Questions:
"if there was no afterlife, would that be an end to a/the BASIS for morality and accountability in life? Why/how (not)?...And by afterlife, I am specifically referring to the free will choices of Heaven and Hell (maybe Purgatory if you're Catholic)?Of course materialist might argue we are/should be accountable for our actions on earth while we live on it since they believe this is the only life we have...And how do they justify it?"
What could be the basis for a morality outside of a worldview that believes in an afterlife (at which time injustices will be settled)? It could come from the universe itself in something like karma, or it could come from humans. It is hard to see how impersonal forces (such as karma) can hold us accountable (Lewis has some good words on this), and we don?t meet all that many people who believe it. That being said, since I have moved to California I have talked with a number of people in various businesses (as I was shopping) who have mentioned karma or something like it, in passing?the idea is definitely not dead.
Among the thought lives of those you are thinking of, there are two poles of the human origin of morality: the individual and society. The first one is raw egoism: what I say goes. The idea that society creates moral principles and trains its members up in them through the evolutionary process and through social training is much more sophisticated and attractive, but no less empty. What prevents a whole society from deciding that the weak members must be eliminated (such as in Nazi Germany)? Was there a rational justification of what they did, from an evolutionary perspective that posits society as the origin of morality? Of course there is. But this answer is unacceptable to most of us. Many of us will hold our rejection of this conclusion more strongly than the principles that led to the conclusion, and consequently will reject the principles (premises) (these principles would include the atheistic form of evolution).
Let?s look from another angle. If this world holds the only justice that there will ever be, then there is no justice. Period. Not just many, but the vast majority of wrongs are not directly accounted for in this life.
Even as we say that, there is another side to it for the Christian. Imagine Lewis was right when he said that this world, for those who end up going to Heaven, will have been a prelude to heaven. If so, then all the beauty of this world will be seen and remembered for its participation in true beauty, and all the ugliness will be fit into its proper place as well, that is, the place God had for it as part of all those things that work together for our own eternal good?the dark threads the weaver weaves into the beauty of his work. We will look back on it with deep appreciation.
On the other hand, for those who end up in Hell, this world will have turned out to be a pre-extension of its ugliness, Hell itself extending its tentacles into every nerve ending of this life. The ugliness of this world will be seen in its fullness and will increase the misery of the empty existence that hell will be. But far worse will be the beauty of this world. Just think about who is more miserable: Priam?s grandson, thrown from the walls of Troy, or King Priam himself, father of fifty great warriors, all slain by Achilles; his wife and daughters taken and ravaged, his city, the greatest city there was, utterly destroyed; Athena?s temple defiled. And all before his eyes. The greater the glory, the greater the misery when it is lost. Those who have known the great beauty of God?s creation more profoundly (whether it be the scientist, who sees it in his observations, or the artist who sees it in her art, or the lover in his beloved) will be the more miserable for having known it.
From this perspective, there most certainly is justice, not only in the world to come, but in this world as well. Here is Plato as well. When we are unjust, we defile our own souls. The more unjust we are, the more defiled. The sickest, ugliest, nastiest soul is the absolute tyrant (such as Hitler or Stalin), who was above rebuke, whose whim was the death of millions. Here is a soul so sick as to be almost unrecognizable as human. The image of God is all but wiped clean from it, the last and smallest traces longing for the death of the body so that they can escape the flames and return to the glory in which they belong.
Here, justice is built into the nature of life. But this kind of justice short-circuits the atheist's worldview. It is there, but it cannot be accounted for.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Persecution as Corroborating Evidence
“Lastly, even if Christians have suffered and have been persecuted almost more than any other peoples, how is this evidence of it being true and having absolute Truth and morality?"
Distinguish between corroborating evidence and proof. The one (corroborating evidence) gives support to a claim, the other is a claim to certainty. The rumbling of the ground lends support to the claim that the enemy cavalry is approaching, but also to the claim that there is an earthquake. More evidence will further corroborate one or the other, and at some point (when you can see the cavalry), counter-claims become ridiculous. I do believe that we (Christians) have a claim to certainty, but it is not by virtue of the fact that our spiritual ancestors and we have been persecuted (that claim would prove too much—every persecuted group could then claim this as final evidence of their respective truth-claims); and our certainty may not be a form that is communicable anyway.
