Toast's Theological & Philosophical Meditations & Musings

Note that that a  section of this  post will be copied and pasted from a philosophy essay I did for homework recently. It got a decent enough result, so I figure it’s safe to use for my purposes…

Rene Descartes, one of the founders of modern philosophy and one of the most influential philosophers in the field of realism, put forth in his Meditations an argument at its heart both simple and yet complex – taking the sceptic’s argument to its logical conclusion, Descartes proposed that if I am to doubt everything, even to the most unreasonable ends, I eventually come to the one thing which I cannot doubt – the cogito. “I think, I exist”, or more commonly “I  think therefore I am”.  Having painted himself into this corner, Descartes then pulled himself out using the simple argument that God ensures the truth – I can be sure that everything I see is not a deception, because God ensures it. At this point, we need to question: how can we be sure of the existence of God?

In meditation 3, Descartes discusses the sources of those ideas which he knows to exist, stating that as he can understand all ideas to follow a finite substance, he can attribute to himself the source of most ideas of which he is aware. Following this asertation, he then moves onto the discussion of God, and it is here that he provides his argument from objective reality, stating that “I understand from the name “God” a certain substance that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful, and that created me along with everything else that exists”¹, facts which he believes must have been presented to him by objective reality. In a neat summary of his argument, Descartes states that “although the idea of substance is in me by virtue of the fact that I am a substance”, that is, Descartes is able to comprehend the idea of a substance based on his internal knowledge alone, “that fact is not sufficient to explain my having the idea of an infinite substance, since I am finite, unless this idea preceded form substance which really was infinite”², that is, Descartes cannot even imagine the idea of the infinite, as due to his not being infinite the very idea is completely alien to him – any quality which Descartes does not himself hold must be presented to him by an outside influence which contains that quality.

In his fifth meditation, Descartes introduces his ontological argument. In his ontological argument, Descartes introduces to us the idea that it is impossible to perceive certain substances as existing without certain qualities – for instance that a mountain cannot exist without containing a valley, and a triangle cannot be thought of to exist without having three angles. It is posited by Descartes that existence is in the same way an inseparable quality of God. From this, Descartes posits that “from the fact that I cannot think of God except as existing, it follows that existence is inseparable from God, and that for this reason he really exists. Not that my thought brings this about or imposes any necessity on anything; but rather that the necessity of the thing, namely of the existence of God, forces me to think this”.³

As discussed more fully in his fifth meditation, in providing these two proofs, Descartes attempts to make a basis upon which to prove the existence of all things aside from himself and God – that is, Descartes requires the existence of God to be a keystone on which the existence of all other things may be built. In ending his meditation, Descartes states that “the certainty and truth of every science depends exclusively upon the knowledge of God, to the extent that, prior to my becoming aware of him I was incapable of achieving perfect knowledge about anything else⁴” – a clear statement as to the necessity of these proofs to be true. Descartes has at this point already demonstrated the place that God holds in dispelling doubt – that is, that by His being of an undoubtable existence, God gives reassurance to Descartes that if he is at one point aware of the truthfulness of a substance merely from observing it, he can then be aware of its truthfulness when not observing it, thanks to the knowledge that observing it had previously shown its truth – as Descartes explains, “once I perceived that there is a God, and also understood at the same time that everything else depends on him” – this second point being as a result of God’s having created all things to be as they are – “and that he is not a deceiver,” – a fact derived in his fourth meditation, following that deception is indicative of an imperfection, and therefore cannot stem from God⁵ – “I then concluded that everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive is necessarily true⁶”.

Taking this argument of Descartes to its logical conclusion, and in doing so demonstrating the vital importance of the validity of these proofs to the entire premise of the conclusions made by Descartes, it can be said that if God cannot be proven to exist, then the truthfulness of all other facts can be doubted – even those things which seem self evident, as Descartes fully acknowledges, can be doubted as mistaken as soon as they are out of mind if the existence of God as a non-deceptive prover of all things is not taken as an axiom. Further, if the God who does exist is in actual fact that hypothesised “evil genius…who has directed his entire effort at deceiving⁷”, a fact which can be accepted as entirely possible if the perfect God cannot be proven, thus allowing the imperfect action of deception, then the most extreme doubts offered by Descartes cannot be discredited, and we are left in a situation in which indeed only one fact remains as proven, as held true thanks to the Cogito – “I am, I exist⁸”.

As stands, the proof of the perfect God is in some manners doubtful – whilst Descartes’s ontological argument does indeed seem to prove to me that there is a God, His perfection is a stumbling block  - as an imperfect being, can I hold a full idea of perfection, and not just a flawed one? And if my idea of perfection is flawed, and if an idea carries the same level of reality as that which placed it there, have I not proven nothing but a possibly-imperfect God, capable of decieving me?

