The Deficit of the Problem of Evil Argument

The crux of the problem of evil is tenuous.  It remarks on the omnipotence and omnicsience of God.  If all-wise, He could create conditions to an ideal world.  If all-powerful, He could put an end of evil.  The existence of evil proves an unreality to the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence, therefore the unreality of God.

The argument fails on the ultimate origins of evil.

In the beginning God created heavens and earth, in His time, at His command.  The final results were perfect paradise.

In the beginning, the perfect creation was populated by those who could appreciate the wonders of perfection, sensible, sentient, willful creatures of material and immaterial realms.  Willful to be impressed with it all, or not so.

In the beginning, the devil corrupted the realm with a simple temptation, one that has been reduplicated in many varieties:  You shall be as God.

Thus, in the beginning, man, as this pseudo-deity, created in this perfect realm suffering, misery, and all sorts of conditions permitting sadness unexpressible.

Thus the atheists' Problem of Evil is viable only in one respect, the reality of evil, an evil that mysteriously disappears once God is dismissed and mankind is placed on its pseudo-divine pedestal.  But evil is easily proved.  Read your newspaper.  Observe how you manage your speed and stoppages in your time behind the wheel.  The evil is apparent, even if the origins of it are hushed up like some state secret.

God is omniscient.  Scriptures speak of His resolution of this rebellion through the atonement of the Gospel, beloved news to all save those who imagine their own deity.  God is omnipotent, but doesn't use it in the eradication of the pseudo-gods.  That is reserved for a day ahead.

Till then, we may embrace evil as a human construct, honed to perfection by humanitarian goals and dreams quite utopean and quixotic.  Paradise imagined but never grasped.  Or else, we can abandon this destiny through a truly divine grace that is beyond the imaginations of humanity.  Christian consciousness has understood the way of life and the way of death, the wide and narrow roads.  It is opportune to travel the better road.

"Gay," Marriage, and Equality

Two arguments fuel the debate in the eyes of those who support gay marriage.

1) The accredited hatred of those who oppose progressive marriage mandates.
2) The concept of "marriage equality."

The first premise is quickly being lost due to the widening disparages of intolerance against those who disagree with the LGBT community, evident by firings from positions, cancelling of shows promoting Christian (N.B. not religious) values or input.

The second premise shall be lost if issue is made of the concept of equality between hetero and homosexual unions.  This is now being resolved by the methodology of premise one, with the enlightening awareness that hypocritical tolerance features the acceptance of one view and appropriate measures allotted to the opposing views.

But the facet of equality is forced, and collapses on examination.  One form begets children naturally, the other by fabrication of theft (the spirit of adoption is now a birthright to same sex unions, while abortion advocates accuse the heteros of never adopting enough).  The perception of one union moves in only so far as the effect of camaraderie, without descent of understanding "what goes on in the bedroom."  SSM wishes to have the benefits of marriage, while the hetero-unions never conceives of marrying for the benefits.  Love conquers all, money need not be applied.

The idea of such equality is cosmetic at best.  This reduces the idea of examining a 3 and an 8, noting a similarity of shape (the "three" just lacking connection on its left edge), and concluding that 3=8.  In this case 3=8=E=H, or anything that mere appearance would allow.

Thus, "marriage equality" is an equality that is qualified, not quantified.  It is an unreal equality.  Much has been made on the definition of marriage as expanding.  The evolution of marriage is. however, an alteration of convenience against the best ideas.  It is marriage redefined by its detractors, the previous advocates of easy divorce, multiple marriages, unions based on self-gratification broken when the charms are lacking.  It is much the same of people who, desiring to do something with baseball, seek silly rule changes.  All to liven up the game.  The integrity of a game with established rules seems an oddity.  But to alter it ruins the integrity.

And, in the spirit of the invocation of equality (without investigating what is fundamental to "equality"), we are losing the integrity of marriage.   It is no wonder that SSM fail at a rate of 17 times those of heteros.  Two generations ago, "till death do we part" led to many golden anniversaries.  Today, they are miraculous, which is why such happen often enough in the Christian community.

The Theoretical "War on Women"

A bizarre occurrence in the NFL flap.  With the expulsion of Ray Rice from the Baltimore Ravens, a triumph was declared for the feminist version of justice, where domestic violence is a travesty to be eliminated at full cost.  Then, in the first home game in Baltimore, a set o women supported Mr. Rice by the wearing of his jersey.  The life-long (aka "indefinite") suspension is rightly being contested.  But the epic battle of the advancement of the feminist ideal has provoked a type of unexpected backlash.

The women wearing the offending jerseys were duly passed off as "duped," but they are representative of a cultural under-current of dismissing the general trends of recent feminist thought.  In a recent episode of Today, notice was made of the group of women who insisted that feminism did not define them, and that this vision of womanhood, not given to notions of patriarchalism, still valued maleness to a degree that feminism was inadequate as a universal principle.  It short, they could conceive of women as women, as men as men, not subject to demasculating tendencies.  The female journalists were quick to point out that feminism had assured all women of fairer treatment and better opportunities.

Which was, technically true, but an irritating avoidance of the true issue.  The great gains that were achieved in the 1970's were not the issue under attack, but the expansion of culture as decisively female in orientation.  Not the 1980's victory, but the 2010's irrationalism.

The issue is the decadence of feminism to a degree of its own variation of sexism.  The journalist who praises the achievements of the female contigient of the 2010 Olympics to the snubbing of the male participants.  The erotic displays of entertainment as the standard of female performance, with the understanding that male reactions to such displays are to be neutral.  To the vapid notion that certain political parties are anti-women because they don't embrace the new feminist vision and could offer critique of the barrenness of the position.

The feminist is fast moving to an arrogance of deserving the terminology of "female chauvinist sow."  Their disdain of the "duped" members of the group may lead to the next phase of the theoretical "War on Women," by making it a civil war.

If such a conflict leads to a clearing of the air on the vision(s) of what woman must be, then it would be most welcome.

The Moral Argument and the Defeat of Evil

The Moral Argument posits a deity as the foundation of morality, in light of tenets of morality being undesirable in certain cases (sexual mores, the acceptance of pedophilia, rape, abortion).  Acknowledging the necessity of moral character, the atheist counters along two lines 1) the unscrupulous character of God, particularly in the Old Testament, and 2) the problem of evil.  Evil occurs, and God, who as omnipotent and loving, should be capable of containing and eliminating evil.  God's failure to do this means His non-existence.  Morality is thus a human construct, viable to variation in light of cultural change.

However, a divine foundation of ethics is still desirable.  If not, no moral dictum has staying power beyond a rational (or even rationalizing) basis.  And reason has its means to enact genocide, if reason is found.  Thus there is a friction, a working morality sans God.  If morality fails, man is capable of plenty of travesty in the realm of naturalism.  The very fact that in some species the female devours the male has no moral impact.  But it could be the structure of immorality.

The original title of this post would have been "The Moral Argument and the Problem Defeat of Evil."  If evil is merely cited to disavow God, then have no basis for reality thereafter, we have the basic inconsistency.  The belief in God instills a component of evil, hence the "love God/good and hate evil" expressions in Scripture (Ps. 97: 10; Prov. 8: 13; Amos 5: 15).  Evil then must be seen as not as the failure of God, but the failure of men.  Our skewed ideas of the makeup of evil runs counter to the Lord's views on the nature of evil.  We despise the fact that God has us well pegged as "evil," and that some of our favorite pastimes are at core unsavory.

