If you ever thought that atheists have any right to preach to Christians about morality (and some do), then have a look at this thread at the Sec Web. An old man, loved my millions, is gravely ill, and all but one of atheists on this thread are dancing for joy. Some people really make me sick. As for the Pope, it seems he is recovering and will hopefully continue to stick two fingers up at secular bigots for a while yet.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
I can't agree with everything in the sermon that Jon kindly transcribed and posted as a comment to my last post. For instance, I do insist that God reserves the right for special miraculous action on rare occasions that he believes necessary. Likewise, I do not think Jesus calmed the storm due to the power of his human nature as the sermon seems to imply. Basically, nothing I say about what I think the ordinary workings of nature are should be taken to mean I do not think God intervenes specially on occasion as well. I think Alvin Plantinga covered this quite well in one of his lectures last term.
Another problem with what I said is that it begs a question about heaven. We are to believe that heaven will square the circle of allowing us to love and be good without the attendant evil and sinful impulses. And how can we be free in heaven and never sin?
I can only speculate about this sort of thing but at least I can present some suggestions to those who see a contradiction here. It seems to me that having developed our ability to love and do good, we will not lose it simply by moving to an environment where evil does not exist. Our experiences that have taught us these valuable lessons will remain with us so we will always know what evil was even if we never experience it any more. We are also taught that we will have new bodies in heaven of which that of Jesus after the resurrection is a precursor. It seems likely that these bodies will lack the evolutionary instincts for status that are the root of nearly all human sin. Thus, while sin is part of our very nature here on earth, which is why we are said to be 'fallen beings', it need not be part of our heavenly nature. So no one in heaven would choose to sin just as we never choose to do things against our nature on earth. In theory, I am free to go and throw myself in front of a car. In practice it is never going to happen as it is against my nature. Sin in heaven will seem equally absurd.
Another problem with what I said is that it begs a question about heaven. We are to believe that heaven will square the circle of allowing us to love and be good without the attendant evil and sinful impulses. And how can we be free in heaven and never sin?
I can only speculate about this sort of thing but at least I can present some suggestions to those who see a contradiction here. It seems to me that having developed our ability to love and do good, we will not lose it simply by moving to an environment where evil does not exist. Our experiences that have taught us these valuable lessons will remain with us so we will always know what evil was even if we never experience it any more. We are also taught that we will have new bodies in heaven of which that of Jesus after the resurrection is a precursor. It seems likely that these bodies will lack the evolutionary instincts for status that are the root of nearly all human sin. Thus, while sin is part of our very nature here on earth, which is why we are said to be 'fallen beings', it need not be part of our heavenly nature. So no one in heaven would choose to sin just as we never choose to do things against our nature on earth. In theory, I am free to go and throw myself in front of a car. In practice it is never going to happen as it is against my nature. Sin in heaven will seem equally absurd.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
After blogging my thoughts on the problem of natural evil, I was rightly taken to task for dismissing any link between freewill and natural disasters. Firstly this was due to traditional Christian theology that dates nature's hostility to man from the Fall. But even if we do not exactly subscribe to such a doctrine, there are other links between the two subjects.
It is fairly clear that God grants the universe a great deal of freedom in the way it operates. The whole point of natural laws is that the universe can function without the need for God to step in and make adjustments the whole time to keep the show on the road. At the same time, those natural laws are not deterministic and so God has not set everything up in advance to come out a certain way. However, he does know the way it is going to turn out and so must think of the result as being good. Thus, I would say that the universe is allowed a 'radical integrity' and given the trouble this can cause we must assume that it is central to God's purposes.
So why did he not create a world where things are better than they are here? Why does he tolerate the inevitability of scarcity, evil and pain? Why not create a world where everyone has what they need and do not have a desire for more than that? I suggest that the reason for this is tied up with the idea of 'radical integrity' and God's obvious desire that we should be our own creatures and not simply automatons.
