parresia

Augustine on Psalm 2:9"Serve the

Augustine on Psalm 2:9

"Serve the Lord with fear;" lest what is said, "Ye kings and judges of the earth," turn into pride: "And rejoice with trembling" (ver. 11). Very excellently is "rejoice" added, lest "serve the Lord with fear" should seem to tend to misery. But again, lest this same rejoicing should run on to unrestrained inconsiderateness, there is added "with trembling," that it might avail for a warning, and for the careful guarding of holiness. It can also be taken thus, "And now ye kings understand;" that is, And now that I am set as King, be ye not sad, kings of the earth, as if your excellency were taken from you, but rather "understand and be instructed." For it is expedient for you, that ye should be under Him, by whom understanding and instruction are given you. And this is expedient for you, that ye lord it not with rashness, but that ye "serve the Lord" of all "with fear," and "rejoice" in bliss most sure and most pure, with all caution and carefulness, lest ye fall therefrom into pride.

I'd like to make a point to Augustine's comments that piggy-back off of what my girl said recently. But first a distinction: there is a distinction often utilized by Christians to describe the Christian life. 1. The fact that Christians are currently (once and for all) justified by Christ's grace, i.e., the indicative. And therefore, 2. Christians are commanded to live a life out of gratitude, making every attempt to sin no more, i.e., the imperative (it is imperative that we obey God). So we have this indicative reality of being at once forensically perfect (we have Christ's righteousness covering us), and yet we are also simultaneously sinful (by nature) and therefore it is imperative that we MUST make valiant efforts to sin no more. This imperative/indicative distinction seems to me to be a fine way to distinguish sanctification from justification.

In Kate's post she mentions Wilson's book on marriage. Wilson also uses the imperative, idicative distinction-- he uses this distinction to explain, in a most profound way, a husband's headship. He say's that the husband IS the head of the household (just as Christ is head of the church), not that the husband ought to be the head of the household (as if he could decide whether or not to be such). Seen in this light, the husband is inescapably the head of the household, as a result all of his actions can, and must be, seen as related to this inidicative. The husband's imperative then is to love his wife: he ought to love his wife. We see here that a husband's headship is such that any particular husband is either a rebel-head or a faithful-head; he has no other options, and we know from the distinction that one way in which he can be a faithful-head is to follow through on the imperative placed upon him, i.e., to love his wife (when he fails in this area, he fails to be a faithful-head: he succeeds in being a rebel-head).

I'd now like to use the distinction with application to Augustine's words above. He admonishes us in accordance with Psalm 2, to "serve the Lord with fear" but that we must also rejoice because this is a blessing. And why is it a blessing? Well, it seems to me that it is an indicative that God is master of all (God cannot be otherwise, just as it is fact that Christians are justified, and husbands are the heads of their families), therefore nothing we do can change the fact that God is our ruler and King and Lord. But we can and often to fail to take into consideration the necessary consequence of this indicative, i.e., that we then have an imperative placed upon us: we ought (in the strongest sense of the word) to behave in accordance with God's authority. Again, Since God is never going to be anything other than God, it is up to us to either be rebel-servants or faithful-servants. There is NO other option. God's authority is inescapable, and we must realize this fact, knowing that our actions fall under the most holy imperatives of all: "Be ye Perfect, as the Lord thy God is perfect." So, just as we are graciously saved by the justifying work of Christ (and this justification is a grace we cannot get "rid" of), and just as husbands cannot get "rid" of their headship, so too, we as God's creation (mankind) cannot get away from God's sovereignty, and therefore we must decide, day after day, hour after hour, will we be faithful-servants or rebel-servants?

Go and sin no more.

