1. CONVINCING VIEWS OF AN ATHEIST.
2. MUST FAITH BE RATIONAL?
3. FAITH AND SCIENCE.
4. Human Free Will and Omniscience
5. Man's Spiritual Development.
A VARIETY OF ESSAYS WHICH I WROTE DURING 'PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION' CLASS IN COLLEGE. THESE OFFER A PERSPECTIVE AND POTENTIAL VIEWPOINT WHICH DERIVES FROM A COMMON MINDSET. GOD NEVER SHOWED IN SCRIPTURE NOT TO ASK QUESTIONS AND EXPLORE POSSIBILITIES. THAT IS HOW WE LEARN, WHEN COUPLED WITH PRAYER, STUDY AND RESEARCH!
6. God and the Existence of Evil.
7. Persuasions of an Afterlife.
8. Theodicy.
9. Faith With Evidence?
10. Practical Belief.
11. Pluralism.
12. Final Paper Outline.
13. Mysticism.
14. Evolution.
Copyright 2013. Slee Canine Training & Security. All rights reserved.
1. Convincing Views of An Atheist
The most convincing and challenging article was written by William Rowe. His article, arguing against the existence of God, was the most convincing because, from a human, or strictly carnally, viewpoint, it made sense, being rational and logical. I understand where he is coming from and can easily see how and why a person would think the thoughts that Rowe presented as his very own.
Another reason that I consider Rowe's article to be so potentially convincing, and challenging, is because parts of it actually coincide with Biblical concepts, which I will expound on a bit, in order to help substantiate his arguments. Some of the views which Rowe expresses do not seem to be as much of an atheist, but rather of someone who is seeking to believe in God, but via a logical and reasoning sort of way, through works as it were, much like the Apostle Paul was doing before his conversion on the road to Damascus some 2,000 years ago.
Rowe is basing his criticism of the traditional God on precepts found in main line denominational theologies, much of which is either in error due to being false, or because it is only partially true. Founded upon erroneous perceptions of God, it is indeed rational, and perhaps justified, to not believe in God as proffered by many. For instance, though God may be known to be both omnipotent and omniscient, that does not mean, necessarily or at all times, that He will use His full power constantly or be aware of every minor detail concerning what is happening on earth and with people.
I will not say that Rowe, or anybody, is justified in claiming that God doesn't exist, but will however, assert that he is right to question whether or not a Supreme Being exists. Though earthly parents do at times exact obedience simply because they said so, as often as not they will explain to their children why they should be obeyed. Likewise, God doesn't expect totally blind obedience, else He wouldn't have bothered to inspire anyone to write down His words. He gives signs, tokens, warnings and indications, illustrating that He exists. He wants us to study His words, and unless we come up with questions about a study issue as we learn, we can never learn as much as we should. Therefore, it is right to produce questions, airing doubts and acknowledging unbeliefs, in order to obtain the opposite of those.
From the start of my own viewpoint, I will say that I have no doubts whatsoever about the existence of God Almighty and the veracity of the Holy Bible, including the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I can assert this without rebutting what William Rowe is conveying, including that it is, at least by some definitions, unreasonable to believe that there is a God. Reasonable means; agreeable to reason; not extreme or excessive; having the faculty of reason; possessing sound judgment.
Reason itself means: a statement offered in explanation or justification; a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; the power of comprehending, inferring or thinking, esp. in orderly rational ways; proper exercise of the mind; the sum of intellectual powers; treatment that affords satisfaction; a formal accounting.
What the believers in the traditional God, mentioned by and expounded on by Rowe, that is to say, Christian believers, often and usually exclusively, after a certain point in time, have in the way of doubts is the uncertainty of their own salvation, which is often construed as doubting God's existence. I contend that by everything William Rowe is showing in our reading, very convincing as it is, is not as much a doubt in God's existence as a lack of being able to believe that he could be or get into God's favor; this, to the unregenerated mind, can easily be interpreted as non existence of God, much like the writer of 'Footprints in the Sand' illustrated that oftentimes, throughout life, he felt like God wasn't "walking" with him nor helping him. I believe that Rowe is not, as most readers would observe, seeking to disprove God's existence, but rather working out on paper an explanation stating his yearning for belief in a Superior Being. Several times throughout his writing he allows space to possibly concede that God exists.
Rowe's first question is "Is there an argument for atheism based on the existence of evil that may rationally justify someone in being an atheist?". This question in itself indicates that Rowe is convincingly questioning the validity of a rationally justifiable proposal for atheism, completely understandable to those who believe in God. He goes on to show some possible defenses by the theist for God's existence, first revealing what are rational reasons for doubting God's existence. As Christian writings help us to discover, the human mind cannot but help to be filled with doubts and uncertainties pertaining to the existence of God. It is human nature and quite logical, for the finite mind to attempt to figure God out on a mentally explainable plain.
Paul the Apostle likened Christian believers as " fools [moros] for Christ's sake", which we are, to the particularly intellectually logical mind contained within those humans who have become convinced that God does not exist. One ruler told Paul that he must be out of his mind, mad, for proclaiming a risen Savior, and this is true to the rational thinker. The purely rational mind cannot comprehend things of a spiritual nature, attributes and activities that are not of this physically observable world. The ruler went to to tell Paul that he [Paul] almost persuaded him [the ruler] to be a Christian. The 'almost' was the key, because that ruler was a thinker whose ways coincided with the ways of most of humanity, in line with the natural world, the rationally explainable world. It is not rational, nor logical, much less explainable, to believe in a risen Messiah or in a Spirit Being who created all things. I myself have no logical answer to explain why I believe in what the Bible claims, that I am sure in my soul, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Christ arose, the matter of the soul being another irrational entity.
Rowe questions the existence of am omniscient and omnipotent Being due to all of the suffering that goes on in the world, with both animals and human, claiming that if there is a God and He were all powerful and all knowing, then He could prevent the intense suffering that occurs. This is a reasonable argument, even though Rowe does admit that some suffering does lead to moral and spiritual development which otherwise would not be a part of that kind of growth. I often wonder about that very thing, in a certain aspect. Though believing in the God of the Bible, I sometimes wonder why He allows some of the wickedness in this world, a humanly reasonable thought. Even though good comes out of every bad thing I experience through no fault of my own, the next time something happens I question it, so I can sympathize with this view of Rowe's, at least in part.
All in all, I can understand why some people have a hard time believing in the traditional God, especially considering all of the evil that exists in the world. Facts such as the tragic deaths of nearly 500 U.S. Army Rangers during the successful attempt to take a German machine gun battery during World War Two, thus saving countless lives, do not always seem to justify their untimely demise. I'm not saying that it's right to use the existence of evil in the world to doubt God's existence, but I'd say it's a thought that probably everyone has at least once in their life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. MUST FAITH BE RATIONAL?
[Your reading this week is Part V, Section 1, regarding the relationship between faith and reason. In particular, the readings this week are concerned with the nature of faith itself and whether it can be rational at all - in other words, can faith be rationally explained and believed, or must it (to some degree) exceed or fall short of rational explanation to be faith?
Your topic is precisely this question: must faith be rational? Must faith be rationally feasible and hence defended rationally, or is faith extra-rational, non-rational, or ultra-rational (that is, is faith simply in a different sphere than rationality, is faith not compatible and against reason, or is faith greater than rationality)? Please consult at least one of the four essays in this week's readings with your answer.]
Faith is, at any given time, is either rational or irrational, depending upon the circumstance and/or context. Rational means having reason or understanding; relating to, based on or agreeable to reason. Reason is defined as a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; the thing that makes some fact intelligible. In other words, being rational is that something is explainable, while irrational is the opposite.
Faith is probably always irrational to the faithless, while to the faithful, faith can be either rational or irrational, depending upon, again, the circumstance or context. That is, faith can be irrational to the human part of the mind, the part of the intellect which comprehends only things explainable.
From a standpoint aside from the Bible and it's related precepts and concepts, it seems rational, in one sense, to have faith in some sort of Supreme Being, because I believe that all humans naturally wonder if there is a God, and every culture on earth has venerated some type of unseen, powerful being. Taking an age old question, which came first, the chicken or the egg, that specific answer is rather irrelevant, because whichever answer is accepted, the question remains: how did the chicken or the egg get here to begin with? Some would say that the chicken came into being through evolution, but that is not a rational answer, because science does not recognize evolution as valid, but as a pseudo-science.
That, in turn, results in a pondering of whether or not there is a Supreme Being, or some higher power. If evolution were true, the question would naturally arise of, how did all of the elements necessary for the evolutionary process come into being? From these observational views, it seems very rational to have or acquire faith in what we know as God.
On the other hand, by trying to imagine what God is like, where exactly he is and how He works, or if there is one, it seems irrational to have faith in something that we cannot actually see with our physical eyes, or touch. From a strictly human mode of thinking, it could aptly be described as ultra irrational to even think that a God exists. I know combat veterans of the Second World War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, some of whom were believers in God while others were not. One in particular who was not at the time, and is now a Bible teacher, related to me that being shot at, shooting people and witnessing people die all around him didn't instill the first bit of reverence to or belief in, God. He had been out of the service for many years before he started believing in God. He also told me of people who became believers in God during the war. Therefore, it is also determined by each individual whether it is rational or not to believe in God.
Aquinas believed that faith is as strong a belief as the belief involved in scientific knowledge, differing in the fact that we do not know [precisely] what makes God true or in existence. Aquinas also allows that faith can be a matter of degree, thus one can have faith and still have some doubt. This makes faith at least partly a thing of rationality. According to the Bible, faith can be of one degree or another, as one man had faith that Christ could heal his child, but acknowledged that he also held some unbelief. In another place, Jesus told some folks who had approached Him for healing, "..be it according to your faith".
Miracles and healings are not really rational to the human mind, yet, according to one source, miracles are not against nature: they are reversals of nature, and; are something that man cannot orchestrate by human power, though miracles are, according to the Bible, often performed through human agents doing certain actions. It is not humanly rational to believe that someone will be healed or raised back to life, because you laid hands on them, prayed for them, or because your shadow fell upon them as you walked past, as recorded in the Bible. But when a believer recognizes that they are to do such and such a thing, they do it in faith, knowing that they have not the power to heal, thus faith in those instances is not rational at all. But then again, if God does heal people and raise the dead via believers, then performing those things may seem very rational in light of God's power, if He is real, to those who are bidden to heal the sick and raise the dead. In retrospect, it never seems logical nor rational that the dead could be raised, not to the human mind. But if you look at assertions by agencies such as the CIA, having operatives who have witnessed such things, then it does seem to be more rational.
Belief is rational, but not voluntary, according to Aquinas, because we cannot help what we believe. I agree with that. Cain in the Bible knew, therefore believed, that there is a God, but had no faith in Him. So Cain was rational in that regard, yet irrational in another. He was irrational, for murdering his brother, because by so doing, he eliminated someone who could have helped him at times. If God truly exists, then Cain also was irrational by being faithless, because he brought himself into disfavor with God by murdering Abel.
Lara Buchak writes that faith is linked to a disposition to act, and that it seems odd to have faith in logical truths, differentiating between belief, which is rational if based on evident knowledge, and faith, which is a firm persuasion or conviction, with the disposition to act. A good illustration of this contrast can be explained by Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt, around 1446 B.C. According to the Bible, they were guided by a cloudy pillar during the day and a fire at night. With the Egyptians pursuing them after three days, the Hebrews entered a series of canyons and ravines, eventually exiting them at Nuweiba, surround on all sides by sheer cliffs and water, the only probable escape route being traversed by some 250,000 angry Egyptian soldiers. Moses, having been a general in Pharaoh Thutmosis's army, couldn't have thought that any of that was rational, but he did as he believed God had instructed him. So far, the faith Moses had in God, and the faith that the Hebrews had in Moses, was irrational, not logical at all. Did Moses believe that God would deliver them from the Egyptians, or did he have only great faith that he would, or some faith that He would, or both? I don't know if we can be sure, but we do know that belief and faith are two different things, and that faith is not always rational, but can be. Moses likely had both belief and faith, but concerning the people under his direction, it is likely that they had faith that God would deliver them, but very little or no belief that He would.