Evil is not to be card to wave to make anti-God claims.  It must be faced and fought.  We have passed from an era of poetic justice (good shall always overcome evil) to an embrace of evil (how many times the villainous are the heroic in Hollywood renderings of motion pictures).  We both embrace violence (in depiction in R and TVMA ratings) and eschew it.  In using the problem of evil as a cause of dispelling God, we are left with the problem called evil, and no foreseeable means of dispelling that.

Evil remains something to defeat, not to flout.

On the Nature of God's Wrath

I have recently read Tony Lane's essay The Wrath of God as an Aspect of the Love of God.  It treats a difficult issue that has afflicted the post-modern sense of Christianity as it deals with totally secularized views of God.  The world has extreme difficulty in seeing a compatibility between a loving God and a God who allows evil, which is seen as a manifestation of God's wrath.  This is not a difficulty perceived just now.  It is a concept that has intrigued the best theological minds of the Church.  The earliest schisms of the second century can be traced to this matter.

Lane recognizes four incorrect notions dealing with God's anger:

1.  Simple denial of the ira Dei.
2.  A disassociation between the God of the Old Testament and Jesus the Son of God in the New.  This was the basis of Marcion's heretical sect in the second century, who culled away much of the New Testament proto-canon (favoring the Lucan and  Pauline portions over against the material submitted by apostles of Judean background).
3.  Viewing the ira Dei as an anthropomorphic (or, better, anthropopathic) expression.  God's wrath is not equivalent to raw human emotions.  While it may begin a correct understanding of divine anger (it is not to be seen as volatile or out-of-control), it often degenerates into a cause-effect response to violating natural law, an elevation of law having built-in consequences.  But this reduces divine indignation to something along the lines of karma.
4. Acknowledging the truth of divine wrath, but minimizing its expression in the teachings of Church.

In treating the wrath of God, Lane notes a long tradition of viewing God's wrath as an attribute to God's love.  A jealous God is what the Lord portrays Himself.  The secularist trend is to see this as a belittling emotional comparison.  Lane disagrees:   Failure to hate evil implies a deficiency in love. C. E. B. Cranfield illustrates this with a well-chosen modern example. He asks whether God could be the good and loving God if he did not react to human evil with wrath. “For indignation against wickedness is surely an essential element of human goodness in a world in which moral evil is always present. A man who knows, for example, about the injustice and cruelty of apartheid and is not angry at such wickedness cannot be a thoroughly good man; for his lack of wrath means a failure to care for his fellow man, a failure to love.”  Moreover, critics who disdain the jealousy of God work from a deficient notion of love that is centered in self-gratification which moves on to new centers of affection when the emotive power of eros wanes.  If you do not truly, deeply love, jealousy is impossible.

God's wrath is perfect in itself when it is viewed as transcendent above raw human sentimentality.  It becomes the proper response to evil and wickedness, in all forms they may assume.  This is the touchstone of the whole issue.  Once mankind recognizes that its main obsession is not so much love as a sense for debauchery, the issue of divine wrath is vindicated.  A soft sell is not the solution.  If a lion is ever seen in your backyard, it would never do to ignore it.

On the Nature of the Theophany: Contents

In my previous blog, I pondered the idea of what would be a valid theophany.  I first dabbled with the notion of, if God appeared, what would be the purpose of the divine event?  I granted that such manifestations would be done for conversant reasons (a message from God) versus non-conversant reasons (an appearance without message, inspiring notions of God from which content would be invented).  I value the case for the messaged-event over against the encounter, which could be passed off as meeting space aliens.  Von Danigen would reduce the theophany to this in his Chariots of the Gods.  Such a view is simplistic in light of an established dogma that sees God speaking along single lines.

But, what is that single line?  It could well be that the single line of dogma as a human convention.  This is a viable idea.  Religion as human determination of the "Other" could resolve this matter easily.  This would suppose that the theophany is a human originated phenomenon.

This leads us to the issue of content.  What do the theophanies teach us?  And could this core of instruction be motivated by the cultures, the political situations, the internal needs of people as perceived by humanity?  In short, is all this in creation of a Santa Claus vision of the divine, a kindly benefactor who is ready to offer gifts to an appreciative group and bestowing coal on those less than desirable individuals?

What if there is a line of theophany which counters such notions?  A great defeater of this concept is a line of theophanies which reject a catering to human inclinations and desires, repudiate political machinations that would promote an earth-bound utopia of idealistic dreamers, and cancel human "progress" in favor of a divine "norm" that truly regulates happiness.

Three issues of content quickly arise to promote a theophany that could not be imaginative, but holds aspects of ideas in opposition to human thought.

1.  The concept of sin.
2.  The concept of a moral law that is seen as impinging on human ideas of happy and fulfilled living.
3.  The concept of grace.

1.  The concept of sin.

It must be noted that I am not speaking to the human flaw.  All religions deal with this.  But usually under a line of thought that neutralizes the stigma of this flaw.  Karma is a classic dodge of the ubiquity of the wrong within us.  Getting what we deserve is a notable detour of the bluntness of being hostile to the divine idea.  Sin is declared as an act of rebellion in a world that cherishes its rebels.  To deal with sin as sin, we are good with acknowledging the flaw that "we are only human, born  to make mistakes."  We are not good with the idea of consequences.  We can cozy up to the notion of karma, but we rancor against the accusation of sin.  Any theophany that promotes the idea of sin could never be a human construct.  Any epiphany that would present sin in its bluntness must of necessity be a real showing of divine thought.


2.  The concept of a moral law that is seen as impinging on human ideas of happy and fulfilled 
living.

Make no mistake.  Man needs a code of moral living, and to a real extent is a moral creature.  The issue here is the contents of that legal code.  The Ten Commandments could be feasible to an atheist, except he would not adhere to the first three which deal with the relationship to God, and perhaps that law concerning adultery.  But the honoring of parents (to a degree), not killing (to a degree), not stealing (to a degree), not engaging in malicious acts of lying and defamation of character (to a degree), not being overwhelmed by greed (to a degree).  Here we have adequate foundations of moral living.  The constant "to a degree" disclaimers in this last statement hold that we desire to live ethical lives, just not the level of morally which would be acts of godliness.  Yet, such levels of godliness are evidently expressed.  Their appearance, and the theophany that supports them could not be to human advantage, thus not of human origin.


3.  The concept of grace.

In line with all these notices of human depravity and a need of a moral law to regulate such whims is the idea of God loving us in spite of the flaws and working to redeem us.  The Santa Claus divinity would seek human performance, a consistent zeal towards being "nice."  Many religious enclaves seem to border on self-improvement societies.  A notion that presents human as basically un-improvable runs entirely counter to best estimates of the human spirit.   Again, any divine appearance that promotes this idea could not be reduced to human imagining.  Yet, it persists as a distinctive trait in the religious world in contradistinction to similar religious notions.  How came it to be?

The thrust of this article seeks to establish the idea of God based on the idea of "I couldn't have dreamed this up.  You couldn't either.  Whence came it?  Any manifestations that these could be linked to need to be taken seriously.

On the Nature of Theophany: Purpose

In a line of posts, I had an opportunity to develop my idea of foundational ontology of the existence of God.  In short, the argument holds God as a concept that originated from somewhere in the past, such as trolls from a short ugly person who had been noted for acts of malice.  The fact that we have conceptualized trolls must have begun as a historical incident that instigated the idea.  Thus, in the case of God, there had to have been a historical manifestation that sparked His recognition.  That act I determined as the theophany.  To define this epiphany, I would hold to this meaning: a visible manifestation of a deity (Merriam-Webster, 2009 online edition).

In asserting the historical theophany, it is necessary that one, and only one, acceptable theophany would establish the case of God.  In response to this, one poster pointed out that science could not offer critical procedures for such matters, other than an attempt to find natural causes for the theophanic incident, which is self-defeating.  The natural cannot embrace the supernatural.  Granted.  But then the matter would shift to the one valid theophany versus the many bogus theophanies.  How to recognize the actual factual, asserting the true and false theophany.