Imagine a perfect world. In that world, there are animals who never need worry about where the next meal is coming from, never need worry about finding a mate and never need worry about getting eaten. We can be absolutely sure that these animals will never evolve into conscious beings because there is simply no need to. They won't be happy because the concept of happiness can never occur to them. Evil doesn't exist but neither does the concept of good. They simply do not have the ability to comprehend either concept. What about love? I can't see how that can have appeared either because love almost always involves some sort of self-privation which is impossible in a world without scarcity. Of course, God can step in and create the difficult conditions in which these ideas can develop, but that makes him even more responsible for evil than he is already. If you want a universe that enjoys radical integrity and you want love and good to develop, you have to ensure that the conditions exist for them to appear. Without scarcity, they won't. The flip side is that scarcity gives rise to other consequences. The human desire for status is a direct evolutionary result of the fact that there is not enough to go around.
In our universe, love and good have developed to a quite remarkable extent. This has happened because natural evil exists. This natural evil has also given rise to much moral evil because pride, violence and promiscuity have all evolved because of it. But without it, we would not be conscious of good either or, if we were, we would not be free as the concept of good would simply have been planted in our heads by God rather than being something we discover for ourselves. Thus beings who know love and good through their own efforts can only evolve in a world of privation. Otherwise, everything we value, including freewill and consciousness, simply won't exist.
It is fairly clear that God grants the universe a great deal of freedom in the way it operates. The whole point of natural laws is that the universe can function without the need for God to step in and make adjustments the whole time to keep the show on the road. At the same time, those natural laws are not deterministic and so God has not set everything up in advance to come out a certain way. However, he does know the way it is going to turn out and so must think of the result as being good. Thus, I would say that the universe is allowed a 'radical integrity' and given the trouble this can cause we must assume that it is central to God's purposes.
So why did he not create a world where things are better than they are here? Why does he tolerate the inevitability of scarcity, evil and pain? Why not create a world where everyone has what they need and do not have a desire for more than that? I suggest that the reason for this is tied up with the idea of 'radical integrity' and God's obvious desire that we should be our own creatures and not simply automatons.
Imagine a perfect world. In that world, there are animals who never need worry about where the next meal is coming from, never need worry about finding a mate and never need worry about getting eaten. We can be absolutely sure that these animals will never evolve into conscious beings because there is simply no need to. They won't be happy because the concept of happiness can never occur to them. Evil doesn't exist but neither does the concept of good. They simply do not have the ability to comprehend either concept. What about love? I can't see how that can have appeared either because love almost always involves some sort of self-privation which is impossible in a world without scarcity. Of course, God can step in and create the difficult conditions in which these ideas can develop, but that makes him even more responsible for evil than he is already. If you want a universe that enjoys radical integrity and you want love and good to develop, you have to ensure that the conditions exist for them to appear. Without scarcity, they won't. The flip side is that scarcity gives rise to other consequences. The human desire for status is a direct evolutionary result of the fact that there is not enough to go around.
In our universe, love and good have developed to a quite remarkable extent. This has happened because natural evil exists. This natural evil has also given rise to much moral evil because pride, violence and promiscuity have all evolved because of it. But without it, we would not be conscious of good either or, if we were, we would not be free as the concept of good would simply have been planted in our heads by God rather than being something we discover for ourselves. Thus beings who know love and good through their own efforts can only evolve in a world of privation. Otherwise, everything we value, including freewill and consciousness, simply won't exist.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Everyone talks about the Dark Ages. By that we usually mean the period from the fall of the Western Roman Empire (say 450AD) to the High Middle Ages (1066 if you are English). But professional historians never use this term and haven't done so for years. To them, the Dark Ages are called the Early Middle Ages precisely because they were not very dark.
The term 'dark' originates from the comparative lack of the written sources in the period. Actually, it depends where you are and what sort of stuff you are interested in. In France we have Geoffrey of Tours' History of the Franks and in England there is my own History of the English Church. A good deal of the Dark Ages is much better documented than the second and third centuries AD about which we know absolutely bugger all. Nowadays laypeople tend to see the Dark Ages as dark in the sense of benighted and superstituous, for which we usually blame the church. I've dealt with that particular libel often enough but have been reading Lynn White's Medeival Technology and Social Change and found that the early Middle Ages, especially from 700AD onwards, were actually a period of rapid change.