Hear the words of AquinasThe

Hear the words of Aquinas

The Function of the Wise Man
My mouth shall discuss truth, and my lips shall detest the ungodly (Prov. vii,7).
ACCORDING to established popular usage, which the Philosopher considers should be our guide in the naming of things, they are called 'wise' who put things in their right* order and control them well. Now, in all things that are to be controlled and put in order to an end, the measure of control and order must be taken from the end in view; and the proper end of everything is something good. Hence we see in the arts that art A governs and, as it were, lords it over art B, when the proper end of art B belongs to A.* Thus the art of medicine lords it over the art of the apothecary, because health, the object of medicine, is the end of all drugs that the apothecary's art compounds. These arts that lord it over others are called 'master-building,' or 'masterful arts'; and the 'master-builders' who practise them arrogate to themselves the name of 'wise men.' But because these persons deal with the ends in view of certain particular things, without attaining to the general end of all things, they are called 'wise in this or that particular thing,' as it is said, 'As a wise architect I have laid the foundation' (I Cor. iii, 10); while the name of 'wise' without qualification is reserved for him alone who deals with the last end of the universe, which is also the first beginning of the order of the universe. Hence, according to the Philosopher, it is proper to the wise man to consider the highest causes.

Now the last end of everything is that which is intended by the prime author or mover thereof. The prime author and mover of the universe is intelligence, as will be shown later (B. II, Chap. XXIII, XXIV). Therefore the last end of the universe must be the good of the intelligence, and that is truth. Truth then must be the final end of the whole universe; and about the consideration of that end* wisdom must primarily be concerned. And therefore the Divine Wisdom, clothed in flesh, testifies that He came into the world for the manifestation of truth: For this was I born, and unto this I came into the World, to give testimony to the truth (John xvii, 37). The Philosopher also rules that the first philosophy is the science of truth, not of any and every truth, but of that truth which is the origin of all truth, and appertains to the first principle of the being of all things; hence its truth is the principle of all truth, for things are in truth as they are in being.

It is one and the same function to embrace either of two contraries and to repel the other. Hence, as it is the function of the wise man to discuss truth, particularly of the first beginning, so it is his also to impugn the contrary error. Suitably therefore is the double function of the wise man displayed in the words above quoted from the Sapiential Book, namely, to study, and upon study to speak out the truth of God, which of all other is most properly called truth, and this is referred to in the words, My mouth shall discuss truth, and to impugn error contrary to truth, as referred to in the words, And my lips shall detest the ungodly.

These things take time, and

These things take time, and I know that I'm the most inept that ever stepped...

II Kings 4:1-7 A layman's

II Kings 4:1-7 A layman's commentary

Now a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets cried out to Elisha, ""Your servant my husband is dead, and you know that your servant feared the LORD; and the creditor has come to take my two children to be his slaves.''
2
Elisha said to her, ""What shall I do for you? Tell me, what do you have in the house?'' And she said, ""Your maidservant has nothing in the house except a jar of oil.''
3
Then he said, ""Go, borrow vessels at large for yourself from all your neighbors, even empty vessels; do not get a few.
4
""And you shall go in and shut the door behind you and your sons, and pour out into all these vessels, and you shall set aside what is full.''
5
So she went from him and shut the door behind her and her sons; they were bringing the vessels to her and she poured.
6
When the vessels were full, she said to her son, ""Bring me another vessel.'' And he said to her, ""There is not one vessel more.'' And the oil stopped.
7
Then she came and told the man of God. And he said, ""Go, sell the oil and pay your debt, and you and your sons can live on the rest.''

In verse 3 we read the Prophet Elisha commanding the woman to "go, borrow vessels at large from all your neighbors, even empty vessels; do not get a few." What a powerful moral for us to learn from, even today. Let me take your attention first to those neighbors who gave the woman their oil-vessels. Certainly the neighbors knew that the woman was recently widowed, and that she would be in need of financial support. Their offering of these oil-vessels was an act of charity on their part. Some, we read, even gave the woman "empty vessels." Now these vessels were not worth much at all, they were valuable only when filled with oil, otherwise they were most likely discarded after use. So we can conclude that the neighbors who gave such empty vessels were, for all intents and purposes, not giving a heck of a lot. But they gave indeed. Is this not the call for some of us? Those of us who do not have much to give, do we have nothing to give? Or are we able to give what might be considered "empty vessels" but vessels none the less? Can we not see that even the smallest thing can be used by God to benefit His people. Consider the woman who was praised by Christ for giving nothing more than a few coins in the offering plate, because it was all that she could give:

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.
42
But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
43
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.
44
They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on."

So it seems that we, even those of us who have "nothing" to give, are leaving out a very important aspect of God's ability, namely His ability to use ANY gift we give for glory.