Daniel Howard Snyder writes that knowledge is factive, while propositional faith is not. He illustrates this using an example of a wife having faith that her marriage will survive a crisis, yet still having doubts. She has faith but lacks certainty. Again, using the Bible as a way to illustrate this, Moses, I'm sure, had faith that God would somehow deliver them, but probably lacked 100% certainty, especially since his fellow Hebrews lacked weapons and fighting prowess, and were ready to kill him anyway. At that point in time, he may have had much faith, but possibly no knowledge of how they could be saved from pharaoh's army. According to the Bible, God told Moses to stretch his rod toward the sea, a very irrational thing to do, so faith in that instance was not rational. God then divided the waters, allowing the Hebrews to walk across a gravelly, underwater land bridge, to Arabia. Still not rational, but in this case, it was the best option, because otherwise, they would be either killed or enslaved again by the Egyptians, likely just killed.
This falls in line with Snyder's explanation of 'Faith and Assuming'. The Hebrews had faith that God would deliver them, seeing as how He plagued the Egyptians, freed them, got them across the desert, held the Egyptians back and parted the waters. They assumed that He would let them escape. In hindsight, this would all be rational, in respect of God setting things up both for escape of the Hebrews, and destruction of pharaoh's army, thus toning pharaoh and the boisterous Egyptian nation down quite a few levels.
The whole Exodus event, viewed with human understanding, is not rational at all. Seems like the rational thing would have been for Moses to have waited to become pharaoh, every bit possible, and then simply free the Hebrews from slavery. That was probably his plan, and was based on knowledge and belief that he would become pharaoh. However, he acted rather irrationally by murdering the Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew, thus incurring pharaoh's wrath, causing him to flee Egypt, which was the rational thing to do.
I have myself, since age 10 or 12, had faith that the bible is true, just as Muslims believe in the Quran and Hindus believe in their scriptures. But I lacked some knowledge, thus some belief, at least as far as being based on knowledge. After looking at videos by, among others, by Wyatt Archeological Research, I gained knowledge about the Exodus event, and now have more actual belief in it, as well as more faith, but especially belief, as the research has been done in a rational, scientific and knowledgeable manner. I don't agree with the theologians' mathematical and scientific types of reasoning, but they bring out some really good points and methods for understanding faith, belief, knowledge and so on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. FAITH AND SCIENCE.
Faith and Science
I believe that faith and science are compatible, though there comes a point at which faith leaves science behind, because science cannot explain everything, nor does it portend to in it's true and pure form: "Science is the product of human curiosity about how the world works...an ongoing human activity that represents the collective efforts, findings, and wisdom of the human race...gathering knowledge about the world and organizing it into testable laws and theories" (1). If there is a God, then I believe that it is evident that He would create all things to function in an orderly manner, otherwise the world of nature would be a chaotic place, but there are certainly certain laws of nature and physics which direct how things are conducted.
Howbeit, science allows for supernatural realms. "Although scientific methods can be used to debunk various paranormal claims, they have no way of accounting for testimonies involving the supernatural. The term supernatural literally means "above nature". Science works within nature, not above it. Likewise, science is unable to answer philosophical questions, such as "What is the purpose of life?", or religious questions, such as "What is the nature of the human spirit?" Though these questions are valid and may have great importance to us, they rely on subjective personal experience and do not lead to testable hypotheses. They lie outside the realm of science." (2)
Likewise, according to science, the theory of evolution is not supported by science, not following natural laws nor coinciding with DNA protocols nor really with anything scientific at all. So by human reasoning and rationale, as well as logic, there must be some unexplainable, thus supernatural, entity that is responsible for creating the world and all that is in it. Therefore, because of this, science does not refute faith, nor the supernatural realm, therefore science and faith are compatible.
Scientific discoveries should not, cannot and must not be forced to align with any religious doctrine, nor vice versa. If science and faith are compatible, then they each will align with the other as they are and, at some point, science will no longer be able to explain, promote or deny certain things, that being the supernatural. In the Bible, for example, Jesus lamblasted the Pharisees for adhering to the doctrines of washing pots and pans and hands. Was he saying that we should not wash and be clean? Absolutely not. He was saying that doing those things is not what makes someone righteous, but rather having a right heart with the Father is what makes one righteous. Science tells us that cleanliness is necessary for good health, not to be overdone, of course, and Jesus in no way suggested that we ought to make an effort to be physically unclean. In this and many other regards, science and faith compliment one another.
There are a couple of passages in particular from Hume which caught my attention especially, one of which was said by Mackie to be a joke which, in my opinion, judging from our readings, may not have been intended by Hume to be a joke and in reality is true, very true: "The Christian religion cannot at this day be believed by any reasonable person without a miracle. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of it's veracity: And whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding".
Tis very true, when you really reflect upon it, for unless there is a miracle of a changed heart, conversion, how could anyone believe it? Paul, formerly called Saul of Tarsus, was a very intelligent man, well versed in Judaism and familiar with many other religions, yet, never believed in the Christian faith until he was purportedly converted on the way to Damascus to persecute Christians. Hume almost sounds like a lot of Christian believers today who, though truly having a changed heart, cannot mature enough in the faith to put much stock in the supernatural.
Another passage from Hume says, "...dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason...". This is very true, as the writers of the Bible have asserted. We walk by faith, not by sight, no matter how many miracles and other supernatural events we may witness or experience. Again, to reiterate, science can neither promote nor refute the supernatural, thus our faith, but does compliment, coincide with and supports, it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Human Free Will and Omniscience
I think that by the end of this course, and it is a good course, that every single student will believe in the Bible wholeheartedly, because Divine intervention, an unseen spiritual world and miracles beyond our wildest imagination make much more sense, though they don't, to the human mind, than some of these theologian's arguments and explanations. I mean, we're talking about a major series of what ifs, which make the biggest "mother hen" of all mothers, worrying about her kids, seem trivial. These dudes are the root essence of, not detail, which is needful and proper, but redundancy. If this were an "all roads lead to Rome" scenario, and they set up toll booths, someone's going to retire as a very wealthy person. Like, by the time they're done skinning that cat, they'll be able to open a micro-thread business. No, seriously, they bring out some really fitting, to the human mind, points, having a foundation of wondering that is common to all, but, wow! This one old woman I know, she'd take an hour to tell you about walking twenty steps to check her mail, talking every second, detailing every minute detail and recalling every moment from her near and distant past that may (or may not) remotely relate to that day's event. She'd fit right in with these guys, and love every minute. Okay, then.
I believe that God's omniscience and human freedom of action are compatible, both from a Biblical standpoint and from a strictly human reasoning observation, and I will try to explain my belief on the issue from my vantage point. At the same time, I'll have to be careful to make sure that I'm explaining it right, because if not, then I may be a victim of complete free will without the presence of God's omniscience, unless God already foreknew that I'd explain it wrongly and I'm being forced by God's determinism to explain it in error. Then again, it could be that God doesn't know every tiny detail about our actions and allows us freedom to do and choose as we will, but is still omniscient in that He knew I'd explain it wrong. So if I explain it rightly, then it could be that we have total free will and I'm simply the beneficiary of a lucky guess. In retrospect, if I explain it properly and truly, it could be that God is also 100% omniscient and is causing me to explain it in the right way. A person could go on to add that maybe, just maybe, omniscience is just an illusion and God doesn't even exist. But how could that be, for if God doesn't exist, we wouldn't have this class in the first place, because if God doesn't exist, then why would we even think about there being a God, much less a God who is omniscient. And how would the word God even enter our minds? If nobody ever cut their finger or anything else, how would we know the term 'cut' to begin with, as pertaining to a bleeding finger. In order for there to be the word cut, in relation to a bleeding finger, someone, somewhere, at some point in time, had to have cut their finger and caused it to bleed. In other words, at some point in history, there had to have been overwhelming evidence, proof even, that there existed the potential for such a thing as a cut and bleeding finger. But, to someone who has never had nor seen a cut and bleeding finger, then a cut and bleeding finger, even the potential for such a thing, may seem like someone else's fallacy, perhaps a logical fallacy, or else a figment of someone's imagination. On the other hand, someone who has never had nor seen a cut and bleeding finger may admit that there is at least a remote possibility that the potential for a cut and bleeding finger exists. Maybe everything that we see, hear, smell, taste, think and experience is an illusion, and we ourselves don't really exist at all, and whenever we are talking and otherwise interacting with other people and things, that also is our imagination, and nobody at all is even interacting with us. maybe they're all having their own illusions and don't even know that anyone else is around. Well...
So for the straight business, we have a dilemma of sorts. We're trying to understand and explain that God is either totally or partially omniscient, and that we have a free human will and the means to choose what to do or not to do. Or, we're trying to understand, and explain, that God is omniscient and we are all just robot like creatures. The third option is that we're trying to understand and explain that God is not omniscient and we humans, and animals, for that matter, have complete freedom of choice.
I believe that most of the time, we each have the complete freedom to choose. There are two main situations during which we do not have the freedom to choose, one being when we want to do something which we are not capable, in one way or another, of doing. The other time is on what is likely a rare occasion, when God Himself prevents us from doing or partaking of something which He simply does not want us to do or partake of, but otherwise, I believe that each person has complete freedom to choose, within the realm of what we are capable of. Nonetheless there are, I believe, times that we are constrained by God to do something or not to do something.
Earthly evidence that we have a free will to choose could be at least partly illustrated by citing how a person reacts when under hypnosis, during which time, if the hypnosis is thorough enough, free will to choose is greatly inhibited, if not vanished away. Another time when a person loses their free will, voluntarily providing information, is when under the influence of the so called truth serum, which is sodium thiopental or a variation of it, the drug used to put animals to sleep. That drug was used on Japanese prisoners of war during the second world war, while authorities were questioning them, and, though outlawed after that war, is still used by law enforcement and DOJ personnel on suspects. This example is one which results only in partial loss of freedom to choose to remain silent, because according to several ex-convicts whom I have talked to, a person can lie under "truth serum's" effects.
One other scenario in which freedom to choose is at least inhibited, is when people are caught up in the moment, during times of group revelry and times of high anxiety and other excitement. It's not so much that the actual self will is absent, it's never really absent, or that the self will is forcibly suppressed, but rather one's mind is taken away from the realization that freedom to choose is available. I've cited these examples mainly to show the contrast between circumstances just mentioned, and completely normal conditions. In the midst of normal conditions, I don't think anybody would disagree that self will, thus the freedom to choose, is prevalent.
Biblically speaking, it is evident that the God of the Bible gave man a free will, or self will, allowing Adam and Eve to choose whether to obey God, or not to, and throughout the 'Book', God is always pleading with man to choose right from wrong. There are no instances in scripture where anyone was forced to follow and abide by Yahweh's ways. If man had no freedom to choose, would not a loving God "program" children, right out of the womb, to obey their parents?
Concerning omniscience, I agree with, I believe it was Clark Pinnock, who stated that God can still be omniscient yet not be aware of every little detail of what goes on in people's lives and other environments on earth, unless He specifically wants to know something specific. For example, the Bible ('Book') says that God sent angels and another human appearing being [Christ] to earth to see what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Humanly speaking, as it were, I can cite two or three examples of humans having the ability of, in some definitions of context, being "all knowing" yet not interfering with freedom of choice. When I was a teenager I had a souped up Camaro, and was supposed to be in by a certain hour. I parked my car in one of the garage bays, the one of which lacked an opener. I would wait to go to town until my Dad and Mom weren't going to be outside the rest of the evening, and leave. I'd back my car out and shut the overhead door to the bay, making sure I somewhat slammed it hard enough for them to hear it shut, as the garage was right below the living room. Then, I would slowly open it all the way, and leave. When returning home, I'd kick the car into neutral and shut the engine off when about an eighth mile from home, coasting to the drive, then coasting down the incline of our driveway, with just enough momentum to get into the garage, then slowly shut the door. After a few times of that, one night while quietly closing the overhead, I heard a noise and looked up at the outdoor, back porch which was up one level from the garage. Dad was looking down at me, smiling, with an expression which said something like, ole Dad is a little sharper than you thought, huh? He never said a word about it, to speak of, but I got an unspoken message.
