My recent studying into the work of Thomas Aquinas, in particular his commentary on Boethius’ De Trinitate has been very helpful in parsing out some thoughts on faith and its realtionship to reason. Aquinas is very articulate in explaining the various domains of faith and reason. The first thing is that the two are definitely not at odds with each other. The key is that human reason is limited. In partricular all human reasoning begins from sense perception, which as many philosophers have pointed out is unreliable as a conduit of truth. From those sense perceptions, however, we can understand the nature of thought itself and through this the existence of something other than material things. I have gone into greater detail about some lines of reasoning concerning the existence of God at some other points in this blog and will not go into greater detail here, but even in this regard the things about God which we can know are very limited and thus the “philosophical God” is one which lacks substance beyond some very basic elements(ie. infinite, good, immutable, first cause, etc). Aquians simply wonders whether this is all that we can know or all that we need, and suggests that it is not. However, the things concerning God, salvation, scripture, etc are things which are beyond the unaided power of our reasoning to comprehend. In some ways this is not a very satisfying answer since it begs the question “why should we choose this particular scripture, etc?” I think one of the reasons that he would suggest is that although from our own reason alone these things are unattainable, nevertheless they do not contradict that which sound reasoning can know. That is not to say that it will not contradict some theories of scientists, philosophers, literary critics and the like who would try to pass of their reasoning as certain, but those things which one would have the most reason to consider proven logically would not contradict a sound interpretation of scripture. There is far more here to discuss but I will continue another time.
Theology and Theology
December 15th, 2009In the very beginning of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, he makes an interesting distinction which is very foreign to today’s evangelical thought, but is very apt, I think. The question is whether philosophical science, or tha which we can know throuh unaided human reason, is all the knowledge we can possess as human beings. Since philosophical science treats of the subjects of God and humanity, then what need is there for more? What he calls theology is quite different from what today is called theology, and is more aptly called philosophical theology. What we call theology today he calls the “science of sacred doctrine.” Philosophical theology, then, deals with those things about God which human reason can understand. Later in the Summa he goes through what he believes are all the things which can be explained in this way or proven through logical and intelligible philosophical methods. I’ll try and explain some of these in greater detail as I progress through the book. The other theology, of sacred doctrine, is what is more familiar as being based on faith, and this is necessary because of the limitations of human knowledge, and also because even what we can prove of the nature and existence of God is only truly available to a very few who can completely comprehend all the difficult concepts involved. For most, he says, it was necessary that God reveal the truth so that people can believe and act on something. It was also necessary because much of the doctrine of salvation and Christ is not provable by human reason alone, but faith is necessary. It can certainly be understood in better or worse ways, but the knowledge is something which can only come through revelation. More on this another time.
Scripture and Reason
December 9th, 2009Just an interesting point to ponder: what is the relationship between scripture and reason in christian doctrine? Many would simply say that scripture takes precidence over our own understanding always. Unfortunately this presupposes an understanding of scripture in the first place and proper interpretation. Ought our understanding, then, of scripture necessarily agree with our understanding of the world in general, and of the things that science and philosophy can speak to? If there is a contradiction between how we understand the Bible and what our reason says logically must be true or false, ought we to throw out reason and logic? I would have to suggest that our interpretation of scripture, and indeed of any book of wisdom, must be consistent logically with itself and the external world. There are two ways to make mistakes here, however. One is an incorrect understanding of the world or logic, and the other is an incorrect understanding and interpretation of scripture. Sad as it is, most Christians do not really understand much about their own scriptures, much less about logic and philosophy. The argument is that theology and philosophy kills the “heart” in favour of the “head.” The question must be asked, however, how would one know what action to take without using reason in some capacity? Really it boils down to the same idea as the hedonists: do whatever our desires tell us to do. This is what the philosophers call the “animal life.” We become less human by this since it is our special ability to reason abstractly that is what separates us from the animals in the first place(ie. the image of God). I have heard it said, in fact, that if we desire something then it must be good since scripture says all desires come from God, or something to that effect. This is clearly preposterous since we regularly desire things which end up not being good for us, or we desire to have to much of something, etc. Proper scriptural interpretation must focus primarily on reason, logic and language, not on a vague notion of “heart.” I hink it also means that if there is something that we can see is proven in science or logic, and our interpretation of some passage in scripture does not agree with this, then we must reexamine our interpreatation of that passage, not simply reject what science or logic says on the grounds that it contradicts with scripture. Most of the time it doesn’t, it only contradicts with out limited understanding of it. If there is a true contradiction then that would mean that there are either two modes of truth(ie. that truth in scripture need not make sense) or one or the other is not true. Realistically very few Christians today have the ability to make this judgement, and that is a failure of education I believe.
