Many have tried to refute the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, but they cannot succeed by using this specific line of reasoning: “It is highly improbable that Jesus rose from the grave, because there is a vast shortage of factual/reliable examples of any other resurrections of having actually taken place.”
Here is a reason why:
“Earman [i.e., John Earman, “Bayes, Hume, and Miracles,” Faith and Philosophy 10, no. 3 (1993): 293-310.] shows that the probability of the resurrection cannot be assessed by means of a simple-minded appeal to the frequency of resurrection-type events because such an approach would not only rule out the resurrection hypothesis but also many of the non-statistical hypotheses of the advanced sciences, e.g., proton decay, which has never been observed but which scientists are investing millions of dollars and vast amounts of time to discover.” [Taken from Five Views on Apologetics, 124]
Though many have attempted to discredit the resurrection story of Jesus the Christ, they cannot do so by using the lack of frequent, reliable, factual resurrection stories argument.
JDG
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Kalam Cosmological Argument and The Big Bang
The difficulty of its nature has had an exhaustive and trying impact on the hearts and minds of men throughout the centuries, as generation after generation has attempted to provide the satisfactory response to the question, “How did the cosmos come to be?” Though theological, philosophical, and scientific explanations came forth, the astounding discoveries in the early and late 20th century forever modified every imaginable response to the troubling query. The Big Bang Theory (BB) provided scientists the breakthrough they needed; they now had the long-awaited answer in which Darwinian evolution could never provide. Science contains strong evidence and deep convictions for the BB being the uncovered mystery behind the beginning of the cosmos. However, it is a theory that many Christian theists resist; but should they?
This research has been constructed to reveal the necessity for theists to accept the BB with delight, because the theory has shown itself to be an exceptional apologetic tool for theism; the kalam cosmological argument (KCA) with the BB at its underpinning is a philosophical argument for the existence of God with overwhelming evidence. However, although the argument can be supported and used by all theists, this research was formulated from a Christian theist perspective. Therefore, this paper will 1) show the BB and the biblical account of creation to not be in contradiction, 2) provide evidence for the BB affirming a beginning to the cosmos, 3) reveal the KCA to be one of the most effective tools in providing one of the best philosophical argument for the existence of a God, and 4) conclude the use of the KCA with the BB as philosophical and scientific support for the existence of a God. This research will not attempt to argue for the Christian God’s nature; it is only concerned with presenting strong evidence for God’s existence and for Christian theists to adhere to the use of the KCA with the BB being its persuasive foundation. Furthermore, before the BB and KCA can be attended, clearing up this misconception is warranted: “Science contradicts the Bible. Therefore, Christians should not accept scientific theories for the beginning of the cosmos, unless they want to abandon Biblical truth and authority.”
The Genesis Account of Creation
The Big Bang Theory does not contradict the Biblical account of creation. Gustaf Wingren, a Swedish theologian, believes Christians should reestablish creation at the foundation of their faith. But in attempting to reestablish creation in this way, have Christians failed to interpret what Genesis 1 is actually proclaiming? John H. Sailhamer, a proponent of Historical Creationism, views Genesis as a biblical narrative, and “a biblical narrative text takes the raw material of language and shapes it into a version of the world of empirical reality.” The Genesis narrative is a “historical narrative,” which “has an introduction (1:1), a body (1:2-2:3) and a conclusion (2:4a).” This historical narrative in Genesis 1 is not offering a detailed, exhaustive, scientific account for God’s creation process. Rather, it is to “establish a claim about the nature of the world and God’s relationship to it.” Everything begins with God, all things come from Him, and He is the governor over the entire cosmos. Sailhamer asserts, because there are two dimensions behind a narrative, i.e., 1) the historical event itself, and 2) the author’s viewpoint of the event, “one must look for the purpose and intention of the author in recounting the event.”
Understanding the purpose and intention for this narrative and its relation to the rest of the Bible led Sailhamer to publish Genesis Unbound, where he suggests and argues for a brilliant explanation behind the creation account in Genesis. He establishes Genesis 1:1 as being written to show God behind the creation of all the cosmos; everything is created in Genesis 1:1 and the existence of the cosmos is solely dependent on God. Also, “In the beginning” does not refer to a specific time; it is language used in the same way as, to borrow from an example offered by Dr. Joshua Williams, telling someone about a specific event “sometime in the beginning of a book or story.” For Moses to use these words should tell his audience that he is simply referring to “the beginning part” or “before the main part in the story.” Sjoerd Bonting states that the Hebrew language is best read as “before all beginnings,” which “implies that God creates time but remains outside time.” If this is accurate, then why did Moses narrate/provide the six day account which immediately follows?
What the six day account implies, while recognizing the theme or main ideas in the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch, is that God is designating or giving instruction to His creation; creation, e.g., the sun and the moon, is now being made ready for the habitation of mankind, God’s ultimate crown in creation. In referring to the sun and the moon Sailhamer writes: “Their creation is recounted in terms of the role they play in the affairs of men on the land.” John Weaver states the biblical account of creation to be a “perceptive of the observable world in which it was written…Genesis 1 is the dramatic opening chapter to both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. It introduces the creator and his creatures and sets the scene for the relationship of human beings and God.”
Polytheism engulfed the culture of Israel’s day, and Moses’ retold narrative on creation clearly places Israel apart from all others and declares the Israelites as belonging to only one God, who is before all things and who all things come from. Therefore, the first chapter in Genesis is a declaration in response to a Polytheistic believing world; the chapter proclaims who God is, sets God’s people apart from everyone, and reveals God’s relationship to His incredible, brilliant creation. From this, it can be concluded that Genesis 1 is not attempting to hold to biological or scientific assertions; its function is far from this attempt and merely states all things beginning with God.
In The Book of Origins, Philip Eveson seems to adhere to Sailhamer’s view on Genesis 1:1 speaking of the creation of all cosmos and the transition to Genesis 1:2 now speaking of the already existent Earth. He renders “a more accurate translation of the opening words of verse 2 being ‘Now the earth…’” The construction resembles Genesis 3:1 and 4:1. Genesis 1:1 declares the creation of all things, and it is then followed by an examination of the created Earth, which was in Chaos, i.e., unable to sustain life or uninhabitable for mankind. Combining the thoughts of Eveson and Sailhamer, it is evident that the creation of all things did not take place in six literal days nor is the Earth six thousand to ten thousand years old; the purpose of the Genesis 1 account is not to illustrate these two postulations.
Christians must rely on better interpretation, common sense, and reason. Christoph Schönborn makes this clear: “It is nonsense to maintain that the world is only six thousand years old. An attempt to prove such a notion scientifically means provoking what Saint Thomas calls the irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers.” Christians have traditionally failed when it comes to looking at what the Genesis 1 account is actually saying, understanding its purpose and intent in light of the rest of Genesis and the Bible, and using poor methodology for determining the age of the Earth, e.g., the use of lineages from the Bible to report specific timelines; this is not the purpose of lineages.
In addition, Christians should remember Sailhamer’s words: “An historical narrative is a form of discourse between the author and his audience…the idea of an audience means the author can and must assume that he can use certain terms which are already known on the basis of his common experience with his audience.” Moses and his audience would have been unfamiliar with such terms as quantum mechanics, quantum physics, thermodynamics, and a theory involving the Big Bang. But even if they would have understood such vocabulary, the purpose of the narrative would still not carry an explicit scientific explanation to how God created the world. The Bible is not concerned with providing mankind with every explanation it seeks or desires. For example, the Bible presupposes the existence of God, i.e., there is no evident defense for God’s existence in the Bible, and it is not concerned with presenting the methodology God used for creating the cosmos.
All in all, Moses uses the six day account to show God preparing the Promised Land for God’s people. Genesis functions as a retelling of God giving mankind a Promised Land, how mankind lost that land, how God chose a people, and how God plans to get His people back to the Promised Land through a covenant. Though Genesis is a “book of beginnings,” it is also a book pointing forward. To summarize Sailhamer’s theory, the general idea behind Historical Creationism is 1) God created the entire cosmos in an undisclosed time, 2) the six day account in Genesis is not a retelling of creation, but a retelling of God designating His already created world for the ultimate purpose of man and the preparation of the Promised Land, and 3) studying and understanding the book of Genesis and its function in the Pentateuch, Old Testament, and New Testament, leads to a clear comprehension of the intention behind the Genesis account from Moses. Therefore, Historical Creationism should be held as the finest explanation and interpretation of the historical narrative in Genesis. Also, Historical Creationism reveals there to be no contradiction with the Big Bang and Genesis, unless BB theorists hold to God not being the cause of the beginning of the cosmos.
The Big Bang
Begun in 1913, the work towards “one of the greatest pieces of evidences supporting a theistic world view” finally materialized. It is “undoubtedly the scientific confirmation of a definite universal beginning.” Joseph Silk states it to be “the greatest achievement of modern cosmology.” With further discoveries from Friedmann and Lemaitre regarding Einstein’s equations, the idea of an expanding universe was formulated. Their numbers were finalized by Edwin Hubble, whose calculations revealed “that the various galaxies in our region of the universe are all moving away from each other at a rate that is directly proportional to their distance from the Milky Way.” Put another way, “Hubble discovered a phenomenon known as the red shift, which implies that space is expanding outward and that all bodies in space are growing apart.” These expansions are occurring in exactly the same way in all directions. The theory has been fine-tuned and modified over the past century, but it has become the dominant theory in science for the cause behind the cosmos. Surprisingly, in recent decades Roger Penrose and physicist Stephen Hawking found the theory to be physically necessary. But what exactly does the Big Bang confirm?
