Ceci n'est pas un blog
Christian
The widow's mite
Nov 7th
[Jesus] looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury; he also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. He said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on" (Lk 21:1-4, NRSV).
[J]ust as Jesus indicts the religious leadership for consuming the homes of widows, so now he laments the travesty of a religious system that has as its effect the devouring of this widow's livelihood. Note that in no way does Luke suggest that Jesus finds the widow's action exemplary or praiseworthy. How could he, when the religious system was supposed to care for such as these (cf. Acts 6:1-6), not render them utterly destitute? Jesus' mission is to bring good news to the poor, including this widow, not to impoverish the poor even further (Joel B. Green, "The Gospel of Luke", 728).
William Lane Craig and the material world
Oct 19th
"Is the material world all there is?"
This was the question posed by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig at the start of his lecture yesterday at Imperial College, London. The title of the talk was "The evidence for God", and it was part of his "Reasonable Faith" tour of the UK. Here's a video of the talk:
Below is an outline of Craig's talk, mostly taken verbatim from his words or his overhead slides. After each point, I give a brief analysis, along with what I think I might have liked to have heard as an alternative. His stated aim was to provide arguments that point away from naturalism and towards belief in God.
1. Why anything at all exists
Contingency argument
- Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
- The universe exists.
- If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is an external, transcendent, personal cause.
- Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal cause.
Analysis. The implicit premise (that the universe does not have necessary existence) would not be true if the universe is the "brute fact" of reality, on which everything else depends, and which has and needs no explanation. This argument therefore offers no challenge to the true die-hard naturalist.
Alternative. Many would-be die-hard naturalists do not realise that their view of reality is coherent only if the existence of the universe is a "brute fact", with no explanation. This is worth making clear: just as God is a "brute fact" in the Christian view of things, so is the universe a "brute fact" in the naturalistic view of things. Not everything the naturalist believes can be justified through evidence and reason.
2. The origin of the universe
Cosmological argument
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Analysis. Premise 2 would not be true if the universe is the "brute fact" of reality. If the universe is the non-dependent reality on which everything else depends, then it did not begin to exist. And it makes no sense to use the laws of logic to argue against this, as Craig did for premise 2, because the laws of logic would themselves be dependent on the physical universe for their existence (it is impossible to have more than one "brute fact" of reality).
Alternative. It is worth pointing out that if the universe is the "brute fact" of reality, then what we think of as the laws of logic must have emerged from the physical properties of the universe. So when we think of the impossibility of the existence of actual infinities (one of Craig's arguments on premise 2), that must be showing us the limitations of logical laws in a purely physical universe.
3. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life
Teleological argument
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
- It is not due to necessity or chance.
- Therefore, it is due to design.
Analysis. Craig did not present water-tight arguments for premise 2, so if I believed that the universe was the "brute fact" of reality, I would not agree with it.
Alternative. It is worth pointing out, as Craig does, that a coherent belief in naturalism will point strongly towards either a theory of everything (which has not been discovered) or towards a multiverse (which has not been observed). The goal of all of this would be to show naturalists where their beliefs take them, and hopefully to make them feel a bit uncomfortable with this, and to show how Christian theism is perhaps more affirming of our everyday experiences of reality.
4. Objective moral values and duties in the world
Moral argument
- If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
- Objective moral values and duties do exist.
- Therefore God exists.
Analysis. Once again, the die-hard naturalist would disagree with premise 2.
Alternative. It is worth pointing out that a coherent die-hard naturalist view would be at odds with what we naïvely think to be the case (here, that objective moral values exist), and that Christian theism would be a more comfortable basis for our naïve beliefs about morality. (This does not mean that Christian theism is therefore true!)
5. The possibility of God's existence
Ontological argument
- It is possible that a maximally great being (we call "God") exists.
- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
- Therefore, God exists.
Analysis. This is quite heavy stuff, but it boils down to this: God exists if the concept of logical possibility exists, and if the properties that make God great also exist. But this leaves us with one of two possibilities. Either God is dependent on logical possibility (and plenty of other things) for his existence, in which case God is not God, or God created logical possibility (and plenty of other things), in which case the argument is that God exists if God exists!
Alternative. I think I'd leave this one out.
6. The historical facts concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus
- There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples' belief in his resurrection.
- The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts.
- The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.
- Therefore the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.
Analysis. I think the die-hard naturalist would want premise 2 to read "is arguably the best known explanation". With those changes, the argument doesn't follow.
Alternative. It is worth pointing out to the naturalist that as they approach the supposed evidence for the resurrection, they are not doing so as open-minded enquirers. Rather, their beliefs in naturalism demand that the explanation for the evidence must be a naturalistic explanation. As above, the aim is to show what a coherent naturalistic view of reality looks like, and to show (hopefully) that a Christian view of reality seems to fit more closely with our naïve interpretations of the evidence around us.