Does Descartes’s argument then hold no weight? On the contrary, I fully believe that the arguments thus prevented are inf act of massive use in discussing the existence of God. However to fully ensure these arguments we must make a few changes to Descartes’ reasoning.

Firstly, when I define God I must define Him as more than simply the perfect being who created me. I must define God as the God of the bible – the personal, trinitarian God. A God who seeks to directly make himself known to me. If this God can make himself known to me, then surely He can place within me the idea of perfection, revealed fully although this should otherwise be impossible to my mind? If I am to argue that only through His spirit and through His regenerating power can I truly see the truth, then in this case I find that I have a valid argument for God, and one which allows me to be sure that there is no deception otherwise.

Interestingly, in 2 Corinthians 4:162 Corinthians 4:16
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
Living by Faith ¹⁶ For this reason we never become discouraged. Even though our physical being is gradually decaying, yet our spiritual being is renewed day after day.

WP-Bible plugin we see a mention of the idea of man being deceived by  ”the god of this age”, presumably satan, and the idea that the truth must be revealed from God. An interesting analogy – God must reveal to us his truth, lest we are unable to see it ourselves. In the same manner, the arguments of Descartes seem to fail to hold up to scrutiny unless we are to view them in light of the revelation sent straight from God.

It’s certainly an argument which I find hard to discredit in this case. Thoughts?

Just got back from New Word Alive. It was awesome.

Downside: I now have a bit of a cold.

Bigger downside: I lost my notebook on Friday. It contained the in-depth essay I was planning on typing up and posting. Alas. Mebbe I’ll rewrite it at some point.

All quiet lately, cos I’ve been very very busy with uni. Changes are afoot tho – more o that later. I’m off to New Word Alive this week, when I get back I should have a couple of posts to upload – more on the philosophy side of things than the theological for once. Should be fun.

My original plan was to call these posts meditations, following in the spirit of Rene Descartes. Rob Bell refers to the chapters in Velvet Elvis as movements, which to my mind has a sort of classical music association going on. The idea of calling them “discussions” also seemed appropriate, and I tinkered with looking up debating terms. Then the ideal term hit me: dialogue. A conversational discussion between two or more people. With a rich history of use in theology, dialogue allows us to place these discussions in a context which I’m comfortable with, whilst still allowing me to take that leap out into those areas outside of the usual considered bounds.

With that out of the way, let’s dialogue with the first two sections of [i]Movement One[/i] of [i]Velvet Elvis[/i]. I’ll be dividing sections in the same manner that the “Movements” in Bell’s Velvet Elvis are divided.

Jump
Everyone is a believer in something. Arguments are not against those who have belief and those who don’t, but between those who disagree with each other’s beliefs. As Rob Bell puts it,

Everybody is following somebody. Everybody has faith in something and somebody. We are all believers

Bell argues that we are all influenced by someone – our parents, our teachers, our peers. We take the ideas we like and make them our own – We follow these people. Even if we claim to only follow ourselves, we all follow somebody.

Way
Following on from the observation that we are all following someone, Bell states that we are all following a way, and that the Christian follows the way of Jesus. Now this is where Bell makes an interesting claim;

Over time, when you purposefully try to live the way of Jesus…you begin realizing the reason this is the best way to live is that it is rooted in profound truths about how the world is. YOu find yourself more and more in tune with the ultimate reality. You are more and more in synch with the universe at its deepest levels.

Jesus’ intention was, and is, to call people to live in tune with reality.

God is the ultimate reality. There is nothing beyond God.

Jesus exposes us to reality at its rawest.

So the way of Jesus is not about religion; it’s about reality.

Perhaps a better question than who’s right, is who’s living rightly?

Quite so. But here’s the thing: was Jesus’ intention really to “call people to live in tune with reality?” In John 3:16John 3:16
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.

WP-Bible plugin, Jesus tells us that he was sent that all who believe shall not perish but live for eternity. Then again, in John 8:31-38John 8:31-38
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
The Truth will Set you Free ³¹ So Jesus said to those who believed in him, “If you obey my teaching, you are really my disciples; ³² you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” ³³ “We are the descendants of Abraham,” they answered, “and we have never been anybody's slaves. What do you mean, then, by saying, ‘You will be free’?” : ; ³⁴ Jesus said to them, “I am telling you the truth: everyone who sins is a slave of sin. ³⁵ A slave does not belong to a family permanently, but a son belongs there for ever. ³⁶ If the Son sets you free, then you will be really free. ³⁷ I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are trying to kill me, because you will not accept my teaching. ³⁸ I talk about what my Father has shown me, but you do what your father has told you.”