In war, the stirrup revolutionised the horse in battle and the need for these mounted knights ushered in the feudal system. Meanwhile agriculture became at least twice as productive as it had been under the Romans as the heavy plough, horse collar, horse shoe and three field rotation each improved yield. The result was a population explosion and the bringing in of most European wilderness under the plough. To process all this extra grain technology again came in to play with a rapid spread of the watermill, tidal mill and finally windmill. In terms of development, Europe in 1000AD was streets ahead of ancient Rome. If William the Conqueror had found himself fighting a Roman legion instead of Saxon housecarls, the result would have been no different.
The term 'dark' originates from the comparative lack of the written sources in the period. Actually, it depends where you are and what sort of stuff you are interested in. In France we have Geoffrey of Tours' History of the Franks and in England there is my own History of the English Church. A good deal of the Dark Ages is much better documented than the second and third centuries AD about which we know absolutely bugger all. Nowadays laypeople tend to see the Dark Ages as dark in the sense of benighted and superstituous, for which we usually blame the church. I've dealt with that particular libel often enough but have been reading Lynn White's Medeival Technology and Social Change and found that the early Middle Ages, especially from 700AD onwards, were actually a period of rapid change.
In war, the stirrup revolutionised the horse in battle and the need for these mounted knights ushered in the feudal system. Meanwhile agriculture became at least twice as productive as it had been under the Romans as the heavy plough, horse collar, horse shoe and three field rotation each improved yield. The result was a population explosion and the bringing in of most European wilderness under the plough. To process all this extra grain technology again came in to play with a rapid spread of the watermill, tidal mill and finally windmill. In terms of development, Europe in 1000AD was streets ahead of ancient Rome. If William the Conqueror had found himself fighting a Roman legion instead of Saxon housecarls, the result would have been no different.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
One of the most common distortions you get in popular histories of religion is in the use of the term 'Roman Catholic Church'. We all think we know that this means. Coupled with the term 'Vatican' it means an ancient and all powerful organistation responsible for the corruption of Christianity, usually hand in hand with the Emperor Constantine.
It is true that the Nicene Creed refers to the 'Holy, catholic and apostolic church' but given both Protestants and Greek orthodox say the same words, we can be sure this does not mean the Roman Catholic Church. German Lutherans seem to be the one exception. I once attended evening song with a German at King's College Chapel in Cambridge where the Church of England service was according to Archbishop Cramner's words. The German was a Lutheran and rather surprised me by saying that at home, her church used the words 'Holy, Christian and Apostolic Church'. I don't know if it is true, but I do know that if it is, Luther will be rolling in his grave as he was quite certain that he was a true catholic even after the break from Rome.
So, 'Catholic' does not necessarily mean the Roman Catholic Church. By the later, we must mean the organisation of which the pope is the leader and which is based where the pope makes his court (usually in Rome but it has moved to Avignon in France). If you were reading the Da Vinci Code or many other popular books, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Roman Catholic Church enjoyed its power in the third and fourth centuries when Rome first converted to Christianity. Indeed, the Church itself likes us to believe this (I'm a Catholic too, but know better). In fact, the Popes have never had any authority over the Eastern Church and even though they declared themselves first among equals over the other patriarchs, this was a dead letter. But when the barbarians invaded the Western Roman Empire after 400AD, the Emperor, in Constantinople, found his writ no longer ran in the old western provinces and the Pope was left with a free hand. It was only in 496AD, when Clovis converted to Rome with his Franks, that the Pope's flock began to be significant.
All that stuff you hear about Constantine being in cahoots with the Roman Catholics and how the Council of Nicea was a Vatican plot are a load of rubbish. The Roman Catholics didn't even exist as a recognised group. 'Catholic' meant everybody who was an orthodox Christian, very few of whom looked to Rome. So, if you hear someone talking about the power of the Roman Catholics, the Pope or the Vatican before the late fifth century, you can be pretty sure they don't know what they are talking about.
It is true that the Nicene Creed refers to the 'Holy, catholic and apostolic church' but given both Protestants and Greek orthodox say the same words, we can be sure this does not mean the Roman Catholic Church. German Lutherans seem to be the one exception. I once attended evening song with a German at King's College Chapel in Cambridge where the Church of England service was according to Archbishop Cramner's words. The German was a Lutheran and rather surprised me by saying that at home, her church used the words 'Holy, Christian and Apostolic Church'. I don't know if it is true, but I do know that if it is, Luther will be rolling in his grave as he was quite certain that he was a true catholic even after the break from Rome.