7. The immediate, personal experience of God
- Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted as basic beliefs not grounded on argument.
- Belief that the biblical God exists is appropriately grounded.
- Therefore, belief that the biblical God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded on argument.
Analysis. Before presenting this syllogism, Craig said something like this: "You can know that God exists apart from arguments, simply by experiencing him." I would agree with that.
Overall analysis. There is a lot of excellent material in Craig's presentation. But by presenting his case as a series of logical inferences based on premises that are not self-evident (especially for the naturalist!), I think he overstates his case. Craig does not present a logical argument for God (a cursory reading of the outline above would suggest that he does). Rather, he shows how a consistent and coherent belief in naturalism is at odds with a lot of things that we might naïvely believe (such as the existence of objective moral values), and that Christian theism can lend support to those beliefs. I think this approach is more compelling, and that is why my favourite chapter of Craig's "Reasonable Faith" is the chapter on "The absurdity of life without God", in which he takes this approach. This style of presentation would lead more naturally to Craig's final point, which is basically an invitation for his hearers to investigate further, and to ask God (if he is there) to reveal himself to their hearts.
The house on the rock
Sep 27th
Photo by James Emery
In Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock is situated on a famous rock known as Temple Mount. The rock is so called because it used to be the site of the house of the God of Israel, otherwise known as the Temple. It was the wise man, Solomon, who first built this house on the rock.
By Jesus' day, Solomon's house on the rock had been destroyed, and replaced by the second house on the rock, which was then known as Herod's Temple. It was a symbol of hope and security for the Jewish people, who viewed it as a sign of God's presence and blessing. But this house fell (and great was the fall of it) in AD 70, at the hands of the Romans.
Here are some very familiar words that Jesus spoke on another mount:
Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it (Mt 7:24-27, ESV).
Sorry
Aug 30th
I have an apology to make.
I have been living as a Christian in a world dominated by greed.
And yet this hasn't bothered me at all.
I have thought it is perfectly possible to serve both God and money.
I have thought it is possible to preach the gospel faithfully without demonstrating either by what I say or by the way I live that I reject the idols of our age.
In fact, I have thought that challenging or rejecting the idols of our age would be a distraction from preaching the gospel.
I have made myself a worshipper of those idols by seeing my identity as a consumer and my worth in terms of what I consume.
And I have thought that worshipping those idols is okay, so long as I go to church, read the Bible, pray, don't swear very much, and try to be nice to people.
I have thought that God's purposes for the world would be fulfilled by everyone acting according to their own narrow economic self-interest, and I have behaved accordingly.
I have consistently acted with no concern for the poor: today's poor, or tomorrow's poor.
I have used the self-righteousness of some who boast about how "ethical" they are as an excuse for my own indifference as to whether my actions are "ethical" or not.
I have said I believe that the world was created good, and that people were created to steward its limited and precious resources well, and yet lived as though I didn't care at all how quickly or irreversibly those precious resources are used or destroyed.
In fact, I have thought that a society should be measured in terms of how quickly it uses the earth's resources.
I have said I believe that this creation will be restored and transformed when Jesus returns, and yet lived as though the only purpose of this creation was to satisfy my greedy desires.
I have acted in ways that the Bible describes in terms of adultery, thinking I could serve the God of the Bible and simultaneously prostitute myself to gods of money, greed and covetousness.
I'm sorry, Lord.
Please help me to repent.
Please help me to follow you.
(Amen?)
The Myth of Religious Neutrality
Aug 3rd
I've now reached the end of Roy Clouser's book, The Myth of Religious Neutrality. Normal service will now resume, with long periods of silence punctuated by assorted trivia, pictures, videos, and other musings.
But just in case you want to read it all over again, here's an index to my posts on the respective chapters, written as one very long sentence:
- All of life is religious, because
- religious belief is belief about what is unconditionally and non-dependently real
- (and there are different types of religious belief),
- and these religious beliefs affect all of our beliefs about all of life
- (and, by the way, there are other ways of understanding how religious beliefs relate to other beliefs)
- (including the fundamentalistic approach),
- for example, our religious beliefs affect our beliefs about mathematics
- and about physics
- and about psychology
- and this whole view of reality is closely linked in with our understanding of the nature of God,
- [11-13] so we should try to build a view of reality based on a Christian view of God.
More about this kind of thing can be found on The Dooyeweerd Pages and on All of life redeemed.
A non-reductionist theory of reality
Aug 3rd
The final chapters (11-13) of Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) present a brief overview of Dooyeweerd's philosophy, applying it in particular to society and the state. I'll try to give the gist of it here.
