Imagine Leads to a horrible Dystopian Future

Line by line analysis of John Lennon's "Imagine."  First off, I want to say that there are things I like about this song.  It's melodic and harmonically interesting, but the philosophy is completely flawed and doesn't take into account the ramifications of what it encourages.

Imagine there's no heaven

Heaven, the ultimate benefit of being forgiven and the ultimate rest and hope for the future.  Let's imagine all hope for the future is gone?  I'd rather not thank you.

It's easy if you try

No, it's not at all.

No hell below us

Hell, the ultimate consequences of sin and rejection of God, gone.  So no ultimate consequences?  Everyone can do as he or she pleases, sounds nice until you think about the ramifications of no consequences EVER.  Your neighbor likes your TV or your car.  Well, he just takes it.  There's no consequences outside you not liking him, and what does he care about that?  If he's bigger and stronger than you, he can do as he pleases.  So, he's held accountable by laws, well, laws based on what?  Man's authority?  What if he's very wealthy and can buy off the court system?  Without ultimate consequences, might makes right and that's not a good place to live at all.

Above us only sky

Same as before, no hope for future rest.

Imagine all the people living for today

Similar to no consequences, people living as if there's no tomorrow have no concern about the future.  They're wasteful and selfish.  Anyone who's ever rented out property can speak to this, people that don't care about the future don't care about what they do in the long run.

Imagine there's no countries

Now, this one, eh.  It'd be nice if the world were more together, and cared less about boundaries and trade disputes than they do people.

It isn't hard to do

Yeah it is, (well, the imagining part isn't hard) people fear change.  People fear the unknown.  People fear other people, especially people who are different.

Nothing to kill or die for

That would be nice, but removing territorial boundaries wouldn't do that.  People would still fight over resources just not on a national level.

And no religion too

This is reminiscent of Marx's religion is the opiate of the masses.  I don't think that ALL religion should be abolished, but people run organized religion and as long as people are in charge religions are going to do bad things.  Unfortunately, sin and evil are unavoidable human characteristics, abolishing religion won't do anything to change that.

Imagine all the people living life in peace

Again, people are going to fight, maybe not on the national level, if there are no countries, but people are still evil.

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one

This is just a dream, and there's no way to make it a reality.

I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

That would be nice, but no matter how hard we try people are still going to do bad things, especially if there are no consequences.

Imagine no possessions

We could all do with a little less, except maybe people in third-world countries.  But, if people focused less on acquiring things the would would be a better place.

I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger

There will always be greed, as I've said several times already, the removal of consequences will worsen peoples' behaviour not make it better.

A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

Again, just a dream, albeit a nice one (with the exception of the rampant greed and evil that would exist in this dream).

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one

As I said, I don't really have a problem with the song, I just don't think people realize that taking away consequences and hope makes people behave worse not better.  When disasters strike, the people not effected join together and help those that have suffered.  However, the people in the midst of the disaster loot and steal and destroy just to gain what little they can in dire circumstances.  I don't usually like pop-culture references, but take the recent TV show Revolution on ABC.  The world goes crazy because, for no reason at all, all electronics cease working.  Is it a nice thing?  Do people all band together and love one another and share where there's abundance?  Not at all, in fact the opposite.  One powerful person takes control of a large arsenal, and leads a militia to rule about a quarter of the US with an iron fist.  Hunting down any and all that oppose him and warring to try to gain control of the rest of the former US.  Is that the kind of world you want to live in?  That's the kind of dystopian future Lennon is suggesting in this song.

The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas: Part 4: The Case Against Aquinas’s God and Proofs

Continuing this series on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, lecture four deals with rebuttals to Thomas' ways/proofs for god as we looked at in lecture three.  One thing of note before I move on though, I never answered the question posed in the title of that lecture.  Can you prove God's existence?  It seems clear that the answer is, no, but it is certainly a logical position to take.

To start out, it's important to note that in most of Thomas' works he finds three or four counter arguments for his assertions, but for his five ways, he only finds two counter arguments against God, they are, the problem of evil and science.  These two objections have been used throughout history as the primary arguments against God, though really only one of the two arguments actually claims to show that God doesn't exist, the other arguments merely claim that one shouldn't believe in God, not that God does not exist.

Thomas' phrasing of the problem of evil goes like this:

It seems that God does not exist, because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

However, good and evil are not contradictories, rather they are opposite qualities.  Opposite qualities can coexist even at the same time in the same person.  Prof Kreeft uses the example of visible and invisible, how every person is both, at the same time.  Because one's mind is invisible, but one's body isn't.  Good and bad is another example, pain is bad, but the pain one experiences because of a good tough workout is good!  One thing to note here is that, in some ways, Thomas' answers are not of his own making.  Augustine uses much the same arguments against this objection.

One of the most powerful statements about evil is how God can bring about good from evil.  Thomas uses the word “allow;” God does not do evil, but He allows it.  He created us, He does not kill, but He created beings that are mortal.  God does not sin, but He created beings with free will who can sin if they choose.  This explanation works for both moral and physical evil.  God doesn't create physical evils but he created a world wherein natural disasters/physical evils can happen.  One of the important things to note about this is how untenable the alternative is.  Either God creates life with the freedom to choose to do evil or God creates life that is completely robotic, devoid of all choice.  This objection does leave room for doubt, just as the Ravi Zacharias quote I mentioned from lecture two, faith is reasonable, but reason alone is not enough.

The second objection is from science.  Like many of the other objections that have come up since Thomas' day, this objection doesn't really show that God doesn't exist rather that belief in God is superfluous.  This objection is often called the principle of parsimony or Ockham's razor.  The basic idea is that if one already has an explanation that accounts for all the variables then one shouldn't add any more explanations.  Thomas' response is that science doesn't have all the answers, that the five ways show that there are questions that only God can answer.