There are two features to the BB: 1) “around 15 billion years ago…everything – space, time, energy – was all compacted into a mathematical point with no dimensions, and this exploded to form the present universe,” and 2) “because of the density of the universe, there was only one initial creation, and there will be no contraction or further explosion in the future.” William Lane Craig states it like this: “the staggering implication of this [the universe expanding] is that at some point in the past the entire known universe was contracted down to a single mathematical point.” Craig, in Naturlasim, later describes the universe to be “not eternal in the past…and the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo,” i.e., space and time also came into existence a finite time ago at the BB. While the universe expands, it becomes less dense; if someone were to reverse the expansion, then they would come to a mathematical singularity a finite time ago. Overall, the BB presents the universe as having a beginning a finite time ago, everything – space, time, and energy –came into being at this exact point, and that the universe is presently expanding.
The Big Bang was an astounding discovery in the early 20th century, but it was an occurrence of a few events in the 1990’s that forever solidified the theory.
It was the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite which discovered the anisotropies and confirmed the BB. The COBE found the missing part or explanation to which astrophysicists had long awaited to find. Astrophysicists, with three discoveries from the COBE in 1990, 1992, and 1993, had now gained strong evidence for what they had already theorized: the universe – matter, energy, and four dimensions of space and time – began to exist from a single point a finite time ago. The astronomer and project leader for the COBE satellite pronounced, “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” He later stated, “It’s like looking at God.” All in all, the Big Bang has become the dominant cosmological theory and there is an overwhelming amount of data and evidence to support its assumptions.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Having revealed the non-contradiction between science and the biblical account of creation, along with presenting strong evidence for the Big Bang, the Kalam Cosmological Argument may now be assessed. William Lane Craig is the strongest advocate of the argument in the 21st century, and he has reason to employ its strengths for the philosophical defense for the existence of God. The KCA was originally a resistance to “Aristotle’s doctrine of the eternity of the universe and was developed by medieval Islamic theologians into an argument for the existence of God;” al-Ghāzālī is the notorious Muslim behind its origin. The argument has been revised and further articulated; its current structure can be stated like this:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise one in this deductive argument, according to Craig, is a premise which can hardly be disputed; the very definition of causality requires that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Philosophers, scientists, theists, atheists, and theologians should agree on premise one. It is premise two, on the other hand, where the gap between men emerges.
The Big Bang comes into play in defending premise two. While common sense and reason incline men to accept premise one, acknowledging the BB as truth would also leave men obligated to accept premise two; the recognition of the conclusion would then follow. Many have argued, however, that the universe did not begin to exist; the universe itself is infinite. One could here argue for thermodynamics and the evidence of an expanding universe, but for the sake of argument it will be assumed that the universe could be infinite. The universe being infinite leads to difficulties. “If the universe never began to exist, then that means that the number of events in the past history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions.” Thomas Aquinas recognized these contradictions: “Aquinas rejected the possibility of an infinite multitude because multitudes are differentiated by numbers, and there are no infinite numbers.” Craig uses an illustration from the “great German mathematician David Hilbert” to drive this point home.
The Hilbert’s Hotel illustration proves there to be problems in assuming an infinite number of figures, events, or causes. A philosophical argument can now be constructed:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.
In light of premise two of the original KCA construction and this philosophical argument, another argument can further be constructed:
1. If our universe never had a beginning, an actual infinite series of past events has occurred.
2. An actual infinite series of events in time is impossible.
3. Therefore, our universe had a beginning.
All of these philosophical arguments and illustrations, combined with scientific evidence, lead to the conclusion that premise two of the KCA, i.e., the universe began to exist, can be established for two reasons: 1) within time, space, energy, etc. there cannot be an infinite number of events, causes, or numbers, and 2) there is scientific evidence for the universe beginning to exist, e.g., the Big Bang Theory. As J. Lewis Diman puts it, “We are driven to assume that this visible universe had a beginning…scientific reasoning points to this conclusion.”
It must also be mentioned that God is a necessary being and not the universe. The term God here refers to Aristotle’s rendering: he is the unmoved mover, the first cause of all things. He is necessary, i.e., a universe in any possible world could not exist without his existence; he is outside of time, he is self-existence, he is the unmoved mover, and the first cause of all motion. It is not necessary for the universe to exist, but it is possible for the universe to exist; it is not possible for God not to exist. Thomas Aquinas knew this to be true: “If all beings are merely possible, at some time all things would not-be, and so now there would be nothing.” Time is an effect, and so there must be something outside of time to be its cause. “Arguably it’s also the case that time, along with the rest of the created order, has a beginning – that is to say the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is true.” Time is contingent; its cause is not. Likewise, everything that came into existence at the Big Bang is contingent; its cause is not. Therefore, God is timeless, the unmoved mover, the first cause of all motion, and a necessary being.
Moreover, after presenting premise one to be true from common sense and reason and premise two to be true from philosophical and scientific evidence, it can be concluded that the universe has a cause. That cause must be timeless, unmoved, self-existent, the first cause, and a necessary being. Further research should be done on all possible critiques to the kalam cosmological argument; but while studying and researching the work put forth by scientists on the Big Bang, along with William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, it would be difficult not to accept the existence of a God.
Conclusion
The 21st century Western culture is attempting to eliminate the possibility of a creator God. This research, however, has shed light on a strong philosophical argument for God’s existence that borrows from scientific fact and other philosophical arguments for God’s existence, e.g., the ontological argument, intelligent design, and sufficient reason. Because the scientific evidence used, i.e., the Big Bang theory, is not in contradiction with the biblical account of creation, not only should theists use the kalam cosmological argument but specifically Christian theists should adhere to the argument using scientific evidence as well.
All in all, this research has 1) shown the Big Bang and the biblical account of creation to not be in contradiction, 2) provided evidence for the BB affirming a beginning to the cosmos, 3) revealed the KCA to be one of the most effective tools in providing one of the best philosophical arguments for the existence of a God, and 4) concluded the use of the KCA with the BB as philosophical and scientific support for the existence of a God. The KCA has an overwhelming amount of evidence for its premises and is difficult to refute. Moreover, further inquiries should be conducted on other arguments for the existence of God, e.g., Alvin Plantinga’s ontological argument, intelligent design, and sufficient reason. Christian theists should hold fast to all of these arguments and apply them on a daily basis; they should do this while not being afraid to challenge scientists’ attacks against the bible, remembering Historical Creationism to be an accurate rendering of the Genesis account of creation.
In conclusion, the kalam cosmological argument is the most effect philosophical argument for the existence of God, because of 1) the evidence in support of its premises, and 2) the articulate structure of the deductive argument. The Big Bang should be accepted with great delight by apologetic theists everywhere, because it affirms the KCA to be a masterful tool for showing the existence of a God. Lastly, it is understood that no amount of argument can fully lead a man to Jesus the Christ; supernatural transformation of the heart comes by faith in Jesus the King. On the other hand, “if one can rationally establish divine creation as the original miracle, the defense of divine intervention later in earth history becomes more philosophically credible.” The arguments for God’s existence should not be abandoned; they can lead a man to being open to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
JDG
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Bonting, Sjoerd L. Creation and Double Chaos: Science and Theology in Discussion. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005.
Bunge, Mario A. Causality. Cambridge & Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1959.
Carlson, Richard F. and Tremper Longman III. Science, Creation, and the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010.
Contending With Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists & Other Objectors. Edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2009.
Corey, M.A. God and the New Cosmology: The Anthropic Design Argument. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1993.
Craig, William Lane. Apologetics: An Introduction. Chicago, IL: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1984.
_____The Existence of GOD and the Beginning of the Universe. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1979.
Diman, J. Lewis. The Theistic Argument. Cambridge: Boston, Houghton, Mifflin and Company; The Riverside Press, 1881.
Does God Exist? The Craig-Flew Debate. Edited by Stan W. Wallace. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2003.
Eveson, Philip. The Book of Origins. Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2001.
Five Views on Apologetics. Edited by Steven B. Cowan. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.
Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
Lerner, Eric. J. The Big Bang Never Happened. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1992.
Moreland, J.P. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989.
Moreland, J.P. and Kai Nielsen. Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists & Atheists. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993.
Naturalism: A Critical Analysis. Edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2000.
Pederson, Ann. God, Creation, and ALL THAT JAZZ: A Process of Composition and Improvisation. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2001.
Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing Group, 1995.
Rowe, William. Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. Belmont, Canada: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007.
Sailhamer, John H. Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.
______Genesis Unbound. Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Publishing Group, 1996.
Schonborn, Christoph Cardinal. Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith. Edited by Hubert Philip Weber. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007.
Silk, Joseph. The Big Bang. 3rd edition. United States: W.H. Freeman and Company, 2001.
Weaver, Gilbert. Norman Geisler’s Apriori Form of the Cosmological Argument. John Brown University.
Weaver, John David. In the Beginning God: Modern Science and the Christian Doctrine of Creation. Oxford and Macon, Georgia: Regent’s Park College and Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1994.
Articles
Craig, William Lane. “Hartle-Hawking Cosmology and Atheism.” Analysis 57/4 (October 1997): 295-304.
_____ “J.Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36/4 (December 2006): 565-584.
_____ “Prof. Grunbaum on the ‘Normalcy of Nothingness’ in the Leibnizian and ‘Kalam’ Cosmological Arguments.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52/2 (June 2001): 371-386.
Kabay, Paul Douglas. “Did God Begin to Exist Ex Nihilo?” Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 14/1 (Spring 2009): 119-131.
Maugh, Thomas H. II. “Relics of ‘Big Bang’ Seen for First Time.” Los Angeles Times 24 (April 1992): A1, A30.
Pitts, J. Brian. “Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kalam Cosmological Argument for Theism.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59/4 (December 2008): 675-708.
Sailhamer, John H. “Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1-2:4a.” Trinity Journal 5 NS (1984): 73-82.
The Associated Press. “U.S. Scientists Find a ‘Holy Grail’: Ripples at Edge of the Universe.” International Herald Tribune (London) 24 (April 1992): 1.