This is a proper objection, but doesn't mean that such inquiries are impossible.  In this line of blog articles, I would propose methods of determination, centered on the concepts of purpose and contents (plus any other issue that may arise in pondering this topic).

To set a purpose, I would examine the matter whether such a "visible manifestation" was either conversant or non-conversant.  In other words, did the Deity appear to reveal some matter or not?  In a non-conversant setting, such a theophany is more an unintended encounter, a spotting rather than an appearance.  In this case, the appearance in accidental, a seeing what is epiphenomenal.  What is perceived cannot be explained.  This, in effect, implies that God desired not to be seen, but has been seen, leading to a deistic understanding.  The transcendent God, who has been seen, remains transcendent, leaving us to explain these matters in a theological setting of pure imagination.  Most idolatries would develop from this sighting sans meaning or intent. 

But, it is inconceivable that God would appear without purpose.  Accidents do not happen with God.  If He is to appear, He must have reason.  Here we may make two distinctions which border on the next area of concern, content.  Such passings of divine interaction could have essential focus, or non-essential focus.  And here we may begin culling out false theophanies.  God, in dealing with men, must hold transcendent meaning.  If the appearance of deity leads to sexual intercourse with a comely maiden (e.g. the rape of Europa), we have no true manifestation.  If it were to announce a birth of a Savior through trans-sexual methods, such would have better credibility, even in the midst of the incredible.  Remember that such theophanies must be conversant.  Non-conversant appearances only produce marvels without content.  Thus the appearance of Krishna  to Prince Arjuna in the Bhagavad-Gita has some essential content, the recalling of the prince to his military obligations in wartime rather than pursue a groundless peace which was truly cowardice.

But finding a perceived essential focus may still not conclude in a true theophany.  A political purpose apart from deistic design could invoke the meaning behind the Bhagavad-Gita.  If the focus is transcendent (yet conversant), there is a degree of mystery to the manifestation.  Much along the lines of the appearance of God to Abram in Genesis, Chapter Fifteen.  Here, God desires to craft a covenant with Abram.  Thus conversant.  He is willing to enact this contract in terms understandable to Abram.  Thus essential.  But He enacts the ancient custom of severing animals to walk in their midst alone, thus taking on the obligations in a unilateral fashion.  Essential, but also transcendent.  God, who never fails in His obligations, still reinforces this concept in a theophany demonstrating terms understandable to the patriarch, but still in a transcendent approach.

Thus will act as an introduction to the true theophany.  More will need to be discussed in contemplating the contents of these appearances.

The Decretals of Scientism

In a recent Stand to Reason post (Chronicle of Higher Education: Stop Accrediting Christian Colleges), a notice was given about the need to rethink allowing Christian colleges the opportunity of accreditation.  The rationale for this was the trend of such colleges requiring statements of faith that would compromise academic freedom.  The article stated: Consider those Christian colleges that require their faculty members to sign a "faith statement," consenting to such scientifically preposterous propositions as, for example, that God created Adam and Eve, who were real historical figures and who are the actual ancestors of all humanity. I am stunned at the usage of of the phrase "scientifically preposterous propositions."  Science is highly compartmentalized, but it fails to have a study of historical events (history is a maverick branch of human inquiry).  What could be pure imaginary history is the contrived system of evidence that assembles the geologic time table, but science would never allow this assessment.  Pity, but this is the huge obstacle that only academic freedom could hope to resolve, yet never may.

The article boasts:  Skeptical and unfettered inquiry is the hallmark of American teaching and research. However, such inquiry cannot flourish—in many cases, cannot even survive—inside institutions that erect religious tests for truth. The contradiction is obvious.  Agreed.  But will skeptical and unfettered inquiry allow for the critical discussion of the problems of evolution, the extension of micro evolution (easily demonstrable) to macro evolution (indemonstrable, with only contrived evidence).  The university must be universal in its quest, and science must only be a portion in the quest.  Scientism holds that only science is a sure method of gaining knowledge.  But this cannot maintain itself in a college setting.  Christian colleges will teach the tenets of evolution, but question them for their weaknesses.  This is part of skeptical and unfettered inquiry, a mode not current in public institutions of education.

Scientism is inadequate.  It offers the knowledge, but scoffs at the wisdom, only offering a pledge of solutions to manifold problems.  Yet, in the burst of enthusiasm for science I have witnessed in the passing decades two sorry trends.  First, the enthusiasm leads to a frenzy of advancement that borders on the genre of science fiction.  Super science, resulting in improved forms of humanity.  This leads us to visions no better than the mutant world of X-Men or the improved bionics of Lab Rats.  Fictionalized visions of an idealized human race, leading to progressive change that is guaranteed betterment.  But will we be allowed to use that skeptical and unfettered inquiry to question the directions of progessivism, especially if our conscience holds such progression does not advance mankind, but masks is denigration?

That is the second trend, a sensation that scientism rides a crest of optimism to ever glorious goals.  Such optimism needs scrutiny.  It is ever the foible that moments of advancement are ever sustained.  Liberté. L'égalité. Fraternité. Guillotine. Règne de la Terreur.

Horrors if should such unfettered inquiry becomes unbridled, unprincipled demonstrations of human hubris.

Chronicle of Higher Education: Stop Accrediting Christian Colleges - See more at: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/08/chronicle-of-higher-education-stop-accrediting-christian-colleges.html#sthash.ceLb8azY.dpufCh

Chronicle of Higher Education: Stop Accrediting Christian Colleges - See more at: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/08/chronicle-of-higher-education-stop-accrediting-christian-colleges.html#sthash.ceLb8azY.dpuf

The Southwell Litany and Modern Sensibilities

Recently in the performance of my morning office, I spent the week in the reading of the Southwell Litany, an Anglican prayer of immense size (four pages) which explored the fallibilities of the self.  It is a rigorous reading, one for its size, the other for its content.  In taking up this litany which I haven't read for several years, I was reawakened to the passing of time and the post-modern thinking that would find great displeasure in such introspection.  I find that in the quest of fulfillment, modern man is not open to self-criticism.  This lengthy prayer, drafted in a spirit of repentance in the early 1900's, seems so out of touch with the progressive spirit which seeks affirmation, not self-denial.

The introduction sets the theme of this critical introspection: 

• O Lord, open our minds to see ourselves as Thou seest us, or even as others see us and we see others, all from all unwillingness to know our infirmities.  Save us and help us, we humbly beseech Thee, O Lord.

The initial portion is the bulk of the litany, making up half of the litany itself.  I call this the "from portion," named for the first word of each bequest.  The first petition goes:

• From moral weakness of spirit, from timidity, from hesitation, from fear of men and dread of responsibility, strengthen is with courage to speak the truth in love and self-control; and alike from the weakness of hasty violence and the weakness of moral cowardice;  Save us and help us, we humbly beseech Thee, O Lord.

Other requests in this introspection:

• From the irresolution that carries no choice into act,
• From the sluggishness of indolence and the slackness of indifference,
• From dullness of conscience, from feeble sense of duty, from thoughtless disregard of consequences to others,
• From love of flattery, from over ready belief in praise, from dislike of criticism,
• From all love of display and sacrifice to popularity,
• From desire to have our own way in all things, from overweening love of our own ideas and blindness to the value of others,

This is followed by a smaller portion, which advances the times we live in, as such a moments of spiritual danger.  Thus I call this part the "In all times portion:"

• In all times to follow pleasure ...
• In all times of ignorance and perplexity as to what is right and best to do ...
• In times of doubts and questionings, when our belief is perplexed by new learning, new thought, when our faith is strained by creeds, by doctrines, by mysteries beyond our understanding ... alike from stubborn rejection of new insights and from hasty assurance that we are wiser than our fathers.

