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.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
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.
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.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, April 4, 2014
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Biblical interpretation: Five Principles
In an exchange on the notion of the challenge, "Your interpretation of the Bible is no better than the interpretation of others," a lively exchange was had by all. The key to the matter was the rejection of Alan Shlemon's three principles of accepted Biblical hermeneutics, as not essentially Biblically derived.
I understood the need to draw some concepts of what interpretation is, and how much of the confusion of the idea of "interpretation" could hamper discussion and arriving at the true meaning of Scriptures. Knowing the issue as acceptance of what the message of Scriptures is clearly stating, I offered five principles that were derived from the Bible. These are:
1. The message of the Bible deserves some point of reception, whether that leads to acceptance or rejection. (Rom. 10: 17).
2. There is a sinful tendency in people to be rather dull in their reception, even in times we claim to listen intently. (Is. 29: 13; Matt. 15: 8; Mark 7: 6).
3. Unpopular messages are usually deemed false, hateful, bigotted by those who receive them. (I am now studying Amos, a man whose message was so difficult to present, God's judgment on a society that is thriving and prosperous).
4. There is a further human tendency to "honey-over" or "tone-down" the message. (Jeremiah had his Hananiah [Jer. 28]).
5. In light of principles 2-4, it is important not to go ballistic over the difficult sayings of Jesus. He asked for our ears to hear (Matt. 11: 15). To believe in them is a matter of the Spirit's working, and to actually arrive there would be, in this respect, the Spirit's most awesome miracle.
I moved that appeals to skepticism are exercises in futility. If we are to be honest interpreters, we must be honestly humble and offer the ears. Perhaps the teaching of "repentance" is the obstacle to real understanding.
I understood the need to draw some concepts of what interpretation is, and how much of the confusion of the idea of "interpretation" could hamper discussion and arriving at the true meaning of Scriptures. Knowing the issue as acceptance of what the message of Scriptures is clearly stating, I offered five principles that were derived from the Bible. These are:
1. The message of the Bible deserves some point of reception, whether that leads to acceptance or rejection. (Rom. 10: 17).
2. There is a sinful tendency in people to be rather dull in their reception, even in times we claim to listen intently. (Is. 29: 13; Matt. 15: 8; Mark 7: 6).
3. Unpopular messages are usually deemed false, hateful, bigotted by those who receive them. (I am now studying Amos, a man whose message was so difficult to present, God's judgment on a society that is thriving and prosperous).
4. There is a further human tendency to "honey-over" or "tone-down" the message. (Jeremiah had his Hananiah [Jer. 28]).
5. In light of principles 2-4, it is important not to go ballistic over the difficult sayings of Jesus. He asked for our ears to hear (Matt. 11: 15). To believe in them is a matter of the Spirit's working, and to actually arrive there would be, in this respect, the Spirit's most awesome miracle.
I moved that appeals to skepticism are exercises in futility. If we are to be honest interpreters, we must be honestly humble and offer the ears. Perhaps the teaching of "repentance" is the obstacle to real understanding.
The Strawman: Christian Right
I had raised an issue concerning the recent Unbelievable! podcast "Is the Christian Right Wrong?". The intent of my letter was to seek the balance that the show did effect, but with the proviso that such a show would indicate that the Christian Right is a problem that needed to be confronted, that by default the Christian Left (whoever they may be) is correct. Justin Brierley did well to keep that balance, but the show did hold a "they said-we said" no side proven right position. No position was given the status of vindicated at the end.
The concept of the "stupid findie" is the arrogant domain of the so-called enlightened Christian that is "tolerant," an ironic assertion of those that would reject an absolute "Law-Gospel" endoctrination of the Bible. This position is fostered by a post-modern ideology that would assert it's greatest truth with absolute certainty, if such absolute certainty was allowed. There's where the hold matter collapses. If the fundementalist Christian who holds Scriptures as authoritative is de facto imbecilic, is would be the hallmark of an intolerance, a rejection of the person whose position is contrary to the "politically correct" philosophy. This notion, if not recognized, leads to positive hypocrisy. The whole matter rises or falls with your opinion on absolute morality and the fearsome idea that one may be on the wrong side of same.
This is the contents of the e-mail derected to Mr. Brierley:
The concept of the "stupid findie" is the arrogant domain of the so-called enlightened Christian that is "tolerant," an ironic assertion of those that would reject an absolute "Law-Gospel" endoctrination of the Bible. This position is fostered by a post-modern ideology that would assert it's greatest truth with absolute certainty, if such absolute certainty was allowed. There's where the hold matter collapses. If the fundementalist Christian who holds Scriptures as authoritative is de facto imbecilic, is would be the hallmark of an intolerance, a rejection of the person whose position is contrary to the "politically correct" philosophy. This notion, if not recognized, leads to positive hypocrisy. The whole matter rises or falls with your opinion on absolute morality and the fearsome idea that one may be on the wrong side of same.