Another aspect to this passage that I wanted to point out is God's use of the "foolish things" in this world to bring about His plan.

"but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong."

Alas, how useful could empty oil vessels be? Could not the neighbors have said to themselves as they were handing out the empty vessels, "How foolish! Who would desire empty vessels?" If they would have done so they would have been missing an important lesson. Moreover, how useful could Moses, a man who could barely speak properly, be for emancipating the Jews from Egypt? How useful could Abram, a coward, be for fathering God's people? How useful could a bunch of fishermen be to disciple the learned men of the day? How could Paul possibly speak in the Aeriopigus, and be useful? How could I, a sinner of sinners, and balding at that, be of use to God? It seems to me that my life can be too often characterized as an "empty vessel." But alas, this is the comfort that we read in this passage: God will use even the fools, even the empty vessels to bring about His will.

"Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?" James 2:5

Furher, isn't it God who will not only use us fools, but he will indeed grant us all the richness of his mercy, adopting us as sons, to be heirs, even heirs in Christ!

So this story of Elisha and the poor widow is a telling tale of how much more we could be charitable and generous with our possessions-- if I could but emulate those neighbors who were willing to give, even giving things of little value, for God can use these gifts. This tale also tells of one of the greatest comforts in the Gospel-- no matter how incompetent, foolish, dull, or absent-minded, God is able, and indeed He promises, to use me, yes even me. There is much more that can be learned from this glorious passage, but better minds can tackle that another time. Amen.

St. Augustine on the PsalmsPsalm

St. Augustine on the Psalms

Psalm 1:1

"Blessed is the man that hath not gone away in the counsel of the ungodly" (ver. 1). This is to be understood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord Man. "Blessed is the man that hath not gone away in the counsel of the ungodly," as "the man of earth did," who consented to his wife deceived by the serpent, to the transgressing the commandment of God. "Nor stood in the way of sinners." For He came indeed in the way of sinners, by being born as sinners are; but He "stood" not therein, for that the enticements of the world held Him not. "And hath not sat in the seat of pestilence." He willed not an earthly kingdom, with pride, which is well taken for "the seat of pestilence;" for that there is hardly any one who is free from the love of rule, and craves not human glory. For a "pestilence" is disease widely spread, and involving all or nearly all. Yet "the seat of pestilence" may be more appropriately understood of hurtful doctrine; "whose word spreadeth as a canker." The order too of the words must be considered: "went away, stood, sat." For he "went away," when he drew back from God. He "stood," when he took pleasure in sin. He "sat," when, confirmed in his pride, he could not go back, unless set free by Him, who neither "hath gone away in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of pestilence."

"Blessed" is how the author of this Psalm chose to begin. There is a strong promise of grace to those who obey God's command. Those blessings are foreshadowed in part in the beatitudes. How foolish are we when we foresake those blessings? And how futile our sin is, do we believe it will bring us happiness? Does the appetite for sin sit so strong on our tongue that we MUST taste? Even as time and time again we taste nothing but bitterness and bile after sinning....the next time we so often expect that there must be some sweetness there. The Psalmist tells us clearly, there is no sweetness other than in the blessings of God, for where will one find grace that can match, or love that can compare? Each day may I make it my goal to avoid walking in the counsel of the wicked, may I not sit in the seat of mockers. God be with me.

Check out a fellow philosophy

Check out a fellow philosophy major/Westwood-plaza neighbor of mine from UCLA. He is a professional "bike trialer." It is a very interesting, relatively new bicycle sport. Check it out for yourself: BikeTrials.com His name is Stephen Maeder and he is ALWAYS on his bike; he rides to and from class, and he even spends the 10-15 minute breaks out on his bike.

The sport seems to be a combination of mountain-climbing with bike riding. The rider utililizes balance, brakes, and timing to manuever his way up and across rocks, walls, statues, cars, etc. Who knows, it might be the next "roller-blading." :-)

Abraham Lincoln born this day

Abraham Lincoln born this day in 1809.

Let us remember a man who was a great President to this nation. Let us rejoice to God that he was a part of our history, that Lincoln was a man of faith, and that IS part of our heritage. We don't always have opportunity to be proud of our leaders, past and present, but when we do, let us highlight their efforts, for we want others, in the pursuit of God's call, to do likewise.

