then whatever is true of A will be true of A.
If A = A, then whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of A.
If A = A, in all possible worlds, A will always be A.
This is intuitive enough. As a side note, if something is true in all possible worlds, it is necessarily true. That is to say that there is no other possible way it could have been. For example, take 1 + 1 = 2. We could have had any symbols we wanted to represent that, but as for the concept itself-one object plus another object equaling a consistent quantity of two objects-there is no other way the world could have been. One object could never have equaled two objects, etc. Back to Leibnuts, suppose you have A and B. If someone claims they are identical, then this is what should follow:
If A = B, whatever is true of A will be true of B
Whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of B
In all possible worlds, A = B
Felica and Her Fancy Dresses
Okay, so Felicia is wearing a blue and black dress that everyone thinks is white and gold or whatever. She insists "nah foo. You been dranking all dat drank." But everyone else in the party swears she's wearing a white and gold dress. So she whips out a bazooka and says "DON'T BE LYIN' TO ME. I WILL END YOU."
Well, how can Felicia determine whether the others are just screwing with her? Is it possible?
Let's say Felica (and her loyal posse) wants to test what everyone really sees. How is she to do this?
"Put them all under a brain scanner, and tests their brain patterns!" says physicalist Patty (hehe). Well, Felica does that. And she realizes something. "I know jack-diddly-squat about what they're actually seeing!" It's possible, for all she knows, that they could be having a particular brain pattern and yet they'd be seeing something completely different than her.
Braainzzzz
Here's the trouble. Felica could know all the physical facts about the brains of these guests (hostages?) at her party (she happens to have 5 PhDs in science, and so has one in neuroscience), and still she'd know nothing about what they're seeing. If they said "I really do see white and gold!"-they very well may be! It's possible.
Let me come at this from the perspective of Zombies. David Chalmers, a philosopher, came up with the idea of philosophical zombies (p-zombies). These are people who look just you and me, have the brains of you and me...but there's a catch. These people have no subjective experience. They have no consciousness-they're just pieces of meat reacting to electrical signals. These entities are conceivable-there doesn't seem to be anything about the existence of these beings that is logically incoherent. In fact, for you all you know, I could be one....whoa.
This is where the fun begins.
1.) It's possible that p-zombies exist (they are conceivable-I could be one for all you know)
2.) There is a possible world where p-zombies exist. (Modal possibility)
3.) You could learn all the physical facts about the p-zombies' brains, and that wouldn't tell you about there subjective experience (because they have none)
4.) There is a possible world where physical facts don't equal mental facts (since you could learn the physical facts about the p-zombies' brains, and that wouldn't tell you about their subjective experience)
5.) Conclusion: Mental facts and physical facts are not identical (since if they were, they'd be identical in all possible worlds, and everything that is possibly true of one would be possibly true of the other. Also, if they were identical, learning everything about physicality should yield everything about mentality, since they're supposedly identical. Leibniz Law's a butt face. bam.)
Now, I am not suggesting there is no correlation between Brain States (BS) and Mental States (MS). There undeniably is. However, I'm suggesting that the assumption of our culture, which wants to reduce MS to BS (hehe) is flat out wrong. MS isn't identical to BS.
Let's contextualize this. Felica is contemplating these things and constructs an argument.
1.) If MS = BS, then whatever is true and possibly true of MS should be true and possibly true of BS (Leibniz Law)
2.) She could learn all she wants about BS, and still not know about the MS of her guests
3.) There's something possibly true of MS (you can't learn everything about it by learning everything about BS) that's not possibly true of BS (you obviously would learn everything about BS by learning everything about BS)
4.) There's something possibly true of MS that's not possibly true of BS
Conclusion: MS ain't BS by Leibniz Law (hehe)
Concluding Thoughts
Felica realizes that materialism/physicalism (the assumption that everything in reality reduces to matter/space/energy/time and the rearrangements of it-i.e everything can be described in terms of the natural) is wrong. So she lets her guests go and becomes an idealist (if you have no idea what that is, I'll tell you when you're older. Or click on my post on consciousness that I wrote in November)
Consciousness is undeniably correlated to brain states...but correlation sure has heck doesn't equal identity. More than that, we've learned something interesting from Felicia. Consciousness emphatically isn't reducible to brain states. Consciousness isn't identical to stuff going on inside your head. However, that means the physicalist assumption of our culture is wrong.
Further Resources
This blog post was more philosophical in nature...but if anyone is interested in how I view the interaction between mind and matter, see here. This to me goes far in explaining why people see different things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
Edit: One of my friends has informed me: The idea of zombies did not originate from Chalmers. It was around during the time of Rene Descartes. So p-zombies go back waay before Chalmers.
I won't speculate here about what color it is (it was blue and black), but rather I want to focus on what this tells us about the mind and consciousness.....woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo *explodes*.
Qualia
We need to lay out a few definitions. Qualia is subjective experience/sensations. They are the experiences your self conscious self (your "ego", or your "I"). So everything I feel, touch, here-all experiences of my consciousness are "qualia". The sensation of redness, the feel of the cold wind, my emotions-all of the experiences.
Leibniz Law
(I posted this in an earlier blogpost about consciousness)
Who was Leibniz? Well, he's an old dead dude. But he came up with a lot of neat math stuff...you know, Calculus? He was one of the key people in advancing mathematics to the modern place. He was also a kick-butt philosopher. He came up with a very intuitive law called "Leibniz Law" (-_-). It goes like this:
Let A be some entity/property/process. A = whatever placeholder you want it to be.
If A = A, then whatever is true of A will be true of A. Shocked? It goes on.
If A = A, whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of A. Shocked yet? Just wait.
Really quick, we need to understand what philosophers mean by "possible worlds". Possible worlds are the way the world could have been, or the way the world may be. They are semantic tools for philosophers to describe possibility. So, for example, if I say "it's possible that in the future, I may buy a dog", I can say that because in my mind, that's a perfectly coherent scenario. That is, there is nothing internally contradictory about the possibility that I may buy a dog sometime in the future. Thus, because this is possible, there is a possible world where I own a dog. Let's make one more application. Suppose I say "it's possible that God exists." That's because I can envision that as a possible scenario in my mind, and there's nothing logically incoherent about that possibility (all attempts to prove God to be logically incoherent have been abject failures). Hence, there is a possible world where God exists. This is the essence of modal logic-the logic of possibilities. So let's apply that Leibniz Law. If A = God, whenever I talk about God, God must be God in all possible worlds (duh). I can't envision any non-God entity and call that God (duh). So here's what that means for Leibniz's Law:
If A = A, then whatever is true of A will be true of A.