Distinguish between corroborating evidence and proof. The one (corroborating evidence) gives support to a claim, the other is a claim to certainty. The rumbling of the ground lends support to the claim that the enemy cavalry is approaching, but also to the claim that there is an earthquake. More evidence will further corroborate one or the other, and at some point (when you can see the cavalry), counter-claims become ridiculous. I do believe that we (Christians) have a claim to certainty, but it is not by virtue of the fact that our spiritual ancestors and we have been persecuted (that claim would prove too much—every persecuted group could then claim this as final evidence of their respective truth-claims); and our certainty may not be a form that is communicable anyway.
On "Fundamentalism"
“Some atheists say that "fundamentalist" is an inaccurate label for them b/c they a fundamentalist is by definition a person who believes in something or someone, and therefore since atheists don't believe in any God(s) they cannot be fundamentalists. Is this an accurate definition/description?”
Not quite. Literally, a fundamentalist is someone who believes in the fundamentals of something. Historically, this label was claimed by some who believed in certain “fundamentals” of the Christian faith (such as inerrancy). Later, it was attached to a certain brand of Christians, and now is associated with the “don’t drink don’t smoke don’t chew don’t go with girls who do” type mindset. Also with judgmentalism. This is why I don’t associate myself with the word as it is used today. The original idea, as well as the meaning of the word more generally, is not quite so juicy.
But imagine how fun it would be to play on these two uses of the word with a Christian opponent (if you were the non-Christian). A strawman, sure; equivocation, yes; but too entertaining to pass up. At least that is how I would feel if I had no restraints of Christian morality.
Or it could be that a person simply doesn’t know that there are very different uses of the world—most Christians don’t, and it is our own history.
Now apply it to the discussion and the non-Christian. If he associates the word with the present historical use, or the original historical use, of course he cannot be a fundamentalist, because it describes a group of Christians.
But taken more generally to mean, “accepts certain fundamentals of worldview x by faith,” he not only can be one, but necessarily is one (assuming you accept the argument for this contention that we entertained earlier).
That being said, I would try to avoid fixating on the word, and if the person to whom you were talking is willing, you can move on to concepts and avoid using words that don’t seem to stay put very well.
Not quite. Literally, a fundamentalist is someone who believes in the fundamentals of something. Historically, this label was claimed by some who believed in certain “fundamentals” of the Christian faith (such as inerrancy). Later, it was attached to a certain brand of Christians, and now is associated with the “don’t drink don’t smoke don’t chew don’t go with girls who do” type mindset. Also with judgmentalism. This is why I don’t associate myself with the word as it is used today. The original idea, as well as the meaning of the word more generally, is not quite so juicy.
But imagine how fun it would be to play on these two uses of the word with a Christian opponent (if you were the non-Christian). A strawman, sure; equivocation, yes; but too entertaining to pass up. At least that is how I would feel if I had no restraints of Christian morality.
Or it could be that a person simply doesn’t know that there are very different uses of the world—most Christians don’t, and it is our own history.
Now apply it to the discussion and the non-Christian. If he associates the word with the present historical use, or the original historical use, of course he cannot be a fundamentalist, because it describes a group of Christians.
But taken more generally to mean, “accepts certain fundamentals of worldview x by faith,” he not only can be one, but necessarily is one (assuming you accept the argument for this contention that we entertained earlier).
That being said, I would try to avoid fixating on the word, and if the person to whom you were talking is willing, you can move on to concepts and avoid using words that don’t seem to stay put very well.
On "Defending" the Triune God
“How do I respond to non-believers who accuse Christians of accepting cut-and-dry answers to Scripture like a Triune God and Heave n and Hell?”
God is love. Love is relational. Our understanding of true love comes from the relationship of the Holy Trinity. We (all humans) were made in the image of God, and as such we naturally imitate the love of the Triune God. But we do it imperfectly, due to the our fallenness, so not only do we naturally live in love, we also have the emptiness of not living in the love which is inherent to our nature. So the best way to respond to the non-believer who thinks our view of the Triune God is too simplistic might not be to tell them more about him, but to show him that which he longs for in his own nature but cannot quite grasp: God’s love in relationship. It would be like listening to a really good piece of music, instead of being told how good the music is and why it is so good.