Entities like the FBI and other investigative or intelligence agencies can, when attempting to apprehend a criminal, after studying how, when and why they commit crime, often successfully determine what a next move will be, and monitor or catch them in the act. The feds, while doing that, do not hamper the culprit's right to choose, during most of the process, yet they have what could be exemplified as partial omniscience.
Many times, when still living at home, I would be unable to find some item in my room or elsewhere, and after becoming aggravated and catching my Mom's attention, stand sort of amazed, once she walked to the right area and promptly retrieved what I was looking for, even when my room was cluttered. In that instance, after she'd ask what was wrong and I'd tell her, she'd volunteer to find it for me, and I'd protest. But she would tell me to stay put while she found it. She didn't physically make me stay put, thus not taking away my self will, though her order restrained me. But in that instance, it was a typification of what we could compare to temporary omniscience, and freedom of mine to choose.
Now, if mortal humans can exercise powers such as these, while not taking away anyone's right or ability to choose, I think it to be a small thing for God, if He created the universe and everything in it, plus initiated a series of natural orders and processes by which everything is set in motion and continues, to be all knowing, to whatever degree He chooses, without forcing anyone to choose one way or another. He does persuade, or dissuade, and use various means in order to get us to go the right way, but never forces. Even in the Book of Exodus, though He showed mighty wonders, He never forced anyone to choose one way or the other.
I would say that one means by which God has enabled Himself to be as such, is by creating a world that is subject to time, while simultaneously remaining in a place which is not at all subject to time, or even being affected by time, though He and other spiritual beings can exert influence upon the time constrained world, even dictating (for lack of a better word) certain events on occasion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Man's Spiritual Development
In regard to a piece by John Hick, concerning the Augustinian and Irenaean doctrines on the fall of humanity, 'Evil and Soul-Making', the number one strength in his argument entails a depth of paradoxical doctrine not especially realized by most scholars of the Bible: "Man is in process of becoming the perfected being whom God is seeking to create. However, this is not taking place-it is important to add-by a natural and inevitable evolution, but through a hazardous adventure in individual freedom. Because this is a pilgrimage within the life of each individual, rather than a racial evolution, the progressive fulfillment of God's purpose does not entail any corresponding progressive improvement in the moral state of the world. There is no doubt a development in man's ethical situation from generation to generation through the building of individual choices into public institutions, but this involves an accumulation of evil as well as of good. It is thus probable that human life was lived on much the same plane two thousand years ago or four thousand years ago as it is today. But nevertheless during this period uncounted millions of souls have been through the experience of earthly life, and God's purpose has gradually moved towards it's fulfillment within each one of them, rather than within a human aggregate composed of different units in different generations."
What this paragraph is saying is a direct refutation of parts of the dispensationalism doctrine, or at least in how much of it has been construed. And by challenging that doctrine, and overcoming the falsehoods either contained in it or derived from it, Hick is solidifying his thesis. The theology of dispensationalism is primarily, or should be, a way in which to divide the Bible into various sections for the purpose of study. While true that God has, in different ages, dealt with man in different ways, there are also strong similarities between each age in how God has dealt with man: long suffering; undeserved love, kindness and forgiveness; supernatural acts; common sense rules for living; acceptance of Gentiles into His realm; the idea of a changed heart reflected in actions and deeds; the concept of either eternal bliss or punishment after death, and; the need for a Savior.
What man has done, in his assumed vast knowledge of God and His ways, educated himself into accepting a finite conception of God Almighty, supposing to direct His paths and methods, in order to suit man. The theology of dispensations has been defined in such a way as to infer that the human being is now, in the modern age, a different, a more refined and perfected being than five hundred, two thousand or five thousand years ago. By implying this, man has in essence but to those who hold this doctrine only, made void certain parts of the Bible and sound theology, including how and why humanity originally fell and why there exists evil in the world. As an example or two of this thinking: some supposedly devout believers have asserted that the events related in the Bible didn't happen literally or physically, and that it is merely the concepts that matter, though archeology has, during the past 100 years or so, proven the very existence of places, peoples and structures described in the Bible, and; others have taught that we now only need an intellectual knowledge of God, casting away the doctrine of a changed heart.
What these teachings have done is to reduce the existence of evil, and good, to a natural product created by some Supreme Being who has lain everything out like some sort of board game, to be resolved, manipulated and changed by mankind's intentional activities, all wrapped up into an explainable package. This coincides with a strictly evolutionary explanation for the existence of the universe, including man, with no initiation nor intervention by God, much less having put a soul, an eternal spiritual part aside from the spirit, into humans. Thus saying, once believed, the idea of sin can be explained away, and with it goes the story of creation by God. Once that is established, truth also goes, because if sin doesn't really exist, and it doesn't if we weren't created by a Supreme Being, then truth is relative and virtually anything goes. So this one paragraph is very strong in helping to explain why evil exists in the world, and how it ties in with "soul-making", the spiritual development of man.
As an example of the redundancy and worthlessness of man attempting to attain to righteousness in and of himself, the average American workplace is a prime example. Most places of employ these days have a rather strict set of guidelines regulating behavior, and many seem to think that, if you really read between the lines, adhering to those, as well as simply being a decent person, will put one in good stead with God, an outward morality only. However, once looking beneath the surface, a person readily discerns the facts of the matter. The "F" word, filthy jokes and talk and discussing sexual encounters, even in mixed company, ostracizing those who dare to be different and trying to nullify individuality is the norm, not with the administrators of the workplaces themselves but actually the employee population. I can certainly understand swearing when really uptight or aggravated, but the American way has become a worshipping of, in Hick's words, "...a development in man's ethical situation from generation to generation through the building of ...public institutions...", thinking that modern man is not only different than, but morally and ethically superior to, ancient people's, and so intelligent that we can discard traditional rules for living and fare well in the sight of God, or some higher power.
In short, when we discount the original fall of humanity, making ourselves out to be righteous by our own accord, we lose sight of why sin and evil exist, and start to blame God for everything that is wrong, reducing Him to our level of explanation. I myself have blamed God for certain things, and am always in the wrong when I do, so I understand the thought pattern, but everything wrong is mankind's fault, not God's. By considering ourselves to be as wise as God, which is in essence what is taking place when we try to explain away certain concepts and replace them with our own, we have, again in Hick's words, "...lost its [our mind's and heart's] hold upon the imagination [in accordance with God's revelations]. It's [God's divine knowledge imparted to men] place has been taken...by the immensities of outer space and by the material universe's unlimited complexity transcending our present knowledge". Mankind is worshipping knowledge [the creature] rather than the Creator.
What I believe is the weakest part of Hick's argument is "...that human goodness slowly built up through personal histories of moral effort has a value in the eyes of the Creator which justifies even the long travail of the soul-making process". This is seeming to imply that over time, man has become more valuable to God, and through the effort of man himself. According to the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, nobody is good of him or her self, and even Paul the Apostle tells us that he cannot find a way to escape fully the evil tendencies within the human being. The other weak part of the argument is in referring to a soul-making process. This is slightly misleading, as all humans are born with a soul, as well as a spirit, the life-giving force, such as other mammals have, though not having a soul. The biggest difference is in whether a person's soul is a good one or a bad one.
As far as I can see, there are two ways in which Hick's argument could be strengthened, though it is powerful the way it is. He could go into more detail on the concept of regeneration of the heart, as a means to salvation, and he could expound on what the role of the Holy Spirit is in the life of all who believe in the Savior. It also wouldn't hurt for him to delve into the details of both the Augustinian and Irenaean doctrines. From what little has been touched on, I see valid principles with both theologies, and the best explanation is likely a combination of the two.
What I believe is the proper explanation is that God created man in a sinless state, akin to a small child, who as of yet has no knowledge of either good or evil, but with the capacity to sin, due to a free will, thus a choice making ability. Man fell into sin through the misuse of free will, directly and intentionally rebelling against God, and it was the first step by man towards freedom, not a true freedom but a freedom from God's restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. God and the Existence of Evil
In this essay, I start out by expounding on my views regarding the co-existence of God and evil and how both I and others view the reasons, workings and results of why God allows evil to exist in the world. Then, I work into how this correlates with what Laura Ekstrom explains about how God uses evil to produce good [Romans 8:28].
Concerning the view that some persons hold, that the existence of God, and the presence of evil, are not compatible, is one that, though I discard the notion, I can certainly relate to. From a human, or carnal, way of viewing the issue, God can seem at times to be terribly unfair and callous, as Job seems to allude to in most of his book. His so-called friends, the three, personify the attitude of much of the organized church today. By that I mean that whenever a purported believer suffers in some way, shape or form, the majority of claimants to the faith usually ascribe some kind of sin, on the part of the afflicted, as being the source of the chastisement.
By so doing, they totally regard the Biblical fact that Jesus Christ, though completely innocent of any sin or other wrong doing, suffered horribly, and that it was not at the bidding of God, but rather by the explicit actions of man, who refused to accept the goodness of God. That heinous act they did, even though many of them personally observed some of the miracles which He did and heard His teachings. None can say they didn't at least know of the report of the supernatural acts and the doctrine, having clearly witnessed an abundance of the results of same.
Suffering does not, I must concede, by human reasoning, appear to be something that a benevolent Being would permit to happen at least to His own believing children, but it is a part of the process of the purification of the soul, at least at times, likened, in the Bible, to silver or gold being refined in the fire. I myself often loathe having to suffer, and often wonder why He allows certain occurrences. I, at some point in time some years ago, reached the point to where I no longer usually have much doubt as to His existence: my most serious doubts occur in the area of not always believing that He has me in His good graces. Sometimes, in the midst of enduring mental or spiritual anguish, look up into the sky and ask, "What do you want now?", wondering what I have done to bring affliction upon myself, or why He is allowing persecution or ostracizing behavior from others.
During the past fifteen years or so, particularly the last ten, I have experienced a number of problems at the hands of, indirectly, a few unscrupulous people, some of them church members, though I haven't done anything to them whatsoever, forgetting that Christ told His followers that all who believe in Him will be afflicted.
I will not go into great detail, but will consider it sufficient to say that from my observations, there is very little true Christian activity in America today which coincides with apostolic doctrines, but rather a transforming of people into good citizens but nothing more, and a perpetuation of evil poured upon the already afflicted believers, disguised by a thin veneer of goodness by progressionists (in a bad, fateful and Aryanistic way) (1), a continuation of western expansionism which, loosely defined, at least in practice, is a system of the end justifies the means methodism [a methodical procedure], all in the name of God and country, in order to establish an agenda and attain to a goal, the goal being an easier life inundated with abundance, at the expense of true inner ethics, morals and consideration for others, a mere outward form of godliness being portrayed.
That very set of ideals is a root cause of all the violence and other crime being initiated and taking place in the world today, because so many people are turned into outcasts, by trying to adhere to genuine scriptural teaching, yet being browbeat, before becoming established in the faith, for questioning some of the traditional interpretations of scripture, much of the Biblical-based training containing only watered down versions of what it really means. By the same token, the devil, if he exists, can only tempt us, he cannot make us do anything, so a person cannot blame anyone else for how they react. Each of us is accountable for our actions.
How many times have we heard people claim, sometimes most adamantly, upon hearing complaints of injustices, "That's just the way it is"? Or, "It'll be okay" when, in reality, neither is true because very few lift a finger to do anything at all about problems, so long as it's someone else's quandary, even when it is in the power of their hand to help remedy the situation. Here, in America, we as a whole do not care about Christians in other countries losing their heads for the faith by the sword in some Muslim terrorist's hands, because it's not happening here, and most think it can't happen here.
