Philosophy, Shroud of Turin, and Arizona

Having increasingly become detached from matters of primary importance due to matters of primary importance, so to speak, personally I’ve nothing new to report here.  However, for those who are looking for a quick primer or summary of philosophical matters that are pertinent to apologetics, read here: Triablogue: Parsing perspectivalism.

(Notice that in the section on externalism, knowledge is not defined as mere justified true belief: that classical account of knowledge has since been disproven by Gettier-types of counterexamples, but it serves as a basis for a JTB+ where knowledge is a justified true proposition believed via a reliable process.)

Then again, that the Shroud of Turin is increasingly looking like the real deal--Triablogue: More From Giulio Fanti On Dating The Shroud Of Turin--or that Kirsten Powers (the same one from Fox News?) is a Christian is news to me.  On a parenthetical note, I think that Christians should be very careful, both in word and in deed, regarding the Arizona bill that is currently in the news.  Bear in mind that many of us have jobs and spending habits which already and in effect support evil actions of others, whether it’s management of a chain of drug stores that sell cigarettes, or money sent to cable providers who air MTV and thus help to dumb-down an entire generation of people who already aren’t that bright to begin with, etc.

For some, the Twilight Zone is real.

For anyone with time on their hands and nothing to think about I present the following problem for you to consider: What does it mean when uncanny, too-bizarre-to-be-fictional strings of events continue to occur in a person’s life?  What if one series of events provides for a recurrent cheating of death and physical injury, while another series slaps you in the face time and again thus reducing you to a mere shell of a person, while still another series manages to put you in the most curious ephemeral circumstances at the right time?

What if there were no discernible patterns of human behavior involved which would allow one to theorize “Oh, this person did wrong, and that’s why these things happen” or, to the contrary, “Oh, this person is being rewarded, and that’s why these things happen”?  And to what degree should people plan their future activities with the expectation that such events will only continue to occur as they have been occurring?  For example, if the evil events that Job experienced in the first few chapters of the Book of Job continued for a longer period of time--say ten years--before ending, then in year five should Job have given up on the idea of having a family and riches ever again?

Triablogue: The optional Jesus

Yet another referral to Triablogue, but certainly not without good reason: Triablogue: The optional Jesus.

Indeed, liberalism in the context of Christian theology has a long record of being content not merely to see things in a different-but-understandable way but ultimately to rebel against the Scriptures in one way or another.  This is how MLK held the heretical beliefs that he held while masking them with standard Christian terminology, or how the saying “A little Greek is a dangerous thing” is proven in the case of queer Christian theology (as it were), or maybe even why someone like Carlton Pearson was able to resurrect his preaching career.

2012, Death, and Supposed Punishment

The world did not end on 12/21/12, but the number of celebrities who did not make it to year’s end is nevertheless so great it’s almost staggering.  Sadly, it’s a repeat of 2009 (which even then was called “the year when celebrities died”); when I first visited this page this week Jack Klugman’s picture was not posted yet and H. Norman Schwarzkopf was still alive: Notable Deaths of 2012 - NYTimes.com

The number of mass killings in the U.S. was also unusually high this year.  Add it all up and it does not mean that “someone is trying to tell us something,” and it likewise does not necessarily mean that the land or its people are now under some form of divine chastisement.  Many celebrities nowadays are simply getting older, and other celebrities are statistically running out of luck in terms of bad habits of theirs; furthermore, some people in this world are copycats, and copycatting itself may not be as common as it once was in contrasting the number of (for example) mass killings at schools for the five-year periods before and after Columbine.

So what lies behind the semblance of strange coincidences is sometimes other than what we initially think.  The Northridge quake of 1994 struck a part of a city no more evil than other parts of Los Angeles.  Hurricane Katrina wrecked parts of New Orleans that were no more evil than parts of many other American cities.  In other words, the inclination among religious or Christian people to see a run of bad events as being forms of chastisement is sometimes incorrect.  Considering the phrase “salt and light” and its origins in the Synoptic Gospels, the real punishment of wrongdoers in today’s messed-up society may actually end up being deferred until nothing short of Doomsday itself.  Wishful thinking will not change this, nor will constant picket signs from the people of Westboro Baptist Church.

The Wrong Side of History

(Note: I don’t necessarily endorse any the websites behind the hyperlinks that follow.  The last source at the close of this post also is not for the squeamish, but it is also a poignant reminder of exactly what it is that we are talking about here and how the Scriptures could treat homosexuality as being something less than perfect.  Caveat emptor, and all apologies if two hundred other bloggers have already made the same point that I make below.)