This research has been constructed to reveal the necessity for theists to accept the BB with delight, because the theory has shown itself to be an exceptional apologetic tool for theism; the kalam cosmological argument (KCA) with the BB at its underpinning is a philosophical argument for the existence of God with overwhelming evidence. However, although the argument can be supported and used by all theists, this research was formulated from a Christian theist perspective. Therefore, this paper will 1) show the BB and the biblical account of creation to not be in contradiction, 2) provide evidence for the BB affirming a beginning to the cosmos, 3) reveal the KCA to be one of the most effective tools in providing one of the best philosophical argument for the existence of a God, and 4) conclude the use of the KCA with the BB as philosophical and scientific support for the existence of a God. This research will not attempt to argue for the Christian God’s nature; it is only concerned with presenting strong evidence for God’s existence and for Christian theists to adhere to the use of the KCA with the BB being its persuasive foundation. Furthermore, before the BB and KCA can be attended, clearing up this misconception is warranted: “Science contradicts the Bible. Therefore, Christians should not accept scientific theories for the beginning of the cosmos, unless they want to abandon Biblical truth and authority.”
The Genesis Account of Creation
The Big Bang Theory does not contradict the Biblical account of creation. Gustaf Wingren, a Swedish theologian, believes Christians should reestablish creation at the foundation of their faith. But in attempting to reestablish creation in this way, have Christians failed to interpret what Genesis 1 is actually proclaiming? John H. Sailhamer, a proponent of Historical Creationism, views Genesis as a biblical narrative, and “a biblical narrative text takes the raw material of language and shapes it into a version of the world of empirical reality.” The Genesis narrative is a “historical narrative,” which “has an introduction (1:1), a body (1:2-2:3) and a conclusion (2:4a).” This historical narrative in Genesis 1 is not offering a detailed, exhaustive, scientific account for God’s creation process. Rather, it is to “establish a claim about the nature of the world and God’s relationship to it.” Everything begins with God, all things come from Him, and He is the governor over the entire cosmos. Sailhamer asserts, because there are two dimensions behind a narrative, i.e., 1) the historical event itself, and 2) the author’s viewpoint of the event, “one must look for the purpose and intention of the author in recounting the event.”
Understanding the purpose and intention for this narrative and its relation to the rest of the Bible led Sailhamer to publish Genesis Unbound, where he suggests and argues for a brilliant explanation behind the creation account in Genesis. He establishes Genesis 1:1 as being written to show God behind the creation of all the cosmos; everything is created in Genesis 1:1 and the existence of the cosmos is solely dependent on God. Also, “In the beginning” does not refer to a specific time; it is language used in the same way as, to borrow from an example offered by Dr. Joshua Williams, telling someone about a specific event “sometime in the beginning of a book or story.” For Moses to use these words should tell his audience that he is simply referring to “the beginning part” or “before the main part in the story.” Sjoerd Bonting states that the Hebrew language is best read as “before all beginnings,” which “implies that God creates time but remains outside time.” If this is accurate, then why did Moses narrate/provide the six day account which immediately follows?
What the six day account implies, while recognizing the theme or main ideas in the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch, is that God is designating or giving instruction to His creation; creation, e.g., the sun and the moon, is now being made ready for the habitation of mankind, God’s ultimate crown in creation. In referring to the sun and the moon Sailhamer writes: “Their creation is recounted in terms of the role they play in the affairs of men on the land.” John Weaver states the biblical account of creation to be a “perceptive of the observable world in which it was written…Genesis 1 is the dramatic opening chapter to both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. It introduces the creator and his creatures and sets the scene for the relationship of human beings and God.”
Polytheism engulfed the culture of Israel’s day, and Moses’ retold narrative on creation clearly places Israel apart from all others and declares the Israelites as belonging to only one God, who is before all things and who all things come from. Therefore, the first chapter in Genesis is a declaration in response to a Polytheistic believing world; the chapter proclaims who God is, sets God’s people apart from everyone, and reveals God’s relationship to His incredible, brilliant creation. From this, it can be concluded that Genesis 1 is not attempting to hold to biological or scientific assertions; its function is far from this attempt and merely states all things beginning with God.
In The Book of Origins, Philip Eveson seems to adhere to Sailhamer’s view on Genesis 1:1 speaking of the creation of all cosmos and the transition to Genesis 1:2 now speaking of the already existent Earth. He renders “a more accurate translation of the opening words of verse 2 being ‘Now the earth…’” The construction resembles Genesis 3:1 and 4:1. Genesis 1:1 declares the creation of all things, and it is then followed by an examination of the created Earth, which was in Chaos, i.e., unable to sustain life or uninhabitable for mankind. Combining the thoughts of Eveson and Sailhamer, it is evident that the creation of all things did not take place in six literal days nor is the Earth six thousand to ten thousand years old; the purpose of the Genesis 1 account is not to illustrate these two postulations.
Christians must rely on better interpretation, common sense, and reason. Christoph Schönborn makes this clear: “It is nonsense to maintain that the world is only six thousand years old. An attempt to prove such a notion scientifically means provoking what Saint Thomas calls the irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers.” Christians have traditionally failed when it comes to looking at what the Genesis 1 account is actually saying, understanding its purpose and intent in light of the rest of Genesis and the Bible, and using poor methodology for determining the age of the Earth, e.g., the use of lineages from the Bible to report specific timelines; this is not the purpose of lineages.
In addition, Christians should remember Sailhamer’s words: “An historical narrative is a form of discourse between the author and his audience…the idea of an audience means the author can and must assume that he can use certain terms which are already known on the basis of his common experience with his audience.” Moses and his audience would have been unfamiliar with such terms as quantum mechanics, quantum physics, thermodynamics, and a theory involving the Big Bang. But even if they would have understood such vocabulary, the purpose of the narrative would still not carry an explicit scientific explanation to how God created the world. The Bible is not concerned with providing mankind with every explanation it seeks or desires. For example, the Bible presupposes the existence of God, i.e., there is no evident defense for God’s existence in the Bible, and it is not concerned with presenting the methodology God used for creating the cosmos.
All in all, Moses uses the six day account to show God preparing the Promised Land for God’s people. Genesis functions as a retelling of God giving mankind a Promised Land, how mankind lost that land, how God chose a people, and how God plans to get His people back to the Promised Land through a covenant. Though Genesis is a “book of beginnings,” it is also a book pointing forward. To summarize Sailhamer’s theory, the general idea behind Historical Creationism is 1) God created the entire cosmos in an undisclosed time, 2) the six day account in Genesis is not a retelling of creation, but a retelling of God designating His already created world for the ultimate purpose of man and the preparation of the Promised Land, and 3) studying and understanding the book of Genesis and its function in the Pentateuch, Old Testament, and New Testament, leads to a clear comprehension of the intention behind the Genesis account from Moses. Therefore, Historical Creationism should be held as the finest explanation and interpretation of the historical narrative in Genesis. Also, Historical Creationism reveals there to be no contradiction with the Big Bang and Genesis, unless BB theorists hold to God not being the cause of the beginning of the cosmos.
The Big Bang
Begun in 1913, the work towards “one of the greatest pieces of evidences supporting a theistic world view” finally materialized. It is “undoubtedly the scientific confirmation of a definite universal beginning.” Joseph Silk states it to be “the greatest achievement of modern cosmology.” With further discoveries from Friedmann and Lemaitre regarding Einstein’s equations, the idea of an expanding universe was formulated. Their numbers were finalized by Edwin Hubble, whose calculations revealed “that the various galaxies in our region of the universe are all moving away from each other at a rate that is directly proportional to their distance from the Milky Way.” Put another way, “Hubble discovered a phenomenon known as the red shift, which implies that space is expanding outward and that all bodies in space are growing apart.” These expansions are occurring in exactly the same way in all directions. The theory has been fine-tuned and modified over the past century, but it has become the dominant theory in science for the cause behind the cosmos. Surprisingly, in recent decades Roger Penrose and physicist Stephen Hawking found the theory to be physically necessary. But what exactly does the Big Bang confirm?
There are two features to the BB: 1) “around 15 billion years ago…everything – space, time, energy – was all compacted into a mathematical point with no dimensions, and this exploded to form the present universe,” and 2) “because of the density of the universe, there was only one initial creation, and there will be no contraction or further explosion in the future.” William Lane Craig states it like this: “the staggering implication of this [the universe expanding] is that at some point in the past the entire known universe was contracted down to a single mathematical point.” Craig, in Naturlasim, later describes the universe to be “not eternal in the past…and the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo,” i.e., space and time also came into existence a finite time ago at the BB. While the universe expands, it becomes less dense; if someone were to reverse the expansion, then they would come to a mathematical singularity a finite time ago. Overall, the BB presents the universe as having a beginning a finite time ago, everything – space, time, and energy –came into being at this exact point, and that the universe is presently expanding.
The Big Bang was an astounding discovery in the early 20th century, but it was an occurrence of a few events in the 1990’s that forever solidified the theory.
“The single most pressing problem facing galaxy formation theorists has to do with the remarkable uniformity of the microwave background. If galaxy formation began with clumps of matter, and if radiation also clumps with matter (as it is known to do), we naturally would expect the original condensations of matter that led to galaxies to leave behind a clumping of radiation as well, the remnants of which should be visible today as clumps or anisotropies in the microwave background. Yet, prior to April 23, 1992, these anisotropies were nowhere to be found, since the microwave background had repeatedly been measured to be uniform in all directions to within 1 part in 10,000.”