As for the part about Heaven and Hell: show them how heaven reaches back to earth through God’s people (you and your kindness). The hell part won’t need more demonstration.
Of course the common question is, “How do I defend the things in the Bible that seem absurd to the non-Christian?” Here you need to come at it from several directions at once: 1) The direction described above (the way of love); 2) Answer the question directly as much as you are able to; 3) Remember that we are dealing with systems, not just individual points. Which system best explains things of the world? 4) Point out that every thought system has truth-claims that seem absurd from alternate approaches.
God is love. Love is relational. Our understanding of true love comes from the relationship of the Holy Trinity. We (all humans) were made in the image of God, and as such we naturally imitate the love of the Triune God. But we do it imperfectly, due to the our fallenness, so not only do we naturally live in love, we also have the emptiness of not living in the love which is inherent to our nature. So the best way to respond to the non-believer who thinks our view of the Triune God is too simplistic might not be to tell them more about him, but to show him that which he longs for in his own nature but cannot quite grasp: God’s love in relationship. It would be like listening to a really good piece of music, instead of being told how good the music is and why it is so good.
As for the part about Heaven and Hell: show them how heaven reaches back to earth through God’s people (you and your kindness). The hell part won’t need more demonstration.
Of course the common question is, “How do I defend the things in the Bible that seem absurd to the non-Christian?” Here you need to come at it from several directions at once: 1) The direction described above (the way of love); 2) Answer the question directly as much as you are able to; 3) Remember that we are dealing with systems, not just individual points. Which system best explains things of the world? 4) Point out that every thought system has truth-claims that seem absurd from alternate approaches.
Friday, February 6, 2009
On Dates in the Bible
Hey Will,
Why is the exact and day, month and year date of the creation of the world, Jesus' birth, crucifixion, death and resurrection not recorded in the Bible when so many other events in history have dates recorded- like Julius Caesar's assassination on the Ides of March? How and why will people believe and what will make them believe in the Biblical events even when the exact dates are not recorded? Are there other events in history that do not have an exact or vague recording?"
Why would it be desirable to have the exact dates? Would that make them more believable? We know pretty precisely when they were, and even when the NT documents were written. I am just not sure how more precision in dating would increase their believability. You can think of examples of when something is precisely dated but is fabricated (read the preface or intro to the novel, The Name of the Rose for a brilliant example of creating an illusion through historical "precision"), or of countless historical events that are dated after the fact but not during.
Why is the exact and day, month and year date of the creation of the world, Jesus' birth, crucifixion, death and resurrection not recorded in the Bible when so many other events in history have dates recorded- like Julius Caesar's assassination on the Ides of March? How and why will people believe and what will make them believe in the Biblical events even when the exact dates are not recorded? Are there other events in history that do not have an exact or vague recording?"
Why would it be desirable to have the exact dates? Would that make them more believable? We know pretty precisely when they were, and even when the NT documents were written. I am just not sure how more precision in dating would increase their believability. You can think of examples of when something is precisely dated but is fabricated (read the preface or intro to the novel, The Name of the Rose for a brilliant example of creating an illusion through historical "precision"), or of countless historical events that are dated after the fact but not during.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
“Another thing: Many atheists seem to relish using the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn Argument to say you can't prove a Universal Negative and therefore God is on the same level as FSM and IPU. Ergo you can't prove God exists because you have no evidence for Him and so He doesn't exist because He is not real. How logical or strong is this argument and how can an intelligent Christian refute it for good?”
This argument has always struck me as disingenuous. Even so, it is interesting to think about. We’ll approach it from a couple angles.
I deny that God is invisible in the same way as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There are different kinds of invisibility. Numbers are not invisible in the same way unicorns are; gravity is not invisible in the same way as a Superman’s x-ray vision; the memory of what you actually did yesterday is not invisible in the same way as your memory of the dream you had about what you did yesterday. Likewise you can speak through silence (as when Abraham spoke by excluding crucial information from Isaac), or you can just be ignorant through silence (as when a teacher asks you a hard question and you don’t have the foggiest idea of a good answer). The invisibility and silence of God are not the same thing as the invisibility and silence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Now let’s evaluate the claims of these invisible things by story-metaphor.