WP-Bible plugin we see that true disciples will be made free by the truth, and by the son of man. In John 8:12John 8:12
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
Jesus the Light of the World ¹² Jesus spoke to the Pharisees again. “I am the light of the world,” he said. “Whoever follows me will have the light of life and will never walk in darkness.” : ;

WP-Bible plugin we see that Jesus is the light of the world, and His followers shall never walk in the darkness. John 14:1-4John 14:1-4
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
Jesus the Way to the Father ^{14 1} “Do not be worried and upset,” Jesus told them. “Believe Believe; or You believe. in God and believe also in me. ² There are many rooms in my Father's house, and I am going to prepare a place for you. I would not tell you this if it were not so. There are...were not so; or There are many rooms in my Father's house; if it were not so, would I tell you that I am going to prepare a place for you? ³ And after I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to myself, so that you will be where I am. ⁴ You know the way that leads to the place where I am going.”

WP-Bible plugin tells us that Christ is the way to the Father.

So the argument from scripture does seem to be on Bell’s side here – Christ does indeed point us to God, to the right way to live, and so on. The thing is, I don’t see any mention of eternal life, no comments about not perishing, and no pointing out that by following Christ we shall be set free. Indeed, whilst Bell tells us that he follows Jesus, and insists that he believes in compassion and listening to the wisdom of others and peace and generosity, he doesn’t seem to give any mention to what is to me the cornerstone of my faith: that I am a filthy sinner, deserving of God’s wrath yet saved through my faith in Him purely by His grace and mercy. That “living right” is something that I am incapable of without His influence on me, and that despite any efforts I make I continually fail again and again to live up to the example Christ set for us.

It seems to me that in this situation, Rob Bell is not wrong, but he’s not right either. Whilst Christ does point us towards the true reality that is God, he does so much more than that. Through his death and resurrection, a corrupt world is offered redemption and an undeserved righteousness. Bell’s description of oneness with reality and with God through correct living seems almost more like an all-is-one Buddhist philosophy than the traditional view of the faith.

The question that needs to be asked is, to what extent if any are the two mutually incompatible? In the next dialogue, Bell’s interesting and somewhat controversial take on doctrine, when examined in light of this question, may give the answer.

John 4:1-42John 4:1-42
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
Jesus and the Samaritan Woman ^{4 1} The Pharisees heard that Jesus was winning and baptizing more disciples than John. ^{2 3} So when Jesus heard what was being said, he left Judea and went back to Galilee; ⁴ on his way there he had to go through Samaria. ⁵ In Samaria he came to a town named Sychar, which was not far from the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. : ; ⁶ Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired out by the journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon. ⁷ A Samaritan woman came to draw some water, and Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink of water.” ^{8 9} The woman answered, “You are a Jew, and I am a Samaritan — so how can you ask me for a drink?” Jews will not use the same cups and bowls that Samaritans use; or Jews will have nothing to do with Samaritans. : ; ¹⁰ Jesus answered, “If only you knew what God gives and who it is that is asking you for a drink, you would ask him, and he would give you life-giving water.” ¹¹ “Sir,” the woman said, “you haven't got a bucket, and the well is deep. Where would you get that life-giving water? ¹² It was our ancestor Jacob who gave us this well; he and his sons and his flocks all drank from it. You don't claim to be greater than Jacob, do you?” ¹³ Jesus answered, “All those who drink this water will be thirsty again, ¹⁴ but whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring which will provide him with life-giving water and give him eternal life.” ¹⁵ “Sir,” the woman said, “give me that water! Then I will never be thirsty again, nor will I have to come here to draw water.” ¹⁶ “Go and call your husband,” Jesus told her, “and come back.” ¹⁷ “I haven't got a husband,” she answered. Jesus replied, “You are right when you say you haven't got a husband. ¹⁸ You have been married to five men, and the man you live with now is not really your husband. You have told me the truth.” ¹⁹ “I see you are a prophet, sir,” the woman said. ²⁰ “My Samaritan ancestors worshipped God on this mountain, but you Jews say that Jerusalem is the place where we should worship God.” ²¹ Jesus said to her, “Believe me, woman, the time will come when people will not worship the Father either on this mountain or in Jerusalem. ²² You Samaritans do not really know whom you worship; but we Jews know whom we worship, because it is from the Jews that salvation comes. ²³ But the time is coming and is already here, when by the power of God's Spirit people will worship the Father as he really is, offering him the true worship that he wants. ²⁴ God is Spirit, and only by the power of his Spirit can people worship him as he really is.” ²⁵ The woman said to him, “I know that the Messiah will come, and when he comes, he will tell us everything.” ²⁶ Jesus answered, “I am he, I who am talking with you.” ²⁷ At that moment Jesus' disciples returned, and they were greatly surprised to find him talking with a woman. But none of them said to her, “What do you want?” or asked him, “Why are you talking with her?” ²⁸ Then the woman left her water jar, went back to the town, and said to the people there, ²⁹ “Come and see the man who told me everything I have ever done. Could he be the Messiah?” ³⁰ So they left the town and went to Jesus. ³¹ In the meantime the disciples were begging Jesus, “Teacher, have something to eat!” ³² But he answered, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” ³³ So the disciples started asking among themselves, “Could somebody have brought him food?” ³⁴ “My food,” Jesus said to them, “is to obey the will of the one who sent me and to finish the work he gave me to do. ³⁵ You have a saying, ‘Four more months and then the harvest.’ But I tell you, take a good look at the fields; the crops are now ripe and ready to be harvested! ³⁶ The one who reaps the harvest is being paid and gathers the crops for eternal life; so another who sows and the one who reaps will be glad together. ³⁷ The saying is true, ‘One sows, another reaps.’ ³⁸ I have sent you to reap a harvest in a field where you did not work; others worked there, and you profit from their work.” ³⁹ Many of the Samaritans in that town believed in Jesus because the woman had said, “He told me everything I have ever done.” ⁴⁰ So when the Samaritans came to him, they begged him to stay with them, and Jesus stayed there two days. ⁴¹ Many more believed because of his message, ⁴² and they said to the woman, “We believe now, not because of what you said, but because we ourselves have heard him, and we know that he really is the Saviour of the world.”