This "law framework theory" starts off by recognizing that reality as we experience it has many different aspects, each with its own properties and laws. Then the theory asserts that these aspects cannot be reduced to each other (so psychology is not "nothing but" physics and biology, for example). Instead, each aspect of reality is directly created by God, and depends directly on him for its existence. Here's a provisional list, which is probably best read from bottom to top:
fiduciary
[love-]ethical
justitial
aesthetic
economic
social
linguistic
historical [or cultural or technological]
logical
sensory
biotic
physical
kinetic
spatial
quantitative (p.244)
Next the theory talks about "the natures of things" (p.260). Every thing or entity that exists functions in all of the aspects, whether actively or passively, and is subject to the laws of each aspect. So a rock functions actively in the quantitative, spatial, kinetic and physical aspects, but also functions passively in the other aspects. For example, it might be a stone in an animal's den (biotic), or used in a religious ritual (fiduciary). As such, all entities are described by type laws, defined as "laws which range across aspects determining which properties of different aspects can combine in individuals, and thus determine the types of individuals that are possible" (p.268).
In particular, each type of thing is characterised by one of the aspects (its leading aspect or qualifying aspect), which governs the properties of the thing as a whole.
This is getting a bit abstract, so let's apply it to society.
There are many different communities in society, such as businesses (characterised by the economic aspect), families (characterised by the ethical aspect), religious communities (fiducial), orchestras (aesthetic) and the state (justitial). These communities cannot be reduced to each other, because they have fundamentally different purposes, as described by their leading aspect. Each community has authority to act within that aspect (as in Abraham Kuyper's principle of "sphere sovereignty"), and this authority is derived from God and is subject to the laws God has created for that aspect. So "on this view there is no institution which can rightfully claim to have supreme authority for the whole of human life" (p.291).
So what is the state? It is not the ultimate authority, not even when that authority is given by the majority vote or is restricted by some set of individual rights that the state cannot violate.
By contrast, the law framework theory sees the state as the bearer, not the creator, of the authority it wields in enforcing justice. The will of the majority decides who shall be the bearers of that authority, but the authority itself derives from the law framework of creation and thus, ultimately, from God (p.311).
And what is the state for? It is not for regulating every detail of our lives. Instead,
The state ... has its own distinct kind of authority, an authority qualified by justice — more specifically, public justice. Its ability to carry out justice must extend to the whole of the public within its territory, of course. Nevertheless, its authority is limited to but one aspect of that public. And let me emphasize that it is precisely because justice is an aspect of all individuals and communities, that the state need not subsume them all as its parts in order to exercise its proper authority with respect to them. In other words, state authority need not be elevated above all others on the excuse that it needs totalitarian authority to ensure justice to all individuals and communities (p.296).
It is this kind of approach to reality, based on belief in a God who created the many different aspects of reality that we experience, that can give the state a clear role in wider society, without dominating society, and without being weak and ineffective in operating within its sphere of influence.
The effect of religious beliefs on psychology
Jul 22nd
What makes me who I am? Is it the laws of physics, operating on the cells in my body? Or is it the pressures of society, forcing me into its mould? (Nature or nurture?)
According to Roy Clouser, in The Myth of Religious Neutrality (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), psychology has often tended to choose one or the other of these answers. In terms of Dooyeweerd's aspects (see here), if psychology is the study of the sensory aspect, then psychologists have tended to reduce the sensory aspect either onto the physical and biotic aspects, or onto the social aspect. This often reflects the psychologists' beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality (their religious beliefs). Let's treat each in turn, followed by a different perspective.
1. Psychology reduced to physics and biology. Clouser describes the "behaviourist" approaches of Watson, Thorndike and Skinner, with this summary:
Common to all these theories is the total rejection of allowing into psychology anything about human mental life and experiences that is prima facie non-behavioral such as thoughts, feelings, purposes, and even perceptions (p.166).
Why might these theorists take such an approach?
The reason is their materialist perspective on reality ... that sees all reality as restricted to, or dependent on, the physical aspect. That is, it holds either: (1) there exist only physical bodies and their actions, or (2) any non-physical factors involved are entirely generated by physical bodies and their actions. (p.167).
2. Psychology reduced to sociology. Under this heading would come the theories of Adler and the earlier theories of Fromm (who later moved towards a more pantheistic view of reality).
Adler insisted that psychology is a social science. He held that the goal of psychology "is not to comprehend causal factors, as in physiology, but the direction-giving ... [social] forces and goals that guide all other psychological movements" (p.171).
3. Non-reductionist psychology. The Christian perspective on reality that Clouser presents in his book is one in which God has made creation with its various aspects, and the different aspects cannot be reduced to each other. This view of the whole of creation reflects the biblical view of human nature, in which "each human is ... seen as an essential unity, no matter how many diverse kinds of functions an individual may display in the various aspects of creation" (p.180). Importantly, "this view is at odds with the notion popular among theists that a human is not an essential unity but a duality of two entities—a soul and a body" (p.181). What such a non-reductionist theory might look like in practice will the subject of later chapters.