Prof Kreeft points out that one of the weaknesses in Thomas' ways is in the unmoved mover concept because Thomas didn't know the second half of the Law of Thermodynamics that objects in motion tend to stay in motion.  An interesting objection, but it still doesn't account for everything, because even if things stay in motion, nothing is set in motion of its own accord.  Also, remember that Thomas' way doesn't simply mean physical motion, but also change, and the philosophical idea of how things have come about, not necessarily physical movement and change.  Prof Kreeft also points out that other philosophers like Hume have doubted the idea of causality in general, which is an odd, completely skeptical position to take.  One would have to admit that one's parents were not necessarily involved in causing oneself.

Another objection Prof Kreeft brings up against Thomas' ways is rather confusing to me.  He says that people claim that "God transcends logic" or that one cannot say anything logical about God.  Statements like that, while illogical, still fall within the purview of logic and are contradictory.  People that hold views like this see faith and reason as opposites, which is exactly the opposite of what Thomas is showing here.  I've heard this view called "fideism" which I've seen reflected in counter arguments.  For example, in a recent Facebook conversation about religion someone said that we (those who defend faith) have this "trump card" that says, "We don't need evidence or reason. We have faith."  I've seen arguments that end that way and it saddens me, because there is so much logic and reason that corresponds to faith.

Another objection brought up, which I totally agree with and it seems that Thomas saw this as well, says that what the ways prove only a "thin slice of God."  Much like the Deists' "watchmaker god" idea which Pascal said was "almost as far removed from Christianity as Atheism" (quote from Peter Kreeft's lecture, I don't think he was quoting Pascal).  As I see it, yes in a way, these prove only a small part of a much more complete picture of God, that doesn't mean that the rest of the picture isn't there, but that some of that picture has to be taken on faith.  One doesn't have to prove the full picture of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Christianity one only has to prove that God exists and then through careful study of faith one can come to know more fully the Christian God.

Next is a psychological objection which says that Thomas' ways are just camouflage for his faith.  That he is only making these arguments because he grew up believing in God and these ways are just his rationalization of his faith.  This is a genetic fallacy just because something has a particular origin, doesn't discount the veracity of the claim or the logic of the argument.  The same can be said of Marx's objections.  Opiate of the oppressed people?  So what?  The logical arguments still work and God is still proven to exist.  Nietzsche offers an even harsher psychological reproach to Thomas' ways to God.  There are two absolute demands in Nietzsche's writing: "to be God yourself rather than bowing to another, and to bow down to the objective truth that you are not God" (quote from Prof Kreeft's lecture notes).

The final objections come out of some misunderstandings.  One, comes from the idea that infinite regress cannot exist, after all infinite regress is happens in mathematics, however, real things are not numbers.  Here's another, why can't the universe be the first cause?  That is answered by the third way.  Contingent things require a necessary being in order to exist.  Related to this, the "who created God?" question is a misunderstanding of what God is.  How can you ask who created the uncreated?  By definition God has no cause and no beginning, He is the very essence of existence, so this question is a misunderstanding of what God is.

I don't know how to summarize this next part so here's another quote from the lecture notes:

"[T]he objector might say, then isn’t there a self-contradiction in the proofs? They all conclude to a God who doesn’t need a cause, but they begin with the principle that everything needs a cause."

This is actually an embarrassingly poor objection, although it’s found in the writings of no less a genius than Bertrand Russell. And the answer is simply that Aquinas never says that everything needs a cause. He says that everything in motion needs a cause, everything that begins to exist needs a cause, everything contingent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause, and every unintelligent being that acts for an end needs a cause. If you read the actual arguments carefully enough, these misunderstandings disappear."

To sum this up, these aren't the end-all-be-all for all the arguments for God.  Thomas doesn't close the issue of God, even God doesn't do that.  He still leaves it open for faith.  Sorry again for the long delay in writing this, I've been busy with school and work, thank you for your patience with me.

The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas: Part 3: Can You Prove God’s Existence?

As mentioned in the last lecture, Thomas presents five ways to argue for the existence of god.  Rather than calling them proofs, Thomas wants these points to lead people to believe that god exists.  Also, since the lecture series is following the Summa Theologiae these are only short summaries of the arguments presented in the Summa Contra Gentiles.  Before looking at Thomas' arguments Prof Kreeft asks the question, why is this an important question?

Why is belief in God important?  To answer that question Prof Kreeft quotes Nietzsche:

Where is [g]od? I shall tell you. We have killed him, you and I . . . But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we all moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night and more night coming on all the while? . . . Who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it?

And Sartre:

God does not exist and we have to face all the consequences of this. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain kind of secular ethics which would like to abolish [g]od with the least possible expense . . . something like this: [g]od is a useless and costly hypothesis; we are discarding it, but meanwhile, in order for there to be an ethics, a society, a civilization, it is essential that certain values be taken seriously and that they be considered as having an a priori existence. It must be obligatory a priori to be honest, not to lie, not to beat your wife, to have children, etc. etc. So we’re going to try a little device which will make it possible to show that values exist all the same, inscribed in a heaven of ideas, though . . . [g]od does not exist . . . 

Without god there's no source of a priori goodness, no foundation for any moral system.

Of the three types of arguments for god, cosmological, experiential (moral), and ontological, all of Thomas's five ways are cosmological arguments because they deal with cosmology, how we see the universe. Thomas rejected St. Anselm’s “ontological argument” which totally makes sense to me.  All five of the ways are approached in basically the same format, they each start with an observation of one of five features of the universe: motion, causality, contingency, imperfection, and order.  Then, after considering the only two answers possible (either there is or isn't and uncaused first cause), it explains how one answer fails to explain the universe.  Then the opposite must be true.  After both sides are considered and one comes out wanting, Thomas adds a tag, "this is what people call 'god.'"  As I countered Prof McGinn's arguments before, Thomas isn't trying to prove the God of the Bible, just make a way towards showing that a god exists and therefore secular humanism is wrong.

Way #1: Motion/Change

This is his longest, partly because Thomas feels it's the most manifest and probably because the others are related to the first so some of the others can be included in this argument.

