Posted on 03/21/2003 8:50:08 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
It must have been interesting, anyway, two mystics arguing about whose mysticism, (the agnostic one or the theistic one) is the right one.
Russel's mysticism, it seems to me, consits of the reification of "language," which he more or less worships. Copleston's is a more traditional mysticism, but he does hold some awful Platonic views. For example this quote from the debate:
Why something rather than nothing, that is the question? This is not a question, it is a kind of insanity. Existense (something) cannot be contingent. If it were, it would be contigent on .... But if you name anything it is contingent on, it is something. There cannot be nothing. The question is stupid.
If I had been Russel I would have asked Mr. Copleston, "why does God exist?" If this is not a legitimate question about God, it is not a legitimate question about "existence," (which it is not). The concept of contingent existence is false, and once it is admitted non-contingent existence (of anything, including God) is possible, the concept is denied, and with it, Coplestons's major premise.
(Note: this is about existence, not existents, about which the question "why" is still not legitimate, however, the question, "how," is quite alright.)
I'm sure you will not agree with my opinion here, but it's differences of opinion that are worth discussing. Wouldn't it be rather dull and uninteresting if everyone agreed on everything.
[By the way, I have read Copleston, including his three volume A History of Philosophy which I found "big" but somewhat less than objective.]
Hank
Well it's obvious to me that some "a priori" knowledge exists in the form of instinct. Instinctual knowledge can be readily observed with lower animals.
Man may demonstrate less instinctual knowledge as well as ability than many other animals at birth. But he is a more complex creature, requiring more time to develop.
As far as knowledge of right and wrong, I suppose that the biggest factor making me believe in an innate conscience as opposed to taught values is scripture. Romans 2 (at end of post) clearly states this is the case.
Which of course raises the question, "Why do I believe in scripture?". For the moment, I will simply say that it is a combination of personal experience, logic, the purity of the goal of human conduct that scriptures promotes, and it's ability to change human behavior. I will try to give a more detailed explanation for that belief later.
And it's actually going to get more complicated than that as I believe the conscience is not only internal innate knowledge but at times includes external subconscious communications with God and angels. Such belief also being based in part on scripture.
While I believe that man is born with a knowledge of right and wrong, he is also born with a fallen nature which makes him somewhat rebellious. Thus all men will eventually test the boundaries and do what they know to be wrong.
The rebellious nature is inherited, but the decision to do wrong invariably deals with man's desires. The Garden of Eden being a good example, Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because she saw that the fruit was 1) good for food, 2) a delight to the eyes, 3) and would make her wise (more like God by having knowledge of good and evil).
Eve also had a desire to obey God and to not die. The former was overridden by the focus that she had on the benefits of the fruit as well as the serpent planting distrust of God. The latter was overridden by accepting the Serpent's lie that Eve would not die and again the distrust of God.
Had Eve been a logic expert she would have realized that having already corrected the Serpent once, the serpent's information was more likely to be faulty than's God's. But she didn't, and here we are. The moral of the story being "who do you trust?" and "given conflicting information who do you obey?"
All acts of man, whether good or evil are driven thus by man's desires. The values and beliefs that we hold are a subset of those desires. The study of philosophy and values develops a construct where one can rank order or otherwise develop a greater knowledge of those desires and develop value rules or morals. That study and reflection of one's desires allow the desires themselves to change.
Romans2:14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Which of course is going to raise the question of why I believe in scripture.
First let me say, most of what you had to say was what I would call, "theological," in nature, and needs to be addressed, from my point of view, separately from philosophical issues. One of the historical problems with philosophy for me has been the unfortunate mixture of the theological and philosophical. I know the reasons for it, but that it was a mistake should have been identified long ago.
Philosophy must deal with what can be known about man and nature based only on what one can be directly conscious of, so must include in it's realm only what is directly perceived, that it, material existense, all internal conscious experience, and all that can be deduced from these.
With regard to philosophy, there is no basis for assuming innate or a priori ideas. All knowledge can be deduced from the observable, including all values.
With that as a premise, let me address quickly some of your statements as to whether I agree or disagree:
Well it's obvious to me that some "a priori" knowledge exists in the form of instinct.