---

“The Wrong Side of History” is a phrase that was used repeatedly in 2012: one of those phrases that people suddenly pick up on and end up using ad nauseum.  In the broadcast and information media it was used most often in favor of efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, as it were.  For example, in the month of May the phrase was in vogue after Amendment One was passed in the Tar Heel State.  It was followed by Shepard Smith’s infamous usage of the same phrase during one of Smith’s many broadcasts on Fox News Channel where the man cannot keep his opinion to himself.

So there it is: people who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage (as if such a phrase were not oxymoronic) are on the wrong side of history.  Translation: Everybody else has already run and jumped off the cliff, so why don’t you conservatives get with the program already and do the same?  Alternate translation: Humanity only grows wiser and wiser with the passing of time and with every new era; so you will be proven in the future to be unwise or to be barbarians.

Okay, I’ll play Shepard Smith’s game.  I would really hate to be on the wrong side of history; I really would.  And because I do not want to be on the wrong side of history, I hereby announce that I will not do anything to esteem or dignify homosexuality; in fact, this means that I may also find myself actively opposing so-called same-sex marriage on the grounds of benevolence vis-à-vis biblical teaching about sexuality.  After all, people talk so much about history, but have they already forgotten the history of the Western world when it comes to homosexuality?  To quote Wikipedia:

It was expected and socially acceptable for a freeborn Roman man to want sex with both female and male partners, as long as he took the penetrative role.

However, we later read in the same entry:

Attitudes toward same-sex behavior changed as Christianity became more prominent in the Empire. The modern perception of Roman sexual decadence can be traced to early Christian polemic.^[192] Apart from measures to protect the liberty of citizens, the prosecution of homosexual acts as a general crime began in the 3rd century of the Christian era when male prostitution was banned by Philip the Arab. A series of laws regulating homosexual acts were promulgated during the social crisis of the 3rd century, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriage.^[193]

By the end of the 4th century, passive homosexual acts under the Christian Empire were punishable by burning.^[194] "Death by sword" was the punishment for a "man coupling like a woman" under the Theodosian Code.^[195] It can be argued, however, that legislation under Christian rule was an extension of traditional Roman views on appropriate gender roles, and not an abrupt shift based on Christian theology. It is in the 6th century, under Justinian, that legal and moral discourse on homosexuality becomes distinctly Christian:^[196] all same-sex acts, passive or active, no matter who the partners, were declared contrary to nature and punishable by death.^[197] Homosexual behaviors were pointed to as causes for God's wrath following a series of disasters around 542 and 559.^[198]

Oh, but it’s Wikipedia.  Can’t trust anything they say, right?  To the contrary; the pendulum of history swings in both directions.

Avoiding Logical Fallacies in Theology

"Argument" is not a bad word. It is providing reasons for your ideas and beliefs. You can do it poorly or you can do it well. Here are some ways to avoid doing it poorly.

Justin Taylor posts some good examples Michael Horton gives that illustrate some logical fallacies we ought to avoid. This deals primarily in relation to theology, but is easily applied to any area of study where we engage people in discussing. Politics is a good one. It is easy to try and stack the stack in your favor while discounting the good points the other side makes. Enjoy.

D.B.

Michael Horton provides some examples of informal logical fallacies, which should be avoided when writing a theological paper in his classes (and, of course, in all of life!). I’ve reprinted below the ones that he lists (along with some images, which have some relevance to the fallacy in one way or another).

---

Ad Hominem

First and foremost we need to avoid the ubiquitous ad hominem (“to/concerning the person”) variety—otherwise known as “personal attacks.”

Poor papers often focus on the person: both the critic and the one being criticized. This is easier, of course, because one only has to express one’s own opinions and reflections. A good paper will tell us more about the issues in the debate than about the debaters. (This of course does not rule out relevant biographical information on figures we’re engaging that is deemed essential to the argument.)

Red Herring

Closely related are red-herring arguments: poisoning the well, where you discredit a position at the outset (a pre-emptive strike), or creating a straw man (caricature) that can be easily demolished.

“Barth was a liberal,” “Roman Catholics do not believe that salvation is by grace,” “Luther said terrible things about Jews and Calvin approved the burning of Servetus—so how could you possibly take seriously anything they say?”

It’s an easy way of dismissing views that may be true even though those who taught them may have said or done other things that are reprehensible.

Genetic Fallacy

Closely related is the genetic fallacy, which requires merely that one trace an argument or position back to its source in order to discount it.

Simply to trace a view to its origin—as Roman Catholic, Arminian, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist/Baptist, etc.—is not to offer an argument for or against it. For example, we all believe in the Trinity; it’s not wrong because it’s also held by Roman Catholics. “Barth studied under Harnack and Herrmann, so we should already consider his doctrine of revelation suspect.” This assertion does not take into account the fact that Barth was reacting sharply against his liberal mentors and displays no effort to actually read, understand, and engage the primary or secondary sources.