If A = A, then whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of A.
If A = A, in all possible worlds, A will always be A.
This is intuitive enough. As a side note, if something is true in all possible worlds, it is necessarily true. That is to say that there is no other possible way it could have been. For example, take 1 + 1 = 2. We could have had any symbols we wanted to represent that, but as for the concept itself-one object plus another object equaling a consistent quantity of two objects-there is no other way the world could have been. One object could never have equaled two objects, etc. Back to Leibnuts, suppose you have A and B. If someone claims they are identical, then this is what should follow:
If A = B, whatever is true of A will be true of B
Whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of B
In all possible worlds, A = B
Felica and Her Fancy Dresses
Okay, so Felicia is wearing a blue and black dress that everyone thinks is white and gold or whatever. She insists "nah foo. You been dranking all dat drank." But everyone else in the party swears she's wearing a white and gold dress. So she whips out a bazooka and says "DON'T BE LYIN' TO ME. I WILL END YOU."
Well, how can Felicia determine whether the others are just screwing with her? Is it possible?
Let's say Felica (and her loyal posse) wants to test what everyone really sees. How is she to do this?
"Put them all under a brain scanner, and tests their brain patterns!" says physicalist Patty (hehe). Well, Felica does that. And she realizes something. "I know jack-diddly-squat about what they're actually seeing!" It's possible, for all she knows, that they could be having a particular brain pattern and yet they'd be seeing something completely different than her.
Braainzzzz
Here's the trouble. Felica could know all the physical facts about the brains of these guests (hostages?) at her party (she happens to have 5 PhDs in science, and so has one in neuroscience), and still she'd know nothing about what they're seeing. If they said "I really do see white and gold!"-they very well may be! It's possible.
Let me come at this from the perspective of Zombies. David Chalmers, a philosopher, came up with the idea of philosophical zombies (p-zombies). These are people who look just you and me, have the brains of you and me...but there's a catch. These people have no subjective experience. They have no consciousness-they're just pieces of meat reacting to electrical signals. These entities are conceivable-there doesn't seem to be anything about the existence of these beings that is logically incoherent. In fact, for you all you know, I could be one....whoa.
This is where the fun begins.
1.) It's possible that p-zombies exist (they are conceivable-I could be one for all you know)
2.) There is a possible world where p-zombies exist. (Modal possibility)
3.) You could learn all the physical facts about the p-zombies' brains, and that wouldn't tell you about there subjective experience (because they have none)
4.) There is a possible world where physical facts don't equal mental facts (since you could learn the physical facts about the p-zombies' brains, and that wouldn't tell you about their subjective experience)
5.) Conclusion: Mental facts and physical facts are not identical (since if they were, they'd be identical in all possible worlds, and everything that is possibly true of one would be possibly true of the other. Also, if they were identical, learning everything about physicality should yield everything about mentality, since they're supposedly identical. Leibniz Law's a butt face. bam.)
Now, I am not suggesting there is no correlation between Brain States (BS) and Mental States (MS). There undeniably is. However, I'm suggesting that the assumption of our culture, which wants to reduce MS to BS (hehe) is flat out wrong. MS isn't identical to BS.
Let's contextualize this. Felica is contemplating these things and constructs an argument.
1.) If MS = BS, then whatever is true and possibly true of MS should be true and possibly true of BS (Leibniz Law)
2.) She could learn all she wants about BS, and still not know about the MS of her guests
3.) There's something possibly true of MS (you can't learn everything about it by learning everything about BS) that's not possibly true of BS (you obviously would learn everything about BS by learning everything about BS)
4.) There's something possibly true of MS that's not possibly true of BS
Conclusion: MS ain't BS by Leibniz Law (hehe)
Concluding Thoughts
Felica realizes that materialism/physicalism (the assumption that everything in reality reduces to matter/space/energy/time and the rearrangements of it-i.e everything can be described in terms of the natural) is wrong. So she lets her guests go and becomes an idealist (if you have no idea what that is, I'll tell you when you're older. Or click on my post on consciousness that I wrote in November)
Consciousness is undeniably correlated to brain states...but correlation sure has heck doesn't equal identity. More than that, we've learned something interesting from Felicia. Consciousness emphatically isn't reducible to brain states. Consciousness isn't identical to stuff going on inside your head. However, that means the physicalist assumption of our culture is wrong.
Further Resources
This blog post was more philosophical in nature...but if anyone is interested in how I view the interaction between mind and matter, see here. This to me goes far in explaining why people see different things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
Edit: One of my friends has informed me: The idea of zombies did not originate from Chalmers. It was around during the time of Rene Descartes. So p-zombies go back waay before Chalmers.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Divine Concurrance Defended
What is Divine Concurrance? It is the doctrine that God, at all moments, sustains creation. He sustains the laws and the operations of creation, and thus holds all things together. If God did not actively "concur" with the law of gravity, for instance, it would not be efficacious. That means that in a sense, God causes the law of gravity. He operates with the law He has established. Apart from Him, physical laws would have no effects. As an Idealist, I understand that God sustains the universe by actively willing it. It is a projection of His consciousness; an emanation outward from His essence. This brings us to an uneasy conclusion, however: God sustains the laws that cause a knife to go through a victim's throat. In a sense, God causes a knife to cut open a body, because He is actively sustaining the laws that produce such an effect. So how is this moral for God to do?
1.) Moral Responsibility and the Will
If I was under body-control, and someone controlled me to punch Lil'Timmy in the face, would I be responsible? No, because the action wasn't directly connected to MY will. God does not directly will our evil actions. He does not move our wills to do evil; that happens of our own accord. Hence, moral responsibility for rape and murder lie with the one performing the action, because those actions are directly connected to the will of the agent, not God's.
2.) Moral Obligation
God's commands ground moral obligation on Christianity. That is to say that God's commands are why we OUGHT to do something. God has commanded us to love each other-hence, because we have a command from God to do so, we have an obligation. God, however, doesn't issue commands to Himself (besides promises He makes to man-which He intends to fulfill). Hence, God has no moral obligation to abstain from sustaining creation, or sustaining evil actions. As I've argued from 1.), God's not responsible for the action itself. Nor is it immoral for Him to sustain the action or its effects, since God has no obligation that would forbid Him from doing so.