If you were an ambassador to an important king and he sent you to a foreign country, when you got there, how would you expect them to treat you? Now suppose a counterfeit ambassador came and said he was the true one, but his hair looked like spaghetti (to imitate what he thought the king looked like), and he claimed the true king claimed he was a flying monster.
Do you think there would be an easy way for people to distinguish between your very different claims? And supposing the people were all really slow and couldn’t tell the difference; are you still the ambassador of the true king, even if they don’t believe you? What if some people look at you, then at the FSM representative, then at you, then back at him, and are really confused and finally conclude that they are agnostics about the existence of your king, because after all, if people claim different things then nobody is right, and everyone is just as right as everyone else. Does your king exist, even if they don’t believe it? Is he the true king, even if someone makes ridiculous claims about a Spaghetti King? And if people wanted proof from you, wouldn’t they just ask both of you for your credentials, or for the royal seal?
Two ideas in this story: 1) There is an essential distinction we should keep in mind between epistemology (what we can know, and how we go about knowing it) and ontology (what actually is). You can have a loaded gun to my head and I can declare that there are no bullets in it, but if you pull the trigger and there really are bullets, well, my unbelief didn’t help my case very much.
This may sound funny, but the reason the Pink Unicorn Argument is no good, whereas the claim that the God of the Scriptures is the true God is very good, is that the one is false (ridiculously false in this case, but it doesn’t have to be ridiculous to fit this category, only false), and the other is true. Since he is true, regardless of any of us or any of our beliefs, the claim that he exists and rules the universe is a true claim, even if there is not a bit of evidence behind it. Think about it: he is God, we are people; let God be true and every man a liar.
But he has not left himself without testimony, and this is where the second idea of the story comes in. The idea in my own thinking came from reading a philosopher named Charles Peirce (pronounced “purse”). He called it “abduction,” but though brilliant he was notoriously bad at finding good names for his ideas. It can also be called “inference to the best explanation,” and this captures the basic idea a lot better.
If you hear a knock knock at the door, it is possible that an alien has come and is using the wood of the door for an experiment in earthly substances; it is also possible two birds have accidentally flown into your door in sequence; possibly someone snuck into your house at night and planted a digital recorder of someone knocking, set to go off at an appointed time. Or maybe someone is at the door. While any of these is possible, based on past experience it seems that the person at the door is the explanation that explains the situation in the most likely way.
But we don’t stop there. We test the theory by going to the door to see if anyone is there. We could try to save one of the other theories, even if someone is in fact there, but pretty quickly this starts to look more like we have a secret agenda, or are just weird in the head (can’t think properly). Before we go the door, the best hypothesis is that there is a person at the door.
Notice that it isn’t really a question of evidence; several theories could explain the evidence in very different ways. It is a question of hypothesis, or of inference to the best explanation. There are some rules we can follow to figure out which types of explanations usually work best, but each situation must be individually evaluated. The person who follows the rules too strictly and never allows for variation will be especially vulnerable to pranks; the person who follows them too loosely will be vulnerable to conspiracy theories.
Now multiply the kinds of data available in this little scenario by the number of atoms in the universe, and then you will see the kinds of hints God has given for his existence. No, he hasn’t allowed us to open the door and look him face to face, but he has not left himself without testimony. Notice the verbs of Psalm 19:1-6: they are not passive; the universe does not easily acquiesce to multiple interpretations. There are a bunch of good books out now that highlight the hints given from the universe.
And then notice what follows in vv. 7-14. Christians can look at the universe for confirmation of our theory, to see which is the inference to the best explanation (as a non-Christian might), but we also have the word of the king that our message is true, that we are true ambassadors, and the guy over there who looks like spaghetti is a very poor liar.
This argument has always struck me as disingenuous. Even so, it is interesting to think about. We’ll approach it from a couple angles.