As the litany closes, there is a triad of prayers for true understanding of self:

• Give us knowledge of ourselves, our powers and weaknesses, our spirit, our sympathy, our imagination, our knowledge, our truth;  teach us by the standard of Thy Word, by the judgments of others, by examinations of ourselves; give us earnest desire to strengthen ourselves by study, by diligence, by prayer and meditation;  and from all fancies, delusions and prejudices of habit or temper or society:
• Give us true knowledge of our brethren on their differences from us and in their likenesses to us that we may deal with their real selves, measuring their feelings by our own but patiently considering their varied lives and thoughts and circumstances; and in all our relations to them, from false judgments of our own, from misplaced trust and distrust, from misplaced giving and refusing, from misplaced praise and rebuke:
• Chiefly, O Lord, we pray Thee, give us knowledge of Thee, to see Thee in all Thy works, always to feel Thy presence near, to hear and know Thy call; may Thy Spirit be our will, and in all shortcomings and infirmities may we have sure faith in Thee:

The litany closes with this final petition:

• Finally, O Lord, we humbly beseech Thee, blot out our past transgressions, heal the evils of our past negligences and ignorances, make us amend our past mistakes and misunderstandings; uplift our hearts to new love, new energy and devotion that we may be unburdened from the grief and shame of past faithlessness to go forth in Thy strength to persevere through success and failure, through good report and evil report, even to the end; and in all time of our tribulation, in all time of our prosperity: Save us and help us, we humbly beseech Thee, O Lord.

How would this litany travel in the ranks of the self-contented and narcissistic among us?  This seems to be the great divide of the human spirit in dealing with religious thought.  It is the grand abyss that ultimately separates one from all God-talk.  Yet, if all unbridled pride and pompousness could come under some degree of control, how would society be improved?

Introspection is not criminal behavior.  All efforts for self-doubt will not end in exercises in futility.  It may be the first step towards nobility to understand our limitations.

Christian "Para-Morality"

In the July 19th broadcast of Unbelievable?, the atheist spokesman, Rory Fenton remarked that as a "Catholic-atheist," he had grown up in the tradition, but rejected it in his perception that the moral code of the Church had not advanced itself beyond the mores that any secular man would embrace.  His lapse into atheism wasn't to live an exotic wild life of pleasure.  His demeanor was that of an extremely principled person.  Bravo for his ethos, but he remarks on an inaccuracy concerning the Christian faith.

Christianity doesn't promote a specific moral code, not even the Mosaic ordinance of the Old Testament.  Not that a Christian is not cognizant of the Ten Commandments.  They would cite each commandment, arguing only over the numeration of the specific commandment (e.g., the commandment against murder being the Sixth Commandment for my Reformed friends has always been the Fifth Commandment to Lutherans as I and Catholics as well).  They would agree on the importance of the Laws of Moses in daily affairs, but differentiate about the ultimate need of them in matters of salvation.

Christianity is compelled by the single commandment of Christ, to love one another (as impossible a moral code to preserve).  Thus Christianity is not about commitment to established codes, but motivation to properly apply the divine will.  It deals with matters of conscience, and requests thoughtful introspection to all applications.  Moses is indispensable, only the ultimate consequences of failure is dispensed (the faith in Christ, thus there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus).

This is what is maddening to those outside the faith, who deem this faith worthy of criticism.  In white vs. black assessments (this wrong, that right), we may fail to present a system of consistency.  Take, for example, war.  One Christian may be the perfect pacifist.  Another may recognize the matter of defense of self of defense of the weak and defenseless.  One may seek contribution to the war effort as a medic, a soldier, or an anti-war activist.  All impelled by Christ's command to love.  All making a conscientious choice in the matter and at peace with their view of war (irony intentional).    This makes any perception of a truly Christian ethos difficult.  Snickers of presumed hypocrisy are invoked, all due to a failure to understand Christ's Gospel message.

Christ did not descend to offer us new inscribed slabs of stone.  He rose up on a cross to foil the results of Moses' Ten, the guilt and consciousness of sin, its just retribution for failed morals (a truly universal moral status), and to promote a faith-life in which morals no longer are compulsory but a pleasant response of gratitude for something as simple and simply impossible as forgiveness.

And that removes that subtle cause of morality, retribution for failure to abide by the subtle codes that align us all.  Modern morality fails to understand it, or have it at all.

Wit vs. Wisdom

In the recent Unbelievable? podcast, two gentlemen (theist/atheist format) debated the legitimacy of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument.  It was agreed that such a concept raised the issues about the theme of "intelligent design," but in itself was no better than a "conversation starter."  It was further agreed that the range of acceptable behavior concerning dealing with offensive parodies needed definition.  Such an attack against some Muslim paradigm would have led to aggressive responses.  Aggressive responses are inconvenient replies, but often they are responses to aggressive attacks.  The value of the FSM remains as conceptualizing theist creative/origins as buffoonery, but lacking this FSM only belabors the fact that atheistic approaches to the origins issues lacks that initial spark.  Beginnings > how?  From which core materials > origins from where?

Grahame Veale (the theist) needed only to remark that the FSM consisted of components that were material, and thus did not constitute creative force.  Pasta has limitations.  Thus the objection to the multitudes of theistic originators (the atheistic argument) is advanced through the elimination of one obvious phony towards the elimination of all other ineligible possibilities.  Theists quickly eliminate pantheist and panentheist possibilities.  Thus most of that roadwork has been accomplished.

In sum, we have often confused the element of wit as the sum and substance of wisdom.  The atheist does often spout clever lines.  Critical examination allows wit to be scrutinized to see if it remains wit or witlessness.  The FSM fails this test of wit.  It in world of that which ought to be carbohydrates, wither the proteins?  This last statement is theistic wit.  Atheistic examination of theism argues the present world as a botched work, hence not divine in origin.  However, the botched element arises in consequence of human actions not following divine predilections.  The un-botching is best expressed in Christianity, where God delivers the world from the sad state of affairs.

Modern Activism and the "Sisyphus Effect"

To all intents and purposes, one would suppose the life of Rev. Jesse Jackson to be an abject failure.  He continues to speak, to march, to aggressively advance the cause of "rights" in this nation.  There has been no stop in him.

But advances have been made.  The life of the 50's African-American is stark contrast to the life of the millennial African-American.  The good reverend has achieved much, accomplished much welcome change.  How could this man be an abject failure?  Only in that he continues to speak, march and advocate as if nothing had been accomplished.

And this is the heart of what I term the Sisyphus Effect.  In Greek mythology, Sisyphus challenged the gods in the Titan Wars and was punished by eternally hauling a huge boulder up an incline only to have the rock tumble back, forcing the fallen hero to redouble his efforts to put the stone into place, and action reenacted to infinity.  Activists do make bold stands, agitate for their causes, and succeed, only to hanker for more causes, more redress to inequities.  All hoping that the popular view of their work will continue to be deemed "heroic."

And this is the flaw of activism.  An eternal state of unrest is a form of social agony that we wished relief not continuation.  Progress is not always to be forward.  History allows for regression as a term for such relief.  Lyndon B. Johnson gave way to Reagan via Nixon and Carter.  Then a reflux to Obama via two Bushes and one Clinton.  The boulder will roll back.  To believe that Rev. Jackson merely perpetuates the political tone of crisis to maintain his political clout and prestige is erroneous.  Liberty means vigilance, and with two causes in the political millrace, such vigilance can become strained.  Celebrate the advances.  Acknowledge that times of reversal will occur and should be welcome. 