3.) The Good of Moral Agency
Additionally, God's concurrance with human actions renders them efficacious. This is actually a great good. God is The Good-the grounds, source, and origin of all goodness. Thus, to be conformed to God is to be conformed to goodness. God's actions have actual effects, since God is a free and moral agent. Thus, if God makes people who are moral agents, He shares a bit more of who He is with them. In other words, moral agency is part of what it means to be made "in the image of God"-to reflect God back into the world. To have the capacity to reflect God at all is a great good. Since God's own moral agency implies that His choices have actual effects, for God to render the choices of free agents efficacious makes those agents more accurate reflections of Him. The responsibility of using the good of efficacious moral agency to reflect God lies with the agent-but simply having it at all is a great good, since having it makes one more of a picture of who God is (since God has moral agency and His actions have consequences).
4.) It highlights the ugliness of sin and our need for a Savior
Having established that it is not wrong for God to sustain an evil action, or render it efficacious, I want to prove that this is good in another way than I have argued in 3). Namely, rendering our actions efficacious highlights the reality of the ugliness of sin. That we bring about such horrors by OUR will highlights the stark depravity of man. That ISIS beheads 21 Christians on a beach, sawing them in two, more clearly displays the ugliness of the actions their will has brought about. We don't live in a cartoon universe, but a moral universe with actual consequences for our actions. Those consequences demonstrate that mankind is a jacked up race. And hence, we need a Savior. We need Jesus Christ.
1.) Moral Responsibility and the Will
If I was under body-control, and someone controlled me to punch Lil'Timmy in the face, would I be responsible? No, because the action wasn't directly connected to MY will. God does not directly will our evil actions. He does not move our wills to do evil; that happens of our own accord. Hence, moral responsibility for rape and murder lie with the one performing the action, because those actions are directly connected to the will of the agent, not God's.
2.) Moral Obligation
God's commands ground moral obligation on Christianity. That is to say that God's commands are why we OUGHT to do something. God has commanded us to love each other-hence, because we have a command from God to do so, we have an obligation. God, however, doesn't issue commands to Himself (besides promises He makes to man-which He intends to fulfill). Hence, God has no moral obligation to abstain from sustaining creation, or sustaining evil actions. As I've argued from 1.), God's not responsible for the action itself. Nor is it immoral for Him to sustain the action or its effects, since God has no obligation that would forbid Him from doing so.
3.) The Good of Moral Agency
Additionally, God's concurrance with human actions renders them efficacious. This is actually a great good. God is The Good-the grounds, source, and origin of all goodness. Thus, to be conformed to God is to be conformed to goodness. God's actions have actual effects, since God is a free and moral agent. Thus, if God makes people who are moral agents, He shares a bit more of who He is with them. In other words, moral agency is part of what it means to be made "in the image of God"-to reflect God back into the world. To have the capacity to reflect God at all is a great good. Since God's own moral agency implies that His choices have actual effects, for God to render the choices of free agents efficacious makes those agents more accurate reflections of Him. The responsibility of using the good of efficacious moral agency to reflect God lies with the agent-but simply having it at all is a great good, since having it makes one more of a picture of who God is (since God has moral agency and His actions have consequences).
4.) It highlights the ugliness of sin and our need for a Savior
Having established that it is not wrong for God to sustain an evil action, or render it efficacious, I want to prove that this is good in another way than I have argued in 3). Namely, rendering our actions efficacious highlights the reality of the ugliness of sin. That we bring about such horrors by OUR will highlights the stark depravity of man. That ISIS beheads 21 Christians on a beach, sawing them in two, more clearly displays the ugliness of the actions their will has brought about. We don't live in a cartoon universe, but a moral universe with actual consequences for our actions. Those consequences demonstrate that mankind is a jacked up race. And hence, we need a Savior. We need Jesus Christ.
Monday, February 16, 2015
My God is in the Heavens and He Does All that He Pleases
I've been seeing a common atheist line around for a while. Namely: "your God is a psychopathic maniac who kills babies and sanctions rape." Right. Let's take this out.
God and "The Good"
When Christians say "God is The Good", here's what we mean. We mean God is the source an origin of all goodness in reality. His being grounds right and wrong. His characteristics determine right and wrong-the characteristics He has had from eternity by necessity. Therefore, love, justice, peace, kindness, etc are all good because they belong to God's being. God is also the Creator of all reality, and God is the source of life.
What I want to emphasize is that God is also just. Here's what I mean. If a Judge sees a rapist, and then lets the rapist go off scott free, in what sense is that Judge just? If God is Just, He cannot let violations of His own nature go unpunished. When people go against His nature, He cannot just dismiss that as though it's a non-trivial action. To do so would be to fail to uphold the worth of goodness...to fail to uphold the worth of God's own nature. Thus, it would be unjust. God would be saying "yeah violations of goodness is a-okay". In spite of the fact that His nature is intrinsically infinitely valuable-since God Himself is the source and origin of all value in the Universe-God would be denying that value in dismissing sin. He'd be colluding with evil.
The Holiness of God
Unless people understand this (and I get it-Dawkins and Harris CANNOT because no one wants to), they will never understand why God's judgments are so severe. If a man were to commit genocide, I would argue that the death penalty is viable. For a murderer who goes on a killing spree and refuses to stop killing, I don't think executing him is an immoral option. This is my point: the severity of the crime determines the severity of the punishment. If God is the source and origin of all goodness and all life, then to sin against Him and to rebel is to commit a crime INFINITELY heinous. It is to reject the sum total of all goodness, and to reject life itself (since in rejecting God, we reject the source of life). Hence, it is to embrace death.
If God is infinitely Holy and infinitely valuable, then the failure to honor Him is infinitely evil. Sin is infinitely evil precisely because in sinning, we reject the One who is the source of all good. That is why the Bible says that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). We are so morally perverse that we have no sense of the seriousness of sinning against the infinitely Holy I am. This is why God judged the Canaanites. This wasn't an act of genocide. It wasn't as though God said "well I hate those Canaanites because they're Canaanites so imma take them out". God judged the nation because of the rampant sin. God is diametrically opposed to anything that defaces His value. And He must be if He is to be considered good; for if God is the embodiment of all good, then He cannot let His own value in creation be mocked and trampled upon. He cannot let crime go unpunished-this would be unjust, and God is perfectly just.