Slippery Slope

Closely related to these fallacies is the all too familiarslippery slope argument. “Barth’s doctrine of revelation leads to atheism” or “Arminianism leads to Pelagianism” or “Calvinism leads to fatalism” would be examples. Even if one’s conclusion is correct, the argument has to be made, not merely asserted. The fact is, we often miss crucial moves that people make that are perfectly consistent with their thinking and do not lead to the extreme conclusions we attribute to them—not to mention the inconsistencies that all of us indulge. Honesty requires that you engage the positions that people actually hold, not conclusions you think theyshould hold if they are consistent.

If you’re going to make a logical argument that certain premises lead to a certain conclusion, then you need to make the case and must also be careful to clarify whether the interlocutor either did make that move or did not but (logically) should have.

Sweeping Generalization

Another closely related fallacy here is sweeping generalization. Until recently, it was common for historians to try to explain an entire system by identifying a “central dogma.” For example, Lutherans deduce everything from the central dogma of justification; Calvinists, from predestination and the sovereignty of God. Serious scholars who have actually studied these sources point out that these sweeping generalizations don’t have any foundation. However, sweeping generalizations are so common precisely because they make our job easier. We can embrace or dismiss positions easily without actually having to examine them closely. Usually, this means that a paper will be more “heat” than “light”: substituting emotional assertion for well-researched and logical argumentation.

“Karl Barth’s doctrine of revelation is anti-scriptural and anti-Christian” is another sweeping generalization. If I were to ask you in person why you think Barth’s view of revelation is “anti-scriptural anti-Christian,” you might answer, “Well, I think that he draws too sharp a contrast between the Word of God and Scripture—and that this undermines a credible doctrine of revelation.” “Good,” I reply, “now why do you think he makes that move?” “I think it’s because he identifies the ‘Word of God’ with God’s essence and therefore regards any direct identification with a creaturely medium (like the Bible) as a form of idolatry. It’s part of his ‘veiling-unveiling’ dialectic.” OK, now we’re closer to a real thesis—something like, “Because Barth interprets revelation as nothing less than God’s essence (actualistically conceived), he draws a sharp contrast between Scripture and revelation.” A good argument for something like that will allow the reader to draw conclusions instead of strong-arming the reader with the force of your own personality.

Begging the Question

Also avoid the fallacy of begging the question. For example, question-begging is evident in the thesis statement: “Baptists exclude from the covenant those whom Christ has welcomed.” After all, you’re assuming your conclusion without defending it. Baptists don’t believe that children of believers are included in the covenant of grace. That’s the very reason why they do not baptize them. You need an argument.

"The Passion of the Christ" and Commentary on the Problem of Evil

So “The Passion of the Christ” was on TBN a few nights ago.  I watched as Jim Caviezel was tied to a cross and I thought about how divine wrath was poured out on the real Christ when he was on the cross two thousand years ago (Isaiah 53.5).  But then I thought that there was love there and not just wrath.  Christ lay down his own life according to the command of the Father (John 10.17-18) and according to the love of both his Father and the sheep for whom he died to save and to bless (John 14.28-31, Ephesians 5.25-27).  Then I remembered John’s teaching that God is love and the scholarly opinion that every act of God’s is a loving act in some way or another (1 John 4.7-12).

Now, in considering the problem of evil we wonder why bad things happen to people of all sorts: both the righteous and the unrighteous.  We know for starters that all events are of God (e.g. see Lamentations 3.38, Romans 11.36) and that bad things which happen to the righteous benefit them in some way, considering Romans 8.28-39, other passages (e.g. Romans 5.3-4, Hebrews 12), and maybe previous thoughts on the matter.  So it becomes easier to see love in all trials and tribulations of the saints in particular.

On the other hand, when we ask why unbelievers fall prey to murderers, brutes, thieves, rapists, etc. it is all too easy to say “It is because they sinned.”  After all, such a response shows no immediate sign of one’s having considered that regardless of the individual rap sheets of unbelievers, no murderer has a right to do what he has done, no rapist has a right to do what he has done, etc.  Granted: if one turns his back on God then that person should expect to forfeit divine protection from various evils.  (Likewise, if you’re a teenager who moves out of his parents’ house to avoid authority, then don’t come asking them for money to pay rent outside in the real world.)  However, it is intuitively clear that no one had a right to kill the unbelieving victims of the Holocaust because of ethnicity or religious beliefs, none of the unbelieving victims of the torture of Uday Hussein during Iraq’s Baathist days deserved to be tortured, people did not have a right to chop off the hands of other people to coerce political support in Liberia and Sierra Leone’s diamond wars, etc.  So the response “It is because they sinned” is at best a lackluster response.