As a whole, we don't care about the poor and afflicted, because we misuse scripture to justify being filled with conceit at others in their plights, developing and refining a mindset which fueled the Nazi war machine during WWII: the creation, by mankind, of a superior race of beings requires that the weak, and dissenting, be stamped out. Incidentally, only 4,000 out of 19,000 Gospel ministers in Germany disagreed with and opposed Hitler's plan for restoring Germany, probably discerning the atrocities that would eventually accompany such a plan (2). The people who believe in the summation of "that's just the way it is", are mixing fate and Aryanism: they think they are right with God because they deserve it [the Aryan thought at work, a superior group], and; fate, in the sense that everything is pre-ordained beforehand, one misinterpretation of the Dispensation theology.
I can most definitely sympathize with people who have difficulty in believing in the existence of a God such as described in the Bible, or any other Superior Being who is reputed to be filled with love and compassion for His creatures on earth. It's sometimes wearying to envision while in the midst of personal turmoil. But Ekstrom captured the true essence of one reason for a Divine Being allowing people to suffer, when writing about Job: "...times during which they have suffered the most deeply are the occasions of the most vivid of whatever glimpses they have been given into the character of God". I do believe, at least vaguely, that if we allow the workings of God to fulfill their course in each of our lives, that we too, will believe fully that the Creator only allows evil in order to achieve His will in each individual life.
I believe that one of the biggest obstacles to overcoming unbelief, due to the existence and manifestation of evil, is explained by citing an allegory: cottage cheese cannot be produced without another wholesome product being ruined, that is, milk. Cottage cheese is basically curdled, or spoiled, milk. If we simply look at the beginning of the process, milk rotting, we will just throw it all away. But if we allow some time, then we discover that in the end result a fine product is to be had. By this I mean that if we look beyond the hucksters prevalent in the religious world, a belief in the Almighty and even in Christ Himself is not only possible, but feasible.
There are many religious people who, in the name of Christianity, intentionally cause suffering, with the supposed goal of causing one's dilemma to draw them closer to the Lord. Paul quite refutes that, by writing that the thought, accusation against him, "Let us do evil, that good may come", was a false accusation [Romans 3:8]. He further substantiates a refutation of that practice by asserting that God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as becomes the church of God [I Corinthians 14:33]. And when alleged believers, the extreme of which was recently manifested when a congregation severely beat two "erring" brothers, one dying the next day (3), engage in any such methods, anything which is against scripture, confusion results, the devil's delight.
People, including atheists and agnostics, see many of the things that believing people do, and are appalled at some of them, especially instances of events, for example, such as during the Vietnam Conflict, when several Buddhist monks set themselves on fire and burned to death, in protest of that war. While true that God uses people to afflict others, to draw the down and out to Him, He views the tormentor with disdain, and will eventually mete out His wrath upon them, just like He did to Sennacherib, whose sons murdered him, a judgment for defying God [Isaiah 37:7,37,38], though labeled a "servant" of God [Isaiah 36:10], and Nebuchadnezzar, also labeled a servant [Jeremiah 27:6], who went insane for seven years [Daniel 4:30-33]. Neither of the two were justified in punishing God's people. They were simply puppets of God, which is what the Hebrew word for servant in that context really indicates, not being defined as followers (4) (howbeit Nebuchadnezzar, at one point during being sane, acknowledged the son of God) [Daniel 3:25, 4:34-37].
These matters can rightly be called evil, the instituting of which are on account of two main situations, those being the intents of hearts which are not right, and further misuse of scripture. For example, certain churchmen use the scripture which says of Abraham, "...and God did tempt Abraham..." to justify tempting believers, behind a guise of "testing" the recipient, by a barrage of sly attempts to cause the person to slide or go astray, to determine how grounded they are in the faith. The word tempt in that situation means to try, as in trying one's faith, far different than assuming the same role as the tempter, as the Bible calls the devil. People such as those evidently disregard other scripture, such as "...God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts He any man" (see also Romans 5:13). Atheists, agnostics and skeptics view all of these manifestations of envy, and understandably regard God, or the idea or even existence of God, as unappealing at best.
Reflecting on these spiritual abominations, and many others too numerous to list, I do not believe that the root of unbelief in God is the presence and activity of evil in the world, nearly as much as it is the relation of man to evil, his participation in it, particularly the relation of members of a congregation to evil and their participation in evil, intentional evil towards others, that is. And the reason that so many people have unbelief is because they observe the things that purported believers do to others, and fail to see a loving God or Savior represented.
I identify much with a lot of what I've read in Ekstrom's essay, having attained a better understanding of suffering in relation to God and why He allows it. A prayer of mine has been answered, the Lord revealing the answer to a question in three passages in the reading: "The experience of hardship is often a sort of testing experience in which one "shows one's true colors,"; "Suffering is a religious experience...in driving us to seek God" [more faithfully and deeply], and; "An individual's own sorrow and suffering may, then, be a means to understanding and having intimacy with the divine being.".
When we're disappointed with ourselves regarding our reaction to problems, and are convicted of it, by the Holy Ghost, it causes us to seek an even more meaningful and committed relationship with the Maker, also becoming aware, or more aware, that, in contrast to traditional views of God by Christian thinkers, God suffers along with us and because of the evil which is present in this world. This is a concept which I had never before grasped, being of the persuasion that God, though loving us, is kind of a detached Being who is unaffected by our sorrow as far as having emotion. As Ekstrom pointed out, scripture plainly shows us that God does suffer, though not having a fleshly body.
The essay by Laura Ekstrom, like the one by Clark Pinnock, has been a highlight of this course and of my endeavor to get closer to God and Christ. Both are priceless. Her essay, as well as others, have affirmed what I know and believe that the Holy Spirit has shown me: that much of the traditional doctrinal views are wrong and/or incomplete, erroneous in some way or another. What is most important is that I have discovered that God has been allowing me to have problems in order to get my attention focused more upon Him, and to let me know that He too suffers, and that, though some of the attributes of His love are rather austere, there is also a more personal kind of love emanating from Him to us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Persuasions of an Afterlife
I found the arguments for the possibility of an afterlife by Lynne Rudder Baker quite convincing, as expounded on from a primarily logical way of thinking.
The compelling reasons by Baker are that even though she doesn't reference much scriptural doctrine or theology, she does present a variety of facts which are convincing in both a scientific and logical manner, which ought to appeal to even some of the most ardent skeptics of the possibility of a continued existence of each person once this life is over.
Beginning by indirectly illustrating that there is an intangible difference between man and animals, she goes on to list many statements of fact verified by scientists and psychologists alike, which strongly sustain the notion, idea or belief that human beings have an immaterial part which survives death, and even provides strong implication that a resurrection of the dead is feasible.
Separating the human being from the actual person, or personal identity, strongly supports the idea of each of us having a soul. Baker's thesis specifically places humans on a higher level, in a realm higher than animals, giving great credence to the Biblical teaching that whereas humans are a triune being, animals are only composed of two parts, a physical body and a spirit (pneuma), or life-giving force [Hebrews 4:12, Ecclesiastes 3:21, and others]. The third past, the iniqueness of each individual, is the soul (psuche), the breath of life [Genesis 2:7].
The soul "is the part of the person that thinks and wills" [Baker, Lynne Rudder, Death and Immortality. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Pg. 698]. A person's will and ability to think for themselves can be taken away, to a degree, but the animating force is the spirit, which must be present as the person lives, the soul itself evidently also leaving the body upon death. The soul wills to do or say something, interacting with the brain, which then motivates the spirit, which in turn energizes the body.
If a person's soul, or heart, is converted, then that heart wants to please God, so it has been changed. Yet the spirit remains the same. For instance, if a person has a restless spirit, or a lazy spirit, or a happy spirit, or a brazen spirit, it is still of that tendency after conversion, though the changed soul can direct the spirit, and body, towards a positive change. It's like when you "break" a horse or a dog, when training. You don't actually break the spirit, else the animal is listless. Rather you divert the attention of the animal's spirit and body towards a harnessed mindset, breaking the high strung "edge" towards obedience and focusing that energy and strength into what activity the trainer desires.
Baker shows us that the soul is responsible for creating or shaping the identity of the entire person, even though the cells themselves are replaced over time. But apparently their is still spatiotemporal continuity, meaning that any particular person is always that same person, even if resurrected, though in a glorified form if a believer, and in some altered form if not, if the explanation is to coincide with the concepts within most all religions: some people go to a paradise and others go to an eternal damnation.
Baker points out that substance, and even the constitution of that substance, which comprises the body, is not identity. Identity requires a first person perspective, something that animals don't seem to really have, at least not to the depth of humans. Animals do know when it's time to die, as sometimes a dog will wander off into the woods to do so. yet, they have not the moral capability nor the extensive reasoning power that humans have. A dog, or any animal, can kill another animal of the same or different species, and think nothing of it, having no remorse whatever.
A human, on the other hand, even if killing in self defense, sooner or later has some misgivings or remorse, even if the other person was bad. God, though condoning self defense and such, did not design us to kill other humans. This is a big indication that we have an immaterial part to our constituency that is above animals, which Baker also expounds on.
Though dogs, horses and I presume all animals, have their own personality, at least to a degree, which indicates that the spirit part plays a role in an identity as such, humans have a deeper, more profound part, the soul. A human can live with what I'd say is a dormant soul, which would be like having no soul, or a bad soul, but cannot be alive without the spirit. The soul is unique to each individual, and different than all other souls, but we can group spirits of people into categories. As stated above, like-minded individuals have the same spirit, as such, as in a gentle spirit, a selfish spirit, a cynical spirit, a merry spirit, and so on. However, each person within that group has his or her own unique composition of characteristics and attributes: no two people are exactly alike.
Baker concludes the piece by relating sound arguments supporting the possibility that a resurrection of the dead is entirely possible, even exploring that concept from a logical or scientific viewpoint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Theodicy
The main theme of Leibniz's argument is as such: the fact of evil does not refute theism in any way, and; God permitted, and permits, evil in order to bring about greater good, and; Adam and Eve's fall was a "blessed fault" [Romans 8:28] because it led to the incarnation of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, thus raising humanity, all who will, to a higher destiny. With this I fully agree, although these concepts are often taken way out of context by many and twisted, causing multitudes of people to stumble and fall. The other part of Leibniz's theme is that God can foresee the future, but even so, humans are still free to choose and act accordingly. I also agree with that, the idea of this being along the same lines of chess, in which the victor must think ahead and anticipate every move of his opponent in relation to any possible moves of him.
In response to an objection of "Whoever does not choose the best is lacking in power, or in knowledge, or in goodness"n Leibniz states, in part, "...the best plan is not always that which seeks to avoid evil, since it may happen that the evil is accompanied by a greater good". I partly agree with this, but not in full. The best plan is to avoid evil, but it is unavoidable that there be evil. Since Hume is using human faculties of knowledge and reasoning to refute God's existence, I can show that his arguments are fruitless, also using human knowledge and reasoning: It is scientifically factual that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, it is rationally impossible for there to be good and not evil. Howbeit, God is more powerful than any force of evil, and can be so, since He is who made not only the worlds, but the natural laws which govern the world.
Saint Augustine has said that "God permitted evil in order to bring about good, that is, a greater good". I disagree with that to an extent. While true that God permits evil, and does so because He created humans, and animals for that matter, with a free will to choose what to do, only humans having the moral faculty of discerning between good and evil. However, that could be construed as saying that God intended for there to be evil in the world so that He could bring about a greater good. But that is not so. God intended for there to be no concession by humans, to do evil, desiring that they would be content to be in a sinless state, knowing beforehand that they would not. Therefore, God brought about something for the greater good, the incarnation of the Son of God, because of evil and since man gave in to evil inclinations. While praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed, in part, "...if it be possible, let this cup [the crucifixion] pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will".