But the greatest ideal is that Sisyphus could break from his labors, if but for the moment.

Secular Morality and the "Noble"

A series of posts have recently run in the Stand To Reason post that argued the merits of an evolutionary origin of moral principles that could be explained over against a divine absolute standard.  Such an approach would reject the ideals of a Mosaic ordinance or sharia tradition based on a pragmatic foundation of moral transitioning from core concepts to refined details that bend and adjust to changing cultural norms.  As interesting as this line of debate had been, I have found one fundamental flaw that dooms the tenets of evolutionary morality.

It cannot, and will never, embrace the noble act, the self-sacrificial, the unselfish, the motives of helping the other to the detriment or endangerment of self.  If evolution is the driving force, the important issues of self-survival, self-preservation, and self-advancement would overrule the "noble."

I think of the medieval tale of Sir Gwain and the Green Knight.  The knights of the Round Table are petitioned by a lady-in-waiting whose mistress is held captive by the Green Knight.  She would ask for a prestigious knight as Lancelot, but he is indisposed.  Gwain, a young and lesser known knight, volunteers to save the lady.  The lady-in-waiting scorns the uppity young lad, but agrees to lead him to the Green Knight's castle.  After a few side adventures which proves Gwain's merits, they finally arrive at the treacherous knight's castle.

The moment of that arrival was at 11 A.M.  Gwain prepares to blow the castle horn to announce his presence when the lady-in-waiting asks Gwain to delay that summons.  The Green Knight is under a charm where his greatest strength would be at the sun's height, at noon.  If Gwain waits till three or four in the afternoon, the battle would be in his favor.  Gwain scorns the woman's advice, stating that as a knight of integrity, it would not do for him to seek such advantage, but battle the Green Knight at his greatest strength.  Gwain blows the horn, requests battle from the Green Knight, and engages in battle for the liberty of the captive damsel.

And, after horrific battle of hours duration, Gwain triumphs, spares the Green Knight whose loyalty is to be pledged to King Arthur, wins the release of the woman, and accomplishes the goal of his mission: to prove the merits of a noble knight pledged in the pursuit of justice.

Gwain would never do in an evolutionary scheme of ethics.  Mankind would never aspire to higher, better goals in a evolutionary ethics.  A system that reckons man for ape can never have such lofty aspirations, all claims notwithstanding.

Which is why godliness trumps mere morality, which is becoming rather chimerical these days.  Which is why no society will have a future in adopting it.  Chesterton is correct:  It is not that Christianity was tried and found wanting, but found difficult, and never tried.

We must stop trying to be moral;  we needs must be noble.  That is why "paying it forward" is a paper tiger, awesome only in form, but lacking true bite in its teeth.  As much good as can be accomplished with a PIF mentality, far preferable of "spend it recklessly."  Much more good is done if we feel we must not wait for some awesome kindness granted to us.

What, Then, Is Intolerance?

In trying to explore the flip side of tolerance, I thought to distinguish the definitions of tolerance and intolerance.  In viewing "intolerant," I noted this definition:  not able or unwilling to accept or embrace a concept.

I wish to consider these two elements 1) inability and 2) unwillingness.  In the modern quest for "Toleration," we seem to ignore both.  The novel notion of undiscriminating acceptance loses the discernment that refusal to accept is based on pre-conceptions.  Examination of these pre-conceptions is reduced to declarations of such views as "hateful" or "evil."  The natural mode of tolerance would at least have the curiosity that would inquire as to the perceived intolerance.  "Why are you against ... " is a legitimate inquiry to ones opinion and the bases of the opinion, especially if proven as fact.

Thus intolerance can be an inability.  Those who are called homophobic explain their position as Scriptural.  To insist on one abandoning ideas that are deemed sacred would be ... well, call it what it is.  Intolerance.  Thus intolerance can be to a certain degree based on unwillingness.  To insist on political and cultural changes in the name of progressive advance thinks little of matters of conscience.  To demand willingness is coercion, high-handed, totalitarian activities worthy of thugs.

This is why the prospects of political correct default positions have dim hopes of foundational change in the lines of toleration.  Gun violence is becoming rampant, and it could well be based on the overt demands of accepting change against ones abilities and volitions.  When push comes to shove, we may have unwittingly sown the seeds of Intolerance in a campaign to produce a more tolerant society.

The irony is tragic, sad to think in a world that would have irony for their comedies.

What, Then, is Tolerance?

The trend is unsettling.  The Mozilla firing.  The forced sale of the L.A. Clippers.  The cancellation of television programming.  The censure of the rapper for an insult of the president.

One common theme of all these varied incidents is a professed allegiance to the idea of "tolerance."  There are segments that need to be accepted and affirmed.  Those who refuse are declared bigots, perpetrators of "hate crimes," and treated as pariahs.  All in the name of tolerance.

We have moved from a tenet of "live and let live" to a dogma of "accept all things without discrimination."   And those who fail to adopt the popular mantra of "equality" in unequal matters are savaged with a blood-lust that betrays the political savagery of an oppressor who has replaced an oppressor.

We are trained to view the LGBT community as warm, wonderful, and quite normal people.  Perhaps some are.  But individuals are convincible, not whole communities, and those who trifle with the affects (and affectations) of the "community" are dangerous.

We have emerged as a nation that cannot bear insult.  What decades ago would have been deemed polite disagreement has been given status of unbearable "hate."  Echoes of pleas of tolerance sound hollow somehow.  Perhaps the rise in violence is a counter-proposal to seek tolerance at the previous standard.

In the end, there are two opinions to tolerate.  If time is granted to savor one opinion and one opinion only, to see one side of the issue and only one side of the issue, then we have failed as a society.  Tolerance is being able to voice points of favor and disfavor, without bloodshed, unpleasant consequences, or diminished respect.  It is the work of two parties, not just the obligation of a single side.

If this then is a lesson unlearned, we must then move on to the next question ...

Demonization as a Political Process

The Salem Witch Trials are a lesson in history under reenactment.  What essentially was an attempt to discredit and remove rival interests led to the atrocity of unbridled accusation and slander easily accepted as truth.  Fear drives such engines, and the power to promote such trifling with reputations is unlimited in its uncritical acceptance by the masses.

The ploy of demonization is a tool that succeeds only when credibility is not sought out.  In the case of the witch trials, twenty lives were lost on the simple fact that an authority assumed too much, that it was inerrant in its pursuit of truth.  Today, anything that opposes progressivism is no longer the "loyal opposition," but an ulcer in need of removal.  And the removal process begins with the premise that such views are not worth holding, that they are antiquated not so much as they are hate-driven, monstrous, enslaving, degenerative, and debased in thinking.

We have made it a logical short circuit to credit the other side with the shades of despicable.  It is the course of politics to criticize the President.  It becomes racism if that president is black, sexism is that president is a woman, homophobic if the president is or supports the gay agenda.  The facts of the matter need not be discussed if this blockade to honest exchange is utilized.

The first thing that matters is to address the root cause, as it would have been in Salem centuries ago.  Fear.  We fear the defeat of progressivism and all the promises it advances, and all the lofty goals towards which it strives.  But we stifle an equally important fear, the fear of unwelcome progress, of dangerous progress, of progress in which more is lost than gained.  But the idea is not to demonize the whole of progressivism, but to offer second opinions of where we wish to go, or even where we wish to stay.

It is the issue of the path, the passage, the travel, the destinations, the stays, that must be given due consideration.  All of the trappings of safe, sane travel planning.  The passengers need to offer their insights and input, and disagreements on the flow of the trip must be expected.