So, 'Catholic' does not necessarily mean the Roman Catholic Church. By the later, we must mean the organisation of which the pope is the leader and which is based where the pope makes his court (usually in Rome but it has moved to Avignon in France). If you were reading the Da Vinci Code or many other popular books, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Roman Catholic Church enjoyed its power in the third and fourth centuries when Rome first converted to Christianity. Indeed, the Church itself likes us to believe this (I'm a Catholic too, but know better). In fact, the Popes have never had any authority over the Eastern Church and even though they declared themselves first among equals over the other patriarchs, this was a dead letter. But when the barbarians invaded the Western Roman Empire after 400AD, the Emperor, in Constantinople, found his writ no longer ran in the old western provinces and the Pope was left with a free hand. It was only in 496AD, when Clovis converted to Rome with his Franks, that the Pope's flock began to be significant.
All that stuff you hear about Constantine being in cahoots with the Roman Catholics and how the Council of Nicea was a Vatican plot are a load of rubbish. The Roman Catholics didn't even exist as a recognised group. 'Catholic' meant everybody who was an orthodox Christian, very few of whom looked to Rome. So, if you hear someone talking about the power of the Roman Catholics, the Pope or the Vatican before the late fifth century, you can be pretty sure they don't know what they are talking about.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
A new page is up in Bede's Library containing several book reviews by Chris Price (and one by me) on the Jesus Myth. The highlight is Chris's review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle. It is an odd fact that very few critical reviews of this book exist so a new one is always a good idea. One book we will not be reviewing, on a ccount of it being just too loopy to bother with, is Acharya S's The Christ Conspiracy. Luckily though, Dr Robert Price, late of Duke University and the closest you will find to a Jesus Myther with a relevant PhD, has written an entertaining article on this book. It was published a few years back and Dr Price has now kindly put it on his own website.
Speaking of Dr Robert Price, he has been in correspondence with our own Chris Price (no relation) over one of Chris's blog entries. It was entertaining a few weeks ago when the Internet Infidels found that their hero (that's Dr Price rather than Chris Price) voted Republican. It would appear that as far as the Infidels are concerned, supporting George Bush is even more insane than believing in God.
I agree with the commentators to my last post about the 'multiple universes' hypothesis. While many atheists try to simply deny that fine tuning exists, those who know their stuff, like Martin Rees, have to think up another explanation. The 'multiple universes' hypothesis does seem to be appallingly ad hoc however. Surely it is more rational to believe in one God with whom we feel we have a personal relationship than to believe in an infinite array of universes for which we have no evidence at all and furthermore, for which such evidence will almost certainly never be forthcoming. It was also useful that Gardner differentiated between the quantum mechanical 'many worlds' hypothesis as this is frequently confused with the 'multiple universes' postulated to explain fine tuning.
Speaking of Dr Robert Price, he has been in correspondence with our own Chris Price (no relation) over one of Chris's blog entries. It was entertaining a few weeks ago when the Internet Infidels found that their hero (that's Dr Price rather than Chris Price) voted Republican. It would appear that as far as the Infidels are concerned, supporting George Bush is even more insane than believing in God.
I agree with the commentators to my last post about the 'multiple universes' hypothesis. While many atheists try to simply deny that fine tuning exists, those who know their stuff, like Martin Rees, have to think up another explanation. The 'multiple universes' hypothesis does seem to be appallingly ad hoc however. Surely it is more rational to believe in one God with whom we feel we have a personal relationship than to believe in an infinite array of universes for which we have no evidence at all and furthermore, for which such evidence will almost certainly never be forthcoming. It was also useful that Gardner differentiated between the quantum mechanical 'many worlds' hypothesis as this is frequently confused with the 'multiple universes' postulated to explain fine tuning.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Elliott who comments here from time to time has suggested this link to an article by famous sceptic Martin Gardiner. It is a review of some of the sillier ideas to come out of physics and one gets the impression that Gardiner thinks that theism is a rather more sensible explanation for the universe. Nice to see Gardiner is a sceptic to all sides.