It is certain and evident to our senses that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality, and nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, such as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves it. Thus whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.
Now if that by which it is put in motion is itself put in motion, then
this also must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first (unmoved) mover, and consequently no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover, as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.

And this everyone understands to be God.

The "first mover" can't be the universe itself, because neither a thing in itself can't move itself nor can the complete chain of events start itself.  Like a chain of dominoes, someone has to push the first one, no matter how complex the chain is.

Everything in the material universe needs some kind of explanation.  Even miracles need a sufficient reason, and that reason is a miracle maker.  He uses the example of a rabbit...  If a rabbit suddenly appeared on your desk, you'd immediately start looking for a reason.  Did it fall from the ceiling, jump up from the floor, magician pull it from a hat, or God just create a rabbit on your desk?  There has to be a reason for its existence.

Way #2: Existence

In the world of sense we find that there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known, nor is it possible, in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for if so, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.
Now in efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate cause is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, either will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

 Prof Kreeft's analogy for this one is a book (=existence).

Me: There's a book that explains the entire universe.
You: I'd love to borrow it.
M: Well, I don't have it I have to get it from a friend.
Y: Okay.
M: Well, he doesn't have it, he has to borrow it from the library.
Y: When will that happen?
M: Well, it's not at the library they have to get it from the store.
Y: Is it coming out sometime then?
M: Well, no one really has it...

My children have existence because I gave it to them (in a way, really I just played one small part).  I got my existence from my parents and so on.  The same is true with the entire universe.  Nothing that is created can create itself or else it must have existed before it created itself which is impossible.

Way #3: Contingency

We find in nature things that are able to either be or not be, since they are found to come into existence and go out of existence, and con- sequently they are able to either be or not to be. But it is impossible for any of these beings to exist always, for whatever has a possibility not to be, at some time is not. Thus if everything has the possibility not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. But if this were true, then there would not be anything in existence now, because that which does not exist cannot begin to exist except by means of something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist, and thus even now nothing would be in existence—which is absurd. Therefore not all beings are merely possible but there must exist something whose existence is necessary.

This one is tough.  If there is no god, the universe could have no beginning - infinite.  If the universe is infinite then all contingencies would be possible, including the end of all things.  So, given an infinite amount of time everything ends and if everything ends then the universe would be nothing and it cannot restart itself because nothing comes from nothing.  I've used a similar type argument using entropy, saying that everything is moving from more ordered to less ordered.  Given an infinite universe there should be nothing left.  Also, given that whole galaxies are moving (the so called "red shift") then given an infinite universe they should be an infinite distance away by now.  The so called, god cannot have a beginning, he is a necessary being that has his existence of himself alone.

Way #4: Imperfection

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum

. . . so there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and consequently something which is uttermost being . . . And this we call God.

This only works if one accepts a ranking of things.  If humans are no better than vegetables, then one that holds that view, would reject this way out of hand.  However, Prof Kreeft quips that if you hold that humans are not better than vegetables, please don't invite him over to dinner.

Way #5: Design

By far his most popular argument I've seen this argument used alone and Prof McGinn treated this as its type of argument for god.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always (or nearly always) in the same way so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not by chance but by design do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move toward an end unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Prof Kreeft uses the arrow analogy, the universe is like an arrow flying along a specific trajectory, it's not random everything has a design or an end that is seeks.  And the book analogy, the universe (I'd say most evident is DNA/RNA) is more like a book than an explosion in a print factory.  He brings up a good point, the more design you find the less likely things have happened by chance.  Like a letter 'S' written in the sand, sure wind/waves/the elements could form the letter, but if you find "SOS" you're more certain you're looking for an intelligence, even more so if you find the first page of Hamlet written in the sand.

Prof Kreeft shoots holes in the famous (possibly Bertrand Russell) quote about a million monkeys with a million keyboards for a million years, could type out Shakespeare.  It's possible but no one says that's the explanation of Shakespeare, why would we make the same assumptions about the universe?  Also, Prof Kreeft mentions that a mathematician actually crunched the numbers and said it would take more like a trillion monkeys a trillion years to get just the first paragraph.

One last comment, "intelligent design" scientists claim that irreducible complexity scientifically proves this point.  Prof Kreeft says that he thinks Thomas would not have agreed, that this is a philosophical proof, not a scientific proof.  Prof Kreeft thinks that Thomas would have accepted Darwinian evolution as the design tool that God used to make humans/life as we know it.  As such he wouldn't get the intended insult of the metal bumper emblem of the fish with Darwin's name in it.  He would think it's an argument for theism.  I don't know about this last point and I disagree in general (based mostly on faith/theological interpretation of the Bible, I've written about it before), but that doesn't lessen the impact of the arguments, and I'm sure Francis Collins would agree with these assessments/arguments.

Faith and Philosophy Blog Carnival, August 2013, 7th Edition

Sarah Bernstein presents Meditation Schmeditation posted at YourZenFriend.

Jana presents How To Practice Mindfulness and 3 Ways To Transcend Good & Bad : Wisdom Ink Magazine, and 7 Spiritual Benefits of Meditation all posted at Wisdom Ink.

Sophia presents Setting The Pace For Your Spiritual Growth Through Intention posted at Sophia Gubb's Blog.

Richard Toney presents The Lions Well: The Visage posted at The Lions Well.

Shaun Rosenberg presents What Will The World Say About You When You Are Dead? posted at Shaun Rosenberg.

Sophia Jevone presents Your Life Depends on This… posted at Sophia Jevone.


Tehra Burton presents Saturday. posted at sex will save us.


Ryan Tasker presents Spirituality – Why I Can’t Get Mad At People posted at Unlimited Boundaries.

Loago presents Appreciate Your Future Now posted at Blog - Law of Attraction Living and Career Coach.

Erik Matlock presents Change your mind, change your life | Becoming a Better Man posted at Becoming a Better Man.