The Rational Universe
October 20th, 2009From one comment posted the other day came a few questions that I thought might be better dealt with in a blog entry rather than a comment reply. In particualar, the idea of the universe being rational was seen as problematic. That which we call laws, Jerry suggested were merely observable patterns, and the fact that the universe hasn’t flown apart at the seams is something that does not mean it will not in the future. I believe this to be an incorrect view of the scientific understanding of laws. Admitedly my knowledge of this is very limited, but from the reading I have done it seems that the laws of nature are something which are more than observable patterns, but are necessary for the very being of the universe. The are conditions which must be present for anything else to be, and to function in such a way to create and sustain life of any form. These are conditions which must be in place at the beginning. They must have been present in the quantum singularity which resulted in the big bang prior to its “banging.” By rational I mean two things: i. that they are fundamentally ordered, not random, and ii. that as such they correspond to something inherent in our reasoning faculty which allow us to perceive them. If one is to maintain that they are random and just happened to be this way in our universe, then I believe one would have to postulate some kind of multiple universe theory. I have heard such theories, which suggest that our universe was one of billions which failed to achieve stability. I think, however, this is as unprovable by scientific means as that there was a God who “programmed” these laws into our universe. Both must be taken on faith, though logic can speak to both. In particular, if we postulate that there are so many universes there that were “trials” so to speak, then what is the origin of those universes? There must be some first cause, be it material or immaterial. It seems that the characteristic of this first cause would also have to be a certain type of rationality also, even if you could say its some kind of “material machine” kind of rationality. This speaks nothing of personality but simply rationality.
This leads us directly to another point mentioned: the fine-tuning argument. I have heard a number of criticisms of the notion that the almost infinite improbability of the universe suggests that there is a God at work fine-tuning the universe so to make it come out. I think there are strong arguments for this understanding of the universe, but the argument is that since the universe is here, it could not have turned out any other way. My opinion is that this is a flawed argument because it simply evades the question. If you assume materialism, then obviously the universe could and has come about through these improbabilities. If you asume theism, then obviously these improbabilities point to a divine will at work. To use a crude analogy, if you see a pie sitting on a windowsill, would one ever assume that it was random chance which resulted in the molecular structure of that pie coming about in precisely that way, in precisely that place, and at that time? If I’m not being fair to the argument, someone correct me. At worst it is irrelevant to the debate, at best is simply lends some support to the theistic argument, which is, I believe, its primary function. It is not meant to prove God’s existence, but to lend weight to its arguments.
Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics
August 21st, 2009I’ve recently been thinking a lot about things like the proofs for the existence of God, the natures of faith and reason, the intellectual defensibility of Christian doctrine in light of modern science(ie. creation vs evolution, etc), and all of these things are often categorized as apologetics. The greek word ‘apologia’ from which apologetics is derived means ‘defense speech'(‘apo’ being ‘away from’ and ‘logos’ being ‘speech, reason, or word’, one is separating himself from the charges). The word was normally employed in the context of the aereopagis or assembly or court for the formal defense given by the defendant. This has been adapted in Christian thought to defending one’s faith, meeting the criticisms and accuswations of critics in order to refute them and prove the tenets of faith, or at least tilt the scales of plausibility in its favour. However, what are we to make of the fact that manyof the arguments of apologetics equally belong in the category of the Philosophy of Religion(ie. The study of the things in religion that we can know through reason unaided by revelation)? Is apologetics a separate study or a subset or philosophy or theology? I think the answer lies in understanding the goals or ends of each of these. It seems to me the goal of apologetics is the refutation of arguments against religion, which often involves the convincing of the skeptics. The goal of the philosophy of religion is truth, or wisdom, and the proofs of said truth. What is it that we can know and prove through unaided human reason and logic about religious things. Since the latter, particularly inasmuch as it uses dialectic in its method, also involves convincing people, though its primary goal is the understanding of truth and its arguments, one could argue that it is a species of the genus ‘philosophy.’. I don’t think its relationship with Christian theology is quite so close(except philosophical theology).since skeptics will not accept anything from revelation as proof until the existence, nature and dependability of revelation is determined.
Descartes’ Meditations III
August 3rd, 2009Finally finished the audiobook of Meditations I was listening to. Not sure that I caught everytging, but sure gives some food for thought. His assertion that all error and I think he extends this to all evil, comes from making judgements beyond our understanding. We ought to reserve judgement till we fully understand anything. I think I agree that much grief in this world is caused by ignorance, I wonder whether it may be more tha attitude of open mindedness to being proved wrong that is the solution than purely witholding assent. Certainly there are many times when we ought to withold assent, and too many people rush to judgement, but to make a judgement based on the evidence or arguments available, and then be willing to be proved wrong(as with Antony Flew) is sometimes what we must do. I think I need to revisit some lectures on Descartes from a few years ago.
God and Science – Antony Flew
July 27th, 2009I recently found a really interesting book called There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Athiest Changed His Mind by Antony Flew. In it Flew details his journey from a young, unenthusiastic Christian son of a theologian, to an athiest, and eventually back to a theist. He states that throughout his life he followed the Socratic principle of following the argument wherever it may lead. This led him initially to believe that God did not exist. Through years of debates and discussions with religous friends and collegues he finally decided that the evidence of science itself points to a rational mind behind the rational laws of the universe. He suggests that the laws and regularities of the universe must have an author or agent which set them in place. It is implausible to suggest that the laws of nature came by chance, especially since so many of them, if changed in the smallest degree, would render the earth lifeless, or cause the stars and planets to spin apart or break up.