Labeling one a churl for disagreeing on the most recent turn of the wheel belittles the trip, and makes for strained traveling.  People encased in moving vehicles would know of this tension as most unpleasant.  This is the tension we must cope with, and name-calling is this hallmark of immaturity.  And who wishes to travel with the immature?

The Quest for Centrism and its Cure

Some time ago, a letter to the editor in the Watertown Daily-Times denounced a trend to view the news outlets Fox News and MSNBC as polarizing effects, and sought a solution, the moderate outlets as NBC.  This was a sincere effort to key on the "coming together" at a compromised position featured as the default understanding of the American culture.  It is an acceptable approach only if it is a legitimate method at ascertaining truth.

Unfortunately, it is not.  It fights polarization with a blind surrender to a position that is hybrid, not an authentic arrival at a suitable solution.  It closes down the arena of ideas for pseudo-thought.

In analyzing this notion of finding the central point acceptable to both, I am heavily influenced by Hegelian thought of historical shifts and the forces that motivate them.  The essence of this philosophical view is the friction of  thesis and antithesis, resolving into a middle position called synthesis.  Graphically seen we have:

I. THESIS -----------------------------> SYNTHESIS <--------------------------------- ANTITHESIS

Centrism holds that this is a necessary historic flow of thinking and the cultures and political systems that develop from such shifts.  Accepting this tenet removed the idea of intellectual fairness that once instructed informed individuals to subscribe to two newspapers, one liberal and one conservative, and to pursue a wide range of reading from all points of the spectrum of ideas.  Acceptance of this premise fails in the one respect of a continuation of this dynamic, expanding itself beyond a second level, like thus.

II. THESIS -----------------------------> SYNTHESIS' <-------------------------------- ANTITHESIS


THESIS' ---> SYNTHESIS" <---- SYNTHESIS'

Note the drift of the original idea towards the original thesis.  In the view of the antithesis, such drift alienates the original proposition of the antithesis.  This could lead to a triple level of historic-cultural shift:

III. THESIS ------------------------------> SYNTHESIS' <------------------------------- ANTITHESIS

THESIS' ---> SYNTHESIS" <----  SYNTHESIS'

                       SYNTHESIS" -----------------------> SYNTHESIS"' <------------ ANTITHESIS'

In these variations to the original Hegelian scheme (I.), I would call II. Remodification and III. Retrofication.  In the drama of history, these would be the components of revolution and counter-revolution.  I hold American culture as whipping wildly between rapid shifts of II and III.

The key to taking a pragmatical application to what could become more complicated is in the view of Fox News as THESIS, MSNBC as ANTITHESIS.  This would make NBC (or any "mainstream" outlets) as SYNTHESIS.  The objection that soon arises is the perception that NBC is merely a reduplication of the same journalistic tone as ANTITHESIS.  This would then be seen as concession, presented as:

THESIS ----------------------------------------------------------------------> SYNTHESIS=ANTITHESIS

Thus we have a closing of mind, the acceptance of a default view, all others to be "debunked" dogmatically.

The solution is standing ones ground, to demand the proof needed to accept a synthesized position.  Centrism may lead to the semblance of contentment, but it would be the contentment of sheep.

The Apocalyptic Motif

It was not all that long ago that images of the unshaven hippie-type bearing the banner "The End is Near" would have left us with the compulsion to snicker.

The "Left Behind" series has been put off as low theater of the Christian variety.

The imagery of Revelation is often seen as unsettling, and reduced to the level of propaganda presented to get the uncritical masses to get into line and join the Church.

But recently, science has chimed in on the same theme.  Global warming alarmists are bent on positing a date for irreparable damage, 2054 if I'm not mistaken.  The latest episode of Cosmos warns us that the environment is a fragile thing that would rage against its inhabitants given the proper circumstances.  From time to time, we are alerted of million-mile misses of space objects that would have impacted negatively life as we know it.  And, while there is in science voices of calm and assurance, there is an undercurrent that simply "carrying on" will imply necessary life-style changes, a secular form of repent or perish.

I have often wondered if there isn't some form of earth-weariness that society slips into from time to time.  Uncertainty in economic factors and political progress leaves one spent and zealous to be done with it all.  The end of the world (or Western civilization as we know it) seems to groan and sigh with the surge of advances and reversals in history's little march to somewhere.

If we could be assured this is not a Bataan Death March, we could endure.  Unbridled optimism seems to be a slim cure, and sometimes more poison than medicine.  We are hell-bent to make the world a better place, but in making strides we fail to move forward.  For all our progress, we still would like to know our destination well before hand, and making progress to make more progress later seems like so much wheels spinning in the mud.

Perhaps "The End is Near" is just a hankering for a destination, after all.

The Christian Landscape: Modernism vs. Fundamentalism

I am a fan of the Phil Vischer Podcast, and have followed the career of the creator of Veggietales through his formation of Big Idea picture group, his lost of the company, and continuance in Big Idea while forming his new venture Jelly Telly.  I own the entire set of What's In the Bible? videos and had given a review of one of them.  While I appreciate his efforts to defend and expand the Christian faith, I am put off by the general tone his podcast has toward conservative elements in the Christian Church.  He points out the wild-eyed "crazy Christians," and notes the off-hand comments of Westboro Baptists (deserved) and Phil Robertson (undeserved).  Concepts of power-bases and cultural adaptation of the faith are difficult concepts to use as filters for authentic Christianity, but I have this disdain for those who label the fundies" as rabble-rousers who distort the faith.

I hold to conservative Christianity, but would strain at the "conservative" label.  Too politically charged in these Political Correctness days.  I would hold to the concept of "confessional."  To me, Christianity is creedal, a fellowship of believers in the "one true faith."  Mr. Vischer lays a great deal of importance to the "personal relationship in Christ.  Important, but equally solipsistic. To cast dispersions on those who don't wish to conform but be transformed, the cultural issues are quickly reduced to a matter of loving the world and those things in the world.  We must debate between the doomed present world (the Titanic version) and the world to be restored in Christ (a true version of Christian utopia).  But to his credit, Mr. Vischer does his thing with a sufficient amount of tact, if it does get laced by humorous quips (and perhaps too many of these, as they tend to break into the comments of his fellow hosts and infrequent guests).

Mr. Vischer's criticisms of the fundamental branches of the faith needs to be tempered with maybe one thought.  This past Sunday, one of the hymns was "It is Well with My Soul," by Horatio Spafford.  The fellow was part of the conservative evangelistic movement of Dwight Moody.  The hymn was written in response to a horrible tragedy that took the lives of his four daughters in the sinking of the Ville du Havre (which is the name of the hymn's melody).  Mr. Vischer suffered the lost of his original business venture Big Idea, much in the same way Spafford endured much financial and personal loss in 1871.  Whatever one may feel towards the doctrinal tenets of the other, each has walked in the shadow of despair, but overcoming same.

Modernists may lampoon fundamentalists views on literal interpretation.  Fundamentalists may question the modernists' definition of omnipotence.  Both sides need to grow firmer in the faith, and life's blows may be divine impulsions to bury the rancor and appreciate the views the other may hold and express.

The Fraudulent Hermeneutic

About two years prior, in a running exchange of posts dealing with the reliability and inspiration of Scriptures, after a series of salvos centered on perceived Biblical errors (and their resolutions), one atheistic post remarked, almost in an accusatory tone, "You have answers for everything."  Shortly afterwards, I was introduced to the concept of "confirmation bias," a trend to find rationale for details of belief.  We hold to our faith and are willing to draw up elaborate defenses to preserve what we hold to, leading to circular paths of reasoning.

I considered the concepts, but rejected them for what I determined was the ground of failure to diminish claims of reliability in the Bible.