Let us remember our civil leaders in prayer, for their calling is a difficult and ordained calling. Let us take action not just in time of elections (though our participation during elections is crucial), but to partake in and be knowledgable of the politics of our day, for otherwise the liberties of worshipping God publicly may be taken away.

"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise -- repeal all compromises -- repeal the declaration of independence -- repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak."
--From the October 16, 1854 Speech at Peoria

May God bless this country, our people, our diligence, our humility, and our faith.

"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.".

Tonight I'll ask her to

Tonight I'll ask her to be my Valentine.

"I'm waiting for the night to fall..."

A note about Boethius. Earlier

A note about Boethius.

Earlier I presented a philosopher's response to the appearant problem of the compatibility of God's foreknowledge and man's free will, his name was Boethius. I later thought that it might be interesting and somewhat beneficial to give a brief explanation of who he is. His full name is Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, born in about A.D. 480. Boethius was a member of the aristocracy in Rome and he is often called the last of the classic philosophers. In 510 he was elected to office of Consul, and he became the trusted political advisor of Theodoric, the Ostrogoth.
Later he became involved (innocently) in a conspiracy and was imprisoned and executed at Ravenna (he was executed in a form common in that day: his head was slowly crushed by an iron band that wrapped tighter and tighter around his skull). His historical importance is immense. If not for Boethius, Aristotle's work would be virtually unkown to the Western world, for Boethius translated much of Aristotle's work and those translations were later used by Alfred the Great, which lead to their vast use. Boethius was converted to Christianity through his family who were strong in the faith, and much of his writings centered on glorifying God through philosophical inquiry. He was executed in 524.

St. Anselm: another Christian response

St. Anselm: another Christian response to the free will problem

St. Anselm's solution to the appearant problem of God's foreknowledge and man's free will is a rather unique, and sophisticated approach, but I will do my best to present it in a way that is understandable. Anselm claims that there is NO difficulty, nor problem with man having complete free will (in that man can do what he wills without anyone or anything necessitating him to either do it or not do it), and God foreknowing all things (even when it seems clear that what God foreknows must occur). How does Anselm claim this is possible? He argues that God's foreknowledge of an action that I perform, say my plucking olives, is in such a way that He (God) knows that I am going to pluck olives, but He knows that I am going to pluck olives of my own free will.

"The foreknowledge from which necessity follows and the freedom of choice from which necessity is absent are here seen (for one who rightly understands it) to be not at all incompatible. For, on the one hand, it is necessary that what is foreknown by God be going to occur; and, on the other hand, God foreknows that something is going to occur without any necessity. Whether you sin or do not sin, in either case it will be without necessity; for God foreknows that it is without necessity that I am going to sin."

So we see Anselm's claim is that "free will" is sort of built into God's foreknowledge in that God knows what my future actions are and that I'm going to act them, but He knows that what my actions are are free actions: put yet another way, God knows that I'm going to act them, but He knows that I'm going to act them freely.

This view might grate your ears, or it might cause you to feel as there is at least some intuition that is being ignored here, but this is the view in a nutshell, and the attacks will have to wait until another day. For I am still setting out numerous Christian responses, hoping that in this process a view wil present itself that will satisfy our philosophical needs. Furthermore, this view may turn out to be the view that is most helpful when answering the determinist. Often the view that seems the most absurd (on a surface reading) turns out to be the most sublime and full of truth upon further study.

Okay okay okay, so THAT'S

Okay okay okay, so THAT'S what's been keepin Wayne Ohh so busy!

Better come clean Wayne; you've been caught. :-)

Bias: same yesterday, today, and

Bias: same yesterday, today, and tomorrow

I have a very similar philosophy-class story as this one. I'm currently studying "free will and determinism" with a professor named Kaiser. He is a blatant atheist who seems very interested in convincing the class that any notion other than atheistic-materialistic-determinism is not only ridiculous, but only fools believe in such. On a typical day he spends the majority of the time buttressing his own arguments and he all but passes over the "opinions" of those who would disagree with him (all the while he makes these faces that must be intended to show the class that even talking of different views than his own, if it must be done at all, must be done with rubber gloves).