To touch back on determinism, that is, not giving man a free choice, it is evident that determinism is not so, and that freedom to choose has to be. If every action of each human was ordered, or orchestrated in such a way as if we didn't have the ability to choose what to do or not to do, yet we still had the same mental and spiritual capacities, which is also a "must be", think how messed up we would be. It would be like a free spirit being inside a robotic body. Every time the body went to do something contrary to what the free spirit within wanted to do, it would be a most apprehensive, fretful and ultimately, deranged state. It would be similar to always being inside a vehicle that we had no control over.
It is impossible for us not to have the power of deciding for ourselves and determining what to do or not to do, and be a living being. Same with animals. No matter how well trained an animal is, they don't have to do as told, and sometimes don't. So if we have to have the faculties that we possess, then there has to be something with which to make a judgment, a decision, right or left, good or bad. How can we know what the best is, if there exists no worst? And if we had not the power to choose, yet had the rationalizing and deciding power that we have, how could we realize what justice truly is and appreciate it? The orthodox Jews always chose who would be husband and wife, thereby eliminating the power to choose that. So how could a spouse truly appreciate marriage, and even their spouse, without being able to choose, probably sometimes discerning that they would be much happier with some other spouse? So in the same light, how could we know what is good, unless there were evil? Note that the evil which is in the world is not God's creation, it is man's doing.
The argument against the objection that since it is impossible to never sin, then punishment is always unjust, is what strikes me as the weakest. It could be that I simply don't understand exactly what Leibniz is saying there, but it comes across to me as a bunch of redundant rhetoric. The only way to argue against the point made by Hume, which is a valid objection according to logical terms, is to expound on what Jesus Christ said: sin is not just an outward action but a thing of the heart, sin's beginning. If we think a sinful thought, to entertain it at all, then we've sinned. I see no way to logically or rationally, that is, humanly, refute the objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Faith With Evidence?
As a Christian believer, I need no apologetics in order to believe, yet, I am constantly studying the Bible, as well as ancient and more current history, and praying, in order to keep right, have closer communion with the Lord and to further establish my faith which, in turn, adds to belief. We do not and will not, in this life, have all knowledge of the Divine Being. As William James said, “We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist, through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive”. This mostly coincides with I Corinthians 13:9-13, where Paul said we get glimpses of the entire truth, which also reveals that which is deceptive.
True faith is a condition of the heart, which guides our outward actions [Matthew 15:18,19], our actions also being taken into account [Romans 2:6], which Clifford affirmed on page 576. John Hick affirms this in the introduction on pages 587 and 588: “Not only do the so-called proofs for existence of God fail to accomplish what they set out to do, but even if they did demonstrate what they purported to demonstrate, this would at best only force our notional assent. They would not bring about the deep devotion and sense of worship necessary for a full religious life. Furthermore, they are not necessary because believers have something better-an intense, coercive, indubitable experience-which convinces them of the reality of the being in question. For believers, God is not a hypothesis brought into ex machina to explain the world, but a living presence, closer to them than the air they breathe.
This concept which Hick presents is just another way of expounding Biblical scripture, shown in two main ways: firstly, though not occurring first, yet probably the most important, is the scriptural fact that the law of Moses, especially the moral commandments (between 300 and 400), were a shadow of what God wants from us but not capable of producing a personal relationship with Him, as the moral laws result in mainly a notional assent, and; what proofs the Christian believes that God revealed, as in the mighty acts toward the ancient Egyptians in delivering the Hebrews from bondage, being as close to proof as it can get, resulted in merely temporary obedience, as most of the Hebrews always went astray sooner or later. Even today, when someone has a close call of some sort, barely escaping death, and it is evident that some unseen force is the source of saving, many people, though initially acknowledging it as a benevolent act of a Supreme Being, often go out and do incredibly stupid activities again, and again. This I speak from a vast experience of foolhardy undertakings, giving credit for my repeated snatchings from certain destruction to a Supreme Power, but always thinking it amusing and letting it perpetuate my deluded view of being “ten feet tall and bullet-proof”. Some people are high spirited and hard headed, much like Jonah, who had to be ran through the “meat grinder” in order to soften the heart a bit.
I do believe that some type of evidence is necessary in order to have faith, though physical evidence is not strictly necessary. When a person receives a changed heart through means not visible to the human eye, and attributes it to God, that is, in itself enough evidence for that person. As Hick said, “for the man of faith...no theistic proof is necessary”, and, we “...do not think of God as an inferred entity but as an experienced reality”. Three main things during the nineties helped affirm my faith in God, seemingly small events which were evidence to me and, I believe, unseen, or intangible, evidence to others. Due to being framed for a crime which actually never really occurred, because of sleuthing activities, I got into association with the FBI then, being commissioned as an acting street agent, and was offered 6 figures, twice, to quit investigating and walk. I respectfully declined, having considered it but praying, believing in my heart that, though I was dead broke, it would be wrong to take the money, however rational it seemed; I turned down an offer, again from an unknown entity, to consent to having the people responsible eliminated, and; the FBI agent I was under urged me on several occasions to go to church, and especially to quit using profanity.
Those scenarios were evidence to me, and to at least to some of those who knew, as I reported those occurrences, believing that God spoke to my heart over the matters. As Hick stated, “...might still be the case that there are valid arguments capable of establishing the existence of God to those who stand outside the faith”, as well as to myself, who was then not so devoted nor pious at all, being more like a profane version of Jonah. Those situations coincide with what Hick said, “He [God] does not override the human mind by revealing Himself in overwhelming majesty and power, but always approaches us in ways that leave room for an uncompelled response of human faith”. (Usually he does not but, according to Daniel 7:15,28, 8:17,18,27, at times it is at least partially overwhelming). Again, taking the liberty to cite the Bible, since the theologians in our readings for session 8 have uninhibitedly done so, I refer to the Hebrews witnessing mighty works by who they called Yahweh (at some point in time), and still having only a notional assent of Him, except for a few who had actual faith.
I believe that we can know beyond the shadow of a doubt of God's existence, in our soul, but two things here: we still foster some doubts of one kind or another, perhaps doubts of our salvation, not necessarily doubts of God's existence, and; we can not prove to anyone that God exists. Each person must come to believe for his or her self that God exists, from personal experience. If I could, at will, perform acts which demonstrate God's existence, it would not be God, but magic of some sort, far different than the demonstration Paul talked about in I Corinthians 2:4, which would be a Supreme Being initiating the “demonstration”, not a human being.
For the sake of discussion and answering a question, thus furthering a concept, let's assume that everything in the Bible is true. After Christ was resurrected and appeared to the disciples in the upper room, some still had doubts. How could this be? They had walked and lived with Him for 3 ½ years, not only witnessing great deeds and miracles, but partaking of that power themselves. They all ran off a few nights earlier, from the garden where Jesus was arrested, and Peter even denied knowing Him three times. It was that way because they didn't yet have it in the heart. They simply had full notional assent. Yet, 50 days later,on the day of Pentecost, they got the faith and belief in the heart, being transformed, rather instantly, into mighty preachers for Jesus.
The above paragraph is parallel with Hick, when he said “...a logical demonstration of God would be a form of coercion and would as such be incompatible with God's evident intention to treat His human creatures as free and responsible persons”. Simply said, God doesn't force anyone to believe in Him, even by wondrous acts. After all, according to the Book, pharaoh and the other Egyptians saw the same things as did the Hebrews, the magicians themselves acknowledging that the works were an act of a God much more powerful than their own gods. Even still, 3 days after the Hebrews' departure from Egypt, the Egyptian army pursued after the runaways with a lustful desire for vengeance, not believing in their hearts that there was a God who could destroy them.
Saying thus, I have to disagree with Flew, when he says that the believer has a burden of proof to prove the existence of God. It can't be done by human means. Take, for example, the people who participate in cage fights, the UFC bouts. Each contestant believes that he is a better fighter than his opponent. Even after one loses, the losing fighter maintains that he will prevail against his opponent some time in the future, because even in defeat, he believes, or has faith, that he is a better fighter. Here is an example of someone having either faith, belief, or both. The losing fighter may lose to that same opponent 20 times, but still have faith, or belief, that he is a better fighter, and nothing will prove to him anything different. On the other hand, the winner may not fully or truly believe that he is a better fighter, but may have faith that he is, yet always admitting to himself that sooner or later, he may lose to that guy, which is the equivalent to a doubt.
Again assuming that the Bible is true, which I believe is, how much more evidence could the people have had, than what Christ showed to them? Multitudes witnessed many miracles and listened to messages that touched their hearts in one way or another. In spite of that, some still called Jesus of the devil, and finally, a multitude had Him executed, like a common criminal. Back to John Hick, who said, “...a verbal (or physical) proof of God's existence can not by itself break down our human freedom (to choose); it can only lead to a notional assent which has little or no positive religious value or substance”.
To answer the final question, “Do you believe that faith must have some sort of epistemic proof or evidence in order to believe it, or is it unnecessary? I will partially answer that with a statement which I would get thrown out of some churches for making: I can make a very paradoxical statement, which is fully true and which God supports, that being; I believe 100% in God's existence as the Bible shows, while at the same time I don't believe a word of it, and in this mind and heart set, I am in the favor of God.
As the theologians have stated, true faith is of the heart, and not necessarily rational or logical. Saying thus, part of my mind, which is part humanistic and physical, cannot believe in many things about God, while at the same time, the other part of my mind, which is spiritual, along the lines of emotions but different and higher, does believe all the things about God. My visible, human part often does what believe God wants, but at other times it fails miserably. This is not rational or logical, but Paul explained it as a battle between the body, mind, soul and spirit, in Romans 7:14-24. This could also be partially explained by citing a student who is struggling to understand certain teachings by the instructor. The student believes, and has faith or confidence, that the instructor knows what he is doing and is giving true discourses, but the student has trouble understanding some of the concepts, and thus does not yet fully believe what is being taught, because, as William James said, “As a rule we disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have no use”. We do not realize that we do, or may, have some use for that which we do not understand.
Even though I do not believe that physical evidence is necessary in order to believe in God's existence, I believe that once we believe, much evidence follows, howbeit in bits and pieces as often as not. Not only, but I agree with Clifford and James, who said, respectively, that “It is never lawful to stifle a doubt; for either it can be honestly answered by means of the inquiry already made, or else it proves that the inquiry was not complete”, and, because, “The most useful investigator (anyone who seeks), because the most sensitive observer, is always he whose eager interest in one side of the question is balanced by an equally keen nervousness lest he become deceived”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Practical Belief
The selection taken from William James (V.B.3: “The Will to Believe”) argues that sometimes practical considerations are sufficient to provide proof for justifying religious belief. What sort of practical situations would be included in such a conclusion? Does this seem to be a sufficient reason to believe, for “practical” or “pragmatic” reasons?
My argument is is favor of the idea that practical considerations are a large part of justifying religious belief, any valid religious belief, actually, but most especially Christianity, which I believe is the one true faith. In constructing this argument I will use quotations from William James and expound on them, references to scripture which convey practicality, personal experience and some logical thinking.
To begin with, I will use two direct quotes from a supposedly avowed atheist, David Hume, two quotes that are very true, which is in line with scripture, as we who believe can learn and even be remanded, by unbelievers, and are foolish to not so do [ ]. Hume said, in 'Against Miracles', that "Our evidence, then, for the truth of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the truth of our senses; because, even in the first authors of our religion, it was no greater;...". This is so true, and God ordered it so, because "the just shall live by faith" [Romans 1:17], and "for we walk by faith, not by sight" [II Corinthians 5:7]. Hume also stated, again in 'Against Miracles', that "...a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation for a system of religion".
Christianity is based upon a miracle of a resurrected Savior, brought back to life after 3 days in order to be a Propitiator for each individual's sins, for each individual who confesses his or her sins and accepts Christ. There is enough historical evidence contained in records to strongly suggest that there is something to that claim, which much of the world explains away as either imagination, fables or mental illness, which is to be expected by unbelievers. Most religions are based upon a system, of one type or another, of propitiatory acts and sacrifices, though only Christianity affirms a resurrected Redeemer. But is there evidential proof of a still living Jesus Christ, convincing enough to sway people's opinions outside of a changed heart? The answer to that is no.