How do religious beliefs influence physics?
Jul 16th
We're continuing our "Casebook" in the middle of Roy Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), looking at how religious beliefs influence beliefs in particular areas. Last time it was mathematics; this time: physics.
But first, a few of my own ruminations. If in a particular area of study we are aiming to focus on a particular set of related properties that things possess, and to identify and explain the ways in which those properties relate to each other, then I suppose that our religious beliefs (our beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality) could affect what we think about the following:
- The properties themselves. If our beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality lead us to believe that certain properties that things appear to possess are merely illusions, then we're not likely to bother to study those properties in great detail. In other words, our religious beliefs could influence what we think are the legitimate boundaries for a discipline.
- The laws relating those properties. If properties appear to relate to each other according to some law, then we might not believe that to be the case if our religious beliefs contradict that. (I suppose this would only happen in the scholastic or fundamentalist ways of relating religious beliefs to other beliefs.)
- The explanations for the laws. It is not enough simply to identify the laws relating different properties. Far more important is to explain those laws. This is something that Clouser emphasises. We tend to explain laws by proposing the existence of some entity: an entity hypothesis. But what is the nature of that entity? Does it possess properties that would have relevance for other areas of study? Do my beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality allow me to believe that such an entity could exist? This was dealt with in Chapter 4 (and I think it's going to feature quite heavily in the monster-chapter 10).
- The purpose of the discipline. This point and the previous point both touch on how the discipline relates to the rest of reality. Why would I bother spending my time researching a particular area? Which particular questions are interesting to me? Why should people give their money to fund research into that area? What is important for people to do with their lives? What are human beings for? While this might not influence the details of the discipline itself, it clearly has a large effect on the broader features of the discipline and its place in society.
Anyway, back to physics. Atomic theory, to be more specific. Clouser takes us through three major theories about atoms, from the twentieth century, showing how the religious beliefs of their proponents guided them in formulating their views. Note that the differences are all of kinds (3) and (4) above, in that religious beliefs constrain the kinds of entities proposed to explain the laws (about which there was general agreement), and in that they guide the interpretation of physics as a whole.
1. The theory of Mach, who "did not believe that atoms exist", seeing them rather as "useful fictions" (p.149). He and others took so seriously the distinction between the world as it is and the world as we experience it that they "concluded that so far as we can ever know from our experience, reality is made of sensations" (p.150). This reflected Mach's own beliefs about what is fundamentally real. In his own words: "The assertion, then, is correct that the world consists only of our sensations" (p.157). In collapsing all of reality onto the sensory aspect, he was taking the same approach as that of John Stuart Mill towards mathematics, which we saw last time.
2. The theory of Einstein, who "believed that we are entitled to say there are (purely) physical objects outside our minds which cause our sensations, while Mach denied it" (p.152). In terms of Dooyeweerd's aspects (see last time), "he attributed independent reality to the logical and mathematical properties and laws" (p.152). And belief about what is independently real constitutes religious belief.
3. The theory of Heisenberg, who asserted, contrary to Mach and Einstein, "not only that elementary particles lack any sensory qualities, but that it is not even accurate to say they have being". "Instead, he holds the view that they are essentially mathematical possibilities" (p.154). "For Heisenberg [atomic theory] meant postulating micro-entities that comprise reality and that, while composed of physical energy, are essentially mathematical in nature" (p.157).
So what difference does this make? As in (4) above, religious beliefs help researchers to decide which questions are worth addressing. "For example, on Mach's view it would make no sense to attempt to confirm the existence of entities such as atoms and subatomic particles" (p.156). It would probably be fair to say that the neutrino would not have been discovered if physicists had generally held the religious belief that all of reality is purely sensory.
The great expense and effort highlights the motive which drove the physicists involved. Clearly, the motive was the belief that theories are attempts to know reality; that is, theories try to discover what exists and to know its nature. My point it that this belief presupposes a philosophical perspective which would have to accept (minimally) the logical, mathematical, spatial, physical, and sensory aspects of experience as (at least part of) the nature of reality. So whether that view was consciously adopted by those thinkers or not, it is the sort of perspective on reality that science needs. It needs, and is most benefited by, a view of reality that openly accepts its multi-faceted nature (p.157).
Is mathematics religious?
Jun 29th
What a strange question, I hear you say!
But if everyone's beliefs about everything are shaped by their own religious beliefs, as has been claimed, then that must include mathematics.
Chapter 7 of Roy Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) faces this challenge head-on: how do religious beliefs affect mathematics?
You (both of you) may recall the basic shape of the argument. Religious beliefs are beliefs about what is independently and unconditionally real (Chapter 2). And our beliefs about what is fundamental about reality will affect the kinds of hypotheses we will entertain when we are thinking about any particular area of reality, including mathematics (Chapter 4).