It is also an incomplete response.  For one thing, it says nothing of unborn infants who are burned or dismembered as victims of abortion before they have individually committed any sort of evil.  Of course, if one will assert that they are unrepentant sinners undeserving of divine protection in view of teachings of Original Sin, Romans chapter 5, and the gloss of “federal headship,” then fine: let them do so.  However, let the record show that apart from biblical exegesis--and even with biblical exegesis--the idea of inherited guilt does not have much in terms of other proofs.  In other words, in the world of Christian apologetics amid a broader world of skeptics who question Christianity the mere appeal to Romans 5 and certain other Scriptures is not very helpful.  Likewise, current extra-biblical proofs of corporate guilt--at least that I have seen--simply are neither cogent nor valid.*  However, even if they are valid it is not necessarily clear that corporate guilt theoretically can be predicated in cases where certain guilty parties did not even exist yet when their crime was committed, as with Adam before the fall.

Then again, maybe someone wants to argue for traducianism (e.g. see Genesis 46.26, Hebrews 7.9-10) such that we could see that all futurate human beings have existed since Adam’s time such that billions of people were parts of Adam even at the dawn of human history and thus perhaps were agents of that same individual.  Fine, but the point is this: people have their work cut out for them if they want to formally justify God’s allowing and causing what is (relatively) undeserved suffering of unbelievers.

Nevertheless, suppose that all philosophical and apologetical loose ends are tied in this case.  If God is love and if every act of his is a loving act in some way or another, then where is the love in the suffering of unbelievers either on the earth or in hell?  In terms of logos the answer is found by analogy human interpersonal relationships, I suspect.  It is not uncommon to hear that evil exists for God to demonstrate various attributes of his, including justice or justness.  That he would do such a thing as an end in itself or merely because he feels like doing so is not something that I am claiming.  However, stop and think about all the different people with whom you are acquainted and how well each of those people know you.  Chances are that you are acquainted with people that you dislike but have to deal with anyhow: chances are also pretty good that you do not divulge much personal information to them either.  On the other hand, think about the people that you like and are familiar with: you’re more willing to talk to them about current troubles, financial woes, bad days at work, interests and interesting anecdotes that you have.  And when it comes to the people that you love, usually the amount of personal information that both parties share and possess is rather high, especially among marital couples.  So people tend to open up to people that they’re cool with.

From the very beginning of time God in his wisdom has known what evil is or would be like, how bad evil is, what types and amount of destruction evil can cause, what (ethical/moral) goodness is, how excellent the members of the Trinity are, how much the same persons are capable of acting in accord with good during any and all circumstances, how wise they are and how they can use this wisdom perfectly in any situation, etc.  To know these propositions merely directly or through brain power is one thing.  To have both propositional and experiential knowledge of them is greater.  Consequently, if one member of the Trinity launches the current course of human events--with all its evil and pitfalls but also good things such as mercy, grace, and favor--it is conceivable that it is done to the benefit of other members of the Trinity who then come to have new experiential knowledge of various facets of God’s wisdom and goodness.  Of course, this is done among persons among whom there is no antipathy.

Meanwhile, there are angels whom God has rejected and there angels who have remained in the heavenly realm and who have not rebelled (Matthew 25.41, 2 Peter 2.4, Jude 1.6, Revelation 12.7-9; cf. Luke 10.18).  The current course of world history and human events--from start to finish--may also benefit the holy angels if they are capable of observing human events, God’s interaction with human events, and what their implications are.  Interestingly enough, the Scriptures speak of angels’ desires to learn of such things (1 Peter 1.12).

Finally, if God were to create human beings whom he loves but were to withhold in divulging to them much of what can be known about him, this would make for a peculiar relationship among people that he loves.  Again, if God were to create human beings but ensure that there be no Fall and no act of rebellion against God at any time in the future, there would be much of God that these humans would never know.  There would be much of his wisdom, justice and power that they would never know.  There would have been a case where to some significant degree someone did not open up to people that he’s cool with.

However, as reality now stands God has indeed informed all people that sin is bad, that rebellion is bad, that deviations from goodness and his commands are unworthy of pursuit and acceptance.  Of course, throughout human history people have rejected this knowledge and been given over to the natural results of deviation from what is good in God’s sight.  In the process God’s wisdom is proven time and again: a lesson which the saints learn and recognize yet which unbelievers often do not see.  Indeed, God has allowed the occurrence of evil acts throughout human history and has time and again punished those who choose to do what is evil while also recurrently restraining the amount of evil that may be committed under the sun: a cause for the saints’ experientially knowing of God’s goodness, righteousness and mercy while unbelievers often learn nothing from this.**  (For an example of all of this see Romans 1.18-32.)