I have been very busy on school work so haven't had too much time to post here. However, I do have plenty of things lined up for as soon as I have a moment, so watch this space.
I have been very busy on school work so haven't had too much time to post here. However, I do have plenty of things lined up for as soon as I have a moment, so watch this space.
Monday, January 03, 2005
I come back from a few days away for New Year and find that, as usual, the blog has been well trolled by Mr Carr. Oh well, at least he has yet to say anything worth replying to and continues to make atheism look bad. The point about my alleged lack of compassion may or may not have come from Carr and is a typical example of nasty point scoring. I would only reply that I am indeed not the sort of person who never puts his heart on his sleeve. On the other hand, my final paragraph urged giving money as well as prayer and I stand by that.
Moebelwagon is way ahead of me as I was unaware that there were any other planets known to support [b]intelligent life[/b] (without which the concept of evil is meaningless). If we do find them, I'll bet my bottom dollar that they will have molten cores that produce a magnetic field to deflect cosmic rays as well. Moebelwagon also appears to believe the fact that the laws of physics are fine tuned to produce intelligent life is just chance. This may be the case but the odds seem to me to be astronomically against and I just don't have the kind of faith necessary to cling to the random-chance hypothesis.
Moebelwagon is way ahead of me as I was unaware that there were any other planets known to support [b]intelligent life[/b] (without which the concept of evil is meaningless). If we do find them, I'll bet my bottom dollar that they will have molten cores that produce a magnetic field to deflect cosmic rays as well. Moebelwagon also appears to believe the fact that the laws of physics are fine tuned to produce intelligent life is just chance. This may be the case but the odds seem to me to be astronomically against and I just don't have the kind of faith necessary to cling to the random-chance hypothesis.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
The terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami in Asia has led to a fair amount of soul searching by religious people. It has, less creditable led to some gloating by atheists as well as rather more measured reactions questioning God (such as this from Martin Kettle in the Guardian).
The Problem of Evil is the name usually given to the question as to why an all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing God (the so-called omnimax conditions) allows bad things to happen to good people. The problem first came to a head in the eighteenth century when Hume and Voltaire, the later inspired by another earthquake, asked how God lets evil happen. Oddly, it is rarely those who are actually suffering who doubt God, but rather those who witness the suffering of others from the comfort of their armchairs. For instance, the burning of heretics is a standard example of God being implicated in evil deeds, but the heretics themselves would not dream of using such an argument against his existence. There may be a few atheists in foxholes, but not many.
Evil done by man to other men is explained by the freewill defence. This states that God allowing us to do evil is the price we pay for freewill which is a greater good overall. Not everyone finds this satisfactory but I am willing to accept it as an explanation for moral wrong. It doesn't help at all for earthquakes.
Another explanation is to deprive God of his omnimax status. This is appealing for a number of reasons. First, the Bible gives very little support for the idea that God is infinitely powerful. Rather he is powerful beyond our comprehension which still allows a limit long before we get to infinite. Another limitation, accepted by nearly all theologians, is that God is limited by logic. He cannot make a stone so heavy he can't lift it. He cannot make a square circular or two plus two equal five. Nor, of course, can he make us free and unable to sin. Theologians also claim that God cannot defy his own nature - that he cannot sin or force us to sin. It is entirely possible that logic dictates the kind of universe that he can create as well. Clearly he requires that the universe has integrity and that it runs itself according to the laws he has laid down. Contra Newton, God does not need to step in every once in a while and realign all the planets that have gone astray. It may well be that a universe capable of producing life has to contain certain factors whose trade-offs include natural disasters. God can either step in and prevent the disasters or he can decide that the universe's integrity is more important and that it must be allowed to develop unimpeded.
Where do these possibilities leave us with earthquakes? Why are they necessary? Can we think of a world that works as well as ours but where they do not happen? Frankly, no. Earthquakes are a result of plate tectonics. As the plates on the Earth's surface move around, occasion jolts are inevitable. But why have plate tectonics? For the answer to that we need to look at the Earth's sister planet Venus which has a single solid crust. This sounds great until we realise that the entire surface of the planet is made up of rocks the same age. Every few hundred million years, Venus overheats and the entire crust turns to an enormous field of magna and then reforms once the excess heat has been ejected. So if Earth didn't have tectonic plates and earthquakes there would be no life here at all. Why have a hot core to the planet? Because its flow generates the Earth's magnetic field that protects us from getting nuked by the solar wind generated by the sun.... And so it goes on. There is a reason for everything and some things that are absolutely necessary have side effects that we regret.