The whole hermeneutical scheme that atheists use to devalue Scriptures is flawed.

The premises behind such a method hinge on two basic beliefs, 1) a dismissal of God as real, and 2) the rejection of the supernatural as possible.  In some respects, this methodology resembles much of an idea of journeying to France with a feeling that knowing French is unnecessary.

The approach to view Scriptural content and teachings from a secular eye has met with a series of disastrous results since the initial studies of the German schools in the late 1800's.  The concepts of the documentary hypothesis (remember JEDP?) have been proven inadequate, the forces of late-dating are approaching dating of the Gospels much closer to the conservative estimates (another twenty years and they will be ours!) than the original second century estimates.  The trend to link Christian developments toward a Gnostic base are still looked on as ludicrous.  With a core understanding of the Bible producing extreme and extremely inaccurate suppositions, it isn't unusual that a "you have answers for everything" response to such ill-formed claims to be difficult.  Scriptural quotes addressed to me seem forever out of context and radically applied to situations completely unreal.

Bart Ehrmann once questioned the approaches of conservative scholarship over against secular research.  But his latest book, How Jesus Became God, was duly and quickly answered by a team of Biblical scholars with their How God Became Jesus.  Ah yes, an answer for everything.  It is important to relate to media sources the ease in which wild speculations, drafted for popular consumption and financial remuneration, are trumped.  But only in a land were both sides are offered, where strawman arguments cannot exist.

Interpretation and "Filters"

One recent read, That's a Great Question by Glenn Pearson, has much to reveal about a recent post in Stand to Reason blog.  In the article concerning five erroneous ideas about the celebration of Easter, one blogger rejects the nativity narrations of Matthew and Luke due to the lack of inclusion of such stories in Mark, credited as the first drafted gospel. 

Pearson notes in his book that readings of the Bible is unduly charged with presumptions that color the interpretation of Scriptures.  He calls these foundational approaches to literature filters, and cites five key ones:

• The Filter of New Revelation
• The Filter of Outlandish Speculation
• The Filter of Atheism
• The Filter of Anti-Supernaturalism
• The Filter of Selective Christian Theology

He notes that the first two filters tend to add content to Scriptures, while the rest delete ideas.  Pearson's approach of reading the text as is, accepting the presentation of Jesus as is, and then accepting or rejecting the material as truthful is fast being forgotten, as if there were a freedom to mold material into an acceptable context first.

This approach to interpretation is pattently dishonest.  The Bible attests the content of its own material as difficult to follow, difficult to accept.  This content is not to be deemed therefore being illogical.  The concepts of God need to be shaped by logic (the doctrine of the Trinity comes to mind).  Thus those people who must follow all things logical may have a difficulty with a full understanding of Biblical concepts.

But to deduce that a portion of the Scriptures must be removed due to a perceived lack of logic is a huge assumption to accept.  Scriptures say that the ways of God transcend the thinking patterns of men.  It also has been a historical fact that alterations to the concept of the Godhood come frequently, all in a quest that is on-going, never accepting for a fact that many truth have been expressed about God from material insisting on its divinely guided origins.

Man is foundational idolatrous, seeking a deity that resembles himself.  Noting this, acceptance of ideas that pursue this quest for understanding God results in understanding a god made in our own image.

The "Aura" of Science

In the recent "Skeptical Enquirer," Bill Nye recounted his version of his debate with Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.  As could be expected, he crowed over the victory in the arena of his opponent.  He recalled the array of scientific evidences that concluded that the earth could not possibly be 6000 years.  He relished the thought that the statified limestone formation on which the museum was constructed was definitive proof.  He also claimed that the scope of the debate on which both parties agreed made creationism, not evolution, the concept under consideration.  While granting that the debate was not scored, most observers gave Nye the victory.

I have watched a fair portion of the debate.  While Nye offered ample evidences, Ham returned with the idea that most evidences would preclude an old earth as well.  Nye could respect Ham for his defense of Biblical creationism, but conclude science would trump Bible.

On this premise alone, Nye would have not fared well.  His claims of victory would be awkward.  To discount one form of evidence would question his own evidence, derived from natural sources without annotation, other than annotations that would be assumed or contrived.  If Nye's evidences could be interpreted to support young earth creationism (which Ham aseerted and proved), then science if guilty of refusal to examine such interpretations, opting for their own versions unquestioningly.

This is the fatal flaw of science.  It is the basis of credibilty of science that it bears a degree of falsifiability.  It relishes skepticism, but if focused on falsifiability of some concepts andnot others, a disingenuous science develops.  This is displayed in the area of climatology, where those who question the tenets of global warming or climate change would be called "deniers," not "skeptics."  Data can be submitted that shows the tenuous support of evidence for the theory.  But "extreme weather" (aka storms) have been manifested throughout history.  The tragic weather events of the year have been repeated through the decades, matching the vicious 1880's and 1930's.  Those climatologists who bewailed the coming cataclysm in the 1980's (2004) have reacted similarly today, positioning 2047 as the new maelstrom.

The results are  predictable.  Only 34% really believe in the alarmist notions of environmental disaster.  This is down from 36%.  Trust in big science, which draws from grants from government agencies, is starting to waver.  This in a time when the media would trumpet the area of the sciences, promoting careers in some branch of human inquiry.  Perhaps such efforts is now seen as "protesting too much."

But the bloom is off the rose.  If we perceive science as the pursuit of knowledge through discovery, we can preserve a noble endeavor.  If science becomes the search of what we desire to find, then we can soon experience the source of fraud and deception.

The "Grounded" Ontological Argument Part Three: Beyond Imagination

A quick review.  The previous lines of posts dealt with the thrust of the Ontological Argument and the view of the definition linked to reality.  With a quick undetstanding of the ontological argument, we examined briefly the historical background of how the imaginary entities gained definition, a uniform understanding of things unreal.  Events in history lead to conceptions of things that were legendary, events that were reconstructed or embellished.

But now it comes to the issue of God.  What is the basis of a historical defining of God-hood?  It is a simple case of what we have noted in all things else.  We saw short people.  We conceived dwarfs and embellished to fairies.  We saw large lizards.  We conceived dragons.  We were deluded in conclusing so.

But in God, we have such difficulty, as God in His attributes is transcendent.  But in the case of theophany, such impossibility becomes improbable at best.  Theophanies are rare, but only one proves the Deity.  Such phenomena would be awesome in presentation.  But we cannot handle it as a unicorn.  (That was a horse and a branch that you saw in a strange agle making it look like a horn in the forehead).  To say, "Thunderstorms are awesome, but merely natural displays of power ..." misses the point.  We aren't speaking of thunders crash and lightnings flash, but an appearance with conversation.  What occurred to Abraham, Moses, Jesus can't be reduced to meteorology.

We can cull out phony theophanies as certain micickings of desirable events.  The crude appearance of gods to copulate with young women is nothing compared to the assuming of the role of chariot driver to talk over the role of warfare.  We may note the varieties, but must conclude the likelihood of the theophanic situation.

God can be defined from historical grounds.  These occasions can be reasonable assumed to be probable.  If God has been presented to anyone, such can be historically true.  The fact the God is definably uniform hold this case together.

The "Grounded" Ontological Argument: Part Two "Explanations"

I raised the issue of the basic weakness of the Ontological Argument in the sense of linkage of reality via definitions.  We have many words and terms of items that are imaginary, trolls, dragons, flying spaghetti monsters.  It would be a case of difference between these and words dealing with abstract objects and concepts, compassion, liberty, intuition.  With the latter, we could make demonstrations of these qualities to an extent.  We can make case studies of acts of mercy, perform outrageous acts to show we are not locked into determinant actions, review cases of blind guesses reaping positive results.  But there is a problem with pixies.  Such as these can not be pointed out.  Their stories would be charming, but we would be "in the know" that pixies don't exist.