So the problem and existence of evil are consonant with the ideas that God is love and that every act of his is somehow beneficent.  Again the question was “Where is the love in the suffering of unbelievers either on the earth or in hell?”  We already took at look at an answer which is conceivable on an intuitive and rational level.  However, it is sentimentally or emotionally unsatisfying simply to say “One group suffers miserably on earth and in hell so that another group is benefited.”  True it is that sinners choose to do that which is wrong, are undeserving of divine protection, and ultimately are punished exactly according to their crimes.  Still, true it is that God could have created a world in which people either by their nature or by divine protection had neither will nor ability to sin and that some might say that such a world is the best possible world.  In any case, there is probably no reason that a malcontent should be pleased with any world in which God creates a human race.  Of a possible world where the human race’s hands are tied from sinning, someone will claim that such a world is distasteful for lack of freedom, growth and maturity.  Of a world where people’s hands are untied, someone will complain about the freedom that does exist there and which allows evil.  Sentimentally or in terms of pathos there can be no absolutely satisfying answer for malcontents.  The bottom line of the matter is that in this world sinners get what they want, are punished exactly for the injustice that they wanted, and serve as a means of benefiting those whom God saves from themselves--all such that nothing in this universe goes to waste.

______________
* The idea that all citizens of a given country are at war when its leaders declare war is questionable; for instance, dissenters and war protestors do not seem to be at war with anyone.  Likewise, to say something like “The Luftwaffe dropped thousands of bombs on England during the Blitz” does not seem to be an accurate statement about each member of the Luftwaffe during the WWII: not every Luftwaffe pilot and mechanic would have been tasked with handling Britain at the time as opposed to patrolling other parts of German-held territory.  In fact, to treat someone favorably because he is your friend’s friend seems not to speak of transferable merit but of treating one favorably in order to please your friend.  A better case might be made in terms of republican forms of government and action where someone is tasked to act on someone’s behalf and the chosen party ends up misusing his power and authority behind the backs of those who sent it.

** Even more will be learned on the final day when “God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ” (Romans 2.16) and when the world is judged by the saints (1 Corinthians 6.2).

Pain, Suffering, and How the Grinch Stole Christmas

“How the Grinch Stole Christmas” was on ABC yesterday. I watched it but skipped the movie that followed it; this seemed like a good idea since the cartoon needed only 30 minutes to cover what the movie dragged out for 2 hours or so.

So I watched this cartoon, and I thought the same thing I’ve always thought about the Whos in Whoville. I hate the Whos in Whoville--always have, probably always will. Bear in mind that this is not even to say that I was ever a fan of the pre-repentant Grinch, which I am not. No, I still hate the Whos and after watching the show yesterday I think I know why.

Just look at the Whos. It’s not so much that they look smug or condescending with their eyes shut as they dine at the dinner table, looking like they think they’re too good to look at the others around them. No, the reason I dislike them is different I think. The Whos of Whoville are the kinds of persons you would never want you or others to be like: innocent.

That is, the Whos have no appearance of being anything more than naïve, ignorant, non-world-wise, sheltered, untested creatures who know nothing but happiness, perfection and convenience. They go about with their eyes shut and a dumb smile on their face completely unaware of the dangers of the world around them and completely without any inkling of what it is deal with any degree of trials, tribulations, trouble, suffering or inconvenience. Even real-life infants are less sheltered and less pathetic than Whos, because when infants cry you know that not all is well with them.*

Now, imagine for a moment what the world would be like if all persons were as sheltered and ignorant as are the Whos--creatures who have never so much as chipped a fingernail, stubbed their toe, spent more than 10 minutes on homework, broken a sweat during exercise or manual labor, etc. Perhaps you would not mind if everyone were like this and if you too were such a person. Personally, I would despise everyone around me if all people were like this; I would equally despise myself if I would look at myself from a third-person perspective and see an alternate reality version of myself as such a creature.

With only a few exceptions, no one on this earth likes pain, discomfort or inconvenience. At the same time, there really is something to be said of what pain, discomfort and inconvenience can do to and for a person. For there is something to be said, for instance, for objects which suffer a trial by fire and survive such a thing, like silver put to the fire and cleared from dross. The bottom line is that objects which survive fiery trials--whether literal and figurative--are relatively better than objects which have not done so, pure and simple. In fact, this fact of intuition (or so I claim it is) is one reason, for example, that we place such high value on objects in a museum: any sword which was forged one thousand years ago and survives the ravages of decay and time is in some way greater than something you might shape today with your own hammer, anvil and blast furnace. That’s the way it is.

