(Continuing Bertrand Russell's "God and Religion")
In chapter 15 "The Value of Free Thought" Russell gives a sort of "free thinker manifesto". It provides a couple of talking points.
Page 239, "he must be free of two things: the force of tradition, and the tyranny of his own passions." I basically agree, however as Oden says; while the modernist must reject any notion of wisdom from prior generations, the orthodox Christian has the freedom of integrating wisdom distilled by nearly two thousand years of "free thinkers".
On pages 240-241 and 248, Russell poo-poos any influence of fear. He has a point, 1 John 4:18 "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear". But he is missing a crucial point, Proverbs 1:7 (among others) "The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge" (emphasis added, also as "wisdom" in Proverbs 9:10, and the Psalms).
Chapter 16, "Sin". We obviously disagree here :) Interestingly, Russell believes the notion of sin (and therefore, the conscience) to be an entirely learned thing...
Chapter 17, "Are the World's Troubles Due to a Decay of Faith?". I actually agree with Russell, somewhat. "Christian nations" (if such a thing is even possible) have a pretty poor record for eliminating humanity's problems (and a pretty good record for making some facets better). Of course, the problem is not lack of "Christian nations", or even lack of reasonable people (as Russell contends). The problem is sin.
Chapter 18, "Ideas that Have Harmed Mankind". Meh.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Euthyphro's dilemma
(I need a break from Russell, and I've meant to cover this topic for some time...)
Wikipedia describes this logical problem as "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
This is partly misstated (logically self-contradicting) and partly a false dilemma (not either/or but both/and). At the same time, I believe I can avoid the tautology cited ("God is good, and good is God").
The first part is that "morality" is too vague a term. Modern man has divorced himself from morality, and thinks only in terms of legal and illegal. A more simple term is "good" (which I believe maintains the original argument).
So "Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?"
The opposite of good is evil. But what is evil? Is killing evil? What about self-defense? Murder is killing, misused. Is sex evil? Rape is sex, misused. Is speaking evil? Lying is speech misused. Etc.
The notion of evil exists only as compared to what is good. That is, good exists. Evil cannot exist on its own. It exists only as a twisting or perversion of what is good. God is good, God exists. We exist, and demonstrate evil by disobeying God.
God's commands are good. Not just because God says so, or because they exist outside of God, or are the totality of God. The Law (the Ten Commandments) reveals God's nature. "Thou shalt not lie", because God is truth. "Thou shalt not murder", because God is life.
But God is more than the moral law. The law demands payment for infractions. God is merciful, in delaying punishment. God is gracious and loving in providing payment on our behalf.
In summary, "good" (or "moral") is what it is because it is a part of God (not all of God).
Further, without a notion of an absolute good (God), the notions of "good" and "evil" are meaningless.
Wikipedia describes this logical problem as "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
This is partly misstated (logically self-contradicting) and partly a false dilemma (not either/or but both/and). At the same time, I believe I can avoid the tautology cited ("God is good, and good is God").
The first part is that "morality" is too vague a term. Modern man has divorced himself from morality, and thinks only in terms of legal and illegal. A more simple term is "good" (which I believe maintains the original argument).
So "Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?"
The opposite of good is evil. But what is evil? Is killing evil? What about self-defense? Murder is killing, misused. Is sex evil? Rape is sex, misused. Is speaking evil? Lying is speech misused. Etc.
The notion of evil exists only as compared to what is good. That is, good exists. Evil cannot exist on its own. It exists only as a twisting or perversion of what is good. God is good, God exists. We exist, and demonstrate evil by disobeying God.
God's commands are good. Not just because God says so, or because they exist outside of God, or are the totality of God. The Law (the Ten Commandments) reveals God's nature. "Thou shalt not lie", because God is truth. "Thou shalt not murder", because God is life.
But God is more than the moral law. The law demands payment for infractions. God is merciful, in delaying punishment. God is gracious and loving in providing payment on our behalf.
In summary, "good" (or "moral") is what it is because it is a part of God (not all of God).
Further, without a notion of an absolute good (God), the notions of "good" and "evil" are meaningless.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
God and Religion
(Continuing Bertrand Russell's "God and Religion")
Chapter 10: "What is the Soul?". I don't hold to a dualistic philosophy (that the "soul" is some separate entity). When the Bible refers to our spirit or soul, it is simply referring to what makes us, us. Heaven and Hell are places for material bodies, although they will be different than our bodies now.
Chapter 11: "Mind and Matter in Modern Science". Meh.
Chapter 12: "Science and Religion". I had an interesting thought while reading this. On page 172, Russell is discussing another person's view on how the universe has brought about human life. Russell is skeptical about the efficiency of the universe for this purpose. It then occurred to me, that inanimate matter (and animals) is 100% obedient to God. It is only human beings that are rebels. So, the vastness of the universe demonstrates that we are just a tiny fraction of God's kingdom in rebellion (not the near victory atheists would have us believe). An interesting thought.