Before going further, we need to define a word or two, three actually, namely, proof, justify and evidence. The definitions for each, as applicable to the issue at hand, are as follows: proof-the cogency (applying forcibly to the mind or reason) of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact; experience; an act, effort or operation designed to establish or discover a fact or truth; evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment; evidence-an outward sign; something that furnishes proof; something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter; justify- to prove or show to be just, right or reasonable; to make righteous; to release from the guilt of sin and accept as righteous.
With believers, the above shown definitions qualify fully to justify religious belief, concerning Christianity, whereas to the unbeliever, they either do not or only partially qualify, but not enough for any of them to truly believe it without a regenerated heart. We see from the Old Testament, from either a believer's or atheist's point of view, whether taken literally or not, that miracles and other supernatural acts of God were not sufficient to cause most of the Hebrews to believe in God to the extent that they genuinely tried to walk in His precepts, because most of them who came directly out of Egypt did not enter into the promised land. So in this regard, momentous miracles, which were intended not only to orchestrate a bigger picture, but to have practical outcomes, were not sufficient to justify a heart felt religious belief. And if those works of a Supreme Being were not enough, nothing, apart from a miracle of a changed heart, ever will be.
These illustrations coincides with James' statement that "...deadness and liveness in an hypothesis are not intrinsic (belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing [human] properties, but relations to the individual thinker". In other words, there is nothing about faith or religion which is guaranteed to be universally accepted, and never will be, as pertaining to authentic faith or religion. A true believer and an agnostic, or atheist, will observe and experience the same phenomenal event, but explain it in two entirely different relations, most of the time, though atheists are sometimes converted to the faith. So the question of whether or not miraculous considerations are sufficient reason to believe in a religion depends partly upon each person, but generally they are not, again, outside of a supernaturally constructed change of heart. But what about more practical applications?
More than one religion, or faith, teaches the following concepts and precepts: avoid drunkenness, fornication, stealing, lying, murder, jealousy, hatred, excess of earthly activities and the like. But why, besides those mandates being from a higher power, should we avoid engaging in those things that we call sin? Because each of those have a natural, as well as a spiritual, consequence. Therefore, a faith, or religion, has a practical value, and if one finds it impossible or too difficult to refrain from sinful deeds, then it is feasible and even more practical to convert to the faith which actually enables a heart felt change. Nonetheless, all morals have a practical application and value.The article presented by Stephen Jay Gould argues that science and religion are two distinct spheres of study which do not influence, but also do not hinder, one another. They are, to quote Rea and Pojman, “separate domains of teaching authority that are concerned with wholly different subjects of inquiry” (494). Please argue for the cogency of Gould’s argument by analyzing his argument and the philosophical and logical strengths and weaknesses behind it.
Note: I am not looking for an attack on evolution, though you may of course disagree with his views and openly say so. What I am looking for is an intellectual engagement with the text, and I am most certainly not looking for a list of proof-texts from a religious tradition.
Science verses Religion?
Illustrating that science and religion are two different areas of study, though overlapping to one degree or another in some areas and aspects, is the argument that I will present. Within this argument I will also attempt to convince the reader that the theory of evolution is not scientifically sound and therefore, not a realistic doctrine. Since a Supreme Being named God Almighty created the worlds and all that is in them, and also initiated the natural laws which direct and govern both living beings and things and not living things, I believe that in many perspectives, science and religion complement and/or coincide with one another. The manner in which I will present my argument is by expounding on the statements made by Gould and by citing a few findings about evolution.
Concerning creationism, the Bible can be read as an historical document in order to explain that fundamental concept. Whether a Supreme Being created the world and all that is in it in six, 24 hour periods, or if each "day" was a certain number of years could be debated, as the words days and weeks indicate, in some places in the Bible, a much longer period than a day or week, respectively, and has no bearing either way concerning the truth or falsity of evolution.
Apparently the cave men series of human-like creatures, and dinosaurs, did exist. However, there are reasons, both Bible based, and rooted in DNA facts, to believe that the modern day humans, beginning with Adam and Eve, did not originate from the Neanderthals and other related sub-species of human.
According to both the Bible and archeological finds, the present human race is between 6,000 and 8,000 years old, adequate time frames being found in the Bible which are more than sufficient to accurately date our beginning, and no homo sapiens remains having been found that are older than that. The cave men type of being has a different bone structure than we do, and it is interesting to note that they evidently just abruptly disappeared, along with the other prehistoric animals, and then all of a sudden homo sapiens appeared on the scene.
In Genesis, there are two different accounts of humans being created. One is found in chapter 1 verses 26-28, the other found in chapter 2 verses 7,20-22. It looks like the first humans were created in abundance, not just one man and one woman, whereas secondly, the account doesn't give much leeway to believe that any more than one male and one female were created. Not only that, but the first people were created on the sixth day, and apparently were not capable of figuring out how to grow food, whereas the second generation, or first generation after Adam, were, namely Cain. When Adam was formed, he lacked anyone to be a proper help to him, and a woman was specially created. This makes scientific sense, because we have what is called a floating rib, a partial rib, as it were, being not completely there because the missing part was used to create the woman. And because only the second account of the creation of man calls human beings a living soul, it is likely that the cave man people were merely a refined animal.
Concerning evolution, it has and does occur in a certain sense of the word, but the theory that we humans originated from a fish or a monkey has no scientific basis, no proof or evidence, but let's refer first to the definition of evolution: a process of change in a certain direction; a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state; the process of working out or developing; the process by which through a series of changes or steps a living organism has acquired it's distinguishing morphological and physiological characters; a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
Depending upon how certain key words within the given definitions for evolution are themselves defined, each of the definitions could be completely factual. However, there is still no real evidence that humans have their origin in apes, fish or Neanderthals. Due to known facts, Gould's statement is correct, "Creationism does not pit science against religion".
The theory that Neanderthals and related beings evolved over time into a more intelligent being, though still a type of cave man, is feasible, as any mammal has a certain capacity for reasoning and figuring out how to do certain acts. Dogs, for example, can open doors without being trained and it is documented that monkeys can not only ride motorcycles, but can also fly airplanes. Through trial and error a human-like being could certainly learn how to perform skills necessary for survival and develop them in order to attain to a comparative comfort level.
The Catholic church, a Christian denomination, according to Pope Pius XII, states that "Catholics could believe whatever science determined about the evolution of the human body, so long as they accepted that, at some time of His [God's] choosing, God had infused the soul into such a creature". This is in line with prehistoric history which teaches that the ice age, in all probability, destroyed the prehistoric animals and man, leaving a gap between the neanderthals and the homo sapiens, us. This, in turn, fits right in with creationism, not at all opposed to true science.
If the theory of evolution were factual, as the evolutionists assert, then it stands to reason that humans in this day and age would be advanced enough over people of, say, 3,000 years ago, to be morally, ethically and physically superior. Yet, crime and immorality are at an all time high, in the civilian and government world alike. Comparing physical attributes and feats of most people from today to 3,000, 2,000 or even 100 years ago is nearly like comparing a dog to a mountain lion or wolf. Visible evidence reveals that instead of advancing, humans are retarding, or regressing, in those ways and in ways mental, education wise, as well, especially in terms of common sense and practical know how.
And speaking of practicality, there may be a grave danger to the practical well being of all free peoples from a possible ulterior motive lurking behind the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution's unveiling resides on a similar time frame as does the threat by Communists that they could and would take over the United States without firing a shot. According to Pope Pius, "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution...explains the origin of all things...Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism". And a general mindset, when people are deprived of the notion and benefit of a personal God, is, why not go all out for materialism and self? What would be the loss if there is no God? Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!
Two popes in rather contrasting lights, the one being fifty years earlier, Pius stated also "...that this opinion [evolution] should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine...", whereas Pope John Paul affirmed the legitimacy of evolution under the NOMA principle, which is nothing really new, but added that additional data and theory have placed the factuality of evolution beyond reasonable doubt, an effectively proven fact. Sadly, that could well be placed under the same general heading as scores of people who have, during the last twenty to fifty years, adapted to the views that certain immoral activity is now okay.
The good news is, that Gould has rather prospectively refuted John Paul's statement by concluding that he "...also know(s) that souls represent a subject outside the magisterium of science". Gould's "...world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, and the concept of souls cannot threaten or impact [his] domain", though he [Gould] does not personally accept the Catholic view of souls. If souls exist in human beings, then it follows that creationism is the true doctrine, and it follows then that the Bible is genuine, accurate and authoritative, and as such, the theory of evolution, as far as maintaining that homo sapiens or, to term it more precisely, homo sapiens sapiens, came from fish, monkeys, apes or cave men, does not hold water.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Pluralism
Pluralism, being the idea that there is no one faith which is correct, or true, and all others false, is in itself a form of exclusivism, all the while labeling advocates of one faith only exclusivists in a bad or unreasonable sense. We will call pluralism polytheistic, and of course, the idea of one God monotheistic, which can be further broken down by either believing or conceding that there is also one superior monotheistic faith.
Pluralism can be effectively refuted intellectually, morally, Biblically and spiritually, as can 99% of the polytheistic and monotheistic faiths, as every one of them not only contrast dramatically with the plan , or doctrine, in which Alvin Plantinga, as well as myself, believe in and endorse: "Human beings require salvation, and God has provided a unique way of salvation through the incarnation, life, sacrificial death, and resurrection of his divine son". This plan not only makes scriptural sense, it also, as one begins to come to a deeper and more thorough understanding of that faith, comparing it with all others, starts making an increasing redounding of intellectual and rational sense [I Corinthians 2:16], and especially during those times in which we are living in a truly discerning mode.
For example, Abraham of the Bible, who both the Christian and Muslim faiths, as well as that of Judaism, recognize as their actual founder or "father" of the faith, respectively (1), was called by God, according to the Bible, out of Ur, the land of the Chaldees, or Mesopotamia [Genesis 12:1-4]. That land was polytheistic, worshipping a variety of Gods and indulging in such practices as sacrificing babies to their god, by throwing them into a fire (2). That religion was practiced for a long time, including by some of the apostate Hebrews, and doesn't sound like simply a different path to a benevolent Being.
The Code of Hammurabbi (3)was conceived, written and implemented about 100 years before the Torah was given to Moses, and is similar in many respects. Yet the Law of Moses delves into far greater detail and reflects an abundance of compassion and kindness to be held towards others, even with the death penalties which were to be imposed upon trespassers for certain infractions. In contrast, the punishments for sins, or crimes, under the Hammurabbi edicts were far more brutal and unforgiving (4).
For example, a penalty for theft under Hammurabbi's laws was the loss of a hand or even death. Comparing the two, the Code of Hammurabbi sounds like a result of a strict conscience at work, with animal-like enforcement ideas, whereas the Law of Moses tends to reflect more accurately the idea of a just Being. Incidentally, the Chaldeans were the ancestors or forerunners of the ancient Assyrians, who cruelly plagued the Hebrews, known as the Israelites at some point after the going out from Egypt.
If these were religions intended to follow the same Deity, just in different ways, then it could be deduced that the deity in question couldn't seem to make up it's own mind as to how it's followers were to obtain to righteousness. And if it were the same Deity, instituting different paths for different cultures, as John Hick asserts is a possibility, if not a religious fact, why would God call a man of a certain culture, namely Abraham, out of his own culture, only to initiate and develop an entirely different path to Him? Would He not have implemented the right path in Abraham's culture to begin with, perhaps with Abraham? Up to this point, pluralism doesn't make logical sense.