The majority of the class is made up of beginning philosophers, and most of them seem to agree with the professor's "analysis" thus far. Thus far I have been the only voice of dissention, and it has not gone unnoticed. Hence my story:

Monday, after a 20 minute monologue on the "explanatory strength only found within atheistic determinism, and the lack of reasons to even believe that we have free will," I decided to, once again, take issue with the professor. (side note: by this time in the quarter He already knows me by name, and he very often delivers his lecture looking right at ME, as if to say, "I know the class is going along with me, but it's YOU I want to hear this.") I pulled out the big guns: I went straight for the atheistic determinist's under-belly, namely their presuppositions. I pointed out 1. The atheist is begging the question when he makes claims to rationality. 2. The atheist does not have "explanatory power" on many of the most crucial issues, including morality, the laws of logic, and language, and 3. The atheistic determinist position is self-refuting because those who hold to the view cannot even account for their own knowledge of that view.

let's just say that he was a little perturbed by my comments. He spent the next 20 minutes or so attempting to address the issues I had raised. He didn't get anywhere close to defending his position, he spent most of the time back-peddling; he kept saying, "well, I really didn't want to focus today's lecture on this anyway," yet he continued to defend his view all the way up the break.

I had to leave class at the break (I had a paper to finish and print out at the computer lab). In my next class (Aristotle), a girl who also happens to be in my Kaiser class, comes up to me and says, "He [Kaiser] sure did shoot you down didn't he?" I said, "what do you mean?" She answered, "Oh, you weren't there, that's right. He was talking about you after you left, he said things like, 'somebody needs to tell this and that to Jeremy.'" Evidently, the professor went on at length attacking my position, even with me not in the room so as to defend myself! I could hardly believe it.

now fast-forward to yesterday (wednesday). As soon as professor Kaiser walked into class, the first thing out of his mouth is, "Jeremy, that's your name right?" (as if he didn't know) "you raised some questions last time that I wanted to address..." He spent another 30 minutes of class time redefining the arguments (again) and basically playing "clean-up" concerning the arguments from Monday. It seems he had spent quite a bit of time in thought over the past couple days dealing with some considerations that were raised. He only allowed me one opportunity to clarify my position (which I did), but other than that he did his best to alleviate any worries that the class might be having on account of these "new questions." He tried to make it sound as if, the worries I raised are not really worries that we need to be concerned with. He said these are "interesting" questions, but that they are NOT at the heart of the issue (just the opposite of the truth).

The good news is that he has offered for me to write my midterm paper on the topic (which will afford me the opportunity to argue with greater clarity, and he won't be able to cut me off), and more than two people have come up to me stating that they in one way or another agree with my arguments. Moreover, one girl has expressed interest in learning more about arguments for God's existence, which is great news. So, as wayne ohh said, this will make for an interesting quarter.

Your prayers, as always, are welcomed. Godspeed.

Boethius: first pass at a

Boethius: first pass at a Christian response to the theological determinism problem

the theological problem restated for clarity's sake

It seems much too conflicting and contradictory that God foreknows all things and that there is any free will. For if God foresees all and cannot be in any way be mistaken, then that must necessarily happen which in his providence he foresees will be. And therefore if he foreknows from all eternity not only the deeds of human beings but even their plans and desires, there will be no free will.

So, according to Boethius, God, being outside of time (atemporal) and being omniscient (all knowing) and having foreknowledge of all things, is able to see everything that has happened (past), is happening (present), and will happen (future) simultaneously as if it all were taking place right now. According to Boethius, there is no past, nor future for God, but all is present: all is immeidiately before the mind of God (the eye of God), and in this ever-present knowledge Boethius claims is the answer to the appearant difficulty of theological determinism.