This means God is just to strike anyone down the moment they sin. That's how serious and offensive sin is-until people feel the weight of their sin, they won't get it. The punishment for sin is death. Man may mock that all he wishes-his mocking and his whining does not for a SPLIT SECOND constitute a rational argument.
God and Babies
Okay, so that works for why God has the right to judge sinners. What about babies? And if I say God can take the lives of babies, why am I opposed to abortion? I do want to affirm God's right to take the life of a baby. Why does God have said right? If God is the Creator of all life, He has total rights over all life. Why? Because God Himself is the One who assigns the rights and the value to His creation. He is the One who designates it's purpose-all things belong to Him. We are not our own. Yes, man HATES that idea-but we are not the captain of our own soul.
An inventor has all rights over his invention-his creation. Since God alone creates sentient life, God alone has rights over it. Thus, only God has the right to revoke and give life as He pleases. It should be mentioned that I think babies who die enter the presence of God for reasons mentioned here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCUAi8JfWk0
So why am I opposed to man taking lives-be it baby or not? What distinguishes this God from the God of ISIS? To the first question: because God alone has the right to take life and give as He please, man has no such right. Man has no right to violate the creature-Creator distinction.
To the second question, multiple layers of answer. For one, Allah isn't the right God. Sure, ISIS could say the same-but if Christianity is true, then Allah doesn't exist, and ISIS has therefore acted not in the name of God, but in the name of their own passions. Second, God's command to kill the Canaanites was not indefinite as ISIS's command to kill others is. Rather, because of the seriousness of the sin of the Canaanites, God decided to act. He had waited four hundred years, and extended repentance THAT long. He waited for the measure of their sins to fill up such that when they were so thoroughly corrupt, He acted in judgment.
Let me give an example. Suppose you have a maniac people out to kill others and live in depravity (*cough cough ISIS cough cough*). I think it would be just to take out such a people in judgment. The government has been given the power of the sword (not the individual-which is why this squares with "love your enemy"), and thus can and should act in justice. Given that ancient Israel was structured in such a way that God was the immediate king, He WAS the governing authority. Israel was in a unique time and place wherein they served as God's direct arm of judgment. As I've argued, God has the right to execute His wrath on rebel sinners whenever He pleases. That being said, the church is NOT ancient Israel, and lives under the new covenant. Thus, God's purpose for His people under the old covenant has been fulfilled, and God's purposes in the new covenant have come to take place in Christ. Hence why the church cannot act as Israel did. Christians cannot take up the sword, because the kingdom of God is not from the world, and thus is not of the sword. God's purpose for using the sword was fulfilled, and Christians are to lay down their lives to spread the Gospel.
Of course, the atheist will object: well God's being inconsistent with Himself to act differently in these times of history. Of course, this is a lousy objection of the Dawkinsian variety. If a parent institutes a curfew, the curfew isn't meant to be perpetual. Once the purpose for the curfew is fulfilled (to mature an individual into a responsible adult), it is no longer immoral for the kid to go out past curfew. It no longer applies to Him. Similarly, God's purposes under the old covenant were designed to be fulfilled in Christ, and thus does not apply to the church (which I believe is the continuation and the expansion of Israel).
Concluding Thoughts
I know some of what I've said might unsettle people, or might make people emotional or whatever. Emotional outrages over God's right to judge holy, lofty humanity do not constitute rational arguments. This seems to be all the New Atheists have: empty rhetoric that, while puffing up the egos of the hordes of young people who worship the ground Dawkins walks on, has no substance and reveals the foolishness, emotionalism, and anti-intellectualism of anyone who goes that route. Yes, God's judgment over man is tough. And it's tough because we don't like to be told the truth: we are sinners in the hands of a Holy God. Apart from Christ, that's not a nice place to be.
God and "The Good"
When Christians say "God is The Good", here's what we mean. We mean God is the source an origin of all goodness in reality. His being grounds right and wrong. His characteristics determine right and wrong-the characteristics He has had from eternity by necessity. Therefore, love, justice, peace, kindness, etc are all good because they belong to God's being. God is also the Creator of all reality, and God is the source of life.
What I want to emphasize is that God is also just. Here's what I mean. If a Judge sees a rapist, and then lets the rapist go off scott free, in what sense is that Judge just? If God is Just, He cannot let violations of His own nature go unpunished. When people go against His nature, He cannot just dismiss that as though it's a non-trivial action. To do so would be to fail to uphold the worth of goodness...to fail to uphold the worth of God's own nature. Thus, it would be unjust. God would be saying "yeah violations of goodness is a-okay". In spite of the fact that His nature is intrinsically infinitely valuable-since God Himself is the source and origin of all value in the Universe-God would be denying that value in dismissing sin. He'd be colluding with evil.
The Holiness of God
Unless people understand this (and I get it-Dawkins and Harris CANNOT because no one wants to), they will never understand why God's judgments are so severe. If a man were to commit genocide, I would argue that the death penalty is viable. For a murderer who goes on a killing spree and refuses to stop killing, I don't think executing him is an immoral option. This is my point: the severity of the crime determines the severity of the punishment. If God is the source and origin of all goodness and all life, then to sin against Him and to rebel is to commit a crime INFINITELY heinous. It is to reject the sum total of all goodness, and to reject life itself (since in rejecting God, we reject the source of life). Hence, it is to embrace death.
If God is infinitely Holy and infinitely valuable, then the failure to honor Him is infinitely evil. Sin is infinitely evil precisely because in sinning, we reject the One who is the source of all good. That is why the Bible says that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). We are so morally perverse that we have no sense of the seriousness of sinning against the infinitely Holy I am. This is why God judged the Canaanites. This wasn't an act of genocide. It wasn't as though God said "well I hate those Canaanites because they're Canaanites so imma take them out". God judged the nation because of the rampant sin. God is diametrically opposed to anything that defaces His value. And He must be if He is to be considered good; for if God is the embodiment of all good, then He cannot let His own value in creation be mocked and trampled upon. He cannot let crime go unpunished-this would be unjust, and God is perfectly just.
This means God is just to strike anyone down the moment they sin. That's how serious and offensive sin is-until people feel the weight of their sin, they won't get it. The punishment for sin is death. Man may mock that all he wishes-his mocking and his whining does not for a SPLIT SECOND constitute a rational argument.