Again, no one on this earth likes pain, discomfort or inconvenience all that much, especially when those things are still in progress and have not yet run their course. Nevertheless, that same pain, discomfort and inconvenience improves both humans and the human condition on this earth. These things produce patience, perseverance, strength, and character when they are suffered or otherwise mastered. They also enhance the culture around us; for the phrase “Necessity is the mother of invention” speaks at least of inconvenience, and something as simple as the invention of a toothbrush would not have come about were it not for some particular rotten tooth or some particular instance of bad breath that someone had way back when. Moreover, they allow those of us who have passed through the fire to be of help to those who are passing through the fire, as anyone who has been paying attention to the apostle Paul’s epistles will recall.

So at the end of the day, pain, discomfort or inconvenience often have the result of benefiting the human race. Even the annoying traits of the residents of Whoville that I suffer through in watching “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” gives me (to mention just one person) the opportunity either to better understand why God allows evil or at least to exercise some brain power in composing this blog post.

So the world in which we live is actually not as bad as one might think. Nevertheless, never forget that even this world is not the best of all possible worlds. The best of all possible worlds is one which is populated by individuals who are battle-scarred yet no longer have to face the trials, tribulations and battles of old. Be cheerful because that world currently is not far away.

_______
* Apparently even the angels of heaven do not lead an entirely unsheltered existence, judging from Revelation 12.7.

Tron and Various Ruminations

Okay, so I watched Tron: Legacy a while back and the movie raised some interesting philosophical and theological questions. Therefore, there will be spoilers in the words that lie ahead, so stop reading this post now if you have not watched the movie yet.

Let’s take it from the top. When the Flynns get zapped with that gun that plunges them into the Grid, what exactly happens to these human beings? Are we supposed to believe that they: a) are shrunk to a microscopic size and placed inside a computer; b) are converted to energy; c) are digitized; or d) are converted into information? In other words, what exactly is the premise that the two Tron movies are built on? If we are to take the Tron ethos seriously, (a) is not an option.

(A) is not an option in sheer virtue of the way in which computer hardware and software work. Inside your computer there is a hard drive. That hard drive stores information. That information is encoded. That information is encoded by means of pairs of magnetic polar opposites. These pairs of magnetic polarities are held by discrete, physical sections of the hard drive. Physically, there are no little Lego men running around inside your computer when you play Lego Star Wars. Instead, when you run that game on your computer the hardware of your computer is creating and using information according to the digitized commands of the persons who created that game and that computer--software contains information, the hardware responds to that information, and information is conveyed via your computer's monitor and is created as you play a new game or start a round of gameplay. So if the Flynns were turned into things which are just like the software inside your computer, then those things cannot be little men because the little men are not there--just magnetic polarities.

(B) apparently is not an option. The arena games that take place in the Tron universe are things which involve physical action (if only analogically) and where there is action there is energy. With that said, it seems completely untenable that the writers of the Tron movies are of the mindset that after the Flynns are plunged into the Grid the result is a quantity of energy here (e.g. Sam Flynn in the arena) giving off another quantity of energy to throw a disk at an opponent or to try to destroy his vehicle. Energy versus energy and using energy in order to defeat energy--this is not what the writers have in mind.

(C) is plausible only if (d) is plausible, because they are basically identical. When things are digitized, so to speak, they are reduced to a sequence of magnetic polarities. But I add the qualifier “so to speak” because we human beings really do speak analogically when we talk about recordings and translations of any sort. Songs exist, songs are played, and songs are recorded whether on vinyl records, cassettes, CDs or hard drives. When songs are recorded, do they have a physical location somewhere on the mp3 player that supposedly contains it? No, it does not. For that matter, songs are not even physical objects. Take the song “Greensleeves” for example: a kid somewhere in California has sheet music that tells him how to play the song on a guitar, and somewhere on the opposite side of the country there is a person who has sheet music that tells him how to play the song on a piano and in a different octave. Suppose they play the song simultaneously. Is the song present in two locations at once? Is it present in only one particular location? If so, where? No, that song is non-physical and has no spatial location--just as much as other universals or universal objects are widely held in academic philosophy and metaphysics not to have a spatial location.

There are universals and there are particulars. Again, there are universal objects and particular objects. Particular objects are discrete, are countable, and have a physical location; an example would be leaves and flowers. Universal objects, on the other hand, tend to be properties or qualities of particular objects and apparently have no spatial location. Green leaves and red flowers have physical locations--a yard here or a flower pot there. However, the greenness of the leaves and the redness of the flowers apparently have no discrete location anywhere in this universe. And if one were to attempt to reduce those colors to mere wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation in order to avoid the concept of universal objects, he would fail in so doing. For it must be admitted even in the case of two distinct light waves that have the same wavelengths, one wave is similar to another. In other words, there is a similarity or likeness between the two waves, and similitude or likeness is not reducible to something just like ordinary, plain ol’ particular objects. So no matter what, universal objects with their lack of spatial location seem to be real.