Two different Sophias had entries this month what are the chances?

As usual, I don't agree with every entry. It seems that there are lots of spiritualists out there. It's sad to see faith placed in one's own ability to overcome one's own sin and brokenness. Without forgiveness all the faith in the world is worthless.  I'm considering narrowing the focus of this carnival.  Maybe taking out the faith.  I have faith, but I have faith in a creator-God that loves and cares about creation, who provided a saving sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sin.  Faith in nothing or faith in a nameless faceless power that everyone is in everyone/everything and is everyone/everything is not the kind of faith this carnival was meant to discuss.  The goal was to find philosophical, rational, evidence-based faith, not purely experience based faith.  Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for self-control and meditation of a sort, but I don't want to keep publishing a carnival that spreads spiritualism that goes against everything I believe.

The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas: Part 2: Philosophy and Theology, Reason and Faith

This lecture greatly appealed to me personally because I feel that this is one of the biggest challenges to faith today, that is the rational relevance and integration of faith in a rational person.  I've written about these topics here and part 2, as well as this entry about the Higgs Boson and this one about Gen 1.  Those are just some samples of how this topic has come up as discussion points, but if you're a regular reader you know that I discuss terms of faith in relation to rational thought all the time.  So, this lecture is all about Thomas' approach to how rational thought works with faith and not against it.

Thomas, as a theologian first, made his life's most important work the Summa Theologiae.  This lecture series is going to, more or less, follow that work's pattern and flow.  To Thomas, there were only three things that were important philosophy, theology, and the scriptures.  His primary goal in writing the Summa is theological education without a loss of logical integrity.  As such Thomas starts off the Summa focusing on God as the origin of everything, then moves on to the creation, mankind.  He focuses on mankind's uniqueness in free will and reason, and mankind's ultimate goal to be reunited (to use Bonhoeffer's terminology) in God's goodness.  I like Prof Kreeft's analogy (I'm not sure if he takes it from the Summa or if it's his own envisioning of the text) of the whole of creation being like a circulatory system with God at the heart and His love as the blood that God pushes out through the body, but then it returns from mankind loving God back.

So, the first question to deal with is the relationship between faith, the source for theology and reason, the source for philosophy.  Thomas sees it as a marriage, a combination of two great sources of knowledge.  Philosophy is based on human reason alone, though there is a branch of theology that relies on human reason, it's called philosophical theology, or natural theology.  Thomas' five ways to prove God's existence fall into this category, it seems to me that apologetics fits this description as well.  There are still parts of theology that are founded on faith, though that's not to say they're irrational beliefs, rather that the point of theology in general is the understanding of God's Word and the Church's interpretation of it throughout history.  Thomas uses both types of theology in his masterwork but there's a distinction between them.

The structure of his work is five parts:
First a question with only two possible answers
Then the opposition's answer summarized fairly, strongly, clearly, and succinctly

Thomas' answer starting with a quotation from authority either human or divine

Then a purely rational argument for the answer

Lastly his answer to why the objections are somewhat right but overall wrong

His first question: Whether, besides philosophy, any further teaching is required?  It may be surprising to know that he answers "yes."  Here's part of a quote about why Thomas says yes, "For man is directed to God as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason. But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation."  It's awesome to see when great thinkers agree.  Here's a quote from Ravi Zacharias in The End of Reason, "The worldview of the Christian faith is simple enough.  God has put enough into this world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing.  But he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone."  You can't just use reason, and you can't just rely on faith.

Some might object that this isn't philosophy at all, but that's not how Thomas sees it.  Philosophy is the tool of theology.  And of course that's the intent, this is after all the Summa Theologiae not the Summa Philosophiea.  There are two sets of propositions being dealt with here, truth as perceived by human reason alone and truth received through divine revelation alone.  Both sets are truth and therefore cannot be contradictory.  If there's a contradiction it's not in the sets of truths, rather there is a misunderstanding at some level.  Two sets 'A' and 'B' can be related in five different manners: Some of A is B, Some of B is A, Some of A is B and some B is A, ALL A are B and vice versa, and B is contained within A.  Which is the case with reason and faith.

Some truths are known by faith, the Trinity, while some by reason alone, natural science, and some by both, the existence of God, freedom of the will, and immortality of the soul.  Kant referred to these as the "three fundamental postulates of morality."  Both are truth and truth cannot contradict truth.  Here's a quote from Prof Kreeft about this: "[Thomas held that] religion is not just a set of moral commands or ideals or psychologically helpful and hopeful hints, but a set of propositions that are just as objective as those of science and common sense, though they're known not by the scientific method or by sense observation but by faith."  The second half of the argument is from a Christian perspective that God is the teacher of both reason and faith and God doesn't lie therefore both are true. Therefore, we conclude: "whatever arguments are brought forth against the doctrines of the faith are conclusions that are incorrectly derived from the first and self-evident principles. . . . Such conclusions do not have the force of demonstration; they are arguments that are either only probable or fallacious. And so there exists the possibility to answer them."

Christians can feel comfortable in their intellectual and rational integrity faith and rationality are not mutually exclusive as modern atheist philosophers like to claim (Sam Harris in The End of Faith, and Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion among others).

One final note. St. Bonaventura, one of Thomas' contemporaries, criticised Thomas' use of Aristotle saying that he was diluting "the wine of the Gospel by the water of pagan philosophy."  To which Thomas replied, “No, I am transforming water into wine.”  All reason is the ally of faith because all truth is God’s truth (list of verses about truth here).

Our puppy, Lexie, and her first experience of the beach.  She LOVED it!

The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas: Part 1: Aquinas’s Importance and a Short Biography

Before I start to tackle summarizing this first lecture on Thomas Aquinas' philosophy I'd like to introduce the professor that's giving these lectures. Peter Kreeft is a professor of philosophy at Boston College, and he has written over fifty books.  He's a passionate fan of Aquinas' work and makes no apology for his passion.  It makes sense because, and I agree with this sentiment, one learns the most about someone or something from someone who passionately agrees with that subject.  The teacher that disagrees with what he or she is teaching will never give the topic a fair shake.