God and Babies
Okay, so that works for why God has the right to judge sinners. What about babies? And if I say God can take the lives of babies, why am I opposed to abortion? I do want to affirm God's right to take the life of a baby. Why does God have said right? If God is the Creator of all life, He has total rights over all life. Why? Because God Himself is the One who assigns the rights and the value to His creation. He is the One who designates it's purpose-all things belong to Him. We are not our own. Yes, man HATES that idea-but we are not the captain of our own soul.
An inventor has all rights over his invention-his creation. Since God alone creates sentient life, God alone has rights over it. Thus, only God has the right to revoke and give life as He pleases. It should be mentioned that I think babies who die enter the presence of God for reasons mentioned here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCUAi8JfWk0
So why am I opposed to man taking lives-be it baby or not? What distinguishes this God from the God of ISIS? To the first question: because God alone has the right to take life and give as He please, man has no such right. Man has no right to violate the creature-Creator distinction.
To the second question, multiple layers of answer. For one, Allah isn't the right God. Sure, ISIS could say the same-but if Christianity is true, then Allah doesn't exist, and ISIS has therefore acted not in the name of God, but in the name of their own passions. Second, God's command to kill the Canaanites was not indefinite as ISIS's command to kill others is. Rather, because of the seriousness of the sin of the Canaanites, God decided to act. He had waited four hundred years, and extended repentance THAT long. He waited for the measure of their sins to fill up such that when they were so thoroughly corrupt, He acted in judgment.
Let me give an example. Suppose you have a maniac people out to kill others and live in depravity (*cough cough ISIS cough cough*). I think it would be just to take out such a people in judgment. The government has been given the power of the sword (not the individual-which is why this squares with "love your enemy"), and thus can and should act in justice. Given that ancient Israel was structured in such a way that God was the immediate king, He WAS the governing authority. Israel was in a unique time and place wherein they served as God's direct arm of judgment. As I've argued, God has the right to execute His wrath on rebel sinners whenever He pleases. That being said, the church is NOT ancient Israel, and lives under the new covenant. Thus, God's purpose for His people under the old covenant has been fulfilled, and God's purposes in the new covenant have come to take place in Christ. Hence why the church cannot act as Israel did. Christians cannot take up the sword, because the kingdom of God is not from the world, and thus is not of the sword. God's purpose for using the sword was fulfilled, and Christians are to lay down their lives to spread the Gospel.
Of course, the atheist will object: well God's being inconsistent with Himself to act differently in these times of history. Of course, this is a lousy objection of the Dawkinsian variety. If a parent institutes a curfew, the curfew isn't meant to be perpetual. Once the purpose for the curfew is fulfilled (to mature an individual into a responsible adult), it is no longer immoral for the kid to go out past curfew. It no longer applies to Him. Similarly, God's purposes under the old covenant were designed to be fulfilled in Christ, and thus does not apply to the church (which I believe is the continuation and the expansion of Israel).
Concluding Thoughts
I know some of what I've said might unsettle people, or might make people emotional or whatever. Emotional outrages over God's right to judge holy, lofty humanity do not constitute rational arguments. This seems to be all the New Atheists have: empty rhetoric that, while puffing up the egos of the hordes of young people who worship the ground Dawkins walks on, has no substance and reveals the foolishness, emotionalism, and anti-intellectualism of anyone who goes that route. Yes, God's judgment over man is tough. And it's tough because we don't like to be told the truth: we are sinners in the hands of a Holy God. Apart from Christ, that's not a nice place to be.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Free Will and Sin
Okay, so a bunch of atheists argue, "God didn't have to grant us free will. Or if He did, He could have limited the options to only good options. Hence, He is responsible for evil."
Let's leave aside the fact that the conclusion is a non-sequitur. First of all, is it true that God could have limited the options to only good options? Nope. Does the fact that we can freely will evil and God can't make us more free than God? Nope.
The Definition of Goodness
I argue that God is "The Good". He is the source and origin of all goodness in reality. Thus, to be "good" is to be conformed to God's character. So to choose the good is to choose to be conformed to God's character. Hence, an action is "good" because it aligns one with God's character.
Free Will
For our purposes, "free will" is the ability to select between possible outcomes. If the choice to do the good is the choice to be conformed/to manifest God's character, it should become clear why evil is logically incoherent for God. God cannot be not-God. He can't ever not be conformed to His own character. However, for a creature, this is a viable option. A creature can indeed choose not to be conformed to God's character because a creature isn't God. Thus, it's a legitimate possibility. This doesn't make the creature more free, since again, God's actions aren't limited in this case. For Him to choose evil is simply logically incoherent.
Note: The character of God is not His Divine omniscience, ominpotence, etc. The character of God refers to the dispositions of God. They refer not to His abilities that define His being, but rather His dispositions that yield actions in accord with these dispositions. His "character" is what we normally mean by the term "character". I'm not talking about His Divine nature-though His character is a subset of His nature (the subset that the creature ought to strive to be conformed to).
How can God give us Free will?
Under idealism, the world exists in the mind of God. God could simply "loan" us the ability to do so. That is, God sustains our ability to make free choices in His own. He, as it were, roots our freedom to choose in His own freedom to choose, "loaning" that ability out to us. It flows from Him and into His creatures.
It doesn't seem impossible that a Mind much more powerful than our own would be able to do something like this.
Moral Choices
I think it is therefore the case that moral choices entail the possibility of evil under this definition of free will. An action is good NOT because an agent could have done otherwise (as some people suggest). It is good because it conforms to God's nature. Thus, whenever making morally significant choices, free will entails the possibility of evil (until we submit ourselves to God's Spirit), since not being conformed to God's nature remains a viable option for anything "not-God".
Tautology?
So what does it mean when I say "God is good"? Is this mere tautology? Am I saying "God is God?" Nope. I'm saying something actually extremely profound I think. When I say God is good, I am expressing praise for all that He is. I expressing my delight that God's goodness consists in manifesting His own fullness. To praise God by saying "God is good" is to delight in the perfection of His attributes.
Conclusion
Okay, so that should put that objection to death. Bam.
Let's leave aside the fact that the conclusion is a non-sequitur. First of all, is it true that God could have limited the options to only good options? Nope. Does the fact that we can freely will evil and God can't make us more free than God? Nope.
The Definition of Goodness
I argue that God is "The Good". He is the source and origin of all goodness in reality. Thus, to be "good" is to be conformed to God's character. So to choose the good is to choose to be conformed to God's character. Hence, an action is "good" because it aligns one with God's character.