John Hick writes that one faith wouldn't have been feasible, due to the geographical isolation of one nation to another and the lack of effective communication between them. But in reality, that is untrue, an error of historical authenticity on his part. Overland trade was well established all through southwestern Asia by the third millennium B.C., Central Asia being the hub, and the Silk Road linked the Han and Roman Empires together during the first millennium B.C. Trade, and thus contact, between major civilizations and their subsidiaries has existed since man first formed villages and societies, and writing in one form or another has been used since at least no later than 3100 B.C. (6).
Systems of communicating in use today are merely technologically modern versions of older and even ancient methods. The Native Americans used smoke signals and the cavalry used mirrors to send messages using Morse code. It is believed that the ancient Egyptians also used some type of mirror with which to transform reflections of the sun into messages, and the pharaoh of the Exodus had such an extensive means of long distance correspondence, likely relayed in like manner as mail was relayed by the Pony Express, that he knew the Hebrews, after leaving Egypt, had entered into a series of canyons and ravines (7).
Mike Rothmiller, a former detective for the L.A.P.D., wrote in his book that while investigating during the late seventies or early eighties, discovered that the Mexicans had better communication than did the Americans, despite having limited technological resources, relying upon word of mouth. When a suspect was thought to have fled into Mexico, Rothmiller would contact one of his Mexican police contacts. Two or three days later, he'd get a phone call and if the suspect was in Mexico, the Mexicans would turn him over to Rothmiller at some bridge on the border. There was no fancy equipment in Mexico then, probably still not, but their fugitive locating abilities and results made America look substandard (8).
Saying all of that, leaving out numerous examples of citations which could also be listed, the argument that it wouldn't be practical for God to have implemented one path to Him is not a sound, logical or rational argument. During the short time of the original apostles, Christianity spread to all parts of the ancient Roman Empire, to Egypt, to India and to other parts of the world. Well before the advent of Christianity, such as during King Solomon's reign, trade was carried on between Israel and many parts of the known world, quite extensively. No, a lack of means of communication was not a problem at any time during the history of civilization. Until about the last thirty or forty years, the majority of people took an interest in what was going on around them. Now, with multitudes of mass media, seems more than half of the population has no clue what is happening outside of their own little sphere of existing (9).
Concerning doctrine, no real resemblance exists between Christianity and any other religion or faith. Christianity, a fulfillment of Judaism, is unique, according to the Bible, to all others, advancing beyond being a good citizen and practicing certain morals. What religion besides can claim of prophecies being accomplished, to the letter, the original foretellings being proclaimed by prophets all claiming revelation from the same God, and at various times in history? What other religion can support believers to the extent that multitudes will die tragically rather than deny their Savior, Jesus Christ, often rejoicing while being burned to death or praying for their tormentors while enduring the process of being hideously tortured? And best of all, what other religion offers salvation, granting justification absolutely free of anything at all, other than admitting that one is a sinner, asking forgiveness from a Divine Being, and accepting, or believing on, His Son (10) ref. fulfilled prophecies?
Only in Christianity is the doctrine an idea that believing in a Savior will result in being enabled to follow the precepts originally set forth, that is, the moral commands revealed by Moses. Not perfectly, by no means, because the ability of man in earthly form is very limited when it comes to achieving perfection. But all other faiths infer two main ideas: that the believer will realize a condition in which that individual believes he or she is worthy, by their own efforts, whether physical action or meditation, to be ushered into the very presence of a heavenly realm. and; that salvation is achieved via some humanly empowered effort, as though the salvation were earned. Christianity teaches that no one is worthy to enter a place called heaven. Contrariwise, those believers gain entrance by acknowledging that they are not worthy, and that no matter what good works they have done for their Lord, it is but a symbol of their duty and their love for their master, rather a resultive obligation of that devotion, when called upon by what is known as the Holy Spirit. That duty is, to some, simply living a wholesomely righteous life in Christ, doing good to others when opportunity arises, while with others it entails a more concerted effort of expounding on their faith [Ephesians 2:8,9].
I conclude that while all religions require some type or degree of piety and self sacrificing effort or obeisance to a higher power, thus inferring that the individual is on a lower scale than the deity, some religions promoting the idea that some, not all, individuals can achieve to godhood, only Christianity makes sense in the end: it teaches that all are sinfully natured and unworthy of a paradise once thought lost, and that by simply acknowledging what I believe every human knows deep down, that we are indeed sinful, that those believers can, by putting admitting that and accepting it, thus confessing our need for a Redeemer, and accepting who God sent, in conjunction with obeying that still, small voice, ultimately arrive in an eternal paradise.
References
1. Luke 3:8, 16:24, Romans 4:1,12, Genesis 15:2-4, 16:1-5,11,12,15, 17:20,21, 21:1-3,9,10,12,13. Holy Bible], [124,125,126,127. Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Raheem. Surah al-Baqarah. The Quran.
2.
3.
4. Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Holy Bible.
5. Rea, Michael and Pojman, Louis. Pages 637, 639. Philosophy of Religion-An Anthology. © 2015, 2012, 2008 by Cengage Learning.
6. Duiker, William J., Spielvogel, Jackson J. The Essential World History. Volume I: To 1800. 7th Edition. Compilation © 2014 Cengage Learning. Pages 1,7,12,13,19, 21,23,32,33,35, 36,51,57,59,60, 80,81,87,149,151,156,157,158,161,162,163,193,216,243, 259,290,298.
7. Moller, Dr. Lennart. The Exodus Case. Text © Lennart Moller 2000, 1st Edition; 2002, 2nd Edition; 2008 3rd extended edition. Printed in 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Final Paper Outline
Compare and contrast the traditional view of God’s omniscience with open theism, as presented by Clark Pinnock in the textbook. What strengths and weaknesses do each have, and which do you prefer?
Being open-minded to the most spiritually feasible views of both doctrines, I will present my paper as such, noting that I have no regard for strict determinism concerning our actions. There are a few instances in the Bible, and in our and other's lives, in which it appears that actions taken were not a matter of choice. However, the truth of the matter is, certain situations and events are sometimes thrust at us, which is not a matter of choice, at least not always, yet what we do in reaction is always a matter of choice, as well as what we do or fail to do in attempting to avoid undesirable happenings in the future.
I was particularly impressed by Pinnock's presentation, expounding on the Almighty's omniscience, not only agreeing with most points, but coming to a better understanding of how God is. I believe that God is more than capable of knowing every tiny detail about all things and events, including the future, but sometimes chooses not to be aware of every small detail. It is the Holy Ghost, according to the Bible, who is everywhere all at once, and "reports" to God what is going on, as God Himself is on the throne and doesn't need to be concerned with all minute items constantly, likely garnering much of what He knows from His Spirit when need be.
God's Omniscience
1. A Personal God
A. God Desires a Personal Relationship With Believers.
2. Traditional Theology
A. Thinking in a Box.
3. Manifestations of God.
A. The Creator
B. God, In the World and Out of the World
C. God's Power
D. Does God Change?
4. Attributes of God
A. Impassibility
B. Eternity
C. Infinite Knowledge.
5. Conclusion on Whether God is All Knowing, All the Time
Open Theism and Traditional Views
I find that what I believe is the correct presentation of God, concerning His omniscience, is somewhat of a balance between open theism and the more traditional views of that characteristic and attribute. The traditional views generally describe God as a Being who knows every little detail about all events and happenings in the world, including every human's actions, reactions and words, at all times, that is, constantly. I believe that God can know as such, when and if He wills, but according to the Bible, God the Father is not Himself omnipresent, but His Spirit is, and so, the Holy Spirit does know everything in detail constantly, as He is everywhere at once.
Some traditional views uphold the doctrine that the three persons of the Trinity are all God, and simply three manifestations of same, but for the purposes of this thesis I will not correlate with that, instead focusing on God the Father as a separate and distinct spiritual entity.
In the essay 'The Openness of God-Systematic Theology' by Clark H. Pinnock, the opening statement is rather misleading according to how I read Pinnock's thesis. It states in part that Pinnock "...maintains that God is, among other things, temporal, subject to change and passion, and limited in His knowledge of the future". This part of the introduction to the main thesis makes it appear that Pinnock is claiming that God is subject to time, or the ravages of time, that He condescends to the ideas and whims of, perhaps, mankind, and that His overall capacity for knowledge of all things is limited.
In contrast to what one might interpret from the introduction, Pinnock gives God full credit for being both omniscient and omnipotent, not giving God less value nor credit than what He is worthy of. Pinnock has both an extensive and a deep, understanding of who God is, how He is and in what ways He functions and deals with man and other parts of creation, giving a not only wholesome, but a genuine and spiritually practical synopsis of a true Almighty Creator, and the One the Holy Bible upholds at that.
Many traditional doctrines, though not necessarily explicitly in error, are inaccurate due to some particular doctrine being built upon a few, or a series of, verses, failing to take into account other writings which reflect on the same issue, effectively placing God within a boundary, thus essentially restricting the faith in God to a system which can be mandated and manipulated by man's thinking, much like the religion of Judaism was controlled and misused by the Pharisees of Christ's time. Many modern day Christian religionists, like some of the Pharisees, may not indubitably misrepresent God with a malicious intent, but they simply think they are right, down to the very core of their soul, even when they are not.
As one example of what I mean, there are many who hold that Jesus Christ was God while upon earth. That is not what the Bible teaches, instead revealing that Christ was fully human, without sin and possessing the same personality and attributes as God. Yet He was always subject to the Father and obedient to Him, doing what He did only as bidden by the Father, by His Spirit. God in the Old Testament times destroyed many who defied Him, whereas Jesus didn't. There are many other examples as well, but by claiming that Christ was God when on earth is to liken Him to some sort of super human being of mythology status, which significantly nullifies what the Bible portrays the Savior as being. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ was and is divine, yes, but while on earth, was not the Father. It is this type of thinking which Pinnock's thesis tears down: falsehoods which exist not because they are false in themselves, but because the whole truth is not reflected in certain ideals and concepts. The idea conveyed here coincides with the words of Clark Pinnock, "I believe that unless the portrait of God is compelling, the credibility of belief in God is bound to decline".
By calling God temporal, Pinnock means that God is outside of time, thus God is always God, and never gets older, having always been in existence, and is not affected by time. One day to God is the same as a thousand years [ ]. Yet, as stated by Pinnock: God is "...a God who does not remain at a safe distance...", but shares in our distress and affliction, being approachable and involved with us. God is not coldly detached from what goes on within time, He cares about us.
Being subject to change and passion means (I think this paper was incomplete)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Mysticism
One feature that stands out to me is the theme that James is actually supporting scripture and Biblical doctrine, or at least concepts, but simply explaining, in most cases, what the Bible says in terms other than direct quotations. This is evident throughout his whole essay here in our reading.
James directly quoted the Apostle Paul, "In Paul's language, I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. Only when I become as nothing can God enter in and no difference between His life and mine remain outstanding" [Galatians 2:20]. This one sentence at least implies, that there is something more to being in tune with God than anything that we can of ourselves do, which is the whole essence of grace and the root reason for the moral commandments, the law of Moses the man of God. This, in turn, reveals to us that there is evidently some other power, force, influence or energy which somehow creates or causes a union between the individual and the maker, the Creator.
In one part of James' conclusion he states that "Assuredly, the real world is of a different temperament more intricately built than physical science allows". Though some Christians have held that believers ought to shun science, per the verse in I Timothy 6:20, "...avoiding...oppositions to science falsely so called", due to misunderstanding scripture, true science itself supports the unseen world, the supernatural, claiming that the word supernatural literally means "above nature", and that science works within nature, not above it, also distinguishing between the paranormal, which science can debunk, and the supernatural. [Hewitt, Suchocki, Hewitt. Pg. 6. Conceptual Physical Science. Fifth Edition. © 2012, 2008, 2004, Pearson Education, Inc.]
Genuine science, and archeology, actually supports the Bible, other than supernatural events, at which point it stops short, being unable to either explain or refute. Archeology has enabled people to verify remains of Nineveh, old Jerusalem, 10,000 cuneiform tablets from the ancient Assyrian period, the probable site of the Red Sea crossing and numerous other sites, and science has empowered humans to accurately date the remains of cities and artifacts found there, as well as identifying pharaohs and queens mentioned in the Old Testament, so believers who refuse to accept valid claims and findings about the natural world are missing out.