Information is a universal object, of which the process of digitizing things is a part. There are not one million individual propositions that grass is green whenever one million people assert that grass is green in saying “Grass is green.” No, when I say “Grass is green” and someone else says “Grass is green” we are both asserting the same singular proposition and idea. Likewise, there are not one million different rednesses out there if there are one million red roses. Add it all up, and the things which inform people and the things which are encoded for future transmissions of ideas turn out to be non-physical. (Note immediately that this does not mean that spirits and souls must be real, for it does not mean this. In fact, one should not have too much trouble finding secular philosophers who buy the concept of aspatial universals while failing to embrace the concept of souls or spirits. Still, that is beside the point.) The point is that if the Tron movies are to be taken seriously, then the Flynns are converted into non-spatial information whereas in 1982 you were maybe thinking that Kevin Flynn was shrunk or turned into energy.

Universals exist, even if they have no location on the spacetime manifold or have no location in space. This immediately raises the question, therefore, of why Kevin Flynn aged inside the Grid and spoke of the contracted passage of time on the Grid. In my mind there should be no passage of time on the Grid, but what do I know? Still, if the conversion process of the Tron movies is one of matter (and/or spirit) to information, then all of that which takes place on the Grid seems to be either analogous or just like any simulation that takes place with your computer when you have a video game running--you can start a game, walk away from it, and five minutes later when you return the machine lets you know which NPCs (or non-playable characters) got killed and how they got killed, all without your being there to make any of that happen. This would be a strange world in which to find yourself, but there it is: the world of Tron.

**************

Now, more spoilers. Suppose the Tron ethos is real and there are computers which can map the physical location and physical composition of a particular human body with such precision that it convert a human body to information and convert information to an object which in type or sort is (virtually) identical with any human being. Now suppose that one of these computers converts information to such an object. Is this object a bona fide human being? If not, why? If so, then is it now the case that God is not aptly called “the Creator” anymore? And is it possible even to create or fashion a living being without using egg and sperm cells?

Let’s deal with the last question first. In modern medicine there are cases of someone’s apparently having died and later come back to life right there in the emergency room. Perhaps someone’s heart will stop beating, other normal processes of vital organs may follow suit, and you end up with someone who is dead according to normal medical use of the word “dead.” But then all the processes start up again and the particular human body in question begins to function according to its design. Let’s keep this in mind as we also consider the difference between the “dead” skin cells which compose one’s epidermis and the “living” skin cells beneath the epidermis. Also consider how modern medicine allows researchers to grow a bodiless human nose out of a collection of erstwhile small number of cells on a petri dish.

With all these things in mind, what is life anyway? Is it in strict terms some ethereal or immaterial object of some sort that God breathes into human beings? If so, why are plants not said to have a divine breath of life though we conceive of green plants as having life? And if life is some sort of ethereal or immaterial object, how or why is it that apparently all that is needed to grow a plant--which involves life--is to take a non-living seed and to initiate various chemical processes and reactions by means of putting water, soil, and sunlight to it? At this point it becomes tempting to conceive of life as being something which is precisely a condition of sorts. That is, when the forces of natural law sustain something with reproductive potential functions and promote its growth, it is alive. And when that thing can no longer sustain itself or rather natural law can no longer sustain it, it is dead. And the relation that obtains between the human soul or spirit and the physical human body: perhaps not a relation such that the soul is needed to make the body alive, but rather one such that human souls can interact with the physical world only by means of organs which are functional.

This is a tempting way to look at the nature of life, but then one remembers a phrase like “the living God” from the Scriptures (e.g. Matthew 16.16), and a word such as “living” seems to have nothing to do with functionality in this case. So the former concept of life must be food for thought and grounds for further research at best in the meantime. However, if one were to grow all the organs and tissues (I’m speaking analogically here) of a human body like a bodiless human nose can be grown in a lab, and if those tissues can be strung together as such tissues are bound in a human body (including oxygenated blood), and if those tissues were then shot through with the kind of electrical currents that we normally see present in the human brain and throughout the nervous system, one wonders why the result would not be like that of a seed that is put to water, soil and sunlight that apparently becomes a plant with life by means of chemical reactions. Again, one wonders why the result would not at least be a physical object analogous to a human in a vegetative mental state. That is my answer to the question “And is it possible even to create or fashion a living being without using egg and sperm cells?”