Free Will
For our purposes, "free will" is the ability to select between possible outcomes. If the choice to do the good is the choice to be conformed/to manifest God's character, it should become clear why evil is logically incoherent for God. God cannot be not-God. He can't ever not be conformed to His own character. However, for a creature, this is a viable option. A creature can indeed choose not to be conformed to God's character because a creature isn't God. Thus, it's a legitimate possibility. This doesn't make the creature more free, since again, God's actions aren't limited in this case. For Him to choose evil is simply logically incoherent.
Note: The character of God is not His Divine omniscience, ominpotence, etc. The character of God refers to the dispositions of God. They refer not to His abilities that define His being, but rather His dispositions that yield actions in accord with these dispositions. His "character" is what we normally mean by the term "character". I'm not talking about His Divine nature-though His character is a subset of His nature (the subset that the creature ought to strive to be conformed to).
How can God give us Free will?
Under idealism, the world exists in the mind of God. God could simply "loan" us the ability to do so. That is, God sustains our ability to make free choices in His own. He, as it were, roots our freedom to choose in His own freedom to choose, "loaning" that ability out to us. It flows from Him and into His creatures.
It doesn't seem impossible that a Mind much more powerful than our own would be able to do something like this.
Moral Choices
I think it is therefore the case that moral choices entail the possibility of evil under this definition of free will. An action is good NOT because an agent could have done otherwise (as some people suggest). It is good because it conforms to God's nature. Thus, whenever making morally significant choices, free will entails the possibility of evil (until we submit ourselves to God's Spirit), since not being conformed to God's nature remains a viable option for anything "not-God".
Tautology?
So what does it mean when I say "God is good"? Is this mere tautology? Am I saying "God is God?" Nope. I'm saying something actually extremely profound I think. When I say God is good, I am expressing praise for all that He is. I expressing my delight that God's goodness consists in manifesting His own fullness. To praise God by saying "God is good" is to delight in the perfection of His attributes.
Conclusion
Okay, so that should put that objection to death. Bam.
The Justice of God in the Death of His Son
If you were look at my youtube video recommendation page, you'd think I was a flaming atheist. Seriously. I try to watch DA Carson or some dork (aka awesome brother) like him, and then I see an atheist argument on the side bar. And I click it. Well, I shouldn't have. Why? It was good ol' Richard Dawkins.
"Isn't the Cross the most disgusting thing about the New Testament?" He asks in snide derision, as if no one has ever thought about this for the past 2000 years. Ever. Now, I admit, the theologian he was talking to struck me as a bit of a tool (he avoided the fact that God DOES pour out His wrath on the Son). Dawkins' objection is that the Cross doesn't really do anything. If God wanted to forgive He could have just done it. Therefore Christians, pack up and go home, God is a maniacal bully. Well, so how does the Cross make sense?
Well, I give an answer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Op8GaQnlAo
But I'll summarize it here ;)
The Dilemma
Suppose you got Judge Bobby and murderer Felicia and victim Lil'Timmy. Felicia killed Lil'Timmy. Now if Bobby is a just Judge, is he going to just "forgive" or excuse Felicia? THIS is actually the great dilemma of the Christian faith. For the Apostle Paul, the issue was NOT how can a good God allow bad things to happen to good people? The issue was: how can a good God forgive thoroughly jacked up rebels? So how is God to be simultaneously just, and merciful?
Justice
Okay, so let's think about what justice is. If Felicia stole Lil'Timmy's car, she'd get in trouble. However, if she murdered Lil'Timmy, she'd get a more severe punishment. Why?
I assume we all agree that people matter. People have intrinsic value. Stealing someone's car devalues them because it ignores that person's ownership of property. Stealing, in essence, says that the person's ownership doesn't matter...which devalues the person himself. However, shooting Lil'Timmy devalues him MUCH more than stealing his car. Rather than denying his right to ownership, one devalues the worth of his life by taking it. Should Felicia go free if she's really really sorry for it the next day? Of course not! The judge must deal justice.
So what is justice? Well, suppose Felicia gets a life sentence. What does the life sentence demonstrate? When the perpetrator is punished, it demonstrates that the victim mattered. In other words, the penalty of a crime says this: you ignored the worth of this person, and thus in order to honor the worth of said person, we will uphold it through punishment. The purpose of punishment, then, is to emphasize and uphold the worth of the victim of a crime.
Objections Considered and Smashed John Cena Style
But of course, someone will object: doesn't the punishment devalue the worth of the criminal? Not at all. Tied into our worth as human beings is an obligation to honor the fellow man. In other words, part of my value consists in my obligation to honor others. Thus, when I fail to uphold those obligations, to deal punishment actually respects my worth as a human being. Punishment treats me as a moral agent. Let me use an analogy.
Suppose you have a kid named "Obnoxious Punk-butt Jr. III". We'll call him "Kanye". Now, Kanye is at his sister's art competition as a five year old. His sister is about to win, but before she accepts her away, Kanye steals the mic and says, "yo sis, you did good and imma let you finish, but BEYONCE HAD THE BEST PAINTING OF ALL TIME." At that moment, you scream "SHE'S NOT THAT KIND OF ARTIST. HOW DID YOU COME OUT OF MY BIRTH CANAL?" But more than that, you're at a cross roads. You love this kid. He is, after all, your son. So what do you do?
Let me ask this question. Is it loving to punish a disobedient son for failing to uphold his moral obligations, or is it loving? Of course, one would immediately point out the flaw in this argument: judgment here is meant to be restitutional, not retributional! Well, let's take this one step further. If your son rapes and kills someone (yup that changed quickly), do you turn him in? I'd argue that it would be right AND loving to turn him in. Why? Because in treating him as a moral agent, you a.) do not trivialize his role as a human being and b) you emphasize the seriousness of devaluing another person.
In other words, a punishment doesn't devalue the worth of the perpetrator because the perpetrator's worth (in part) demands that he keep his obligation to the fellow man. In inflicting punishment, that failure is acknowledged. In a sense, the worth of the perpetrator is being upheld (in a different way than the victim, of course). The perpetrator's worth is being upheld in that he's being treated as a moral agent. So punishment does not devalue the perpetrator, but rather properly treats him in accord with his intrinsic worth.
Why is the Cross Just?
My definition still stands, then. Justice is to uphold the worth of the victim devalued in the crime. Now, suppose our sin devalues and dishonors God. Then God is the victim here. HIS worth was trampled on. So if Jesus is dying p for us, then the charge holds. Jesus's death was not just.