Page 177, "This illustrates the fact that the theological conclusions drawn by scientists from their science are only such as please them". Two points here, first this is what happens when you try to reconcile the world's ideas with Biblical ideas. Second, Russell does the exact same thing when it comes to making moral decisions. He has no basis no truth, and right and wrong, so he believes what pleases him.
Chapter 13, "Cosmic Purpose".
Chapter 14, "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish". Meh
Chapter 10: "What is the Soul?". I don't hold to a dualistic philosophy (that the "soul" is some separate entity). When the Bible refers to our spirit or soul, it is simply referring to what makes us, us. Heaven and Hell are places for material bodies, although they will be different than our bodies now.
Chapter 11: "Mind and Matter in Modern Science". Meh.
Chapter 12: "Science and Religion". I had an interesting thought while reading this. On page 172, Russell is discussing another person's view on how the universe has brought about human life. Russell is skeptical about the efficiency of the universe for this purpose. It then occurred to me, that inanimate matter (and animals) is 100% obedient to God. It is only human beings that are rebels. So, the vastness of the universe demonstrates that we are just a tiny fraction of God's kingdom in rebellion (not the near victory atheists would have us believe). An interesting thought.
Page 177, "This illustrates the fact that the theological conclusions drawn by scientists from their science are only such as please them". Two points here, first this is what happens when you try to reconcile the world's ideas with Biblical ideas. Second, Russell does the exact same thing when it comes to making moral decisions. He has no basis no truth, and right and wrong, so he believes what pleases him.
Chapter 13, "Cosmic Purpose".
Chapter 14, "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish". Meh
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
God and Religion
(Continuing Bertrand Russell's "God and Religion")
Chapter 7 is "The Essence of Religion". Not much to say here.
Chapter 8 is "Religion and the Churches". I think Russell gives away his position on page 112, "The world is our world, and it rests with us to make it a heaven or a hell." This is works righteousness: our works, our deeds making the world right; making us right with God.
Chapter 9 is "A Debate on the Existence of God". There were a couple of interesting points brought out here, but overall, I found it overly complicated. Russell was debating F. C. Copleston (referred to as Father Copleston). On morality:
Copleston: "Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?"
Russell: "I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow..."
Russell sticks with this "blue versus yellow" analogy, which I don't understand. Blue is a range of wavelength of light (440-490 nm). He would be better off with "preferring ketchup versus mustard" or something...
But the main point is, he has no justification for distinguishing good and bad.
Chapter 7 is "The Essence of Religion". Not much to say here.
Chapter 8 is "Religion and the Churches". I think Russell gives away his position on page 112, "The world is our world, and it rests with us to make it a heaven or a hell." This is works righteousness: our works, our deeds making the world right; making us right with God.
Chapter 9 is "A Debate on the Existence of God". There were a couple of interesting points brought out here, but overall, I found it overly complicated. Russell was debating F. C. Copleston (referred to as Father Copleston). On morality:
Copleston: "Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?"
Russell: "I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow..."
Russell sticks with this "blue versus yellow" analogy, which I don't understand. Blue is a range of wavelength of light (440-490 nm). He would be better off with "preferring ketchup versus mustard" or something...
But the main point is, he has no justification for distinguishing good and bad.
Monday, April 14, 2008
God and Religion
(Continuing Bertrand Russell's "God and Religion")
Chapter 4 is "What Is an Agnostic?". Not much to say here. Nothing I haven't seen before.
Russell is most opposed to dogma. That is, a set of facts unquestionably accepted as true. I don't understand this stand. I wonder how much of the modern postmodern's "arrogance of certainty" has stemmed from this.
Everyone has a set of dogma. Russell believes his mind is sufficient for determining truth (Chapter 5, pg 84). He may claim this is "minimal" or "necessary", but it is dogma. The Christian dogma is that our reason is fallen, and fallible. God's revelation (for our generation, the Bible) is infallible, and totally sufficient. I'm not certain how Russell is equipped to judge between the two...
Chapter 5 is "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?" Apart from the point above ("the supremacy of reason"), Russell acknowledges that "atheists" are technically "agnostics" as far as knowing whether God exists or not. Still, he prefers the term "atheist" to designate the vigor of his beliefs.
On page 85, he challenges the reader to disprove the existence of the Greek gods, believing it an impossible task. 1 Corinthians 8:4b "we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one".
Chapter 6 is "The Faith of a Rationalist". On page 89, Russell talks about the impact of Copernicus on belief in God. Here, I think, he makes the error of belief (or non-belief) in a "man-centered" universe. That is, creation for the purposes of men (whether it be happiness, fulfillment, glory, etc.).
Creation is "God centered" (aka "Christ centered").
I'll close with a quote from page 91, "Only kindly men believe in a kindly god, and they would be kindly in any case." This is perhaps the saddest thing I have read so far. Russell seems completely unaware of the transformative power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit takes wicked, evil men; and makes them saints.
I know. I'm one :)
Chapter 4 is "What Is an Agnostic?". Not much to say here. Nothing I haven't seen before.
Russell is most opposed to dogma. That is, a set of facts unquestionably accepted as true. I don't understand this stand. I wonder how much of the modern postmodern's "arrogance of certainty" has stemmed from this.