I deny that God is invisible in the same way as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There are different kinds of invisibility. Numbers are not invisible in the same way unicorns are; gravity is not invisible in the same way as a Superman’s x-ray vision; the memory of what you actually did yesterday is not invisible in the same way as your memory of the dream you had about what you did yesterday. Likewise you can speak through silence (as when Abraham spoke by excluding crucial information from Isaac), or you can just be ignorant through silence (as when a teacher asks you a hard question and you don’t have the foggiest idea of a good answer). The invisibility and silence of God are not the same thing as the invisibility and silence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Now let’s evaluate the claims of these invisible things by story-metaphor.
If you were an ambassador to an important king and he sent you to a foreign country, when you got there, how would you expect them to treat you? Now suppose a counterfeit ambassador came and said he was the true one, but his hair looked like spaghetti (to imitate what he thought the king looked like), and he claimed the true king claimed he was a flying monster.
Do you think there would be an easy way for people to distinguish between your very different claims? And supposing the people were all really slow and couldn’t tell the difference; are you still the ambassador of the true king, even if they don’t believe you? What if some people look at you, then at the FSM representative, then at you, then back at him, and are really confused and finally conclude that they are agnostics about the existence of your king, because after all, if people claim different things then nobody is right, and everyone is just as right as everyone else. Does your king exist, even if they don’t believe it? Is he the true king, even if someone makes ridiculous claims about a Spaghetti King? And if people wanted proof from you, wouldn’t they just ask both of you for your credentials, or for the royal seal?
Two ideas in this story: 1) There is an essential distinction we should keep in mind between epistemology (what we can know, and how we go about knowing it) and ontology (what actually is). You can have a loaded gun to my head and I can declare that there are no bullets in it, but if you pull the trigger and there really are bullets, well, my unbelief didn’t help my case very much.
This may sound funny, but the reason the Pink Unicorn Argument is no good, whereas the claim that the God of the Scriptures is the true God is very good, is that the one is false (ridiculously false in this case, but it doesn’t have to be ridiculous to fit this category, only false), and the other is true. Since he is true, regardless of any of us or any of our beliefs, the claim that he exists and rules the universe is a true claim, even if there is not a bit of evidence behind it. Think about it: he is God, we are people; let God be true and every man a liar.
But he has not left himself without testimony, and this is where the second idea of the story comes in. The idea in my own thinking came from reading a philosopher named Charles Peirce (pronounced “purse”). He called it “abduction,” but though brilliant he was notoriously bad at finding good names for his ideas. It can also be called “inference to the best explanation,” and this captures the basic idea a lot better.
If you hear a knock knock at the door, it is possible that an alien has come and is using the wood of the door for an experiment in earthly substances; it is also possible two birds have accidentally flown into your door in sequence; possibly someone snuck into your house at night and planted a digital recorder of someone knocking, set to go off at an appointed time. Or maybe someone is at the door. While any of these is possible, based on past experience it seems that the person at the door is the explanation that explains the situation in the most likely way.
But we don’t stop there. We test the theory by going to the door to see if anyone is there. We could try to save one of the other theories, even if someone is in fact there, but pretty quickly this starts to look more like we have a secret agenda, or are just weird in the head (can’t think properly). Before we go the door, the best hypothesis is that there is a person at the door.
Notice that it isn’t really a question of evidence; several theories could explain the evidence in very different ways. It is a question of hypothesis, or of inference to the best explanation. There are some rules we can follow to figure out which types of explanations usually work best, but each situation must be individually evaluated. The person who follows the rules too strictly and never allows for variation will be especially vulnerable to pranks; the person who follows them too loosely will be vulnerable to conspiracy theories.
Now multiply the kinds of data available in this little scenario by the number of atoms in the universe, and then you will see the kinds of hints God has given for his existence. No, he hasn’t allowed us to open the door and look him face to face, but he has not left himself without testimony. Notice the verbs of Psalm 19:1-6: they are not passive; the universe does not easily acquiesce to multiple interpretations. There are a bunch of good books out now that highlight the hints given from the universe.