This is the contents of the e-mail derected to Mr. Brierley:
Justin,
When you started talking up this past Saturday's show "Is the religious right wrong?" two weeks prior, I had a decided ill-feeling about the title of the program. I wondered how wording the debate would presuppose the "correct" answer. I have learned that the wording of the debate is crucial to both sides pro and con. I had surmised that a title as "Is the religious left a hijacker of the Gospel of Christ crucified?" as an equally unworthy approach to the issue. I trusted that your remarkable ability to remain neutral to the parties invited to speak on the point would remain rock solid, even though severely tried. You had quite the feisty exchange (good!) and made sure both sides had their talking points freely expressed (better!). My confidence that you can arrange for such meetings of minds can be calmly presented (best!) in an amiable environment was confirmed.
Now, if it hadn't seemed that the parties were talking past each other (thud!) ...
As for myself, I feel that the Christian faith is an apolitical entity. I hold politics as a continual effort to construct a Utopian society where freedom, justice, and equity shall be achieved. I emphasize the word "Utopian." Our political leanings often checker our understanding of the Gospel of Christ, but it is a huge mistake to feel that the kingdom of God is better advanced when "Party A" is in power, and going to the devil when "Party B" is voted in. I am conservative myself, and feel that one party is liberal, the other is moderate (lest we offend!); thus I hardly feel that government is responsive to my beliefs. While I do vote according to my conscience (and we all must), I hold no panacea for the country will be attained should the right candidate lands the job. As a Christian, I do hold to a dual citizenship, that to my country and that to my God. Thus it has always been. The early Christian honored the Roman emperor, but did not deify the fellow. They recognized the kingship of Jesus above that of Caesar, a notion threatening to imperial power. It is that loyalty to Jesus is daunting to the citizen. Is it loyalty to the culture (which can be corrupt) or Christ? We must be confident on the understanding of Christ's ministry on earth, why had He come? If as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," a secular society would never appreciate that. We must beware that we do not reinvent Jesus to a Messiah of our liking. He did not come as an earthly king (John 6: 15), much less a social reformer. He would render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, even if Caesar's system of government was not perfect. The thing of importance was render to God the things that are God's.
I appreciate the forum that you offer. Such matters are not debated either in Britain or America, and are even now legislated against in Canada. Your flair for dialog is desperately needed. Continue the excellent work in keeping the conversation going, in a spirit of gentility and respect.
Yours in Christ,
Doran Fischer (no relation to the Brian Fischer of the broadcast)
Ixonia, Wisconsin, USA
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Parody of Skeptical NT Criticism
In my readings, I came across this article based on the death of the science fiction author Ray Bradbury. It is a solid lampoon of skepticism that offers outlandish claims. I only hope it is worthy of reading for the laughs, and learning from the insight.
Ponder.
Ponder.
Did Ray Bradbury exist?
Bradbury died Tuesday night in Los Angeles, his agent Michael Congdon confirmed.
Bradbury’s daughter confirmed his death to the Associated Press on Wednesday morning. She said her father died Tuesday night in Southern California.
Legendary science-fiction author Ray Bradbury passed away Wednesday morning in Los Angeles.
How
do we account for discrepant reports regarding the death of Ray
Bradbury?
“This is evidence that the obituaries for Bradbury were
written decades later,” said Bart Ehrman, professor of religious studies at
Chapel Hill. “Bradbury really died on Wednesday morning. The report that he died
Tuesday night, but his death was confirmed on Wednesday morning, is an orthodox
scribal harmonization of two contradictory traditions.”
“It's a telltale clue that Bradbury never existed,” said
Richard Carrier, renowned author of Proving History. “If Bradbury really was the
world-famous figure that legend imputes to him, it’s inconceivable that major
news outlets would bungle the date of his death–especially in the information
age.”
According to Robert Price, “The statement that ‘he died
Tuesday night in Los Angeles, his agent Michael Congdon confirmed’ is a
legendary embellishment, redacting the earlier tradition that he died Wednesday
morning. The redactor is deifying Bradbury as an exalted, celestial figure.
Notice that his agent is named after the Archangel Michael. Angels are “agents.”
In the Bible, angels appear to people at night in dreams. And notice that the
legendary place of his demise is the ‘City of Angels.’ So this represents the
apotheosis of Bradbury, as a dying and rising god–like Hercules and
Adonis.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)