Here are some examples.
1. The Number-World Theory (Pythagoras, Plato, Leibniz). In this theory,
the numerals and other markings of mathematics stand for real entities in another world or dimension of reality (p.133).
In order for this to be true,
it would have to be the case that the quantitativeness of things relates to the other kinds of properties and laws true of them by being utterly independent of them all. Thus, the quantitative aspect is (at least part of) what things and their other kinds of properties depend on for existence (p.134).
The quantitative aspect as one of the aspects of our experience mentioned in Chapter 4, and is one of fifteen aspects identified by Herman Dooyeweerd. (The full list given in Clouser's book is: fiduciary, ethical, justitial, aesthetic, economic, social, linguistic, historical, logical, sensory, biotic, physical, kinetic, spatial and quantitative.)
Examples of the practical difference these religious beliefs have had on mathematics have been the resistance of the Pythagoreans to the idea of irrational numbers, and that of Leibniz to the idea of negative numbers.
There are more practical differences when we consider the intuitionists (Brouwer, Weyl, Poincaré), who make even the logical aspect to be dependent on the quantitative aspect. This forces them to deny "the existence of actual infinite sets" and therefore to "reject an entire branch of mathematics, the theory of transfinite numbers developed by Georg Cantor" (p.141).
2. John Stuart Mill, whose "theory was that numerals symbolise sensory perceptions" (p.134).
Mill defended this view of math[s] by arguing that not only the quantitative aspect, but all other aspects of our pre-theoretical experience are actually identical with its sensory aspect. That is, Mill's theory was that the nature of all reality is sensory (p.134).
This approach is similar to the number-world theory in selecting one (or two) of the aspects, and asserting that it is the non-dependent reality on which all of the other aspects depend.
3. Bertrand Russell, who took the logical aspect to be non-dependently and unconditionally real:
The logical laws, he says, are not only those to which all reality — actual or possible — must conform, but they are "the heart and immutable essence" of all things (p.144).
Thus mathematics "is nothing other than a short-cut way of doing logic" (p.135).
4. Instrumentalism, e.g., John Dewey, for whom the physical-biological aspect(s) have the non-dependent and unconditional reality:
through all his theorizing, he regards all other aspects as dependent on the physical-biological and never regards them, in turn, as dependent on anything else (p.144).
Under his theory, "humans are to be understood as essentially biological beings struggling to survive in a certain environment", and thus "all human cultural products are instruments" (p.136), helping us to survive.
Just as it is inappropriate to ask whether a hammer is true or false, it is equally inappropriate to ask that of mathematical tools. 1 + 1 = 2 is thus neither true or false, says Dewey, though it performs certain tasks well (137).
5. Belief in God, "which should lead us to the view that no aspect of creation is self-existent, nor does any generate any other since all are dependent on God alone" (p.145). Under this view of mathematics,
the abstractions we arrive at, numbers, sets, etc., will never be seen as independently existing realities. The are never more — or less — than the properties, relations, functions, etc., of the quantitative aspect true of the things and events of ordinary experience (p.146).
In summary, it would have been good to explore the practical implications of these different views more fully. While all of the views differ greatly on their understanding of the nature of mathematics, it is so far clear only in the cases of the number-world theory and of intuitionism that any specific theories of mathematics are affected by one's religious beliefs. But, for example, if I switch between the theories of Mill and of Russell, would I then be forced to change my beliefs about any specific theories of mathematics?
But I think enough has been said to demonstrate the point: that religious beliefs do indeed exert a controlling influence on mathematical theories.
How do religious beliefs control other beliefs?
Jun 25th
If I believe something because it is in the Bible, then how might that affect my beliefs about some other area of reality, such as geology or history?
First, I might take a scholastic approach (see yesterday's episode), by which I formulate my theories of geology just as any other geologist would, but at the end of the process I whip out my Bible and check for any inconsistencies. If necessary, I do some more digging and some more theologising until those inconsistencies disappear (which hopefully they will).
Or, second, I might take a fundamentalist approach. This is the subject of Chapter 6 of Roy Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). In this approach, I scour the Bible for anything it might say about geology, and explicitly include that information in my theories.
Despite some rather strong language, Clouser doesn't seem to have a fundamental problem with either of those approaches, per se. (His main problem with the fundamentalist approach is when the Bible is misinterpreted, and forced to speak on matters about which it doesn't actually speak.) These two approaches
[focus] on either the logical compatibility of specific religious beliefs and specific theories [the scholastic approach], or on the inclusion of biblical teachings in the content or confirmation of theories [the fundamentalist approach]. But while not denying that revealed truth can, at times, act as "control beliefs" for theories in those ways, this position [see below] denies that those are the only or most important ways divinity beliefs impact theories (p.127).