It was the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite which discovered the anisotropies and confirmed the BB. The COBE found the missing part or explanation to which astrophysicists had long awaited to find. Astrophysicists, with three discoveries from the COBE in 1990, 1992, and 1993, had now gained strong evidence for what they had already theorized: the universe – matter, energy, and four dimensions of space and time – began to exist from a single point a finite time ago. The astronomer and project leader for the COBE satellite pronounced, “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” He later stated, “It’s like looking at God.” All in all, the Big Bang has become the dominant cosmological theory and there is an overwhelming amount of data and evidence to support its assumptions.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Having revealed the non-contradiction between science and the biblical account of creation, along with presenting strong evidence for the Big Bang, the Kalam Cosmological Argument may now be assessed. William Lane Craig is the strongest advocate of the argument in the 21st century, and he has reason to employ its strengths for the philosophical defense for the existence of God. The KCA was originally a resistance to “Aristotle’s doctrine of the eternity of the universe and was developed by medieval Islamic theologians into an argument for the existence of God;” al-Ghāzālī is the notorious Muslim behind its origin. The argument has been revised and further articulated; its current structure can be stated like this:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise one in this deductive argument, according to Craig, is a premise which can hardly be disputed; the very definition of causality requires that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Philosophers, scientists, theists, atheists, and theologians should agree on premise one. It is premise two, on the other hand, where the gap between men emerges.
The Big Bang comes into play in defending premise two. While common sense and reason incline men to accept premise one, acknowledging the BB as truth would also leave men obligated to accept premise two; the recognition of the conclusion would then follow. Many have argued, however, that the universe did not begin to exist; the universe itself is infinite. One could here argue for thermodynamics and the evidence of an expanding universe, but for the sake of argument it will be assumed that the universe could be infinite. The universe being infinite leads to difficulties. “If the universe never began to exist, then that means that the number of events in the past history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions.” Thomas Aquinas recognized these contradictions: “Aquinas rejected the possibility of an infinite multitude because multitudes are differentiated by numbers, and there are no infinite numbers.” Craig uses an illustration from the “great German mathematician David Hilbert” to drive this point home.
“Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, ‘Sorry, all the rooms are full.’ But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. ‘But of course!’ says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4, and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be? The proprietor just added the new guest’s name to the register and gave him his keys – how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before?”
The Hilbert’s Hotel illustration proves there to be problems in assuming an infinite number of figures, events, or causes. A philosophical argument can now be constructed:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.
In light of premise two of the original KCA construction and this philosophical argument, another argument can further be constructed:
1. If our universe never had a beginning, an actual infinite series of past events has occurred.
2. An actual infinite series of events in time is impossible.
3. Therefore, our universe had a beginning.
All of these philosophical arguments and illustrations, combined with scientific evidence, lead to the conclusion that premise two of the KCA, i.e., the universe began to exist, can be established for two reasons: 1) within time, space, energy, etc. there cannot be an infinite number of events, causes, or numbers, and 2) there is scientific evidence for the universe beginning to exist, e.g., the Big Bang Theory. As J. Lewis Diman puts it, “We are driven to assume that this visible universe had a beginning…scientific reasoning points to this conclusion.”
It must also be mentioned that God is a necessary being and not the universe. The term God here refers to Aristotle’s rendering: he is the unmoved mover, the first cause of all things. He is necessary, i.e., a universe in any possible world could not exist without his existence; he is outside of time, he is self-existence, he is the unmoved mover, and the first cause of all motion. It is not necessary for the universe to exist, but it is possible for the universe to exist; it is not possible for God not to exist. Thomas Aquinas knew this to be true: “If all beings are merely possible, at some time all things would not-be, and so now there would be nothing.” Time is an effect, and so there must be something outside of time to be its cause. “Arguably it’s also the case that time, along with the rest of the created order, has a beginning – that is to say the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is true.” Time is contingent; its cause is not. Likewise, everything that came into existence at the Big Bang is contingent; its cause is not. Therefore, God is timeless, the unmoved mover, the first cause of all motion, and a necessary being.
Moreover, after presenting premise one to be true from common sense and reason and premise two to be true from philosophical and scientific evidence, it can be concluded that the universe has a cause. That cause must be timeless, unmoved, self-existent, the first cause, and a necessary being. Further research should be done on all possible critiques to the kalam cosmological argument; but while studying and researching the work put forth by scientists on the Big Bang, along with William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, it would be difficult not to accept the existence of a God.
Conclusion
The 21st century Western culture is attempting to eliminate the possibility of a creator God. This research, however, has shed light on a strong philosophical argument for God’s existence that borrows from scientific fact and other philosophical arguments for God’s existence, e.g., the ontological argument, intelligent design, and sufficient reason. Because the scientific evidence used, i.e., the Big Bang theory, is not in contradiction with the biblical account of creation, not only should theists use the kalam cosmological argument but specifically Christian theists should adhere to the argument using scientific evidence as well.
All in all, this research has 1) shown the Big Bang and the biblical account of creation to not be in contradiction, 2) provided evidence for the BB affirming a beginning to the cosmos, 3) revealed the KCA to be one of the most effective tools in providing one of the best philosophical arguments for the existence of a God, and 4) concluded the use of the KCA with the BB as philosophical and scientific support for the existence of a God. The KCA has an overwhelming amount of evidence for its premises and is difficult to refute. Moreover, further inquiries should be conducted on other arguments for the existence of God, e.g., Alvin Plantinga’s ontological argument, intelligent design, and sufficient reason. Christian theists should hold fast to all of these arguments and apply them on a daily basis; they should do this while not being afraid to challenge scientists’ attacks against the bible, remembering Historical Creationism to be an accurate rendering of the Genesis account of creation.
In conclusion, the kalam cosmological argument is the most effect philosophical argument for the existence of God, because of 1) the evidence in support of its premises, and 2) the articulate structure of the deductive argument. The Big Bang should be accepted with great delight by apologetic theists everywhere, because it affirms the KCA to be a masterful tool for showing the existence of a God. Lastly, it is understood that no amount of argument can fully lead a man to Jesus the Christ; supernatural transformation of the heart comes by faith in Jesus the King. On the other hand, “if one can rationally establish divine creation as the original miracle, the defense of divine intervention later in earth history becomes more philosophically credible.” The arguments for God’s existence should not be abandoned; they can lead a man to being open to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
JDG
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Bonting, Sjoerd L. Creation and Double Chaos: Science and Theology in Discussion. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005.
Bunge, Mario A. Causality. Cambridge & Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1959.
Carlson, Richard F. and Tremper Longman III. Science, Creation, and the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010.
Contending With Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists & Other Objectors. Edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2009.
Corey, M.A. God and the New Cosmology: The Anthropic Design Argument. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1993.
Craig, William Lane. Apologetics: An Introduction. Chicago, IL: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1984.
_____The Existence of GOD and the Beginning of the Universe. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1979.
Diman, J. Lewis. The Theistic Argument. Cambridge: Boston, Houghton, Mifflin and Company; The Riverside Press, 1881.
Does God Exist? The Craig-Flew Debate. Edited by Stan W. Wallace. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2003.
Eveson, Philip. The Book of Origins. Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2001.
Five Views on Apologetics. Edited by Steven B. Cowan. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.
Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
Lerner, Eric. J. The Big Bang Never Happened. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1992.
Moreland, J.P. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989.
Moreland, J.P. and Kai Nielsen. Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists & Atheists. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993.
Naturalism: A Critical Analysis. Edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2000.
Pederson, Ann. God, Creation, and ALL THAT JAZZ: A Process of Composition and Improvisation. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2001.
Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing Group, 1995.
Rowe, William. Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. Belmont, Canada: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007.
Sailhamer, John H. Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.
______Genesis Unbound. Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Publishing Group, 1996.
Schonborn, Christoph Cardinal. Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith. Edited by Hubert Philip Weber. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007.
Silk, Joseph. The Big Bang. 3rd edition. United States: W.H. Freeman and Company, 2001.
Weaver, Gilbert. Norman Geisler’s Apriori Form of the Cosmological Argument. John Brown University.
Weaver, John David. In the Beginning God: Modern Science and the Christian Doctrine of Creation. Oxford and Macon, Georgia: Regent’s Park College and Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1994.
Articles
Craig, William Lane. “Hartle-Hawking Cosmology and Atheism.” Analysis 57/4 (October 1997): 295-304.
_____ “J.Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36/4 (December 2006): 565-584.
_____ “Prof. Grunbaum on the ‘Normalcy of Nothingness’ in the Leibnizian and ‘Kalam’ Cosmological Arguments.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52/2 (June 2001): 371-386.
Kabay, Paul Douglas. “Did God Begin to Exist Ex Nihilo?” Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 14/1 (Spring 2009): 119-131.
Maugh, Thomas H. II. “Relics of ‘Big Bang’ Seen for First Time.” Los Angeles Times 24 (April 1992): A1, A30.
Pitts, J. Brian. “Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kalam Cosmological Argument for Theism.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59/4 (December 2008): 675-708.
Sailhamer, John H. “Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1-2:4a.” Trinity Journal 5 NS (1984): 73-82.
The Associated Press. “U.S. Scientists Find a ‘Holy Grail’: Ripples at Edge of the Universe.” International Herald Tribune (London) 24 (April 1992): 1.
Monday, December 5, 2011
The Governor
Surely affirmation will follow Boethius' words:
"This world could never have achieved its unity of form from such different and contrary parts unless there were One who could bring together such diverse things. And, once this union was effected, the very diversity of discordant and opposed natures would have ripped it apart and destroyed it, IF there were not One who could sustain what He had made. Nor could the stable order of nature continue, nor its motions be so regular in place, time, causality, space and quality, UNLESS there were One who could govern this variety of change while remaining immutable Himself."
Lady Philosophy provides a picture to illustrate his statement:
“He [God] is, in a manner of speaking, the wheel and rudder by which the vessel of the world is kept stable and undamaged.”
Paul states it like this:
“In Him all things hold together.”
And C.S. Lewis states it another way:
“I allow and insist that the Eternal Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, can never be, nor have been, confined to any place at all: it is rather in Him that all places exist.”