So how exactly was God's worth mocked? If God is the source and origin of all goodness, He is therefore the embodiment of all goodness. When we sin, we pretty much give God the finger. We say "honoring you doesn't matter!" Hence, we are rejecting the embodiment of all goodness in reality. Thus, if God is to be just with how He relates to rebel sinners, He must uphold His worth. He must demonstrate His opposition to all that opposes and mocks His value. He must vindicate His infinite worth in light of how it is being mocked by sinners. Therefore, God must deal with sin in such a way that shines forth His infinite value. This is where the Cross comes in.
The Cross
On the Cross, Jesus (who, remember, shares God's own Being, and thus is Himself fully Divine as well as fully Human) takes sin on Himself. He takes the full weight of evil, and conquers it in His death. God the Father pours out His infinite wrath against sin in the flesh of Jesus (not against Jesus Himself, but against sin. Jesus bears God's wrath because He bears our sin), and thus destroys evil in the willing, obedient death of His Son. In light of crushing evil under His wrath (which is His intense anger and judicial action against all that defaces His value in creation), He vindicates His worth because His glory is the only thing left standing. When Christ takes on sin onto Himself, dies, and is raised, Jesus conquers the sins of His people. He conquers and triumphs over death, and initiates God's new creation. Hence, sin, suffering, and brokenness is dealt the death blow at the Cross. This leaves God's beautiful worth vindicated in how it stands victorious over those things in the risen Christ. Not only does it display the worth of God's value in opposing evil, but it also displays God's worth in His infinite grace and mercy. See, the Cross also kills the old nature of those who are united to Christ by faith. The Cross purchases a particular people for Christ, such that God ensures His people (the people of faith in Christ) new life.
What does that mean? When one believes in Christ, He is united to Him. His old man dies in the death of Christ, and the new life Christ obtained in Christ is shared with those who are adopted in Christ. So God, when He unites someone to Christ, places His Holy Spirit in that person. He's not releasing criminals back onto the population. He also destroys their old identity and restores them. Hence, God displays the riches of His grace; He would have been totally just to damn said sinner to hell. However, He doesn't. So God is just because He upholds His infinite worth. God is merciful because He doesn't damn sinners He had every right to. And THAT'S the brilliance of the Cross!
Human Analogies Smashed John Cena Style
Now of course, Shabir Ally (a famous Muslim apologist) argues that this is still cruel. He says it's like a human judge who, seeing a bunch of criminals, brings out his son as the son begs for mercy, and gives him the death penalty while letting the criminals going free. Never mind that Jesus's death was completely willing. This parallel fails for one key reason: when a criminal commits a crime, he is not defacing the worth of the judge. Yet, whenever we do evil-because God is the source and origin of all goodness in reality-we are defacing His worth every single time. Additionally, because Jesus shares the being of God, Jesus Himself vindicates God's worth by taking evil and gloriously triumphing over it. He shows the worth of His superiority to it and power over it.
Suppose we modify the example so that the criminals are being tried for an attempted murder attempt on the judge. Is it right for the judge to impute the crimes of the criminals to the son? Well, we know there are cases where such an imputation would be just. Suppose the criminals had a big ol' fine for blowing up the Liberty Bell. The son offers to pay the fine-we're all good!
Similarly, Jesus makes a "payment". "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). What does that mean? Jesus Himself made the payment for us. Justice had to be satisfied, and Jesus footed the bill.
It also means something much more profound. I'm an idealist. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it. I think God has the power to make an actual, ontological transfer of evil onto Jesus. That is, whereas a human judge cannot in any sense take the crimes or the evil inherent in a crime and place it onto a human, God has said power (I think because the world exists in His mind-it would be as easy as transferring the information that constitutes a particular evil and imputing it to Christ by just thinking it), God absolutely can. So because God ACTUALLY DESTROYS evil in the death of Christ, it is right for Him to vindicate His worth by imputing sin to Christ.
Concluding thoughts
God must judge sin because He is just. Anything less than that, and God would not be God. Yet, because God is also unspeakably merciful and loving, God redeemed a people for Himself, and made salvation available to all. Oh the riches of His grace! May my God be glorified through Jesus Christ. Because of the Lamb, your crimes can be forgiven-He knocks at the door, willing to grant new life to all those who rest in Him!
"Isn't the Cross the most disgusting thing about the New Testament?" He asks in snide derision, as if no one has ever thought about this for the past 2000 years. Ever. Now, I admit, the theologian he was talking to struck me as a bit of a tool (he avoided the fact that God DOES pour out His wrath on the Son). Dawkins' objection is that the Cross doesn't really do anything. If God wanted to forgive He could have just done it. Therefore Christians, pack up and go home, God is a maniacal bully. Well, so how does the Cross make sense?
Well, I give an answer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Op8GaQnlAo
But I'll summarize it here ;)
The Dilemma
Suppose you got Judge Bobby and murderer Felicia and victim Lil'Timmy. Felicia killed Lil'Timmy. Now if Bobby is a just Judge, is he going to just "forgive" or excuse Felicia? THIS is actually the great dilemma of the Christian faith. For the Apostle Paul, the issue was NOT how can a good God allow bad things to happen to good people? The issue was: how can a good God forgive thoroughly jacked up rebels? So how is God to be simultaneously just, and merciful?
Justice
Okay, so let's think about what justice is. If Felicia stole Lil'Timmy's car, she'd get in trouble. However, if she murdered Lil'Timmy, she'd get a more severe punishment. Why?
I assume we all agree that people matter. People have intrinsic value. Stealing someone's car devalues them because it ignores that person's ownership of property. Stealing, in essence, says that the person's ownership doesn't matter...which devalues the person himself. However, shooting Lil'Timmy devalues him MUCH more than stealing his car. Rather than denying his right to ownership, one devalues the worth of his life by taking it. Should Felicia go free if she's really really sorry for it the next day? Of course not! The judge must deal justice.
So what is justice? Well, suppose Felicia gets a life sentence. What does the life sentence demonstrate? When the perpetrator is punished, it demonstrates that the victim mattered. In other words, the penalty of a crime says this: you ignored the worth of this person, and thus in order to honor the worth of said person, we will uphold it through punishment. The purpose of punishment, then, is to emphasize and uphold the worth of the victim of a crime.