Introduction: Why is Thomas important?  Well, the answer is fairly easy, almost every philosopher agrees that in the almost two thousand years that passed between Aristotle and Descartes, he was the most influential philosopher.  The fact that Thomas was a Catholic theologian does nothing to lessen his impact as an influential philosopher.  Also, his philosophy and teachings don't just appeal to Catholics, I'm a protestant (an aint-a-baptist, but that's another story) and I'm a big fan of Thomas for his theology and his philosophy.  This course will be seeking to deal with his works from a philosophical perspective.

Prof Kreeft lists eight things that make Thomas a great philosopher.  First and most importantly is his inclusiveness.  I love this particular concept as I try to use the same methods in developing my own philosophy. Unfortunately in modern philosophy there are so many dividing lines: rationalist/empiricist, idealist/realist, ideologically Right/Left, but for Thomas everything was middle ground.  I (more or less) agree, there are so many things where it's best to take a stance somewhere in the middle.  Obviously, there is still right and wrong, and I believe that one needs to seek truth and stick with it.

Second and related to the first is Thomas' ability to show how faith and reason, religion and philosophy are all perfectly compatible, in fact they are mutually beneficial.  He's a master synthesizer of views philosophical and religious.  He draws from virtually every philosopher and the many different views of those philosophers and combined them together before the modern age came and divided the different philosophical pursuits again.  Prof Kreeft also admires Thomas' ability to write both profoundly and clearly, though I don't have any personal knowledge of that idea.  I will probably pick up and read some of Thomas' works as a result of listening to these lectures.

Thirdly, is Thomas' longevity in his philosophical works.  Not only was he able to combine all those that came before him, but he set up philosophical ideas that are still applicable and moldable today.  It's a living philosophy that is able to include "new" ideas and keep changing and yet stay the same.  Fourth, is his patients and ability to slowly process things and then give the best most practical answer without oversimplification or over-complication.  The fifth is related, in that he had so many practical answers and a strong grasp on common sense.  I love Thomas' cure for depression "three things: a hot bath, a large glass of wine, and a good night’s sleep." (Quote from the modern scholar lecture notes.)  That seems so practical to me, and for all his aloofness Thomas seems very down to earth at the same time.

I also like this quote from the lecture notes, "[T]here are only three meanings to the term “good,” only three kinds of things that are really good, and thus worthy of our desire and attention: the moral good, the useful good, and the delightful good. So if it doesn’t make you a more virtuous person and if it isn’t a practical necessity that you really can't do without, and if it doesn’t give you pleasure, fagettaboutit!"

Next (sixth) is his simple, clear arguments.  He speaks quite a bit in syllogisms, the most basic form of logic.  Seventh, is the profound topics Thomas deals with, now to be fair philosophers often think about profound topics and Thomas is no exception.  Topics that are prevalent throughout his works: "God, man, life, death, soul, body, mind, will, passions, good, evil, virtue, vice, truth, beauty, time, eternity, being itself."  Amazing to think he was able to take such deep concepts and put them into simple syllogisms.

I'm not going to include all the biographical information Prof Kreeft talks about but if you're interested, read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Thomas, Prof Kreeft's book Summa of the Summa, and/or G.K. Chesterton's St. Thomas Aquinas: 'The Dumb Ox'.

I'm really looking forward to continuing this lecture series!

New Series or What to do Next

In case you're just joining me, welcome, and we're just finishing up the Discovering the Philosopher in You lecture series (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13 response, 14) by Prof Colin McGinn.  My plan is to start a new series on the Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas by Peter Kreeft so far I've only listened to the first two episodes and I will write an entry about them as I have some time.

Other than this promising looking philosophy series are you, my readers, interesting in hearing from me on a specific topic?  I've solicited recommendations before but that has always been one of the things that constantly disappoints me in these entries.  I know I have readers, people have told me that they read my stuff and Google tracks pageviews and it says I have just over 13,000 pageviews.  I've written on Medium.com about trying to earn money with my writing but I haven't made any headway on that front.  I'm not thinking that I can quit my job in the Air Force and write full time or anything, just that turning a hobby into a paying gig is one of my dreams.  Since I doubt anyone will pay to see this fat guy run, and I'm not good enough at chess or photography to get people to buy my services.  I think my best chances of selling my intellectual property comes through philosophy (and maybe a book on language learning).

I hope you'll stay with me for this next series because it looks to be very interesting.  Thomas Aquinas was undoubtedly one of the greatest philosophers and definitely the greatest of his own time period.  I look forward to sharing my thoughts on this great man's philosophy throughout the next few months.  As always, I appreciate your appreciation of my sharing on this simple blog.

A Screenshot of the Stats Page from Blogger.com

Discovering the Philosopher in You: Part 14: The Meaning of Life: What Gives Human Life Value?

As we move on from the discussion of the reasonableness of the existence of God.  We come, finally, to the summation of this lecture series, The Meaning of Life.  To me this is really what philosophy should be all about, trying to find meaning in life and it's appropriate that Prof McGinn saves it for last.  (Note: throughout this entry and the lecture I'll be using the ideas of meaning and value interchangeably, Prof McGinn used the terminology that way.  I understand that there can be a subtle difference but for my purposes I'll use them as the same meaning.)

There are two separate categories in the search for meaning in life, one says that meaning is only gotten from an external source, that is God.  Meaning in life cannot be found in doing or in gaining anything.  In this view, if there is no god then there is no meaning to life.  In opposition to this idea Prof McGinn tries to push the argument into an infinite regression.  If meaning can only be gotten from an outside source, then who/what gives god meaning, another god?  Obviously, that leads to infinite regression because the next question is obviously who gave that second god meaning?  (I was about to type a response but I'll save it for later.)  The argument might be that there is an internal source of meaning that god has, and the answer that Prof McGinn offers is that mankind also has internal sources of meaning in life so that there's no need for a deity to confer upon us meaning.  On the internal sources for meaning in life there are three different ideas: hedonism, virtue, and philosophic pursuit.