So how does God's "present" knowledge fix the problem? Basically the idea is this. Since God is outside of time, He is able to see what shoes I will wear tomorrow (he sees it even as I currently see what color shirt I'm currently wearing) and at the same time I can freely choose to wear whichever shoes I want, but God already knows it. In other words, God knows with certainty those things that are uncertain. "God knows with certainty those things that are uncertain"? Are we talking nonsense? Not so fast. Boethius' view can make sense if you accept the idea that time is merely an illusion. In the Boethian model, time doesn't exist: there was no yesterday, no 1000 years ago, nothing, all is already accomplished in the mind of God. Therefore, our human perception of time is merely that, a "perception" not a reality. Therefore, according to Boethius, to place God as having known "before hand" is only a partial truth. God knows all instantaneously, and all is accomplished NOW, and has been being accomplished NOW forever. So, once again, when I choose what color speedo to wear at the beach, I can freely choose any color I want. God knows what color I "will" choose, but his knowledge is knowledge NOW, not in the past (for there is no past for God, nor for us; we merely think there is a past).

Obviously, there seem to be some problems with Boethius' view. I will delve into those issues later, but first I just wanted to get some of the Christian views on the table, from there I can begin to pick at some of them to decide which seems to be the most promising, or which pieces from which views seem most promising.

So, one more time for clarity's sake: Boethius claims that our actions are not determined by God's foreknowledge because God's "foreknowledge" is such that it is immediate and constant, and time is an illusion. Our actions are free, and we are responsible for our actions, AND God knows ALL that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Clear? Don't worry it shouldn't be completely clear, that's part of the point.

Let me leave you with Boethius' own words:

"There remains also as an observer from on high foreknowing all things, God, and the always present eternity of his sight runs along with the future quality of our actions dispensing rewards for the good and punishments for the wicked. Nor vainly are our hopes placed in God, nor our prayers, which when they are right, cannot be ineffectual. Turn away then from vices, cultivate virtues, lift up your mind to righteous hopes, offer up humble prayers to heaven. A great necessity is solemnly ordained for you if you do not want to deceive yourselves, to do good, when you act before the eyes of a judge who sees all things."

Godspeed mercy and wisdom to us all.

Protarchus said, "lucky are the

Protarchus said, "lucky are the stones from which altars are made, since they are honored, whilst their fellows are trodden underfoot."

But indeed we know that nothing is either "lucky" or "unlucky" for nothing is caused by luck. For everything has a cause either physical or spiritual; just because we cannot see the cause does not mean that there is not a cause. For if there were no cause at all, then indeed there would be things that come about as a result of luck.

But of what things, if we really wanted to hold onto the notion of luck, would we say are truly caused by luck? What about one who wins a lottery? Did he win by luck? Certainly not; for he won on account of havning the proper numbers on his card that corresponded to the numbers pulled mechanically (albeit at random) from the machine. The account of "being pulled from a machine" is a causal story, and one that leaves no room for luck. What of someone who luckily runs into an old friend as they are going to the market? Did this happen by luck? Alas, how could it be by luck when the man was on his way to the market? The cause for their meeting was definately with cause, namely he was headed to the market-- it just happens to be the case that he also ran into his friend. Again luck is not the cause here.

Luck is NEVER a cause; luck can only be spoken of as a cause. It can be spoken of as a cause in instances where there is an action by choice, e.g., building a guitar, and the agent doing this action happens to be of other causes. For instance it might be said that the brunette built the guitar, for the builder happens to be a brunette. But certainly his being a brunette did not cause the building of the guitar, rather it is only by luck (as we say) that the brunette built the guitar.

So, what can we learn from this lesson? Two things: 1. Luck is not the real cause of anything. and 2. Luck can only be spoken of as a "cause" when the agent doing something in some way houses other factors (like being blond and a dentist), that by coincedence, partake in the action.

Good day.

On a different note, think of St. Paul's words, "Can not God make out of the same lump of clay, some for noble use while others for common use?" when you think of Protarchus' words.

Determinism: the Theological problemOkay, so

Determinism: the Theological problem

Okay, so I mislead you on my last post when I said that next I was going to present the Christian response. The truth is there are MANY "Christian" responses to the problem posed by physical determinism (the topic discussed below). So what I shall attempt to do is give the reader the most common views that have been forwarded by Christian thinkers throughout history, culminating in what hopefully will be my own view and why I find it to be the most compelling. (as a note of preface, "my" view is a modification/alteration/combination of some of the historical Christian views: I do not take credit for "producing" my view).