If He governs all things, all things hold together in Him, and in Him all things exist, then why should anyone ever question the direction of the world? Why should anyone ever doubt His supreme power and regulation over all things? Why should anyone ever fear whether or not the will of the Father will prevail? Why should anyone resist the submission to the One in whom all things exist, the One who is the “wheel and rudder," the One who is constant and unchanging, and the One in whom “all things hold together?” Sin has so impaired man’s vision that he has failed to remember the governor of all things; he has forgotten God, though he clearly accepts, consciously or unconsciously, and remembers his own existence on a daily basis.
JDG
"This world could never have achieved its unity of form from such different and contrary parts unless there were One who could bring together such diverse things. And, once this union was effected, the very diversity of discordant and opposed natures would have ripped it apart and destroyed it, IF there were not One who could sustain what He had made. Nor could the stable order of nature continue, nor its motions be so regular in place, time, causality, space and quality, UNLESS there were One who could govern this variety of change while remaining immutable Himself."
Lady Philosophy provides a picture to illustrate his statement:
“He [God] is, in a manner of speaking, the wheel and rudder by which the vessel of the world is kept stable and undamaged.”
Paul states it like this:
“In Him all things hold together.”
And C.S. Lewis states it another way:
“I allow and insist that the Eternal Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, can never be, nor have been, confined to any place at all: it is rather in Him that all places exist.”
If He governs all things, all things hold together in Him, and in Him all things exist, then why should anyone ever question the direction of the world? Why should anyone ever doubt His supreme power and regulation over all things? Why should anyone ever fear whether or not the will of the Father will prevail? Why should anyone resist the submission to the One in whom all things exist, the One who is the “wheel and rudder," the One who is constant and unchanging, and the One in whom “all things hold together?” Sin has so impaired man’s vision that he has failed to remember the governor of all things; he has forgotten God, though he clearly accepts, consciously or unconsciously, and remembers his own existence on a daily basis.
JDG
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Pain in Heaven?
Well over a year ago I wrote an email to Philip Yancey regarding his book, Where is God When it Hurts? He spoke of pain in the body and how it served a great purpose; Dr. Paul Brand, who was discussed thoroughly in the book, discovered that without pain man could not survive. Pain in the body can be viewed as a bad thing, but it serves a wonderful purpose in a multitude of ways. The book prompted me to write an email to Yancey, and to ask him what he thought about the resurrection of the body. William Rowe’s chapter on Life After Death in his book, Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction, reminded me of the email. Here is part of what I sent:
“Do you feel that pain, to a certain extent, would still be found in the world today, e.g., in the human body, if man had never sinned? Our view is that pain is 'evil' and 'bad', but with Dr. Brand's studies we see that pain can be a blessing. Do we view pain as 'evil', because we are looking at it from a sinful mindset, i.e., does sin affect our judgment on pain?
What I am getting at is this. If we take a quick glance into the future, will there be 'blessed pain' within a restored creation (including us)? Will our resurrected bodies feel, but not experience pain? Would there be any necessary alarms put in place within the new body?”
To my amazement he replied. Here is part of what he said:
“Indeed I do think there must be some sort of warning system akin to pain, though perhaps without the negative "hurt" aspect, in our resurrected bodies. We have only the slightest clues to go by, of course: Jesus walking through doors yet keeping his scars, the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. The New Testament stresses resurrected bodies, however, and I assume this means there must be a protection system built in.”
It is unclear on what our transformed bodies will look like AND how our senses will function within the new creation, but it is enjoyable to ponder.Will we have pain in heaven? What, if any, will be the laws within the new creation, e.g., there is the law of gravity in this life?
JDG
“Do you feel that pain, to a certain extent, would still be found in the world today, e.g., in the human body, if man had never sinned? Our view is that pain is 'evil' and 'bad', but with Dr. Brand's studies we see that pain can be a blessing. Do we view pain as 'evil', because we are looking at it from a sinful mindset, i.e., does sin affect our judgment on pain?
What I am getting at is this. If we take a quick glance into the future, will there be 'blessed pain' within a restored creation (including us)? Will our resurrected bodies feel, but not experience pain? Would there be any necessary alarms put in place within the new body?”
To my amazement he replied. Here is part of what he said:
“Indeed I do think there must be some sort of warning system akin to pain, though perhaps without the negative "hurt" aspect, in our resurrected bodies. We have only the slightest clues to go by, of course: Jesus walking through doors yet keeping his scars, the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. The New Testament stresses resurrected bodies, however, and I assume this means there must be a protection system built in.”
It is unclear on what our transformed bodies will look like AND how our senses will function within the new creation, but it is enjoyable to ponder.Will we have pain in heaven? What, if any, will be the laws within the new creation, e.g., there is the law of gravity in this life?
JDG
Alvin Plantinga and The Ontological Argument
“Perhaps no other argument in the history of thought has raised so many basic philosophical questions and stimulated so much hard thought. Even if it fails as a proof of the existence of God, it will remain as one of the high achievements of the human intellect” (William Rowe, Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction, 51).
Rowe is referring to Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God; it is a brilliant argument and continues to hold great weight in philosophical/religious debates on God’s existence. Many have opposed the argument, e.g., Kant and Gaunilo, attacking the first premise (Guanilo) and asserting (Kant) “that it [the ontological argument] requires that existence function as a predicate or attribute for a subject – in this case, God” (Groothius, Christian Apologetics, 190). Sound, argumentative reactions to these two men have come forth by further developing Anselm’s argument, but the one most intriguing is that by Alvin Plantinga in his conception of “possible worlds". Plantinga borrows from Leibniz’s cosmological argument, which further borrows from the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) (Groothius 198-199). His argument is this:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists [i.e., a Perfect Being, which none greater can be conceived].
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. That is, God's existence is not impossible (logically contradictory), so we can conceive of a world in which God does exist.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. (Otherwise, it would not be maximally great.)
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Plantinga’s further development of Anselm’s argument is intriguing and brilliant. It places a “heavy burden of proof on those who deny that God’s existence is possible. One can only demonstrate the impossibility of God’s existence by showing a contradiction within the idea of God” (Groothius 200), which is extremely difficulty if not impossible. Though Gaunilo uses “the greatest possible island” argument to refute Plantinga, his argument fails from the first premise: it is possible that a greatest possible island exists. It is NOT possible for the greatest possible island to exist, nor is it necessary for this island to exist; it is necessary for God to exist by definition. Rowe does well in addressing the ontological argument, showing that the argument still contains a strong force in the dawn of the 21st Century.
JDG
Rowe is referring to Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God; it is a brilliant argument and continues to hold great weight in philosophical/religious debates on God’s existence. Many have opposed the argument, e.g., Kant and Gaunilo, attacking the first premise (Guanilo) and asserting (Kant) “that it [the ontological argument] requires that existence function as a predicate or attribute for a subject – in this case, God” (Groothius, Christian Apologetics, 190). Sound, argumentative reactions to these two men have come forth by further developing Anselm’s argument, but the one most intriguing is that by Alvin Plantinga in his conception of “possible worlds". Plantinga borrows from Leibniz’s cosmological argument, which further borrows from the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) (Groothius 198-199). His argument is this:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists [i.e., a Perfect Being, which none greater can be conceived].
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. That is, God's existence is not impossible (logically contradictory), so we can conceive of a world in which God does exist.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. (Otherwise, it would not be maximally great.)
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Plantinga’s further development of Anselm’s argument is intriguing and brilliant. It places a “heavy burden of proof on those who deny that God’s existence is possible. One can only demonstrate the impossibility of God’s existence by showing a contradiction within the idea of God” (Groothius 200), which is extremely difficulty if not impossible. Though Gaunilo uses “the greatest possible island” argument to refute Plantinga, his argument fails from the first premise: it is possible that a greatest possible island exists. It is NOT possible for the greatest possible island to exist, nor is it necessary for this island to exist; it is necessary for God to exist by definition. Rowe does well in addressing the ontological argument, showing that the argument still contains a strong force in the dawn of the 21st Century.
JDG
The "Free Will Defense"
The problem of evil has been addressed exhaustively over time by both theists and atheists, as William Rowe makes clear through his chapter on The Problem of Evil in Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. An intriguing response to the problem is the “Free Will Defense”. Though this post will not explain the defense, because it can be clarified in detail within Rowe’s chapter and elsewhere, it will address a possible change needed for one of the argument’s premises. The argument stated by Rowe is this:
1. God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good.
11. God, although omnipotent, cannot create a world in which there are free are free human creatures and no evil.
12. A world with free human creatures and some evil is a better world than a world with no free human creatures.
13. God creates the best world he can.
Premise 11 would benefit greatly with an addition of one word. A suggested restatement would read as this: “God, although omnipotent, cannot create a world in which there are free human creatures and no POSSIBILITY of evil.”
As the statement stands now, it appears that in order for humanity to achieve true free will it is necessary for humanity to choose evil (i.e., to choose that which is opposite of God Himself and which is nothing); compatibilism might argue the necessity for evil, so that a “greater-good” might come forth and which a greater-good could not come forth without evil. But it was not necessary for the fall to ever take place; God had already achieved a “good” and ultimate creation. However, if He takes the forbidden tree from the garden, then there is no option to turn from Him. Thus, there would be no free will (e.g., if an apple is never placed before a child, then the child cannot choose to receive or deny the fruit; he is left with only one option: to have no fruit). Therefore, it was only necessary for God to provide an option between two separate “things”. He did not desire for man to disobey Him, nor did He desire evil to come about through such a decision.
It is true that good can be brought about through evil; but it is not necessarily the case for evil to exist in order for good to exist, because God had already achieved the ultimate good in creation without evil. To say that evil is necessary to achieve a higher good is to say that 1) God is dependent upon evil, and 2) evil is the indirect cause of good, which is contradictory. In every world imaginable God foreknew the existence of evil, though its existence was not necessary. Moreover, what is necessary is that God must now do something about evil – the possibility chosen through mankind’s free will – if He desires for His creation to get back to the good that was lost. God, being omnipotent, CAN create a world in which there are free human creatures and no evil. The argument would best be changed, by stating this: “God, although omnipotent, cannot create a world in which there are free human creatures and no POSSIBILITY of evil.”