Hedonism is quite simple, pursue that which makes oneself happy.  Food, drink, sex, nice stuff, knowledge, money, etc. though there seems to be different levels of desires.  Like the base/natural desires of food, drink, sex etc. as compared to the higher desires knowledge, understanding, etc.  The hedonist sees meaning in these types of things.  One has meaning in life if one gains things and does or is able to do whatever one wants all the time.  Prof McGinn points out, and I'm sure you also see that this is an incredibly selfish view.  It cannot by itself provide for a meaningful life because there's something missing.  This kind of view leads to an evil life bent on only seeking one's own desires and has no problem squashing anyone that gets in the way.

Which then leads to the life of virtue.  This idea says that the meaning of life is in virtuous actions.  It's no doubt that virtue is a good thing, that's an obvious tautology.  But, is the meaning for life found in merely being virtuous?  This view is a pendulum swing on the complete opposite side from hedonism.  the meaning of life is in serving everyone else and putting down oneself.  This seems like a decent way to find meaning but also ends up oddly empty because if you spend your whole life seeking to serve others you'll never enjoy life yourself.

While those first two ways to seek meaning in life are obvious to many people, this last one is less familiar except to those that have studied philosophy.  It comes from Plato, that the highest meaning in life is the pursuit of and love of knowledge, and that the highest pursuit of knowledge is philosophy.  This type of meaning is found in seeking and loving knowledge.  Those this too has its problems, because it seeks meaning at the abandonment of living life.  This kind of meaning in life doesn't look at life itself just at the pursuit of knowledge.

Prof McGinn's answer to the problems of each aspect is that one must have a balance in life of the three pursuits.  One should pursue pleasure but not at the expense of knowledge and virtue.  One should pursue virtue but not at the expense of the other two.  And, when the different pursuits are in conflict there is no wrong answer.  Everyone, has meaning this way.  Some are more virtuous than others, some more hedonistic, and some more philosophical, but everyone has meaning.

By way of rebuttal I'd like to point out a few things...  First, making the other side fall into infinite regress is not a valid argument.  He's misrepresenting the external source of value as only contingent on the existence of an outside source for meaning.  Meaning that is imbued upon creation is a natural side effect of being made by a loving creator.  It doesn't require the creator per se, it's just a side effect.  Just as God is the source of all creation, He's the source of all meaning otherwise meaning if you try to give yourself meaning it's hollow worthless meaning.  No matter how much a man insists he's important doesn't make it so.  True meaning can only come from the outside.  Parents give children some of their meaning but even without parents a child has meaning.

Secondly, all these examples cannot be universally applicable.  Here's a few examples:

For hedonism, what about the person born into poverty or born as a refugee?  That person, most likely, will never be able to enjoy any level of hedonistic pleasures.  Is that person no longer valuable?  With extrinsic value, yes he or she is still just as valuable as anyone else.

Take virtue, (this is the easiest one to deal with) in a humanist mindset there is no immutable standard for morality or virtue, so the goalposts are always moving.  Does that mean that different people are valuable at different times?  Also, how virtuous is virtuous?  Is Mother Teresa or Ghandi the only ones that measure up?  Is everyone else worthless?  Where's the line?  The rules are constantly subject to change and so is the line of who is virtuous enough to have meaning.

Now, philosophy.  This is the most difficult one to answer but it's still subjective.  Take the child born into a small primitive tribe in Papua New Guinea or someplace like that.  That child will probably never have the chance to study philosophy or science or any other learning outside that little tribe.  Does he or she have meaning?  Arguably not, at least according to these standards.

I think I know how Prof McGinn would answer these questions though, so I'll give his presumed answer and then respond to that as well.  I assume he would answer with some kind of reference to balance in life.  Like the child born into poverty, as long as he/she did his/her best to enjoy the pleasures available that's meaning, and if meaning found in a balance between all of these pursuits, perhaps that child could find meaning in life by doing his or her best on the other sources of meaning.  To the question of virtue he'd probably respond similarly, that as long as one does one's best in whatever situation they're in they'll find meaning in life.  Same with the pursuit of philosophy, as long as you do your best with what you have you'll live a meaningful life.

To which I'd respond, then Adolf Hitler lived a full meaningful life.  He did what he thought was right and he did it to the best of his ability.  So much so that he led his country in a victorious conquest of most of Europe and through his allies a large portion of the world in general.  He led the extermination of weaker people that didn't deserve to live (at least in his view).  He was also well read and his book is still read by many to this day.  So, by all accounts he lived a meaningful life.  Basically, by these arguments everyone lives meaningful lives.  Again, without an immutable standard of morality there's no such thing as a virtuous person.  And, nothing can give itself meaning without being completely selfish.  These anthropocentric sources of meaning and virtue ring hollow and even the most powerful rich and seemingly most meaningful lives are reduced to nought at the end.  As Alexander the Great's final orders clearly showed, even one of the most powerful, wise, hedonistic (after the higher pleasures), wealthy, and philosophical rulers of the world ended his life empty and meaningless.

Discovering the Philosopher in You: Part 13: God: My Response

In my last entry I said that would respond to Prof McGinn's attempts at tearing down three prominent arguments for the existence of God.  I'm not certain how I want to organize this response so I apologize if this seems illogically arranged.  So here goes.

First, lets focus these arguments, Prof McGinn says at least a couple times in the lecture that these arguments are not intended to give cast-iron epistemological certainty that there is such a thing as God, just that the point is to test to see if the concept of god is logical.  One other key hole in his arguments is this, he says that the whole point of the discussion is to attempt to show if the concept of god is logical.  However, throughout his lecture he keep referencing the religious definitions of God.  Here's the way I see it, Prof McGinn is setting up a straw man in attacking each argument separately then offering red herrings in trying to make us chase after the traditional religious concepts of god rather than the basics of the argument.