I do not agree that human beings have any instinct. Instinct is a pre-programmed pattern of behavior that determines all a creatures behavior, in those that have it. It determines what a creature must do to survive and automatically causes the animal to do those things, like seeking the right food, right environment, and right shelter.
Human bings have no automatic patterns of behavior (a reflex is not an instinct). Everything a human being does must be done by conscious choice. Nothing that a human being must do to survive or enjoy his life is given. It all must be discovered and learned, from what he must eat and how to acquire it to how to make medicine that cures his diseases. The rational/volitional nature excludes the possibility of instinct.
Now we come to a theological part:
While I believe that man is born ... with a fallen nature...
You said that you believe the Bible, but the "fallen nature," "original sin," doctrine was invented by Augustine, (and has been pretty much swallowed by most theologians since. It is not a Scriptural teaching, even though several Scriptures are invoked in support of it.
...the decision to do wrong invariably deals with man's desires. That is correct, both philosophically and Scripturally. Jas 1:14-15 "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" Here I quote an older post:
First, something about the word "lust." The word means "desire" and nothing more. It is the very same word used in Luke 22:15, "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer, and could have rightly been translated, "... with lust I have lusted to eat this passover with you...."
With that understanding, we can see James is describing how all men are tempted. It begins with desire, not sinful or evil desire, but perfectly natural God-given desiress like the desire for food, or beauty, or comfort. Now these are the source of temptation, but not always, and even when they are, they are not sin.
The God-given natural desires for food, for beauty, and for knowledge Adam and Eve freely indulged and enjoyed in all the blessings of paradise, nevertheless those same desires became the source of temptation when their object was the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Was there anything evil about the desires? Of course not. Then how could indulging them be sin? Because indulging them required disobedience. The temptation consisted entirely of this, there was a desired object, there was the knowledge that the object was forbidden (and therefore it would be wrong to fulfill that desire), and they had the ability to choose. It was temptation because to not sin they had to choose what they knew was right against what they desired and wanted.
Back to you:
The rebellious nature is inherited...
If it is, Jesus inherited the same nature. You do not believe that, but examine the Scriptures. Jesus had exactly the same nature we have, or he was not a man.
Again I quote my old post:
Heb 2:10-18 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Consider:
"For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one..." All one what? Why, one nature, of course, as is explained.
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." The same what? Why, the same flesh and blood with the same nature, because if it had a different nature, it would not be the same flesh and blood.
"he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. See, he's talking about nature here and plainly states that nature is the nature inherited from the SEED OF ABRAHAM. (Oh, yeah, almost forgot, you believe that seed is corrupt, I mean, sinfully. Can't be, else Jesus would not have inherited it.
"in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." That's in ALL things, including their nature. Of course if it did not include their nature, He would only have made like his brethren in "some" things.
Rom. 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh
Phil. 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.
Here are two very interesting verses. They say Jesus was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," and "in the likeness of men." Now you might want to get out of admitting the Bible teaches Jesus had the same kind of "sinful flesh" all other men have by claiming it says Jesus flesh was only "like" sinful flesh, but not really sinful flesh because is says "in the likeness of." If you do that, however, you are also going to have to say Jesus was only "like" a man, but not really a man because it says, "in the likeness of men." But of course you won't do that, because you know Jesus was a man and had exactly the same kind of nature all men have.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Finally we must examine this verse:
Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.
I usually refrain from saying this, because it is so painfully obvious, I am embarrased to have to point it out. But, I think it is needed here.
This passage is frequently used to show that man has a sinful nature based on the idea that death is the result of sin, and since death is the result of Adam's sin, and death has passed on to all men (we are mortal), than sin must have passed on to all men as well, in what is called the "sinful nature."
On the basis of this view, every human death is proof of the sinful nature that man was born with. (I have actually seen this statement made.) Now, the obvious and absolute refutation of this is the fact that JESUS DIED.
To die, Jesus, had to have the same kind of nature we have, that is, not sinful, but mortal.
I think that should give you something to chew on.
(This is only one aspect of the "sunful nature" heresy that is easy to refute from Scripture. All men have sinned, not because of something the inherited, but by choice, just like Adam and Eve.)