This third position is the radically biblical position, which we encountered last time. In this, the religious beliefs control other beliefs by acting as presuppositions:
By acting as a presupposition to all theory making, rather than by being part of, or by confirming part of, the content of any particular theory, belief in God can guide every theory and do it in a more pervasive and important way (p.121).
The next chapters form a "casebook", giving examples of how this works in mathematics, physics and psychology. So watch this space...
A brief history of faith and reason
Jun 24th
1. Religious belief controlling theoretical reason
So far (1, 2, 3, 4) in The Myth of Religious Neutrality, Roy Clouser has been arguing for a view of the relation between religious belief and theoretical reason as follows (p.96):
Religious Belief
- guides and directs the use of reason in all of life
Theoretical Reason is:
- not neutral because controlled by religious belief
- not final court of appeal
- not able to decide all matters
In Chapter 5 he now labels this as the radically biblical position, saying
The position is this: there is no knowledge or truth that is neutral with respect to belief in God. The [Bible] writers who assert this do not also specify exactly how belief in God impacts "knowledge of all kinds" or "all truth," but they are clear that they regard beliefs in other (putative) divinities as partially falsifying all that is taken to be truth or knowledge, and that knowing God enables us, in principle, to avoid that partial falsehood (p.94).
He then quotes some biblical texts and concludes
that the cumulative effect of these texts is to teach that no sort of knowledge is religiously neutral (p.95).
However, most people throughout the history of thought have taken different views on the relation between religious belief and theoretical reason.
2. Theoretical reason controlling religious belief
First, there is the view that reason is autonomous and "trumps" religious belief. This may be religious rationalism, which "was the dominant influence in ancient Greco-Roman culture" (p.94). In this view, reason can be used either to justify or to refute religious beliefs. In some ways this may be seen as the reverse of the radically biblical position (p.93):
Theoretical Reason is:
- neutral respecting all matters
- final court of appeal in all matters
- able to decide all matters (?)
Religious Belief is:
- a theory or conclusion of reason
- optional
(Closely related to this is religious irrationalism, which states that religious belief is completely isolated from theoretical reason.)
3. Religious belief and theoretical reason in harmony
When the radically biblical position clashed with religious rationalism, religious scholasticism emerged, which
devised a compromise between the all-encompassing claim pagan rationalism made for reason, and the equally all-encompassing biblical claim that right faith is a necessary prerequisite for knowledge of every sort. This was done by limiting the scope of each claim (p.99).
This position "had permeated the whole of European thought by the sixth century" (p.104), and "Among thinkers who believe in God, [it] is still by far the most popular position in the world today" (p.105). Diagrammatically, it looks something like this (p.101):
Realm of Supernature or Grace
Faith accepts revelation as supreme authority concerning God and the soul and related matters.
Natural Realm
- Reason is neutral and final authority concerning nature;
- Reason harmonizes religion with the theories of science and philosophy;
- Reason proves the existence of the supernatural and systematizes revealed doctrines.
4. Faith and reason post-1500
The change in Western thought came
in the sixteenth century when scholasticism was simultaneously challenged by two movements. One of these, the Renaissance, advocated a return to pagan rationalism by insisting on the autonomy and neutrality of reason in all matters, so that it dispensed with faith imposing any limit to reason. The other was the Reformation, which rejected limiting faith to only supernatural matters and argued that reason is intrinsically guided by faith in all matters (p.105).
Calvin was strongest on the latter point, taking "the view that human reason is not neutral because it is affected by sin, where sin is understood as false divinity belief which produces deleterious effects on reason's attempts to interpret reality" (p.106).
However, the Protestant church soon sank back into scholasticism, having a "general view of the relation of faith and reason [that] was largely the same" as that of the Catholic church.
Their main difference over faith and reason came to be that while Catholic thinkers tended to harmonize their faith with theories about nature derived from Aristotle (due to the influence of Thomas Aquinas), Protestant thinkers felt free to harmonize their faith with whatever theories about nature were currently fashionable (p.107).
So where is the radically biblical position today? It does have its adherents, but generally doesn't have a good press, "owing to the specific interpretation of it which has been advocated by the largest single group of its adherents, the fundamentalists" (pp.108f), to whom (or against whom) the next chapter will be devoted.
How do religious beliefs affect all beliefs?
Jun 10th
Roy Clouser's contention in The Myth of Religious Neutrality is that anyone's understanding of anything is strongly affected by their religious beliefs.
Chapter 4 of the book unpacks this by looking at the connection between our theories about any specific aspect of reality and our theories about the whole of reality (which are closely linked with our religious beliefs).