Here's a recap of the arguments, the argument from design, the cosmological argument, and the ontological argument.  I'd like to take these and turn them around like Ravi Zacharias does in The End of Reason; A Response to the New Atheists as he borrows from Prof Dallas Willard (now passed on, May 2013) and use a more complete and powerful argument for the existence of God than this strawman Prof McGinn has torn down.

First, comes the what is commonly referred to as the cosmological argument; the way Mr. Zacharias words the argument, "no physical entity explains its own existence."  Now, that could be confusing because I'm a physical entity and I can sit here and explain my existence.  Obviously that's not the way those terms are intended to be used, it's along the lines of, no physical entity contains a complete explanation for its own existence.  It makes sense to also word this part of the argument as, no physical entity can create itself.  Biological life can reproduce, but that's not itself, that's a copy of itself.  In the Google+ conversation about the last entry +James Hooks said it this way, "everything in the universe has a cause, or everything that begins to exist has a cause."  Those kinds of statements are backed up by empirical observation.  These theories of something from nothing are so wildly speculative it's laughable.  Again, this is NOT 100% mathematical proof of an uncreated creator (UCC), just a rational statement about the plausibility.  Here's another thing Prof McGinn does throughout his lecture, after he presents the cosmological argument he claims that it doesn't logically follow that this UCC somehow has the attributes often claimed in religion, namely omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness.  Prof McGinn is implying that those qualities are a non sequitur, and he'd be right if  the argument was solely based on cosmological cause.

The actual best answer is to follow the cosmological cause argument with another powerful argument for a god.  That is the argument from design.  In that aforementioned Google+ argument +Andreas Geisler asked if one could recognize the undesigned.  A valid question but one that seems obvious from common sense.  There are so many examples of design in the universe that for all of them to come together in exactly the right way would take odds that are beyond astronomical.  I've read that the odds were calculated somewhere around 10,000,000,000^2,000+. That's ten billion to the two-thousandth plus power!  So, design is evident all around us and yet Prof McGinn throws evolution at the concept like it's the silver bullet that will slay this argument.  What he's failing to see is the most basic form of biological design, the DNA/RNA structure cannot be explained by evolutionary process.  So, the red herring Prof McGinn expects the creationist apologist to chase after in this argument is the design of life as it is right now.  That's not the basic design that we're looking at, though a committed Young Earth Christian would say that the literal six days of creation show God's handiwork in the complexities of life as we study it.  But, again... that's not the argument in question.  The question is, is there design evident in life as we see it?  It seems obvious that the resounding answer must be, YES.  Again, this does not get us to the Christian God, as Prof McGinn seems to want us to make that leap, though we do have some characteristics that fit, namely powerful omnipotence, that is powerful beyond all imagination the ability to will the material into existence.  It would require that kind of power to bring all the universe into existence and then order it into a coherent design and put together the incredible complexity that is life (even the most basic forms of life).  Which leads us to another characteristic of God, omniscience, that is all knowing.  A God that exists outside the influences and rules of this universe and orders the entire universe must have knowledge beyond all human imagination.

There are two incredibly powerful arguments that Prof McGinn has neglected that will flesh out the rest of the characteristics of God.  The first comes from one of my favorite authors, C.S. Lewis.  In Mere Christianity Lewis makes a powerful argument from morality that shows how just the idea that all cultures throughout the entire history of mankind have had a shared concept of morality.  That isn't to say that all cultures agree with what is right or wrong, but at least they all agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong.  In response to the Euthyphro problem, which is often thrown at this argument, I've answered it before twice, but this writeup puts it quite well, "Thus the dilemma can be shown to be a false one.  God indeed commands things which are good, but the reason they are good is because they reflect God’s own nature.  So the goodness does not come ultimately from God’s commandments, but from His nature, which then results in good commandments.  As Steve Lovell concluded in ‘C.S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma’ (2002)."  So, we have more attributes of God, on top of omnipotence and omniscience, we have goodness.

Last but certainly not least is the argument presented in the life of Jesus Christ himself.  There are some that claim the life of Jesus is a myth.  People that claim that are intentionally turning a blind eye to more than enough evidence that Jesus really did live when the Bible claims He did, and the Bible itself has more than enough textual evidence to verify its trustworthiness.  Jesus' claim of divinity is unique among all religions, though I've seen arguments that say Jesus doesn't claim to be God, but I don't think they hold water.  I don't have time to go into that all right now, but suffice it to say, that Christianity is unique.  Our Lord is also our servant, and our sacrifice.  We cannot do anything to earn God's forgiveness or favor, all other religions have some form of working or doing something to gain forgiveness.  Not so with biblical Christianity; there are certain groups of people claiming to follow Jesus' teachings but they teach that you have to do this or do that contrary to biblical teaching, that's not the Christianity that Jesus died and rose again to create in us.

A word on Prof McGinn's use of the problem of evil as a counter argument to the existence of God.  First, it's a false pretence.  He claims to be arguing against the logical possibility of God, but in reality he's only arguing about one particular characteristic of a being that he doesn't believe exists.  As he's so fond of using to describe other philosophical ideas, now he's the one that's "putting the cart before the horse," and arguing about characteristics of a being that he hasn't shown to exist at all.  His argument about the existence of evil has been responded to in many ways but the best way I see to respond, is to call into the argument the idea that morality in general shows that we're designed by a moral being.  In the atheist purview there's no sanctity of life.  According to evolution and natural selection the weak are meant to die so that the strong can survive.  According to Peter Singer a pig is worth more than a disabled child; does that sound like morality can be found in science?  According to mathematics the world would be a much better place to live if there were about fifty percent less humans living here, according to that logic, we should initiate and promote holocausts to eliminate the weak, sickly humans.  The argument of the existence of evil doesn't work with purely scientific logic, because logic and science cannot tell you what is good/bad, right/wrong, good/evil, science just tells what is.