Still, there is a matter of ultimate origins even of these creatures.  If a class of students were given paper and asked to draw a pixie to the best of their abilities, there would be a close similarity of appearances.  We probably have Tinkerbell to thank for this.  But I would like to imagine (pun intended, perhaps) the concept of pixie before Disney.  If drawings were made of pixies every decade for a few centuries, would the appearance change?  Let us go so far as to lock up all the Disney footage of pixies, and conduct this experiment.  Let us examine the origins when we first used the word "pixie," and study all illustrations from that point onward.

The crucial question behind the "grounded" ontological argument is this:  If such imaginative creature is current, how was it first conceived?  How came we by "pixie," or "dragon," or "elf," or whatever?  After all, something must have gone bump in the night to get us to think about "things that go bump in the night."

I would consider that midgets and short people got mankind to imagine leprechauns and dwarfs.  Certain reptilian creatures could have gotten us going with dragons.  But, in he end, something factual gave rise to these imaginary creatures.  I hold two rudimentary forces for this: 1) imaginative reconstruction, and 2) imaginative embellishment.

Unicorns would be a good example of imaginative reconstruction.  Consider that many animals are horned.  It could be that one beast was reduced to one horn after combat or injury.  Or consider that the angle of head or glare of the sun granted the viewer to see but one horn.  The man who saw this strange alpaca related this story to a friend who managed horses.  By transference, the animal with the horn was everything to the man.  Such an explanation is fanciful in itself, but it does satisfy the single requirement.  Is there anything in daily life that would draw people to consider the existence of unicorns?  Later review of the sightings would lead to an explanation of unicorn sightings, thus affirming the imaginary nature of the beast.

Santa Claus is a prime example of imaginative embellishment.  This man historically existed, a bishop of the church in Myra, now Demre in modern Turkey.  A man of generous disposition, the acts of giving gifts secretly developed into legendary proportions.  The creation of Santa Claus literally took on Hollywood-like proportions to the present wonder-worker of December 25th.  Even back in that day he was called Nicholas the Wonderworker.  We have even today to sift through the acts to see what actually occurred, and what has been embellished.

Thus there is a historical ground for such as these, granting a form of realism.  This is why our conceptions of these are usually uniform.

But the ground still centers on the imaginative, which was the lesson behind the flying spaghetti monster of Richard Dawkins.  We need one more point to offer on historic grounds of things identifiable.  This I hope to cover next time.

The "Grounded" Ontological Argument -- Part One "Definitions"

I have never felt the ultimate power to convince a skeptic using the ontological argument.  This is a proposition expressed in many ways, beginning with the original argument of Anselm:

1. God is by definition that then which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is one thing to exist in the understanding only and another to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding (example: the painting in the painter's mind vs. the painting in the painter's mind and on canvass).
3. It is greater to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding than in the understanding only.
4.  Therefore, God must exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding, for if He did not, then we could conceive of One who did, which would be greater.  But God by definition is the greatest Being conceivable.

5. Therefore, God must exist.

This argument has been refined through the ages to Plantiga's recent development:

1.  If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2.  If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3.  Hence, either God's existence is logically impossible or else it is logically necessary.
4.  If God's existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5.  The concept of God is not contradictory.
6.  Therefore, God's existence is logically necessary.

The grounds for rejection of the argument is the connotations of definition.  We cannot merely grant reality for anything by presenting a definition of it.  This was the thrust of Dawkin's "Flying Spaghetti Monster" assertion.  The imagination is capable of creating many illusions, hardly grounded in reality.

But then, something bizarre happened, and it gave pause to the low opinion of Anselm's argument for God.

And it had everything to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  For in making such mocking attacks on God with such an approach, solid understanding of this being began to jel.  We saw drawings of the creature, observed "emissaries" of this pseudo-deity practice their pseudo-faith in garb drawn from this conceptualization of the FSM.  Slowly, this figment grew into the realm of reality, that at the name of the FSM, we pretty much had an idea of this being.  It was a realistic presentation of the unreal, consistently and patterned.

We had defined the FSM, drew lines of understanding about the FSM, and brought the FSM into the real.

In short, the FSM became a victim of the ontological argument.

This is an approach to the ontological argument that  needs examination.  We have a bevy of imaginary creatures which, on mention, draws identical imagery, similar patterns of understanding.  How so?  This is what I call the "Grounded" or "Foundational" aspect of the ontological argument.  Why have we identical understanding of things that we perceive to be imaginary?  Is there a basis to this understanding, and does it eventually ground them in reality?

It is the epistemological "leap" that I would explore.

The Galahad Effect

Christians are easily misunderstood people.  The chief reason is the general inaccessibility of a person who is a Christian, authentic, not nominal, nor traditional, nor customary.  It is easy to go by the name of Christian, to be born into Christian families, to attend services regularly (or irregularly enough).

But to be a Christian -- this is a trick.

Thus, I can agree with the general confusion when one Christian claims A, and another "Christian" asserts non-A.  True Christians can be conservative or liberal as long as they are not consumed with matters political.  But this leaves to a problem of perception.  Will the real Christian please stand up?  And when a mass of humanity rises to this request, we probably will need to undergo further sifting to cull the sincere from the insincere, the divine from the delusional.

Perhaps a telling clue is defined by what I term the "Galahad Effect."  I used the phrase in a recent  STR blog post to refer to possible negative encounters with Christians due to never understanding the merits of such a person, ONCE HE HAS BEEN FOUND.  It is founded on this portion of T.H. White's Once and Future King, where Arthur speaks with Lancelot about some of his knights.

___________________
"I am told that Galahad and Percivale were virgins, and Bors, although not quite a virgin, turned out to be a first-class theologian, I suppose.  Bors passed for his dogma, and Percivale for his innocence.  I know hardly anything about Galahad, except that everyone dislikes him."

"Dislike him?"

"They complain about his being inhuman."

Lancelot considered his cup.

"He is inhuman," he said at last.  "But why should he be human?  Are angels supposed to be human?"

"I don't quite follow."

"Do you think if the Archangel Michael were to come here this minute, he would say: 'What charming weather we are having today!  Won't you have a glass of whiskey?'"

"I suppose not."
______________________

Luther once stated, "Man muss fern ein Christ zu finden."  One must go far to find a Christian.  And once found out of the masses that claim Christian status, what would be the world's opinion of such a one?  Jesus said that His followers would be hated by the world.  So be it.

It would be a delightful change from the annoyance that the world perceives in its vision of modern Christianity.

Blog Resurrexit!

It is time to restore the Now More Strawmen blog.

There were two reasons for the cessation of the original blog.  First, it was the flagship blog in the blog creation assignment conducted at St. Paul's Ixonia computer class.  It was the alpha guinea pig of the blogs created by the upper grades at this school in the last year of my instruction.  This would lead to the second reason:  with my dismissal, the blog project was also shelved.  The original impetus for the blog was lost, and interest eventual waned.

It's resurrection was caused by the times.  Fine blogs have been created and I have followed excellent sites, some of which seem to be losing steam.  I would wish to contribute to the discussion, but these avenues of exchange are becoming few and far between.  And the chief cause is the weakling of all lines of argument:  the Strawman.  These blogs had done great service in offering places to exchange ideas, to see how the other side thinks, rather than credit all sort of deficiencies to their intellect and moral character.

It remains my mission to offer a place to offer my viewpoint, much like a bank in which one's views appear and improve with the exchange.  To this I again switch on the lights to this blog and hope that business proceeds with all diligence.