JDG
1. God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good.
11. God, although omnipotent, cannot create a world in which there are free are free human creatures and no evil.
12. A world with free human creatures and some evil is a better world than a world with no free human creatures.
13. God creates the best world he can.
Premise 11 would benefit greatly with an addition of one word. A suggested restatement would read as this: “God, although omnipotent, cannot create a world in which there are free human creatures and no POSSIBILITY of evil.”
As the statement stands now, it appears that in order for humanity to achieve true free will it is necessary for humanity to choose evil (i.e., to choose that which is opposite of God Himself and which is nothing); compatibilism might argue the necessity for evil, so that a “greater-good” might come forth and which a greater-good could not come forth without evil. But it was not necessary for the fall to ever take place; God had already achieved a “good” and ultimate creation. However, if He takes the forbidden tree from the garden, then there is no option to turn from Him. Thus, there would be no free will (e.g., if an apple is never placed before a child, then the child cannot choose to receive or deny the fruit; he is left with only one option: to have no fruit). Therefore, it was only necessary for God to provide an option between two separate “things”. He did not desire for man to disobey Him, nor did He desire evil to come about through such a decision.
It is true that good can be brought about through evil; but it is not necessarily the case for evil to exist in order for good to exist, because God had already achieved the ultimate good in creation without evil. To say that evil is necessary to achieve a higher good is to say that 1) God is dependent upon evil, and 2) evil is the indirect cause of good, which is contradictory. In every world imaginable God foreknew the existence of evil, though its existence was not necessary. Moreover, what is necessary is that God must now do something about evil – the possibility chosen through mankind’s free will – if He desires for His creation to get back to the good that was lost. God, being omnipotent, CAN create a world in which there are free human creatures and no evil. The argument would best be changed, by stating this: “God, although omnipotent, cannot create a world in which there are free human creatures and no POSSIBILITY of evil.”
JDG
Lack of Faith
Though it is warranted, defending Christianity against Atheists’ claims is troubling. At times it seems that any biblical claim or philosophical argument for the existence of God will only fall on deaf ears. The problem doesn’t seem to be a lack of intelligence/reason/rationality; it is the heart which keeps men from seeing/believing. C.S. Lewis wrote on miracles and asserted that if a man denies even the possibility of a miracle, then no extravagant, brilliant miracle will convince him otherwise, regardless of the amount of evidence. Moreover, while borrowing from this line of thought, it can be concluded that if a man denies even the possibility of a god, then no philosophical or evidential argument will convince him otherwise.
Christians should fervently pray for, converse, and argue with those who attack Christianity. But Christians should also be aware of the problem laying within Atheists’ hearts, while understanding the root of their lack of belief is their lack in a childlike faith. An Atheist can seek the evidence for God; but until he believes, the facts will be misunderstood if seen at all. May God use the philosophical arguments and His Holy Word to draw all men to a humble, childlike faith in His Son, Jesus the Christ.
JDG
Christians should fervently pray for, converse, and argue with those who attack Christianity. But Christians should also be aware of the problem laying within Atheists’ hearts, while understanding the root of their lack of belief is their lack in a childlike faith. An Atheist can seek the evidence for God; but until he believes, the facts will be misunderstood if seen at all. May God use the philosophical arguments and His Holy Word to draw all men to a humble, childlike faith in His Son, Jesus the Christ.
JDG
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?
The following clip is a debate with Dr. William Lane Craig and Shabir Ally on the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Did the resurrection actually take place? Is it really a necessity for Christianity?
The Resurrection of Jesus
JDG
The Resurrection of Jesus
JDG
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Intelligent Design: A Disguise for Creationism?
Here is a small clip from CNN on Intelligent Design. Do you think Intelligent Design is a disguise for Creationism?
***This clip does not provide a detailed description of what Intelligent Design is. I recommend further research, if you are unsure on what it is about.
Intelligent Design
JDG
***This clip does not provide a detailed description of what Intelligent Design is. I recommend further research, if you are unsure on what it is about.
Intelligent Design
JDG
An Unavoidable Question
At the very depths of every man's being, beneath a mulish heart, reason, and the enchantment of maturity, lays a forgotten child; a child that holds fast to humility, longs for innocence, and bows down to fear. It is evident across cultures and throughout the ages of time that every man, when faced with the necessity to peer at this small child, comes to realize that he desires a hero, for good to triumph evil, for a savior to save him from the peril of a fallen world. Stories have echoed this truth, while the multitudes have flocked to read their deepest desire being played out in fantasies. There is a peculiar rumor, however, that the desire is drawn to something more than fictional fantasies, and that fairy tales are mere alterations of a real story; a story with real people, a true hero, a fallen world, and a genuine hope. Mankind is a key part of this continuous story that began before their existence, and their hero has already come.
C.S. Lewis explained Christianity's offer as this, "That we can, if we let God have His way, come to share in the life of Christ." Why would any man want to share in the life of Christ? There are two natures being discussed. Man's nature is sinful, fallen, and in opposition to God's nature; he is utterly dead. It is not simply the acts that are committed, but his very nature that is evil. Everything he does is affected by this truth. For example, he loves conditionally. He first thinks, consciously or unconsciously, "Is this person worthy of my love? Will I gain recognition for my choosing to love this person? Will they love me back? What's in it for me?" A man is obligated to act according to his nature, i.e., he cannot escape the very essence of who he is. God is also compelled to act according to his nature, though it is entirely opposite of man's. His nature is good, holy, right, perfect, and just; he is life. God loves unconditionally. He does not ask the questions that man asks, but loves regardless of condition; Jesus would have still gone to the cross, even if no man had chosen to accept the hope he was and is offering.
Some are convinced and would argue that they have seen men act in the likes of God. Their sight has not misled them, but it is only one type of human being that is capable of doing this. Two events take place simultaneously as a person enters into God's plan through the Christ, and this is now getting at what Lewis was referring to. When a man humbly chooses to submit to God's will in Christ, his entire evil being is laid to rest; he has now shared in Christ's death and awaits a future resurrection at the fulfillment of all things. The Christ-man has died to his old self and contains a new hope, but he still does not find himself to be in the freedom found in only the resurrection, i.e., his perfection is not complete. However, when the man chose to die to Christ, something else took place: the Spirit of truth and life entered into him, a deposit guaranteeing what is to come. The man is still weak in his flesh, which is sinful, but now has God's spirit dwelling within him; it is the Spirit that distinguishes the Christ-man from the lost chap living next door. This entire process is a supernatural event, and it causes men to act in the likeness of God. When a witness sees a man committing extraordinary, heavenly acts, then there is only one explanation: it is God himself bearing his likeness through the man. The witness is seeing first hand the result of a transformation, a being that is on his way from fallen man to perfect man, from death to life.
This result comes only through a supernatural story, which has split history in two and has echoed through the entire cosmos. It is the story that draws all men and that only God himself could have written. Within every human being there dwells a fixation, a longing to be a part of this story; to have life, to be in perfect harmony with God, and to dwell in his glory is what men were created for. Therefore, Lewis states, "If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them...Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever? Once a man is separated from God, what can he do but wither and die?" It is only in Christ that men find escape from their sinful nature, and it is only in Christ that men truly find what they were created for, i.e., they become what a man was intended to be. It is by the cross that mankind was forgiven, and by the resurrection that they were given a new hope in Christ. Paul writes, "[God] made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions."
The question, why would anyone want to share in the life of Christ, is the wrong question. It should be asked, "How could anyone not want to share in the life of Christ?" That small child within every human being longs for something more, longs for hope, and longs for God's story; Jesus the Christ is the true hero that has saved the world from peril. The hope of Christianity is that one day fallen man will experience that resurrection, if they choose to share in his life. God wrote the perfect story: the world was fallen and hopeless, God sent a hero, good triumphed evil, and now mankind has hope. Christ demanded, "Follow me," but many will choose a different path. What keeps men from the cross is not intelligence or reason, but pride; to come to the cross requires humility. A man can choose a different path, believing that he will somehow save himself. That path, however, will lead only to death; the path to the cross is the only road that leads to the resurrection. It is in the pursuit of Christ that men find life, and more of themselves than they ever thought possible. "Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in." Lewis didn't understand a religion; he understood the story, and became a part of it. The question now stands, "Will you?"
JDG
***This post was written by myself, but was taken from The Things Above by Tyler Taber.
C.S. Lewis explained Christianity's offer as this, "That we can, if we let God have His way, come to share in the life of Christ." Why would any man want to share in the life of Christ? There are two natures being discussed. Man's nature is sinful, fallen, and in opposition to God's nature; he is utterly dead. It is not simply the acts that are committed, but his very nature that is evil. Everything he does is affected by this truth. For example, he loves conditionally. He first thinks, consciously or unconsciously, "Is this person worthy of my love? Will I gain recognition for my choosing to love this person? Will they love me back? What's in it for me?" A man is obligated to act according to his nature, i.e., he cannot escape the very essence of who he is. God is also compelled to act according to his nature, though it is entirely opposite of man's. His nature is good, holy, right, perfect, and just; he is life. God loves unconditionally. He does not ask the questions that man asks, but loves regardless of condition; Jesus would have still gone to the cross, even if no man had chosen to accept the hope he was and is offering.