A word on Pascal's wager, I've never liked the idea, but Ravi Zacharias in the book I've already mentioned, puts it backwards from the typical reading of the wager.  It's not, you should believe because in the end if you're wrong what's the harm and if you're right you stand to gain tremendously.  I agree that's a hollow, relationally empty way to approach God.  Instead one should look at it like this, I believe and it enriches my life, if in the end I'm wrong and there is no God, what have I lost?  Nothing.

Lastly, I must say something about the ontological argument because that seemed to be Prof McGinn's favorite argument.  This seems odd to me, because though I can't point to any specific fallacy or flaw in the ontological argument, it seems like just wordplay.  A tautology of sorts, to say that the perfect conceivable being must exist because existence is more perfect than non-existence.  I don't think the argument is wrong to come to the conclusion that God exists, I just don't think it goes about it in a logical manner.

To sum up this incredibly long post (sorry about that):  I don't think this was Prof McGinn's intent but listening to this lecture actually made me more secure in my belief in God.  His futile attempts at breaking down these arguments only made me more sure that he's wrong and that it is logical to believe in a creator.  As it stands, his attacks at each argument doesn't really show anything, just that each argument has counter-arguments.  There isn't an argument out there that doesn't have a counter-argument (like that double negation?), there are skeptics for everything.  With the combination of all the arguments together it is easy to conclude that it is logical to believe that God created and cares for us, His creation.  Though that wasn't the original goal of the argument, all we wanted to prove was that it is indeed logical to believe that some form of creator being exists, and we've gotten so much farther than that when it's all said and done.

Another shot from Cape Zanpa

Discovering the Philosopher in You: Part 13: God: Can the Existence of God Be Proven?

Continuing the series second-to-last (sort of) for this interesting lecture series on the big questions of philosophy, can the existence of God be proven?  The reason I say sort of second to last, is I plan on writing at least one extra entry rebutting this lecture and possibly one to sum up the whole series.

One interesting note before I get into Prof McGinn's attempt at dismantling three arguments for the existence of god, I've been using the study guide to facilitate writing these essays and the "recommended reading" for this lecture is Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species.  That kind of gives away what his conclusions will be right off the bat.  In this lecture Prof McGinn attempts to disprove the existence of god by arguing against three traditional arguments for god, the "argument from design," the cosmological argument, and the ontological argument.  Each one he takes in turn and goes through the basics of each one then pokes holes through their weaknesses.

The argument from design.  The argument is pretty obvious, the earth and all life as we know it, has the features of design.  And if one were walking through the desert and found a watch, one would certainly assume there was a watchmaker somewhere that made this thing.  It would be foolish to assume that somehow the swirling atoms and molecules accidentally fell together in the intricate design of a watch.  The supposed weakness in this argument is the idea that natural selection can result in what appears to be design and that evolution has been proven and is a verifiable truth and that no one except devout creationists don't believe in evolution.

The second argument is often called the cosmological argument or first cause argument.  Aquinas was a prominent proponent of this type of argument.  Basically it goes like this, everything in the universe has a cause and its cause has a cause.  In order to avoid an infinite regress there must be a "first cause," or as Aquinas said, an "unmoved Mover."  Prof McGinn's response to this argument is the classic, "who made god?" argument.  He also points out that saying there's a first cause doesn't mean that it has to be god, it could very well be the Big Bang that is the first cause.  There's no need to postulate god as the first cause.

The third argument is new to me, it's called the ontological argument.  This is the most difficult one of all to spell out, and apparently the most difficult to refute.  Basically it goes something like this, the existence of god is proven in the very definition of god.  That is, god is the most perfect conceivable being, and a being that exists must be more perfect than one that doesn't exist.  McGinn claims that this is a beautifully deep and complex philosophical argument and he doesn't have too much to refute it.  Though he does talk about a way to refute this claim is to say, what makes existence "more perfect" than nonexistence?  Take a devil (interesting that he chooses something I'm sure he doesn't believe exists), is the existence of a devil better than the nonexistence of a devil?  Presumably not.  Also, he points out the difficulty of the term "perfect conceivable being."  Just what is the most perfect conceivable being?  We can't even use that terminology dealing with everyday things like mustaches (I beg to differ).

Photo credit here.

After poking holes in these three arguments Prof McGinn brings up his most powerful argument against the existence of god, the problem of evil.  The basic idea is this, if god exists, then why is there great suffering, death, and disasters in the world?  One of the arguments sometimes used against the problem of evil is the idea of free will like what was discussed in lecture eight.  This doesn't work in this argument because there are so many times when the suffering and death of innocent people has happened because of natural disasters.  If god is good, as the typical religious views claim, then why doesn't he step in and intervene.  We would never call a person good if they could easily intervene to save the life of an innocent child but by inaction let that child be killed.

Another point that Prof McGinn brings up is blind faith.  He claims that many who believe in god will answer contravening evidence by claiming faith.  That it doesn't matter what evidence there is, either for or against the existence of god, they just believe anyways.

The final point of the lecture goes into what is commonly referred to as "Pascal's Wager."  It's the idea that if believing in god won't hurt you, and you stand to gain eternal bliss then what's the harm?  There are two options here and the option of belief works out either way, either god exists or he doesn't exist, if he does then believing gains you eternal bliss if he doesn't you're not at any great loss.  So hedge your bets and believe so that it's a win-win situation.  One of Prof McGinn's answers comes from something he has said many times throughout these lectures, that one cannot force oneself to believe something that they know not to be true. I don't disagree with that particular statement and I said in a recent assignment for my apologetics class and I truly believe that "Pascal’s Wager is an intellectually void and relationally bankrupt reason for belief."

More on that in my next entry wherein I will rebut each of Prof McGinn's strawman and red herring arguments.  I have so much more to say in response to all these things but I'll save my responses for next time.

Such a Beautiful Sunset