Toast's Theological & Philosophical Meditations & Musings

Chatting with a friend, the suggestion is that Platinga’s argument may seem a little like logical leaps in the dark – here’s an Araucaria diagram, to show how it all fits together in a more visual form for those who have a hard time linking premises. I’ve included S5 as an unspoken premise for those who don’t have a clue as to what it refers.

Something that’s bothered me a lot lately: as Theists in general we often make arguments for God based on what some term as “natural revelation”, or “rational proof”. You know the sort of thing: “The heavens declare his glory: it’s obvious that the universe must have a creator, because everything is created!”, “The universe is so complex there must be an intelligent power behind it!”, “Everyone has a sense of the divine, and you never find an atheistic tribe of primitives: religion is so natural to us that it must be true”. The problem is, these don’t hold a lot of water: we need a Fideistic viewpoint to make them valid. Kant did a great job of dismantling such views.

I think I’ve found a good description of what the problem is. As such, I present the following excerpt from Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, for your perusal;

In evaluating these rational arguments it should be pointed out first of all that believers do not need them. Their conviction respecting the existence of God does not depend upon them, but on a believing acceptance of God’s self-revelation in scripture. If many in our day are willing to stake their faith in the existence of God on such rational arguments, it is to a great extent due to the fact that they refuse to accept the testimony of the Word of God. Moreover, in using these arguments in an attempt to convince unbelievers, it will be well to bear in mind that none of them can be said to carry absolute conviction… They have some value for believers themselves, but should be called testemonia rather than arguments…While they do not prove the existence of God beyond the possibility of doubt, so as to compel assent, they can be so construed as to establish a strong probability and therefore silence many unbelievers.

In essence, the issue is that such “proofs” are merely arguments to back up the idea of God’s existence, but in themselves do not constitute the proofs that so many Christians unfortunately seem to try to present them as.

Being a fan of Descartes, I use the ontological argument for the existence of God more often than I possibly should (see my blog entry on Descartes’ proofs for the existence God for more on that). I found a fascinating variant on the ontological argument from Plantinga recently, which I feel I should share seeing as we’re ont he subject of rational “proofs”. Enjoy.

1) It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2) It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3) Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5) Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

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?

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.

I admit I’m not a fan of Rob Bell. This will come as no surprise to anyone who’s talked to me about him. I feel the Nooma series of short films is nothing short of dangerous – presenting poor postmodern theology in a manner which is easy to miss, resulting in faulty views of important issues.

One of Bell’s most well-known books is, of course, Velvet Elvis. Recently I managed to get a cheap copy at a Wesley Owen closing-down sale, and  felt I should read it, if only because it does come up in conversation occasionally.

I like it. I may not agree with anything in it, but surprisingly I do like it. I like the way it’s written, I like the way it presents itself as thoughts on a subject. It appeals to the philosopher in me. The last three lines of the description on the back cover intrigue me;

Just because I’m a Christian and I’m trying to articulate a Christian worldview doesn’t mean I’ve got it nailed. I’m contributing to the discussion. God has spoken, and the rest is commentary, right?

Maybe. I want to run with that idea. I want to contribute to the discussion. I’m going to take Bell’s ideas as a starting point and see where it leads, following a rationalist viewpoint. And I’d like to invite you to join me in this discussion. After all, seeking wisdom is always the right path, correct?