WP-Bible plugin

Someone recently told me that the woman at the well should be used as an example of how to evangelise – Christ wasn’t confrontational, and he didn’t go condemning the woman as a sinner.

Ray Comfort, who those who’ve chatted to me about evangelism probably know I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with, also uses this incident as an example of how Christ evangelised: he confronted the woman with her the law, by showing her that she’d sinned. All well and good, but I have a problem with both these arguments.

See the thing is, Jesus didn’t just confront the woman with the law: he told her that she was an adulterer. He actually knew this, despite the fact he wasn’t an acquaintance. He showed her that he was the messiah. Now, if the Lord ever grants me the ability to tell complete strangers their sins, and thus demonstrate the great power of our holy God, I will most certainly use it in his service to bring others to him – after I’ve finished freaking out, anyway. But really,t hat’s not a realistic option right now for me, or for most others.

In Luke 18:18-25Luke 18:18-25
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
The Rich Man ¹⁸ A Jewish leader asked Jesus, “Good Teacher, what must I do to receive eternal life?” ¹⁹ “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked him. “No one is good except God alone. ²⁰ You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery; do not commit murder; do not steal; do not accuse anyone falsely; respect your father and your mother.’ ” : ; ²¹ The man replied, “Ever since I was young, I have obeyed all these commandments.” ²² When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one more thing you need to do. Sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; then come and follow me.” ²³ But when the man heard this, he became very sad, because he was very rich. ²⁴ Jesus saw that he was sad and said, “How hard it is for rich people to enter the Kingdom of God! ²⁵ It is much harder for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.”

WP-Bible plugin, we see an example in which Christ uses the essence of the first commandment in talking to the rich young ruler. Now isn’t this a better example of how Christ did things, and one we can actually use? Maybe. But then this does beg an interesting question – how did the early church evangelise? Now, to me this is a far more important question – Christ may be the head of the church, but he’s also God. And as shown, we generally can’t just go using all his methods.

In acts, Peter is very confrontational in witnessing at the temple. And at Pentecost. In fact he’s rather confrontational throughout. Paul on Mars Hill gives a simple gospel presentation, beginning with an apologetic in which he takes advantage of the extreme religious nature of the people of Athens to explain the difference between the false gods and the one true God. Stephen rebuked the Sanhedrin, drawing on Jewish history to show that they had over and over again rejected and disobeyed God. He was confrontational in his witness even against men who wanted to kill him!

The Ethiopian eunuch was convinced by scripture after it was explained to him, although we don’t know exactly what was said.  However, he was convicted by scripture. I suppose we can say this was not so confrontational.

There isn’t a set rule, pattern, or method through which we should evangelise. But what we can safely say is that a certain Samaritan woman is dragged up all too often as an example, almost as if we’re trying to avoid admitting that sometimes the direct and confrontational method is required.

Or am I just talking nonsense again?