Some are convinced and would argue that they have seen men act in the likes of God. Their sight has not misled them, but it is only one type of human being that is capable of doing this. Two events take place simultaneously as a person enters into God's plan through the Christ, and this is now getting at what Lewis was referring to. When a man humbly chooses to submit to God's will in Christ, his entire evil being is laid to rest; he has now shared in Christ's death and awaits a future resurrection at the fulfillment of all things. The Christ-man has died to his old self and contains a new hope, but he still does not find himself to be in the freedom found in only the resurrection, i.e., his perfection is not complete. However, when the man chose to die to Christ, something else took place: the Spirit of truth and life entered into him, a deposit guaranteeing what is to come. The man is still weak in his flesh, which is sinful, but now has God's spirit dwelling within him; it is the Spirit that distinguishes the Christ-man from the lost chap living next door. This entire process is a supernatural event, and it causes men to act in the likeness of God. When a witness sees a man committing extraordinary, heavenly acts, then there is only one explanation: it is God himself bearing his likeness through the man. The witness is seeing first hand the result of a transformation, a being that is on his way from fallen man to perfect man, from death to life.
This result comes only through a supernatural story, which has split history in two and has echoed through the entire cosmos. It is the story that draws all men and that only God himself could have written. Within every human being there dwells a fixation, a longing to be a part of this story; to have life, to be in perfect harmony with God, and to dwell in his glory is what men were created for. Therefore, Lewis states, "If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them...Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever? Once a man is separated from God, what can he do but wither and die?" It is only in Christ that men find escape from their sinful nature, and it is only in Christ that men truly find what they were created for, i.e., they become what a man was intended to be. It is by the cross that mankind was forgiven, and by the resurrection that they were given a new hope in Christ. Paul writes, "[God] made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions."
The question, why would anyone want to share in the life of Christ, is the wrong question. It should be asked, "How could anyone not want to share in the life of Christ?" That small child within every human being longs for something more, longs for hope, and longs for God's story; Jesus the Christ is the true hero that has saved the world from peril. The hope of Christianity is that one day fallen man will experience that resurrection, if they choose to share in his life. God wrote the perfect story: the world was fallen and hopeless, God sent a hero, good triumphed evil, and now mankind has hope. Christ demanded, "Follow me," but many will choose a different path. What keeps men from the cross is not intelligence or reason, but pride; to come to the cross requires humility. A man can choose a different path, believing that he will somehow save himself. That path, however, will lead only to death; the path to the cross is the only road that leads to the resurrection. It is in the pursuit of Christ that men find life, and more of themselves than they ever thought possible. "Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in." Lewis didn't understand a religion; he understood the story, and became a part of it. The question now stands, "Will you?"
JDG
***This post was written by myself, but was taken from The Things Above by Tyler Taber.
William Lane Craig: The Origins of the Universe
A friend recently posted this video to my facebook wall. It is a good piece from Dr. Craig. Fill free to watch it, and let me know what you think.
The Origins of the Universe
JDG
The Origins of the Universe
JDG
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL: PASCAL AND THE MEANING OF LIFE
The yearning to make sense of it all appears evident throughout culture and time, but is there an objective light of truth waiting for every individual towards the end of the muddled, darkened tunnel of questioning? If there is a light, will it merely illuminate the conclusion that the meaning of life is subjective and relative to each individual? Thomas Morris, guided by thoughts from Pascal, in his book, Making Sense of It All, attempts to proclaim and reveal the meaning of life to be found only in Jesus the Christ, the light at the end of the tunnel. Are his attempts successful in persuading the reader towards his conclusion, or do they only make known another biased, subjective perspective on the meaning for humanity? The purpose of this review is not to answer whether or not there is an objective truth, but to rather show Morris’ successes and failures in presenting his argument for the ultimate truth being found only in the Christ. His case for Jesus is driven by philosophical insights from Pascal, along with a certain presupposition. It is this presupposition that must first be addressed.
Within the chapter, The Folly of Indifference, Morris asks the question if whether or not humanity’s activities involve any meaning, and then answers the question from a Judeo-Christian perspective; it this viewpoint that appears to be the driving force for the rest of the book, and is the eventual cause for his conclusion (27). Is the reasoning behind the answer, however, sufficient for all readers? The skeptic, who is addressed in chapter five, can easily refute the reply. For in the fifth chapter, Morris describes the belief-forming processes: “We form our beliefs about the world in many ways, directly from sense experience, from the testimony of others, from memory, and from various inferential processes of reasoning operating upon what has been given to us by sense experience, testimony, and memory” (78). Sense experience, testimony, and memory affect a key feature within the human mind, i.e. imagination. Morris uses both Pascal and Albert Einstein to explain how “’imagination is more important than knowledge;’ it has a great power for good, and, correspondingly, it has great power to deceive” (77). The imagination, effected by our everyday experiences, can be the cause of deception; can the trickery from imagination be the cause for the existence of religion (e.g. Christianity)? Morris does say that “much in life is up to us” (27). Is it possible that the existence of a religion like Christianity is up to mankind? A skeptic, much like an evolutionist who denies the existence of a purposeful cosmos, can and does construct an argument against Morris using Morris’ terminology: “Certain men are capable of containing chemical imbalances within their brain, which is further influenced by ‘sense experience and the testimony of others,’ and can cause a deceitful imagination; an imagination that leads them to construct false ideologies such as religion.” For the skeptic, Morris puts himself in a bind early on, by appearing to suppose that all his readers will accept Judeo-Christianity as a legitimate voice for asserting an objective truth on all humanity. The skeptic, if paying close attention, will pick up on this assertion, leading him/her to quietly place the book down, due to an unwillingness to accept such “mythological or irrational” thinking, before even reading the chapter on his/her own skepticism. 21st century society, especially within the United States, is highly cynical towards religion in general, leaving Morris’ book unappealing. Thus, with the establishment of Christianity rearing the argument throughout the rest of the book, the work of Morris will likely only attract those who already claim Christianity to be true or those who are at least willing to accept the voice of religion as a liable explanation to the meaning of it all. Therefore, the rest of this paper will be directed towards addressing whether or not Morris does well in satisfying these select listeners.
Morris includes a chapter, Marks of the Truth, on distinguishing Christianity from other religions, in order to affirm his conclusion that one being in Jesus the Christ can only know the true meaning of life. He did well in adding this chapter for two reasons: 1) so that those who claim, “Any religion can hold the meaning of life; i.e. whatever religion makes a person feel he/she has meaning is ‘okay,’” will see each religion claiming something entirely different than the next one, and 2) so that his readers will see Christianity as the true and superior religion among all others. Though Morris does well inserting this chapter, there are a few arguments that fail to sufficiently defend Christianity’s truth. First, however, it needs to be addressed how Morris does not distinguish the one thing that makes all religions different. He states, “Every religion involves a threefold conceptual structure: (1) a diagnosis of what is awry in human life, (2) a conception of ideal human existence, and (3) the specification of a path of salvation, a route from our current plight to that ideal state” (148); he later states, drawing from Pascal, “Religions are not all equals” (158). The general nature of all religions is the same, but their difference lies in the means by which salvation is obtained; Christianity is separated from all others through Jesus the Christ, the God of all the cosmos, who is the Christians’ means of salvation. Morris doesn’t specifically explain how all religions can have the same general structure, but also be completely different from each other due to the means by which salvation is obtained. Thus, he doesn’t adequately fulfill the first purpose of writing this chapter.
Furthermore, there are two arguments used in this chapter which do not suitably present the truth of Christianity. The first one is the success argument. Pascal believed that, “Under persecution, the Christian faith indeed has often flourished and even, in the end, prevailed. Surely its success, in even the most difficult of conditions, is a solid mark of its truth” (150). Morris later expresses the statements of Pascal, saying, “Behold how the Savior’s doctrine is everywhere increasing, while all idolatry and everything opposed to the faith of Christ is daily dwindling and losing power, and falling” (151). Success is misleading, and Morris does well in advocating a necessary carefulness to be used when holding to this argument. 1 Corinthians tells readers of two types of wisdom: God’s wisdom and man’s wisdom. What is seen in the eyes of man as good may not be seen as good to God. Just because man finds an ideology, person, government, or thing appealing, which may lead to a success for the directed object or person, doesn’t mean this is good nor does is state the object of attention to be true. For example, though Hitler’s government was successful in Germany for a time, it does not lead to the conclusion that his government was true and good. Though Islam and Judaism have maintained themselves for centuries and centuries, their success of being able to withstand the test of time does not lead to their beliefs being true and good. The success argument is inadequate in providing strong proof for the truth of Christianity, and so is the qualitative version that Morris proposes. He states this: “The Christian religion is the only religion in human history that has appealed to significant numbers of people in every world culture, has succeeded in changing lives in all times and places, and has managed to have some degree of positive social as well as individual benefits where it has been sincerely embraced” (152). This also is insufficient to provide skeptical religious adherents to hold to Christianity being the ultimate truth. It could also be argued that masses of people have simply been deceived or led to “follow the crowd.” Also, soccer has appealed to significant numbers of people in every world culture, has changed lives, and has managed to have some degree of positive social as well as individual benefits where it has been sincerely embraced. Therefore, should soccer be considered not only a religion but the true religion, a religion that doesn’t even require a god? Should soccer be considered something a person needs to be a part of in order to have a purpose or meaning in life? Qualitative and success arguments appeal to the emotions as being strong explanations for those who already accept Christianity, but they fail to provide strong persuasion for those lingering on the fence.
Morris does provide a good insight to one of Christianity’s characteristics: Christianity is not unique. “If Christian teaching were utterly unique, it would be idiosyncratic rather than universal in appeal, and this would be out of step with its own portrayal of a God who loves and seeks to save all the lost” (157). Christianity does appeal to all cultures throughout time, as history and the present day show how the multitudes will flock to stories, movies, poems, or plays that portray a fallen world, an unusual hero with supernatural abilities and strengths, and the hero’s quest to saving the world from the state of peril. The gospel story is not unique, in that it is longed for an understood within every heart of humanity, though many fail to see and hear that it is the Christ who is the true and ultimate answer to their hearts’ longing. Morris, again with the direction of Pascal, also does well in addressing the issue of reason and its limitations. Christianity can withstand the claims of any one institution or person in apposition to it, because Christianity is the objective truth. However, one will not understand the truth of Christianity through human reason; one must first believe. Morris does well in pointing out Pascal’s claim to intellectual curiosity not being what life is all about. To put it more specifically, to try and figure out life’s meaning through intellectual reasoning alone will lead only to dissatisfaction. In order to understand the meaning of life which Christianity holds the answer to, then one must first believe; God must incline men’s hearts in order for them to believe (186-187). Coming to the realization of what life is all about can only be accomplished when a transformation of the heart has first taken place.