Hank
Then why wouldn't Philosophy include Theology? I maintain that my beliefs in scripture are the result of things that I have directly perceived, whether answered prayer, the sensation of God's presence, fulfilled prophecy, testimonies of those who witnessed miracles, etc. All are evidences in support of the existence of God and in the inspiration of scripture.
I will admit, however, that it being my experience is difficult to prove or reproduce for peer review. I once read Hans Kung's 750 page book on "Does God Exist?". Argument after argument was thrown out in God's favor, only to see him produce a counter argument. Not any that disproved the existence of God, but merely a competing theory or a logic flaw in the original argument. Kung's conclusion after 750 pages, was that you could not prove that God existed. Only God himself could prove to you that he existed.
And I think that is probably by design. There is an argument that says if God manifested Himself in all his glory, would you really have any choice but to worship Him? I do not know fully what motivates God to reveal Himself, obedience and seeking Him with an open heart, seem to be the keys. However, I think He tries to convict all of their need for Him. Jesus's comment that the man in Hell's brothers wouldn't believe even if the man came back from the dead, seems to indicate that everything that can be done has been done.
I think the evidences are there for one willing to see, but one must look at the totality of evidences with an open and unbiased mind. There is not a simple proof that allows me to say "look here is God", that will convince a sceptic.
Instinct is a pre-programmed pattern of behavior that determines all a creatures behavior,
If I understand your position correctly, you view all animals as having either instinct or reason but not both. I think that is a rather dogmatic view. Several animals, (chimps, dolphins, orangutans, dogs, etc.) have been shown to have some reasoning ability. And if instinctual animals possess some reason, might it be possible that reasoning animals might possess some instinct? I don't think I can prove that man has a conscience, but neither can you disprove it.
When I speak of the fallen nature of man, I do not mean "Original Sin" as in the Catholic doctrine.
The difference is that until a child reaches the age of accountability he is considered "innocent". God clearly said in the Old Testament that He would hold us each accountable for our own sin, not our father's.
But I do mean a tendancy toward sin. That tendancy is not something that we have to give into, otherwise we could not be held accountable for sin, but unfortunately we all have given in at one time or another.
Jesus was fully man, but he didn't inherit that rebellious nature. That is why the virgin birth was so important. Jesus was the son of Mary and had prostitutes and canaanites in his earthly ancestry. He was flesh and bone the same as every man, capable of being tempted, mortal. Yet, He was also the Son of God, inheriting the very spirit of God which would not sin.
Adam and Eve did not have a rebellious nature until they ate of the tree, but they did have free will from the beginning.
Luke1:35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
Anyway, I will agree with you the important point is that we choose to sin, whether or not there is something fallen about our nature.
And perhaps the most important point of the whole post, is that Jesus's death did not indicate that Jesus had sinned. Rather, it was that our sin was imputed to Jesus. He was made sin for us. His death was substituted for ours.
I would be interested in your personal opinion about what major positive contribution to philosophy were made and by whom between Aristotle and Locke. It does not say no contributions, just no major contributions. I do not necessarily you to name anyone I would agree with, since I am asking for your personal opinion.
Personally, I think there were lot's of contributions, but I do not think any of them actually advanced the field of philosophy, and some of them were genuine retrogressions. That is my personal opinion, so naturally I do not consider those philosophers who taught what I disagree with to have made positive contributions.
Hank
Then why wouldn't Philosophy include Theology? I maintain that my beliefs in scripture are the result of things that I have directly perceived, whether answered prayer, the sensation of God's presence, fulfilled prophecy, testimonies of those who witnessed miracles, etc. All are evidences in support of the existence of God and in the inspiration of scripture.
My immediate answer would be that these are all evidence to you, because you already believe in God, prayer, and the validity of God's Word. For those who do not believe in any of these, the events you undrstand are an answers to prayer they would see as a perfectly natural events, which they would be (unless ithey were genuine miracles). As for the testimonies of those who witnessed miracles, they would be no more convinced by those than the testimony of those who have been abducted by UFOs. I admit that fulfilled prophecy ought to give even the most hardened skeptic pause, but, from their point of view, since both the prophecies and the fullfillments, for the most part, are recorded in the same Book, which they do not regard has having any more authority than any other book, the fullfillments are not very convincing.
Now this is just what we ought to expect, if the Scriptures are true. It plainly says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14) We should not expect the unregenerate to see evidence of God or the supernatural (eternal) in natural events.