None of this helps the victims in Asia. For them, we should dig deep into our pockets. But they should be in our prayers too as God welcomes those who have died and offers his comfort to those who survive. And how much worse it would be if death really is the end? Above all, our trust in God gives us hope even when nature has done her worst.
The Problem of Evil is the name usually given to the question as to why an all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing God (the so-called omnimax conditions) allows bad things to happen to good people. The problem first came to a head in the eighteenth century when Hume and Voltaire, the later inspired by another earthquake, asked how God lets evil happen. Oddly, it is rarely those who are actually suffering who doubt God, but rather those who witness the suffering of others from the comfort of their armchairs. For instance, the burning of heretics is a standard example of God being implicated in evil deeds, but the heretics themselves would not dream of using such an argument against his existence. There may be a few atheists in foxholes, but not many.
Evil done by man to other men is explained by the freewill defence. This states that God allowing us to do evil is the price we pay for freewill which is a greater good overall. Not everyone finds this satisfactory but I am willing to accept it as an explanation for moral wrong. It doesn't help at all for earthquakes.
Another explanation is to deprive God of his omnimax status. This is appealing for a number of reasons. First, the Bible gives very little support for the idea that God is infinitely powerful. Rather he is powerful beyond our comprehension which still allows a limit long before we get to infinite. Another limitation, accepted by nearly all theologians, is that God is limited by logic. He cannot make a stone so heavy he can't lift it. He cannot make a square circular or two plus two equal five. Nor, of course, can he make us free and unable to sin. Theologians also claim that God cannot defy his own nature - that he cannot sin or force us to sin. It is entirely possible that logic dictates the kind of universe that he can create as well. Clearly he requires that the universe has integrity and that it runs itself according to the laws he has laid down. Contra Newton, God does not need to step in every once in a while and realign all the planets that have gone astray. It may well be that a universe capable of producing life has to contain certain factors whose trade-offs include natural disasters. God can either step in and prevent the disasters or he can decide that the universe's integrity is more important and that it must be allowed to develop unimpeded.
Where do these possibilities leave us with earthquakes? Why are they necessary? Can we think of a world that works as well as ours but where they do not happen? Frankly, no. Earthquakes are a result of plate tectonics. As the plates on the Earth's surface move around, occasion jolts are inevitable. But why have plate tectonics? For the answer to that we need to look at the Earth's sister planet Venus which has a single solid crust. This sounds great until we realise that the entire surface of the planet is made up of rocks the same age. Every few hundred million years, Venus overheats and the entire crust turns to an enormous field of magna and then reforms once the excess heat has been ejected. So if Earth didn't have tectonic plates and earthquakes there would be no life here at all. Why have a hot core to the planet? Because its flow generates the Earth's magnetic field that protects us from getting nuked by the solar wind generated by the sun.... And so it goes on. There is a reason for everything and some things that are absolutely necessary have side effects that we regret.
None of this helps the victims in Asia. For them, we should dig deep into our pockets. But they should be in our prayers too as God welcomes those who have died and offers his comfort to those who survive. And how much worse it would be if death really is the end? Above all, our trust in God gives us hope even when nature has done her worst.
Friday, December 24, 2004
Wishing a very Happy Christmas to all readers!
We may not know the date on which Jesus was born but it still makes sense to warm up the cold of winter with a celebration of the Incarnation - the day when God opened his eyes in the world of men. I mus say that seeing all the snowmen and reindeer in the shop windows in South Africa during the heat of summer just didn't feel right!
I'll be back in the New Year.
We may not know the date on which Jesus was born but it still makes sense to warm up the cold of winter with a celebration of the Incarnation - the day when God opened his eyes in the world of men. I mus say that seeing all the snowmen and reindeer in the shop windows in South Africa during the heat of summer just didn't feel right!
I'll be back in the New Year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