And then notice what follows in vv. 7-14. Christians can look at the universe for confirmation of our theory, to see which is the inference to the best explanation (as a non-Christian might), but we also have the word of the king that our message is true, that we are true ambassadors, and the guy over there who looks like spaghetti is a very poor liar.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Ecclesiastes: Two Perspectives in Antithetical Opposition
This is just an outline for further discussion, but most of it should be pretty clear:
1. Under the Sun: Life is Meaningless
a. Everything is meaningless, Ecc. 1:2-11
b. Wisdom and folly are meaningless, Ecc. 1:17-18; 2:12-16
c. Pleasures are meaningless, Ecc. 2:1-11
d. Toil is meaningless, Ecc. 2:17-23
e. Riches are meaningless, Ecc. 5:10ff.
2. Under God’s Authority: Life is Teeming with Meaningfulness
a. God gives meaning to our pleasures, our work, our knowledge, our wealth—in short, to all of life, Ecc. 2:24-26
b. God gives meaning by placing eternity in the hearts of men, Ecc. 3:9ff.
c. God gives meaning by promising to settle accounts in the end, Ecc. 3:17; 12:13-14
3. Contradictions
a. Christians live life as if this world is all there is (when we despair, when we say there is no justice, when we say that there is no meaning in the symbols around us [such as music], when we act as if authority is man-made, etc.); it’s the “aren’t we lucky to get this manna from Mother Earth” perspective, where Mother Earth is purely a euphemism for how the world presents itself to us, as if manna were not a gift from God
b. Non-Christians cannot help but borrow Christian capital, because it is impossible to live life consistently as if it has no meaning
4. Examples of non-Christians who seem to understand the antithesis described in Ecclesiastes
a. The origin of morality, truth, logic, rationality, knowledge, meaning, love…: it must be somewhere under the sun, and it cannot have any meaning outside of what is under the sun.
b. Quine: Neurath’s Boat (epistemology under the sun)
c. Danniel Dennett: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: cranes and skyhooks; Darwinism is the universal acid
d. Nietzsche on meaning, necessary falsehoods, morality
e. In spite of David Hume’s philosophical skepticism and protracted, vehement argument that there is no rational justification for the knowledge that we claim to have, he concludes, “But a Pyrrhonian [i.e., the most radical of skeptics] cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his principles universally and steadily to prevail.” (Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, Third Edition [Oxford reprint], p. 160)
f. Bertrand Russell: Buddha vs. Nietzsche. How can we choose Buddha’s ethic of love over Nietzsche’s ethic of hate, power, and meaninglessness? “For my part, I agree with Buddha…. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it is the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.” (A History of Western Philosophy, 772-3)
At least Russell is honest enough to say that, given his life under the sun, he has no standard by which he can reasonably and logically pass judgment against Nietzsche—Russell must resort to feelings in the end. But Nietzsche would have laughed at Russell. Why must one’s ethic be self-consistent? From where does the logic of consistency come? A skyhook? Isn’t it the case that logic and the requirement of consistency itself must originate from under the sun as well? If life is meaningless, consistency is not necessarily a virtue. (We should be glad that those living in the under the sun perspective show their inconsistency by choosing to be consistent.)
g. Machiavelli: “A wise ruler, therefore, cannot and should not keep his word when such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage and when the reasons which made him promise are removed…. [I]t is necessary to know how to disguise [a morally repugnant] nature well and to be a great hypocrite and a liar: and men are so simple-minded and so controlled by their present needs that one who deceives will always find another who will allow himself to be deceived…. Therefore, it is not necessary for a prince to have all of the above-mentioned qualities, but it is very necessary for him to appear to have them.” (The Prince, Trs. Bondanella and Musa, pp. 58-59)
5. Why would Christians seek to undermine the antithesis?
a. Thoughtlessness
b. To minimize the implications of the biblically mandated moral difference between Christians and non-Christians
i. To make ourselves less concerned about our own righteousness
ii. To sound less judgmental to non-Christians
c. (There are many other possible reasons)
6. We should highlight the non-Christian’s inconsistency and borrowed Christian capital (it is confirmation of Christianity because it points at the true nature of things).
7. We should not always highlight the non-Christian’s inconsistencies, but instead should appreciate them
a. Because truth is from God, even if the truth betrays a contradiction
b. Because it is better for the world and for our society if the non-theist rejects the moral implications of consistently applying the worldview of meaninglessness
8. Our lives in Christ should be a concerted effort to locate and eradicate all the elements in ourselves that bask in the meaninglessness of life under the sun.