Before I do any of this above however, I must first restate the problem in terms of a theological starting point. I have already shown that the brute physical determinist (the view below) is self-refuting, and therefore incoherent. What I haven't yet shown is that there at least seem to be similar difficulties with the notion of God's foreknowledge and our "responsibility" for our actions. (The problem is philosophical in nature, not theological). It is crucial to point out that my discussion here is a philosophical discussion, not a theological one; what I mean by this is that biblically the truth is clear: 1. we are responsible for our sins, and 2. God knows, and has known the future since before the foundations of the world, yet 3. God is not the author of sin; we are. This theological answer is fine for us believers, and I believe it wholeheartedly. The question I am raising however is the philosophical explanation of how 1, 2, and 3 can all be true at the same time and in the same sense. Here's how the problem is usually formulated:

If God knows everything that is currently happening (my typing this blog) from before the foundations of the world, and what God knows about the future must always be correct, then how is it that as I came to the computer this evening that I had any opportunity at all to do otherwise? In other words, it seems that God's foreknowledge necessitates my every action. This might seem benign at first glance, but what about when my actions include sins (which they all too often do)? For example, when I have a lustful thought, that God knew I would have before the foundations of the world, am I able to do otherwise? Could I have chosen to not think that lustful thought? This is the difficulty that seems to arise from God's foreknowledge in relation to our responsibility for sins. Next, I will begin to present Christian answers to this classic worry.

Determinism: Issues for Christians and

Determinism: Issues for Christians and Atheists

Most would not disagree that the contemporary position within both Philosophy and modern Physics is the explanatory presupposition that we (we meaning EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD) are causally determined by the laws of nature (electrons, protons, etc). These same persons would define "determined" as an agent's inability to do anything different from what he actually did. For example consider a rock that falls from my reading desk (yes there are rocks on my desk); we would have to admit that according to the laws of physics a rock with a given weight, mass, velocity, etc would ALWAYS fall in exactly the same place, at the same speed (assuming that ALL the conditions were exactly the same). Well, according to the determinist so too is human behavior: just as a rock falls to the earth, so does a man buy a cup of Coconut milk from Mr. Noodle. So what motivates such a seemingly strange position?

The determinists argue that science is simply too powerful, too explanatory to be thrown out. The determinist claims that any attempt to bring "free will" into the conversation necessitates "throwing out" all of physics and related sciences. As they argue: since we know that the laws of physics are reliable even to the point that we put men on the moon, and send probes to Mars, so it seems ridiculous to think that sometimes (namely everytime someone DECIDES to listen to Radiohead, or DECIDES to buy a LAD compact-disc) the laws of physics are in some way altered to afford the agent's ability to bring about what he decides. In other words, the determinist views the entire world (from the big bang on) as opperating according to the laws of physics such that our evolutionary story is COMPLETELY explained by electrons and protons-- just as is a rock's history is explained. According to this assumption (theory) every action we as humans partake in is determined by a cause that occured before: consider the movement of an arm being moved by a muscle spasm, being moved by a electric charge from the brain, being moved by a stimulus seen by the eye, etc etc. This causal story goes back all the way to the big bang, so they say. The result is that mine and your actions are the direct result of electro-chemical reactions in the brain, which are a direct result from our organic history that began at the beginning of time.

This story is not easily combatted. For a Christian philosopher wants eagerly to hold onto the laws of physics, knowing the grave cost to the faith if nature were to simply be a random chaotic place. There does in fact seem to be a very strong case for the laws of physics to be "set" "reliable" and indeed "lawlike." It is mere fact that when we fire a bullet, for instance, at a certain velocity, a certain angle, with a certain environment, with a certain this and that we ARE able to predict exactly where it will end up-- this ability of science cannot be taken lightly. There is something "determined" by physics about the natural world, the question is how does this fact work with HUMAN action that takes place inside the physical world? For instance, when I slap my girlfriend across the face, am I responsible for doing such, or am I merely reacting to the chemical processes in my brain? Certainly scientists, physiolgists, and neurologists will be able to give me some type of story that will be comprehensive in explaining HOW it was that my arm reached a certain speed, and propelled my hand across the person's face across from me. They will even be able to show my mental activity on a cat-scan showing what parts of my brain were active in my assault; they could trace the electric stimulation that led down my arm and into my hand; they would be able to give a purely scientific explanation. So, is this the whole story? Simply put, no. There is much more to be said.