It gets a bit technical, but the essence is this:
- When we formulate a theory to explain something specific, we do so by focusing on a narrow set of related properties possessed by the things we are trying to understand. This involves making hypotheses: guesses about some entity that might exist, or some way in which different properties relate.
- The sorts of hypotheses we are willing to consider will be strongly dependent on the bigger theories we have: theories not about just one or two sets of properties that things might have (such as physical properties or aesthetic properties), but theories about how all of the different sets of related properties relate to each other. (A set of related properties is also known as an aspect of experience, or simply an aspect.) These bigger (philosophical) theories are expressions of what we believe about what is "unconditionally and non-dependently real". That is, they are expressions of our religious beliefs.
The rest of the book will develop this further (and I'm looking forward to seeing how it works in practice). But if the above points are correct, it can be seen that religious beliefs (which we all have) will always have a strong influence on what we believe about any area of reality.
Types of religious belief
May 1st
The common factor shared by all religions, according to Roy Clouser, is belief in something that is "divine per se", that is, something that is "unconditionally and non-dependently real". Chapter 3 of his book, The Myth of Religious Neutrality, looks at this definition in some more detail. Two things are worth noting.
First, a consequence of the definition is that something that is "divine per se" (or simply "divine") must necessarily exist.
The sum total of reality, no matter how that is understood, would have to be divine either in part or whole just because there'd be nothing else for it to depend on (p.57).
This means that any coherent understanding of the whole of reality is "religious", in the sense that it involves belief in something that is "unconditionally and non-dependently real".
The second thing to note is that there are various ways in which the divine and the non-divine might relate to each other. It might be the pagan dependency arrangement, under which
there is only one continuous reality, a part of which is the per se divine on which all the rest depends (p.44).
Examples of this would be nature religions, most polytheistic religions, and materialism (the belief that matter and energy are "just there" and that everything else in reality depends on them). Or the divine and the non-divine might relate through the pantheistic dependency arrangement:
Instead of locating the divine as a subdivision of the one continuous reality, the pantheistic belief is that whatever we experience as non-divine reality is in fact a subdivision of the divine reality, which is both infinite and all-encompassing (p.48).
Examples would be Hinduism and Buddhism. Or the third way in which the divine and non-divine relate could be termed the biblical dependency arrangement, under which
the divine per se is not part of the universe nor is the universe part of the divine; there is a fundamental discontinuity between the creator and all else which is his creation (p.50).
Examples of this would be Christianity and Islam.
Having now established that all coherent belief systems about reality are "religious", the next step in establishing his thesis that all of life is religious is to show precisely how it is that religious beliefs shape how people understand anything and everything. This is the subject of chapters 4-6, on "Theories".
The resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of his people
Apr 24th
Christians celebrate today (on good evidence) that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.
But they also believe that they themselves will share in Jesus' resurrection.
What does this mean?
They might mean one of three things, as in this image from a sermon I preached last year at Calvary Evangelical Church, Brighton:
1. By saying that Christians will share in Christ's resurrection, they might mean that Christians will live on as disembodied spirits. This belief is remarkably widespread in popular Christian thinking, Christian hymns and songs, and in what non-Christians think Christians believe. It may be expressed as, "When Christians die, their souls live on in heaven, where they will be with God for ever." But this is certainly not what the Scriptures teach, and is contrary to orthodox Christian teaching. For example, two of the most important creeds of the early church, the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, both explicitly deny that we will spend eternity as disembodied spirits in heaven, the former speaking of "the resurrection of the body" and the latter speaking of "the resurrection of the dead". In fact, this idea owes more to Greek thought, as the ancient Greeks despised bodies and believed that one day their souls would be set free from the constraints of being embodied.
2. By saying that Christians will share in Christ's resurrection, they might mean that Christians will get a replacement body in the life to come. In other words, when Christ returns he will inaugurate the life to come, and in that life to come we will have bodies. But those new bodies will be a completely new bodies, having no continuity with our current bodies. (Examples of this would be some Christians who see death and suffering as so intrinsic to the current physical nature of life that the only way they can conceive of a world without them is if the world to come had a radically different physical constitution, perhaps with life based on something other than carbon.) This is better, as it affirms an important Christian belief: that to be fully human, you need a body. But in denying any continuity it denies that this body matters at all. You might as well do whatever you like with this body, as it's going to be thrown away and replaced with a new one. And it also ignores the empty tomb: if "resurrection" means that we get a replacement body, then why was Jesus' tomb empty?
3. By saying that Christians will share in Christ's resurrection, they might mean that Christians' bodies will be raised as resurrection bodies in the life to come. This is what happened to Jesus: his old body was raised (continuity) and transformed (discontinuity) into a resurrection body. This is the orthodox Christian teaching about resurrection. And it matters! If we're going to be disembodied spirits in heaven, or if this present physical Universe is going to be zapped and replaced with something else, then why does it matter what I do with this body? Nothing good that I do with this body will have any lasting consequences, and nor will anything bad that I do with this body. All that matters is people's souls, and we can ignore people's bodies, and everything else that is physical, as nothing physical has any ultimate significance. No, this body matters, and whatever we do now, in this body, is not in vain, but will have lasting consequences into eternity - because this body will be raised. And that's the good news of Easter Day.
Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labour in the Lord is not in vain (1 Corinthians 15:58, NIV).
What is a religious belief?
Apr 21st
The claim made in Roy Clouser's book, The Myth of Religious Neutrality, is that all of life is religious, that is, that for every person, every part of their lives is affected by their own religious beliefs. In other words, there is no such thing as religious neutrality, as everyone has religious beliefs (whether they realise it or not), and those beliefs touch every area of life.
Now, such a claim, in addition to being somewhat ambitious, would also be vacuous and meaningless if – as many have argued – no clear definition can be formulated as to what constitutes a "religious belief".
Finding such a definition is the goal of Chapter 2 of the book, What is Religion?
In essence the definition is as follows: a religious belief is a belief about what is unconditionally and non-dependently real. This may be a "primary religious belief", about the unconditional and non-dependent reality itself, or a "secondary religious belief", about how other realities (including ourselves) relate to this unconditional and non-dependent reality.
This idea of something being "unconditionally and non-dependently real" (what Clouser also calls "divinity per se") seems to be present in all religious belief systems, covering
God, Brahman-Atman, the Dharmakaya, and the Tao ... the Nam in Sikhism, Ahura Mazda (Ohrmazd) in early Zoroastrianism or Zurvan in its laver development, the soul/matter dualism of the Jains, the high god of the Dieri Aborigines, the belief in Mana among Trobriand Islanders, Kami in the Shinto tradition, the Raluvhimba of the Bantu religion, the Void, Suchness, or Nothingness found in various forms of Buddhism, and the idea of Wakan or Orenda found among various tribes of North and South America. It also holds for the ancient Roman idea of Numen, for Okeanos in the myths of Homer, and for a host of other ideas (p.20).
Clouser's definition of a religious belief seems coherent to me (and he defends it at great length): it is simple, precise and seems to trace out a fairly tight circle around everything we would intuitively term a "religious belief". It does, however, include some beliefs we would not usually think of as "religious" (such as philosophical materialism). But as long as we are clear what is meant by the term, I don't think that should be too much of an issue (and if philosophical materialism possesses the core characteristic of all religious beliefs, then calling it a "religious belief" itself doesn't seem too outrageous).
Chapter 3 will look more closely at types of religious belief, before the substantial part of the book, attempting to demonstrate that all people have religious beliefs (that is, that all people hold to a belief in something that is unconditionally and non-dependently real) and that these religious beliefs have "the single most decisive influence on everyone's understanding of the major issues of life ranging across the entire spectrum of human experience" (p.4).
All of life is religious
Apr 8th
How much of your life is affected by your religious beliefs? Not much, surely? For a start, many people are not religious at all, so the answer for them would be, "None of my life is affected by my religious beliefs, because I don't have any religious beliefs." And for those that are religious, there are only certain areas of life that are affected: some areas of ethics, involvement in a religious community, prayer and the like. Okay, there are some people who are religious and completely barmy, for whom everything seems to be about religion, but that's a different case. But for the majority of people, most or all of their life is untouched by their religious beliefs, right?
No, not at all! At least, not according to Roy Clouser, whose book, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories I've just started to read.
His claim is that "religious belief has the single most decisive influence on everyone's understanding of the major issues of life ranging across the entire spectrum of human experience" and that "it exercises such influence upon all people independently of their conscious acceptance or rejection of the religious traditions with which they are acquainted" (p.1, emphasis added). Or, more precisely, "What will be demonstrated is that no abstract explanatory theory can fail to include or presuppose a religious belief" (p.4).
This is quite a bold claim, which first of all begs the question of what a "religious" belief is. That is the subject of the next chapter.
But for now, it is tempting for me, as a Christian, to assume the primary intent of the book is "to convert readers to belief in God, or to refute atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, or any other 'ism'" (p.5). You see, Mr Atheist, you are just as religious as I am, etc. ... No, the main purpose of the book is for people like myself, to be persuaded
that our belief in a transcendent Creator mandates a distinct perspective for the interpretation of every aspect of life. And this distinct perspective extends to the construction and interpretation of philosophical, scientific, and all other theories because there is no area or issue of life which is neutral with respect to belief in God (p.5).
The love of God
Nov 10th
Great talks by Mike Reeves on the love of God from a recent UCCF event (hat tip: Dave Bish). This was the trailer...
Transformission 2010 from Dave Bish on Vimeo.
I live in York and I'm a research fellow in 
Loading ...