1. Under the Sun: Life is Meaningless
a. Everything is meaningless, Ecc. 1:2-11
b. Wisdom and folly are meaningless, Ecc. 1:17-18; 2:12-16
c. Pleasures are meaningless, Ecc. 2:1-11
d. Toil is meaningless, Ecc. 2:17-23
e. Riches are meaningless, Ecc. 5:10ff.
2. Under God’s Authority: Life is Teeming with Meaningfulness
a. God gives meaning to our pleasures, our work, our knowledge, our wealth—in short, to all of life, Ecc. 2:24-26
b. God gives meaning by placing eternity in the hearts of men, Ecc. 3:9ff.
c. God gives meaning by promising to settle accounts in the end, Ecc. 3:17; 12:13-14
3. Contradictions
a. Christians live life as if this world is all there is (when we despair, when we say there is no justice, when we say that there is no meaning in the symbols around us [such as music], when we act as if authority is man-made, etc.); it’s the “aren’t we lucky to get this manna from Mother Earth” perspective, where Mother Earth is purely a euphemism for how the world presents itself to us, as if manna were not a gift from God
b. Non-Christians cannot help but borrow Christian capital, because it is impossible to live life consistently as if it has no meaning
4. Examples of non-Christians who seem to understand the antithesis described in Ecclesiastes
a. The origin of morality, truth, logic, rationality, knowledge, meaning, love…: it must be somewhere under the sun, and it cannot have any meaning outside of what is under the sun.
b. Quine: Neurath’s Boat (epistemology under the sun)
c. Danniel Dennett: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: cranes and skyhooks; Darwinism is the universal acid
d. Nietzsche on meaning, necessary falsehoods, morality
e. In spite of David Hume’s philosophical skepticism and protracted, vehement argument that there is no rational justification for the knowledge that we claim to have, he concludes, “But a Pyrrhonian [i.e., the most radical of skeptics] cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his principles universally and steadily to prevail.” (Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, Third Edition [Oxford reprint], p. 160)
f. Bertrand Russell: Buddha vs. Nietzsche. How can we choose Buddha’s ethic of love over Nietzsche’s ethic of hate, power, and meaninglessness? “For my part, I agree with Buddha…. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it is the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.” (A History of Western Philosophy, 772-3)
At least Russell is honest enough to say that, given his life under the sun, he has no standard by which he can reasonably and logically pass judgment against Nietzsche—Russell must resort to feelings in the end. But Nietzsche would have laughed at Russell. Why must one’s ethic be self-consistent? From where does the logic of consistency come? A skyhook? Isn’t it the case that logic and the requirement of consistency itself must originate from under the sun as well? If life is meaningless, consistency is not necessarily a virtue. (We should be glad that those living in the under the sun perspective show their inconsistency by choosing to be consistent.)
g. Machiavelli: “A wise ruler, therefore, cannot and should not keep his word when such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage and when the reasons which made him promise are removed…. [I]t is necessary to know how to disguise [a morally repugnant] nature well and to be a great hypocrite and a liar: and men are so simple-minded and so controlled by their present needs that one who deceives will always find another who will allow himself to be deceived…. Therefore, it is not necessary for a prince to have all of the above-mentioned qualities, but it is very necessary for him to appear to have them.” (The Prince, Trs. Bondanella and Musa, pp. 58-59)
5. Why would Christians seek to undermine the antithesis?
a. Thoughtlessness
b. To minimize the implications of the biblically mandated moral difference between Christians and non-Christians
i. To make ourselves less concerned about our own righteousness
ii. To sound less judgmental to non-Christians
c. (There are many other possible reasons)
6. We should highlight the non-Christian’s inconsistency and borrowed Christian capital (it is confirmation of Christianity because it points at the true nature of things).
7. We should not always highlight the non-Christian’s inconsistencies, but instead should appreciate them
a. Because truth is from God, even if the truth betrays a contradiction
b. Because it is better for the world and for our society if the non-theist rejects the moral implications of consistently applying the worldview of meaninglessness
8. Our lives in Christ should be a concerted effort to locate and eradicate all the elements in ourselves that bask in the meaninglessness of life under the sun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)