Objections Considered and Smashed John Cena Style
But of course, someone will object: doesn't the punishment devalue the worth of the criminal? Not at all. Tied into our worth as human beings is an obligation to honor the fellow man. In other words, part of my value consists in my obligation to honor others. Thus, when I fail to uphold those obligations, to deal punishment actually respects my worth as a human being. Punishment treats me as a moral agent. Let me use an analogy.
Suppose you have a kid named "Obnoxious Punk-butt Jr. III". We'll call him "Kanye". Now, Kanye is at his sister's art competition as a five year old. His sister is about to win, but before she accepts her away, Kanye steals the mic and says, "yo sis, you did good and imma let you finish, but BEYONCE HAD THE BEST PAINTING OF ALL TIME." At that moment, you scream "SHE'S NOT THAT KIND OF ARTIST. HOW DID YOU COME OUT OF MY BIRTH CANAL?" But more than that, you're at a cross roads. You love this kid. He is, after all, your son. So what do you do?
Let me ask this question. Is it loving to punish a disobedient son for failing to uphold his moral obligations, or is it loving? Of course, one would immediately point out the flaw in this argument: judgment here is meant to be restitutional, not retributional! Well, let's take this one step further. If your son rapes and kills someone (yup that changed quickly), do you turn him in? I'd argue that it would be right AND loving to turn him in. Why? Because in treating him as a moral agent, you a.) do not trivialize his role as a human being and b) you emphasize the seriousness of devaluing another person.
In other words, a punishment doesn't devalue the worth of the perpetrator because the perpetrator's worth (in part) demands that he keep his obligation to the fellow man. In inflicting punishment, that failure is acknowledged. In a sense, the worth of the perpetrator is being upheld (in a different way than the victim, of course). The perpetrator's worth is being upheld in that he's being treated as a moral agent. So punishment does not devalue the perpetrator, but rather properly treats him in accord with his intrinsic worth.
Why is the Cross Just?
My definition still stands, then. Justice is to uphold the worth of the victim devalued in the crime. Now, suppose our sin devalues and dishonors God. Then God is the victim here. HIS worth was trampled on. So if Jesus is dying p for us, then the charge holds. Jesus's death was not just.
So how exactly was God's worth mocked? If God is the source and origin of all goodness, He is therefore the embodiment of all goodness. When we sin, we pretty much give God the finger. We say "honoring you doesn't matter!" Hence, we are rejecting the embodiment of all goodness in reality. Thus, if God is to be just with how He relates to rebel sinners, He must uphold His worth. He must demonstrate His opposition to all that opposes and mocks His value. He must vindicate His infinite worth in light of how it is being mocked by sinners. Therefore, God must deal with sin in such a way that shines forth His infinite value. This is where the Cross comes in.
The Cross
On the Cross, Jesus (who, remember, shares God's own Being, and thus is Himself fully Divine as well as fully Human) takes sin on Himself. He takes the full weight of evil, and conquers it in His death. God the Father pours out His infinite wrath against sin in the flesh of Jesus (not against Jesus Himself, but against sin. Jesus bears God's wrath because He bears our sin), and thus destroys evil in the willing, obedient death of His Son. In light of crushing evil under His wrath (which is His intense anger and judicial action against all that defaces His value in creation), He vindicates His worth because His glory is the only thing left standing. When Christ takes on sin onto Himself, dies, and is raised, Jesus conquers the sins of His people. He conquers and triumphs over death, and initiates God's new creation. Hence, sin, suffering, and brokenness is dealt the death blow at the Cross. This leaves God's beautiful worth vindicated in how it stands victorious over those things in the risen Christ. Not only does it display the worth of God's value in opposing evil, but it also displays God's worth in His infinite grace and mercy. See, the Cross also kills the old nature of those who are united to Christ by faith. The Cross purchases a particular people for Christ, such that God ensures His people (the people of faith in Christ) new life.
What does that mean? When one believes in Christ, He is united to Him. His old man dies in the death of Christ, and the new life Christ obtained in Christ is shared with those who are adopted in Christ. So God, when He unites someone to Christ, places His Holy Spirit in that person. He's not releasing criminals back onto the population. He also destroys their old identity and restores them. Hence, God displays the riches of His grace; He would have been totally just to damn said sinner to hell. However, He doesn't. So God is just because He upholds His infinite worth. God is merciful because He doesn't damn sinners He had every right to. And THAT'S the brilliance of the Cross!
Human Analogies Smashed John Cena Style
Now of course, Shabir Ally (a famous Muslim apologist) argues that this is still cruel. He says it's like a human judge who, seeing a bunch of criminals, brings out his son as the son begs for mercy, and gives him the death penalty while letting the criminals going free. Never mind that Jesus's death was completely willing. This parallel fails for one key reason: when a criminal commits a crime, he is not defacing the worth of the judge. Yet, whenever we do evil-because God is the source and origin of all goodness in reality-we are defacing His worth every single time. Additionally, because Jesus shares the being of God, Jesus Himself vindicates God's worth by taking evil and gloriously triumphing over it. He shows the worth of His superiority to it and power over it.
Suppose we modify the example so that the criminals are being tried for an attempted murder attempt on the judge. Is it right for the judge to impute the crimes of the criminals to the son? Well, we know there are cases where such an imputation would be just. Suppose the criminals had a big ol' fine for blowing up the Liberty Bell. The son offers to pay the fine-we're all good!
Similarly, Jesus makes a "payment". "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). What does that mean? Jesus Himself made the payment for us. Justice had to be satisfied, and Jesus footed the bill.
It also means something much more profound. I'm an idealist. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it. I think God has the power to make an actual, ontological transfer of evil onto Jesus. That is, whereas a human judge cannot in any sense take the crimes or the evil inherent in a crime and place it onto a human, God has said power (I think because the world exists in His mind-it would be as easy as transferring the information that constitutes a particular evil and imputing it to Christ by just thinking it), God absolutely can. So because God ACTUALLY DESTROYS evil in the death of Christ, it is right for Him to vindicate His worth by imputing sin to Christ.
Concluding thoughts
God must judge sin because He is just. Anything less than that, and God would not be God. Yet, because God is also unspeakably merciful and loving, God redeemed a people for Himself, and made salvation available to all. Oh the riches of His grace! May my God be glorified through Jesus Christ. Because of the Lamb, your crimes can be forgiven-He knocks at the door, willing to grant new life to all those who rest in Him!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)