On the other hand, people who think that anything which science cannot explain is not so are cutting themselves short. James said things to the same effect: "...the unseen region in question is not merely ideal, for it produces effects in this world"; "God is real since He produces real effects"; "...no philosophic excuse for calling the unseen or mystical world unreal", and; "The whole drift of my education goes to persuade me that the world of our present consciousness is only one out of many worlds of consciousness that exist, and that those other worlds must contain experiences which have a meaning for our life also...". As an example of people on both sides of the "coin" cutting themselves short, James reminds us that "This world may indeed, as science assures us, some day burn up or freeze...", which is what the Bible says as well, as far as burning up.
So far in our studies, one conclusion that I have arrived at is that some of these theologians are Christian believers who possess a high enough education to be able to explain some of the concepts of God in ways that highly educated folks can understand and relate to.
My thoughts on mysticism, generally, aside from our studies, are, if defined as supernatural events, manifestations and experiences, are a synopsis of 100% genuineness, that is, they are real. In being prepared for ministry work, by the Maker, I have experienced a lot of spiritual happenings and occurrences, both good and bad. I have to agree with James though, in that people who have not had mystic [spiritual] experiences, nor those who have, are obligated to acknowledge a superior authority over them due to it. Christians are to be ruled over by Christ, and scripture, as well as verification by the Ghost is the authority. Those experiences can, however, help to confirm in others that those things do occur. The experiences themselves are not to be gloried in, but used as tools with which to build our faith, and to help others build their faith. Experiences, as well as spiritual gifts, are a means to an end, not the object of glory, which is God. If we build a house or restore a car, we don't invite friends and family over to show off, as it were, our tools, but rather to "show off" (for lack of a better term) the finished project. And James sort of presents this idea as well, not downplaying a genuine spiritual experience, but elevating what the aim of the believer is.
Experiences are guides, aids or results of oneness with God, but do not put us in tune with Him. I once walked into a night ambush, in which there were at least five men out to shoot me, having thought that I was either someone else or that I had been involved in things which I had not. Anyway, during the ordeal, after talking to them, after they stated that they were going to kill me, one opened fire and almost parted my hair. Believe it or not, something invisible grabbed me by the shoulder, picked me up and moved me over a couple of feet, dropping me from a couple of feet off the ground, and seemed to have froze the moment for a split second. I was standing there both praying and trying to decide what to do, the main force of three being between myself and the house, the night being pitch black. Anyway, I was able to escape and hide. I believe that the FBI, whom I later made a report to, concedes that my being saved from destruction was largely a supernatural act, after apprehending some of the people and getting them to talk. The moral of this story is this: supernatural, or mystical, experiences do not of themselves change our hearts, as it was a number of years later before I really got back in tune with God. James says something like what I've said, "...the mystic (someone who has an experience, as I am no mystic as such) feels as if his own will were in abeyance, and indeed sometimes as if he were grasped and held by a superior power.", "...mystics may emphatically deny that the sense play any part in the very highest type of knowledge which their transports yield.", and; ""The kinds of truth communicable in mystical ways, whether these be sensible or supersensible, are various. Some of them relate to this world-visions of the future, the reading of hearts, the sudden understanding of texts, the knowledge of distant events, for example; but the most important revelations are theological or metaphysical".
Mystical states, which are various, help point us to something higher than the experience itself, namely the "supremacy of the ideal, of vastness (of God), of union (with God), of safety ( from and in God), and of rest (in Him)". There is both a good and an evil mystical state, and we have to guard against the evil, making sure it is of a Godly nature [I John 4:1-3]. The late Reverend Jim Jones was a mystic, and did preach Bible, but evidently twisted much of it. His whole congregation fell prey to some type of mystical state, because apparently, nobody checked what was going on against scripture: they went on a feeling, sentiments and emotion, and in that instance, some of the explanations James concedes to apply: "I imagine that these experiences can be infinitely varied as are the idiosyncrasies of individuals"; "...mystical truth (or falsehood)...resembles the knowledge given to us in sensations more than that given by conceptual thought" (meaning that voodoo, astrology and such could be mystical, but without any basis of conceptual thought); "To the medical mind these ecstasies signify nothing but suggested and imitated hypnoid states, on an intellectual basis of superstition, and a corporeal one of degeneration and hysteria".
You could probably rightly say that during the ordeal, which I tried to talk my way out of, I was in at least a semi-mystical state, being filled with adrenaline, being scared "____less" but reacting like the army trained us to, being too pumped to realize how scared I was. It was surreal, and partly in slow motion, deathly quiet but very noisy, beyond description. You do not have time to think much, only react. I used 8 shots from my nine-shot, .22 caliber revolver, then lost the rest of my ammo while I ran deeper into the woods, probably setting a world speed record, bluffed my way past two men on a flank, then went and hid. Once I had escaped and found a safe hiding place, I cried like a baby. So both good and bad experiences could be termed mystical, or supernatural, or part either.
I worked my way through that, and other, experience(s), after twenty or so years, a lot of alcohol, a tremendous amount of soul searching and Bible reading, sometimes when drunk, and found that when in tune with God, you can explain some of those things from what I believe is God's perspective, other things from a clinical, conceptual, educated, investigative and rather detached aspect. What I once got drunk over, I finally became enabled to laugh about, though sometimes with a bit of ironic scorn, yet, it is explainable, what occurred, the liklihood of why it occurred, and what enabled my actions, thoughts and motivation.
Nonetheless, I have to attribute some of it to something mystical, supernatural, above nature, to what I believe is God. As james wrote, "As a matter of psychological fact, mystical states of a well-pronounced and emphatic sort are usually authoritative over those who have them". They change your life and your view. James also writes that "Our senses, namely, have assured us of certain states of fact; but mystical experiences are as direct perceptions of fact for those who have them as any sensations ever were for us". "Our immediate feelings have no content but what the five senses supply", even in the midst of a "mystical" event, because, as James also wrote, science is beginning to admit of an unseen realm [page 409, lines 12-17, right side]. Some parts of events, however supernatural, are, as James again wrote, "...only psychological phenomena...", with "...enormous biological worth". In that case, the psychological effect of both a physical and a mystical experience, coupled with a large amount of adrenaline and a healthy dose of common sense, told and enabled me to, once seeing a window, make my enemy see nothing but elbows and rectum.
This is not to say that there are not spiritual, or mystical, experiences which cannot be explained rationally, because there are many, such as God talking to someone from a burning bush, or at all, or God parting the Red Sea for the Hebrews but drowning the Egyptians, or raising the dead, or, the greatest miracle of all, hearts being changed for no tangible reason. However, Christians, which America is based upon and largely still consists of, need to be sure what is of God and what is not. There may not be an exact example in the Bible of every mystical experience from or by God, but it will abide by some one or another of the Biblical precepts, concepts or exact ideal. Whether or not any given person believes the Bible per say, the example of the sons of Sceva can be taken as a caution or a warning. They were of bad hearts, and were using the name of Jesus to exorcise evil spirits. An evil spirit spoke to them, admitting that it knew of Paul, but asked who they were or, in other words, asked them who they thought they were, and hurt them. If you do not believe the Bible per se, you can at least take it as an example to be well informed of what you are undertaking, relating an evil spirit to failure if not equipped with the right knowledge, and take Jesus' power as success of your goal. I believe it per se, but either way, anyone can learn from it.
A year or so ago, I stumbled upon an article online that related how the CIA is recruiting people for some type of mental telepathy program, called imaging or some such term. They concentrate on some person, place or thing which they have never before seen, and after a time they describe it and write it down. That could be called a type of mystical state, but I do not think that it is a state on the good side of things. It falls under what is scripturally termed "divination", which Christians are forbidden from participating in. Other wise I think most people would likely avoid that type of thing as well.
It is ironic that the government sometimes places people in psycho wards for telling about hearing voices or seeing certain things, yet there are government studies on just that focus, and, as I've just stated, active use of something along that line. Not only that, but it was recently reported on WOWO radio, that during some speech or interview, Hillary Clinton told that she often speaks with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt. So some go to a madhouse, others go to politics.
There are people who commit murder, later relating that voices told them to do so. Personally, I believe that something real and unseen does tell them to, but it is most definitely not God, particularly when parents murder their children. Are some of those instances, as James states, results "...of enfeebled or deluded states of mind...a diabolical mysticism, a sort of religious mysticism turned upside down"? It is likely the case at times. Some Christians, well meaning, ascertain that all temptation is due to what the Bible calls the devil or his evil spirits. I do believe that the devil and other evil spirits exist, but as often as not, wrongs we do are a result of our own carnally human desires.
To sum it up, I regard mysticism, or as I see the word defined, supernatural events, as definitely occurring, and as real as the world we see, feel, hear, touch and taste, but to be taken, again for lack of a better term, with a grain of salt. If God exists, which I am convinced He does, and he wants someone to see a vision from Him or experience something supernatural, either from Him, for strength or something else good, or allowed by Him, briefly, in order to discover the difference between a good and a bad, then it will occur. We do not need, or should we, try to conjure something up, or we could end up like the sons of Sceva, harmed in some way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Evolution
As far as believing that human beings evolved from some simpler, human-like being, I believe that is pure nonsense. Concerning the question of whether animals and fish evolved, with God's orchestration of it, I believe that it is possible, even feasible, to think and believe so.
Genesis 1:20-27, 2:7,21-23 tells us that man was a special creation apart from all of the animals. God specifically created man in His image, and exclusively breathed breath into the man's nostrils. Then, God made a woman from Adam's rib, also a special creation. Concerning animals, including fish and birds, they came forth from the waters and the dry land, but with God's initiating it.
Paul Draper, a professor of philosophy at Purdue University, not necessarily a believer in creation, stated "...for all we know antecedently, God might have chosen to create in a variety of different ways. For example, while He might have created life in a way consistent with genealogical continuity, He might also have created each species independently. Or he might have created certain basic types independently, allowing for evolutionary change, including change resulting in new species, within these types. Or he might have independently created only a few species or even only a single species, humans perhaps...".
The above excerpt is from an essay by Draper found in 'Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology', seventh edition, by Michael Rea and Louis Pojman, © 2015, 2012, 2008 by Cengage Learning. In that essay's introduction, Draper writes, "...the naturalistic account of evolution can provide a cogent alternative to theism and that by combining that with the problem of evil, one can begin to build a cumulative case against theism", theism being, by Draper's account, "the hypothesis that God is the creator of the physical universe".
To an extent, animals, at least some of them, have evolved to a certain degree. For example, the Husky canine breed was bred down from the wolf and is the closest dog to a wolf that there is. Part of an evolutionary change is adapting to different climates, which occurs in mammals every year, that is, their fur grows for winter and sheds for summer. Because of that natural ability, there is in that alone enough to suggest that animals have evolved, at least to a degree. Keep in mind, however, that according to Genesis 1:20-25 and Ecclesiastes 3:21, that even if animals were originally produced from some type of evolutionary process, that it was God doing it and, animals do have a supernatural part to them, a spirit, the life-giving force, though not a soul.
I have not studies evolution theory in depth, certainly not in a scientific manner. But I do know this: humans are sinful, have an eternal soul, and need a Savior, whom I believe is Jesus Christ. I also assert that true science and the Bible do not contradict one another, though there is what is called a pseudo science, or, false science. I also have no doubts that however the world and all things came into being, that it was the work of God and that man was a special creation above all else.
And before discounting that the evolutionary process may have taken place with animals, at least in part, as God's way of creating those beings, consider this: if the theories supporting evolution of animals are not true, discard them. If not, know and believe that nothing happens or exists that the Bible, God's Word, doesn't either support, refute or allow. And if, in refuting all evolutionary theories, we discredit scientific theories that we know to be true, then we are refuting a system and it's rules which God Himself created.