(I will get back to one other point you alluded to about feeling God's presence in a moment.)
First, I want to make clear what I mean about my view on the separation of Philosophy and Theology. I regard philosophy a genuine intellectual discipline, like any of the sciences, or history. The subject matter of philosophy can be very well defined (as I believe the original article in this post accomplished), and the pursuit of genuine knowledge in all those areas must be purely objective, just as it must in the sciences.
Now this is the most important point I have to make. There can be no disagreement between a correct philosophy and a correct theology, just as there can be no disagreement between a correct chemistry and a correct theology, or a correct astronomy and a correct theology. There can be no dissagreements in truth, no contradictions, and no paradoxes.
Philosophy deals with the "natural" perceived world, Theology deals with that which philosophy cannot deal with, that is the "revealed" world of the supernatural. Now there is a natural interface between philosophy and theology at both ends of philosophy, that is, at the metaphysical end, in ontology, which ultimately must describe existense in terms of the most simple or essential of qualities. The question is, what do the simplest or most essential qualities qualify? Philosophy cannot answer that question.
At the other end is human rational/volitional consciousness, which, while conscious of material existense, cannot itself be material existense, and, being rational/volitional, is not constrained by any of the qualities which describe natural (spatial/temporal/determinate) material existense.
(Interestingly, the atheistic philosopher/writer, Ayn Rand, was aware of both these problems and frankly stated, not as a wish, but to point out the nature of the problem, she could almost wish there were a God, because that would solve the problems. The exact statement is recorded, but is not in any of her regularly published works.)
Now, I have written too much but want to mention this idea of "feeling" God. I do not want to discourage you, and first want to assure you there are genuine feelings we ought to experience in our relationships with God. But, I must point out that God is not palpable, and the whole idea of basing anything on our feelings (which are always and only reactions or responses, and never cognitive or revelatory) can be very dangerous.
If God could be "felt" everyone would be able to feel Him, as Luke points out (recording Paul's address at Mar's hill):
Ac 17:26-28 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being....
...because He is not closer to us than anyone else, because we all "live, and move, and have our being," in Him.
The problem with relying on feeling for any view, choice, or conviction, is in themselves, feelings provide no information, such as, about their cause, or even their significance or importance. There is no way from feelings along to determine whether they are being cause by indigestion, the devil, or by our spiritual relatioship with God.
Enough!
Hank
It's too bad Nietzsche did not write it. It would have been one thing he wrote I could agree with. Though I am a radical individualist, despise altruism as both unScriptural and anti-human, and am ethically an egoist (It was after all, our "selves" that Christ came to save,) I despise Nietzsche, mostly for confusing egoism with subjectivism. Those who have never even heard of Nietzsche suffer from that confusion to this day.
(If you're interested in that "it is our 'selves' that Christ came to save" statement, you might compare, Mark 8:36 and Luke 9:25 and notice what is the most important thing for a person not to lose.)
Hank
Psychological analysis is hardly philosophy. Are you saying that such a question is meaningless? Why?
Existense (something) cannot be contingent.
I find this statement quite opaque. I am something. If I existed absolutely, then I would be utterly self-sufficient; I would be my own cause. Yet, as my parents can attest, I am certainly not my own cause. Therefore, I am contingent upon my parents, at least.
[By the way, I have read Copleston, including his three volume A History of Philosophy which I found "big" but somewhat less than objective.]
Copleston's history is a bit more than three volumes. Nine or ten, I think. It's no substitute for the primary texts and a wise friend, but I have found it quite helpful.
Ok, then for the sake of the skeptics and the unbelievers who won't accept the evidences I would offer nor obtain their own by seeking Him, I'll agree that perhaps Philosophy should be viewed as separated from Theology.
But then that brings us back to the question of "Philosophy what is it?". We've just removed from philosophy most of what I would identify as the most important information. That of who we are, what our purpose is, what kind of people we ought to be, who we answer to, the very meaning of life.
The word "foundationless" comes to mind. "Adrift", also. Can I trust anything that philosophy might conclude? Frankly, I'm not sure. It would seem to me, that the conclusions that one could reach with such a philosophy might be very limited.