Moving from the macro to the micro aspects of the universe, he suggests that the genetic code by which DNA reproduces is something that could also not have come by chance. The mechanism for reproduction itself, not simply the information reproduced, suggests an Author. More later.
Truth and Being
July 21st, 2009This might be painfully obvious to those well versed in philosophy, or I may be completely wrong about it, but I think its interesting and fairly foundational to much else.
As I was driving down the Trans-Canada Highway I was thinking about some conversations I’ve had with people who do not believe that there is truth, on the on hand, and those who simply equate truth with Christ(“I am the truth”) on the other. The most obvious answer to the first is that it is a statement that is claimed to be true that they are giving when they say there is no truth. In order for that to be true there must be at least that one truth. However, I thought that some might simply try to redefine truth to suite there purposes and so I started thinking what we mean by the word truth, and(especially since I’m trying to slug through Aquinas and he talks a lot about this) the word being came to mind. Truth is being, or rather a statement about something that is. Truth, maybe, is something that is only conceptual or logical, whereas being is what is real. Existence is a property of all things that exist, truth is the concept associated with them. If this is so, then to say there is no truth is essentially equivalent to saying there is no being, nothing exists. This is proved false, at the very least, by Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum. I can at least know that I exist to do the doubting that I exist: this is truth. There are a billion other things which exist, not to mention the source of all being: God(“I am”), but I think the cogito is the simplest to prove.
In addressing the other, particularly Christian, objection to truth, I think one must properly interpret the passage that it refers to. “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me.” To say that Christ is truth, generically, is equivalent to saying that Christ is the way, generically. This would mean that if I ask the way to get to Calgary, the only appropriate answer would be “Christ!” This is obviouly meaningless, since the “way” referred to is qualified in the next clause: “no one comes to the Father but by me.” This is the same with truth. It is meaningless to say that Christ is truth generically. Rather he is the truth about coming to the Father. This misunderstanding is responsible for much suspicion in the Church of the notion of theological or philosophical truth. This suspicion, I think, is partially responsible for many young people who reject Christianity because when they question something they are told to just believe and not doubt.
Body and Soul
July 14th, 2009A little while back I had a very interesting, yet very speculative, discussion with a friend about the interaction between body and soul. He suggested that despite the fact that the soul would by definition be immaterial, if it is responsible for our personality, thoughts and emotions, we ought to be able through scientific examination(at least in theory) to observe the point or points at which the soul would interact with the brain, cells, etc. Descartes suggested, I believe, a penial gland, though I’m not familiar with his argument, and I think it is generally not accepted as plausible. As I thought through this a little more I think that the problem with getting a scientific observation here is that scientific examination could not confirm that any given point in the body or brain is the point at which the soul interacts because it would probably manifest itself as a change or adjustment whose cause cannot be immediately identified. Science, however, would not assume or even speculate that this is caused by an immortal soul, instead it would assume that it is a cause which we simply do not understand yet, and would formulate some material theory, even if no material theory could actually fit the facts. Because of this, I don’t think that scientists could ever really consider the possibility of an immaterial soul interacting with the body on some level.
One possible solution to this problem could be in the uncertainty principle, though I don’t know the theory behind this very well so it may not be applicable. Chris, any thoughts? Or anyone else?
Thoughts on Dawkins Part II
July 10th, 2009Continuing my evaluation of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, I come now to the crux of his argument in the first few chapters. He argues that the question of the existence of God need not be left unanswered by science. To be honest I think most of his argument here is negative. He suggests that religious people or theists in general don’t give positive arguments for the existence of God, but simply say “you can’t disprove it, so it may be true.”. This is entirely not the case, though I’ll deal with that later. He, I think rightly, suggests that the burden of proof is on theists to give reason to believe in the existence of God. If not we could simply say “the boogeyman exists, and you can’t prove otherwise” or like argument for anything we want. He suggests that theists have relied solely on this kind of negative argumentation to prove their point, which is entirely false, a fact he hypocritically admits in the very next chapter when he deals with the proofs for the existence of God. He’s right that the burden of proof by default lies in the proponent of an idea, but once the proponent has provided reasons for their supposition they, it is up to the opponent of the proposition to address those reasons. Dawkins in this part doesn’t mention this, and argues based on the false assumption that no arguments for the existence of God have been given. He suggests that when scientists say that the questions of God are outside the realm of science by nature, the scientists are just ‘being nice’ and they shouldn’t give so much credence to theistic ideas.
The deceptive thing about his argument here is that he mixes up bits of truth and good method(ie. Burden of proof) with false assumptions that can be very convincing if one doesn’t have at least a basic understanding of logic and argumentation. I’ll address his “refutations” of the proofs for the existence of God next time.