Everyone has a set of dogma. Russell believes his mind is sufficient for determining truth (Chapter 5, pg 84). He may claim this is "minimal" or "necessary", but it is dogma. The Christian dogma is that our reason is fallen, and fallible. God's revelation (for our generation, the Bible) is infallible, and totally sufficient. I'm not certain how Russell is equipped to judge between the two...
Chapter 5 is "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?" Apart from the point above ("the supremacy of reason"), Russell acknowledges that "atheists" are technically "agnostics" as far as knowing whether God exists or not. Still, he prefers the term "atheist" to designate the vigor of his beliefs.
On page 85, he challenges the reader to disprove the existence of the Greek gods, believing it an impossible task. 1 Corinthians 8:4b "we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one".
Chapter 6 is "The Faith of a Rationalist". On page 89, Russell talks about the impact of Copernicus on belief in God. Here, I think, he makes the error of belief (or non-belief) in a "man-centered" universe. That is, creation for the purposes of men (whether it be happiness, fulfillment, glory, etc.).
Creation is "God centered" (aka "Christ centered").
I'll close with a quote from page 91, "Only kindly men believe in a kindly god, and they would be kindly in any case." This is perhaps the saddest thing I have read so far. Russell seems completely unaware of the transformative power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit takes wicked, evil men; and makes them saints.
I know. I'm one :)
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Russell on Christian Doctrine
(Continuing on Bertrand Russell's "God and Religion")
On pages 59 and 60, Russell returns to the argument of God as "First Cause". He makes two points:
The first point I can't disprove. There is no evidence for this (nor can there be). It seems illogical (to me) to believe a completely causal universe came from an acausal source. However, I do have evidence that God is without cause (Exodus 3:13, as mentioned previously).
On page 68, Russell makes a rather odd statement, he is talking about the doctrine of Hell, and says:
That is not the tone of this passage.
The tone is one of sadness, and pleading with people who are determined to go to destruction. A loving wakeup call for people to turn away from destruction. That is Jesus' attitude, and it should be ours.
Russell closes out the essay with a complaint on the use of emotion (both content and fearful) in the persuasion for religion. This I agree with (although the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so some amount is good for you, at least at first). Far too many Christian churches appeal to emotion to "win conversions" (many of which will be false), and "to feel the Spirit". Our emotions are not a reliable source of information. For example, sin can feel very right, for a time. Also, decisions should be made by taking into account Biblical principles (and outright commands); not whether it "feels right".
On pages 59 and 60, Russell returns to the argument of God as "First Cause". He makes two points:
- The world may have come into existence without a cause.
- The world may be eternal.
The first point I can't disprove. There is no evidence for this (nor can there be). It seems illogical (to me) to believe a completely causal universe came from an acausal source. However, I do have evidence that God is without cause (Exodus 3:13, as mentioned previously).
On page 68, Russell makes a rather odd statement, he is talking about the doctrine of Hell, and says:
"and he goes on about the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often." (emphasis added)I have read that passage (probably Matthew 13:42) many times, even before I was a Christian. I never took that meaning. The sad thing is, I don't think Russell is creating this interpretation on his own (although, he might). He probably heard some well meaning (or not) preacher, who did take pleasure in declaming sinners to Hell.
That is not the tone of this passage.
The tone is one of sadness, and pleading with people who are determined to go to destruction. A loving wakeup call for people to turn away from destruction. That is Jesus' attitude, and it should be ours.
Russell closes out the essay with a complaint on the use of emotion (both content and fearful) in the persuasion for religion. This I agree with (although the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so some amount is good for you, at least at first). Far too many Christian churches appeal to emotion to "win conversions" (many of which will be false), and "to feel the Spirit". Our emotions are not a reliable source of information. For example, sin can feel very right, for a time. Also, decisions should be made by taking into account Biblical principles (and outright commands); not whether it "feels right".
Friday, April 11, 2008
On Free Will
This is a topic I have been meaning to cover for some time. It could also be called, "On Predestination", and was covered somewhat in "Arminianism vs. Calvinism".
Do we have free will? This is a difficult question to phrase:
Do we have free will? This is a difficult question to phrase:
- Are we free to do as we please? It certainly seems so.
- Does God hold us responsible for our actions? Definitely (Ezekiel 18:4, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die").
- Does God make us do evil? No (1 John 1:5 "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all").
- Does God choose those who are saved, and those who are not saved (without regard to their character)? Yes. Salvation (even the faith required for salvation) is a gift from God, apart from what we do -- our works (Ephesians 2:8-9)
- Further, does God harden some people to prevent them from believing in God? (Exodus 4:21, 9:34, etc. Deuteronomy 2:30, Romans 9:18. Also the explanation for why Jesus spoke in parables, Matthew 13:10-15: "lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted")
- Can we lose our salvation? No. John 10:29 "My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand."
- We are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel message (Mark 1:15, Acts 2:38).
- We are commanded to keep ourselves in the faith, to not fall away (Hebrews 3:12-13).
- We are commanded to pray to God, so that He will do what He has already decided to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)