Or worse, philosophy might be totally self centered. It seems like so called "rational" philosophy would invariably seek out self centeredness.
Perhaps that's what you mean when you say: The question is, what do the simplest or most essential qualities qualify? Philosophy cannot answer that question.
Finally, If God could be "felt" everyone would be able to feel Him, as Luke points out (recording Paul's address at Mar's hill):
Feeling or sensing the presense of God is not unlike "hearing" Him. One doesn't normally audibly hear God, yet the sensation is very much like hearing. In John 10 Jesus effectively said that his sheep know His voice. So it's not that everyone doesn't hear Him or feel Him, they do. They don't recognize him.
But for me, both feeling and hearing Him are among the many evidences. Not a feeling in the sense of an emotion, but a sensation like one of the five senses. That is an evidence as far as I'm concerned, but not one I can submit to peer review.
I don't know what prompted your suspicions, but I wonder, could you finish a course Greek and get away it?
ti, dia ti, and ";" not to mention "aitia"
Then you said: If I existed absolutely, then I would be utterly self-sufficient; I would be my own cause. Yet, as my parents can attest, I am certainly not my own cause. Therefore, I am contingent upon my parents, at least.
But, you are an existent not existence. The fact of existence (there is something) cannot itself be contingent, because whatever is named is that upon which it is contingent, must exist, and if anything exists, there is existence.
The concept existence does not require any particular existense, only some existense. A concept is materially valid if there is at least one actual particular of that concept. (e.g. The concept phoenix is considered mythical, but would become materially valid if even one actual phoenix were discovered.)
With regard to my statement, "Why something rather than nothing, that is the question? This is not a question, it is a kind of insanity," I admit it is more rhetorical than philosophical, but I believe it is good rhetoric. I suspect anyone who comes to the question, "Why something rather than nothing," all on their own, may be exhibiting a psychological pathology; but, for those who are introduced to this question by someone else, as is usually the case, "insanity" is not neceswsarily indicated in considering the question, unless one takes it seriously, and dwells on it long enough, in which case, their sanity becomes questionable.
Hank
The concept existence does not require any particular existense, only some existense.
This sentence throws me for another loop. Do you mean that existence as such--in some Platonic form--is impossible, for existence is always instantiated in a thing? As I understand Copleston, he would agree with this.
A concept is materially valid if there is at least one actual particular of that concept.(e.g. The concept phoenix is considered mythical, but would become materially valid if even one actual phoenix were discovered.)
Straightforward enough. A Phoenix is a potential creature, not yet instantiated in reality. So how does this relate to existence?
With regard to my statement, "Why something rather than nothing, that is the question? This is not a question, it is a kind of insanity," I admit it is more rhetorical than philosophical, but I believe it is good rhetoric.
Better rhetoric demonstrates.
My point is about that validation of concepts. The illustration (of Phoenix) you understood, but did not apply it to the concept existence. I meant, if there is even one existent, no matter what it is, existence, as a concept, is established materially.
I could have used a better example, because "Phoenix" is a concept of an "entity" (in this case an imaginary one), but "existence" is actually a concept of a quality, like "red" or "round." In the case of qualities, so long as even one thing has that quality, the concept for that quality is valid.
The odd thing about the quality "existence" is, everything has it. That is why it is both universal and axiomatic. (I do not use the word "universal," as in epistemology, but to mean, always to all things true.) It is also why we talk about "existence" as though it were a thing, because, unlike other qualities, such as "red," which require there to be some existent things they are qualities of, the quality, "existence," for anything that has it, means that it is. That is why we can wave our arm, indicating the entire world, the universe, and heaven, too, and say, "everything is existence," which is to say, "everything that is, is." If everything had the quality red we could say everything is red, but we cannot say that about redness, but we can and must say it about existence.
Now, the question, "why is there something rather than nothing," supposes, "nothing," is a possible metaphysical universal fact. While the answer to the question, "what is in the box," can be "nothing," the answer to the question, "what is there," can never (logically, not temporally) be "nothing," for two reasons:
We have agreed that a concept is validated by at least one actual particular, but so long as not even one actual referrant can be discovered, the concept remains purely conceptual without material verity. The concept "nothingness" or "non-existense" (as metaphysically universal) is a concept which cannot have a referrent, by definition.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.