Overall, Morris accomplishes his goal of showing the meaning of life, if several declarations are accepted: 1) that there is an objective truth within the grand scheme of things, 2) that religion holds the answer to the meaning of it all, and 3) that Christianity is the true religion, and thus is the one that holds the right answer to the meaning of life. An argument that states the meaning of life is relative to each individual within different societies is widely accepted by many in the 21st century. Therefore, Morris would do well in placing the word “true” in front of the title; it would be more appropriate to phrase the title as: “Making Sense of it All: Pascal and the True Meaning of Life.” Also, stronger arguments for the existence of God and why Christianity is the true religion, would appeal to a larger audience of skeptics. The entire work seems only to draw those who already accept the statements Morris and Pascal make to the book, and thus leads only to a reaffirmation for them who already know the meaning of life; i.e. to know and be in Jesus the Christ. If it is a book designed to be used for apologetics against skeptics, then it fails in several areas; if it is a book designed for Christians to reaffirm their belief in the Christ being the ultimate answer and meaning to life, then it succeeds in many areas. For the latter, Morris does well in showing an objective truth at the end of the tunnel: Jesus the Christ.
JDG
Morris, V. Thomas. Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992. 212 p.
Within the chapter, The Folly of Indifference, Morris asks the question if whether or not humanity’s activities involve any meaning, and then answers the question from a Judeo-Christian perspective; it this viewpoint that appears to be the driving force for the rest of the book, and is the eventual cause for his conclusion (27). Is the reasoning behind the answer, however, sufficient for all readers? The skeptic, who is addressed in chapter five, can easily refute the reply. For in the fifth chapter, Morris describes the belief-forming processes: “We form our beliefs about the world in many ways, directly from sense experience, from the testimony of others, from memory, and from various inferential processes of reasoning operating upon what has been given to us by sense experience, testimony, and memory” (78). Sense experience, testimony, and memory affect a key feature within the human mind, i.e. imagination. Morris uses both Pascal and Albert Einstein to explain how “’imagination is more important than knowledge;’ it has a great power for good, and, correspondingly, it has great power to deceive” (77). The imagination, effected by our everyday experiences, can be the cause of deception; can the trickery from imagination be the cause for the existence of religion (e.g. Christianity)? Morris does say that “much in life is up to us” (27). Is it possible that the existence of a religion like Christianity is up to mankind? A skeptic, much like an evolutionist who denies the existence of a purposeful cosmos, can and does construct an argument against Morris using Morris’ terminology: “Certain men are capable of containing chemical imbalances within their brain, which is further influenced by ‘sense experience and the testimony of others,’ and can cause a deceitful imagination; an imagination that leads them to construct false ideologies such as religion.” For the skeptic, Morris puts himself in a bind early on, by appearing to suppose that all his readers will accept Judeo-Christianity as a legitimate voice for asserting an objective truth on all humanity. The skeptic, if paying close attention, will pick up on this assertion, leading him/her to quietly place the book down, due to an unwillingness to accept such “mythological or irrational” thinking, before even reading the chapter on his/her own skepticism. 21st century society, especially within the United States, is highly cynical towards religion in general, leaving Morris’ book unappealing. Thus, with the establishment of Christianity rearing the argument throughout the rest of the book, the work of Morris will likely only attract those who already claim Christianity to be true or those who are at least willing to accept the voice of religion as a liable explanation to the meaning of it all. Therefore, the rest of this paper will be directed towards addressing whether or not Morris does well in satisfying these select listeners.
Morris includes a chapter, Marks of the Truth, on distinguishing Christianity from other religions, in order to affirm his conclusion that one being in Jesus the Christ can only know the true meaning of life. He did well in adding this chapter for two reasons: 1) so that those who claim, “Any religion can hold the meaning of life; i.e. whatever religion makes a person feel he/she has meaning is ‘okay,’” will see each religion claiming something entirely different than the next one, and 2) so that his readers will see Christianity as the true and superior religion among all others. Though Morris does well inserting this chapter, there are a few arguments that fail to sufficiently defend Christianity’s truth. First, however, it needs to be addressed how Morris does not distinguish the one thing that makes all religions different. He states, “Every religion involves a threefold conceptual structure: (1) a diagnosis of what is awry in human life, (2) a conception of ideal human existence, and (3) the specification of a path of salvation, a route from our current plight to that ideal state” (148); he later states, drawing from Pascal, “Religions are not all equals” (158). The general nature of all religions is the same, but their difference lies in the means by which salvation is obtained; Christianity is separated from all others through Jesus the Christ, the God of all the cosmos, who is the Christians’ means of salvation. Morris doesn’t specifically explain how all religions can have the same general structure, but also be completely different from each other due to the means by which salvation is obtained. Thus, he doesn’t adequately fulfill the first purpose of writing this chapter.
Furthermore, there are two arguments used in this chapter which do not suitably present the truth of Christianity. The first one is the success argument. Pascal believed that, “Under persecution, the Christian faith indeed has often flourished and even, in the end, prevailed. Surely its success, in even the most difficult of conditions, is a solid mark of its truth” (150). Morris later expresses the statements of Pascal, saying, “Behold how the Savior’s doctrine is everywhere increasing, while all idolatry and everything opposed to the faith of Christ is daily dwindling and losing power, and falling” (151). Success is misleading, and Morris does well in advocating a necessary carefulness to be used when holding to this argument. 1 Corinthians tells readers of two types of wisdom: God’s wisdom and man’s wisdom. What is seen in the eyes of man as good may not be seen as good to God. Just because man finds an ideology, person, government, or thing appealing, which may lead to a success for the directed object or person, doesn’t mean this is good nor does is state the object of attention to be true. For example, though Hitler’s government was successful in Germany for a time, it does not lead to the conclusion that his government was true and good. Though Islam and Judaism have maintained themselves for centuries and centuries, their success of being able to withstand the test of time does not lead to their beliefs being true and good. The success argument is inadequate in providing strong proof for the truth of Christianity, and so is the qualitative version that Morris proposes. He states this: “The Christian religion is the only religion in human history that has appealed to significant numbers of people in every world culture, has succeeded in changing lives in all times and places, and has managed to have some degree of positive social as well as individual benefits where it has been sincerely embraced” (152). This also is insufficient to provide skeptical religious adherents to hold to Christianity being the ultimate truth. It could also be argued that masses of people have simply been deceived or led to “follow the crowd.” Also, soccer has appealed to significant numbers of people in every world culture, has changed lives, and has managed to have some degree of positive social as well as individual benefits where it has been sincerely embraced. Therefore, should soccer be considered not only a religion but the true religion, a religion that doesn’t even require a god? Should soccer be considered something a person needs to be a part of in order to have a purpose or meaning in life? Qualitative and success arguments appeal to the emotions as being strong explanations for those who already accept Christianity, but they fail to provide strong persuasion for those lingering on the fence.
Morris does provide a good insight to one of Christianity’s characteristics: Christianity is not unique. “If Christian teaching were utterly unique, it would be idiosyncratic rather than universal in appeal, and this would be out of step with its own portrayal of a God who loves and seeks to save all the lost” (157). Christianity does appeal to all cultures throughout time, as history and the present day show how the multitudes will flock to stories, movies, poems, or plays that portray a fallen world, an unusual hero with supernatural abilities and strengths, and the hero’s quest to saving the world from the state of peril. The gospel story is not unique, in that it is longed for an understood within every heart of humanity, though many fail to see and hear that it is the Christ who is the true and ultimate answer to their hearts’ longing. Morris, again with the direction of Pascal, also does well in addressing the issue of reason and its limitations. Christianity can withstand the claims of any one institution or person in apposition to it, because Christianity is the objective truth. However, one will not understand the truth of Christianity through human reason; one must first believe. Morris does well in pointing out Pascal’s claim to intellectual curiosity not being what life is all about. To put it more specifically, to try and figure out life’s meaning through intellectual reasoning alone will lead only to dissatisfaction. In order to understand the meaning of life which Christianity holds the answer to, then one must first believe; God must incline men’s hearts in order for them to believe (186-187). Coming to the realization of what life is all about can only be accomplished when a transformation of the heart has first taken place.
Overall, Morris accomplishes his goal of showing the meaning of life, if several declarations are accepted: 1) that there is an objective truth within the grand scheme of things, 2) that religion holds the answer to the meaning of it all, and 3) that Christianity is the true religion, and thus is the one that holds the right answer to the meaning of life. An argument that states the meaning of life is relative to each individual within different societies is widely accepted by many in the 21st century. Therefore, Morris would do well in placing the word “true” in front of the title; it would be more appropriate to phrase the title as: “Making Sense of it All: Pascal and the True Meaning of Life.” Also, stronger arguments for the existence of God and why Christianity is the true religion, would appeal to a larger audience of skeptics. The entire work seems only to draw those who already accept the statements Morris and Pascal make to the book, and thus leads only to a reaffirmation for them who already know the meaning of life; i.e. to know and be in Jesus the Christ. If it is a book designed to be used for apologetics against skeptics, then it fails in several areas; if it is a book designed for Christians to reaffirm their belief in the Christ being the ultimate answer and meaning to life, then it succeeds in many areas. For the latter, Morris does well in showing an objective truth at the end of the tunnel: Jesus the Christ.
JDG
Morris, V. Thomas. Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992. 212 p.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)