So what the Christian philosopher is faced with is a disbelieving world that is all too prone to place all their faith in the "miracles" of science. The Christian philosopher must attempt to explain how it is that the laws of physics are valid and reliable while at the same time we, as humans, are able to make decisions either for, or against particular actions, without being "controlled" by our physiology. Before I attempt to give a Christian response to this argument I want to even the playing field a bit. Thus far it might seem that the determinist, or "scientist" has the upper hand and that the Christian is scrambling around searching for answers to this gigantic problem. It is not such. Rather, the determinist and "scientist" have their own issues, thus far left alone, that once revealed suddenly make it seem as if the scientist is the one out there scrambling for answers. Consider just two difficulties that arise from a deterministic stand point.

First, the moral problem. Above I chose to illustrate one of my points with an analogy that might have incensed some of you; I used the example of slapping my girlfriend. I am glad if it did trouble you, for that is part of my point. I used an example that would be "harsh" for a reason. You see, if the determinist school of thought is correct then the slapping of girlfriends by their boyfriends would not be wrong, bad, immoral, nor even rude. According to the determinist, who believes that all action is merely caused by prior physical actions, there is no difference in bobbing your head to the beat of "fading" then in slapping an innocent girl across the face. Likewise for the determinist, even acts such as murder, rape, incest, and robbery are merely human actions that can neither be considered good nor bad. Remeber your initial disgust that I would use such an example as slapping the girl I love? Well, according to the determinist, that reaction you had was a mere illusion, nothing but a mystery to perhaps be explained by some scientific study in cognitive emotions years from now. Again for clarity's sake, the moral problem for the determinist is that he cannot give any explanation, nor justification other than to say that murder, slapping girlfriends, rape, and incest (among all the other moral "wrongs") are merely THOUGHT to be wrong: we are all under some great illusion which makes us think those things are wrong, nothing more.

The second and more powerful difficulty that arises from determinism is their difficulty (or shall I say impossibility?) in explaining how it is that a physically determined being (as they claim humans are) can have true thought. You see, if we are causally determined from the big bang to have the chemical reactions in our brain that we are currently having then I am not responsible, either positively or negatively, for these perceptions that I call thoughts. What do I mean? I take it being responsible in the negative sense is like being responsible for not washing the dishes when my momma asks. If I don't wash them I'm going to be in trouble, that's being responsible in the negative sense. Being responsible in the positive sense is the point I want to bring out in relation to our deterministic friends. To be responsible for my thoughts in a positive sense is like saying that I'm responsible for writing this blog. I can say that I thought about these topics and I'm doing the writing-- in a sense, I own these thoughts, by contrast I cannot claim to have written Brothers Karamazov, therefore I am not positively responsible for Brothers, The Author is. In the same way, according to a determinist view of the world, there can be NO, absolutely no claim for any positive responsibilty of thoughts. What does this entail? First off, it means that those determinists who have spent years studying these topics and believe that they have "thought" about these issues and come to the conclusion that determinism is THE correct explanation of the world; it means that they are merely under a grand illusion. Their conviction that determinism is true is no more valid than a tree growing in such a way that it appears to resemble a cow in the way the leaves were formed and the shade hit the trunk etc. If a tree were to do such, certainly we wouldn't claim that the tree was "trying to tell us something" rather we would conclude that it was a strange coincidence and nothing more. The determinist is in the same epistemological boat. His thoughts are not to be trusted anymore than he would trust the tree telling him a message about bovine existence. In short, the determinist's position is self defeating: internally inconsistent. If his theory is true than it could not make sense of our thoughts, hence we would never get on to the fact that it were true or not. If his theory is not true, well, you know the rest of that story.

Next I'm going to explain a positive Christian response to determinism. Thus far the reader should see that there are difficulties on both sides of the spectrum, but it seems that the determinist has a much more difficult road to hall, than does the Christian. This should not come as a surprise.

Godspeed, and may God bless.

"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" Here is an interesting Tidbit somewhat related to this debate, (and it mentions one of the authors of our generation)-- can you tell me how this would relate to my discussion above?