(In passing it comes to mind that someone might appeal to James 2.26 in order to argue that souls are necessary to animate human bodies. It does not necessarily follow from the verse that souls animate a body, and many analogies could be constructed to demonstrate the logic of this.)

The first question was “Is this object a bona fide human being?” Who knows? If it is made in God’s image, as humanity is, then perhaps the object is a human being. One thing that is certain is that one need not be a regular descendant of Adam to be a human being. This is something of which we should be reminded in the coming days and weeks as Christmas draws near.

I also wondered and posed the question “If so, then is it now the case that God is not aptly called “the Creator” anymore?” It is more than worth noting and remembering that the hearts and minds of all people on this planet are part of a cosmic symphony or script which God is directing or orchestrating according to his plans and his will vis-à-vis the fact that God is a god of means, as the Scriptures have told us for the past two thousand years or so. Meanwhile, if computerized formation of humans were possible then Arminians, who dread the idea of not being in complete control of their own lives, might be some of the first people to remember that God did create matter and energy while all man can do is to convert the same. Either way, idea of God as the Creator would be something that cannot totally be forgotten.

**************

End of post. And if you survived the large paragraphs and lack of proofreading, good for you. Maybe I’ll try to clarify the entire thing later.

The Philosophy of Apathy and Failure

That which happens is that which matters. Stated in another way, if something really matters, then it will happen or will exist. If it does not happen or exist, then it did not matter; for God will bring about those things which must be. If you obeyed a particular moral commandment or requirement at a particular time, then what you did matters given that it happened. On the other hand, if you failed to obey a particular moral obligation or even outright rebelled against it, then this too matters matters given that it did happen. In fact, whether you do right or instead do wrong is something which actually matters inasmuch as the identity of this proposition seems to be this: either to actually (not hypothetically) choose between the right and the wrong, or to actually do the right or the wrong thing in this instance.

As a hypothetical matter, whether you fulfill every moral obligation of yours does not matter. Instead, what matters is what actually occurs at a given instance. Moral obligations and the facts concerning what sort of blessings and curses are commensurate with moral obedience and failure, meanwhile, are very much real and actual; therefore the obligations and facts always matter and the obligations themselves are binding. (So, imagine for example that a person lied to himself and said that it does not matter if what he does next is right or wrong; then that person goes and does what is wrong. The act of wrongdoing is real, and it therefore matters. The unjustifiable act of wrongdoing is also something that makes the person worthy of punishment, which is something that one could intuit before the act was even committed. That person will wrongly deem something as meaningless and rightly be punished for his wrongdoing.)

As a hypothetical matter, whether you fulfill every goal of yours does not matter. Instead, what matters is what actually occurs at a given instance. Again, what matters is what actually turns out to be the result of your attempts at obtaining the goal, whether good or bad. For example, a person full of youthful zeal and the desire to “win the world for Christ” might set out with the goal of compiling an exhaustive and definitive encyclopedia of rebuttals and counterproofs to all counter-Christian arguments and philosophy or of converting every last unbeliever he ever encounters. However, as time goes on this person will see what is either the futility or extreme ambitiousness of his efforts, and after a few years he may come to realize that his goals are looking perfectly unrealistic. If he is given the maturity to see the writing on the wall but does not have a social life to distract him from the reality of the situation, the next stage in his life is existential angst. Having discovered the seeming paradox of moral obligations to maintain a 40-hour job to pay his bills--and how many jobs out there both pay the bills and allow for serious efforts at Christian apologetics?--and moral obligations to invest 40 hours per week in his apologetic efforts if he is to succeed, he will soon reach the conclusion that nothing in life really matters.

Such a person would also be correct in his assessment of life: nothing matters, as even wise King Solomon concluded in the book of Ecclesiastes. Of course, anyone with an ounce of understanding realizes that some things are relative and other things have more than one connotation or intension: in a sense, nothing matters as some matters in life are matters of psychology as opposed to teleology. At that point, one must realize that only two things really matter in life and that these things are to be respected and pursued enthusiastically: one is obedience to the divine commandments, and the other is happiness. You should indeed eat, drink and be merry, because morale is life; without morale, you shrivel up and die or you jump from a bridge. And of course, you should obey God’s law, because this is the first order of business in human existence. If one will do these two things, it will hurt less both to fail and to curb his enthusiasm.

Triablogue: “Our Intuitions and Mark 8:27-33”

Triablogue: Our Intuitions and Mark 8:27-33

Hopefully, more to say about this sort of thing later. For instance, in the past hasn’t the “intuition” of a few people suggested that the biblical teachings of Original Sin and corporate guilt are false?

Against evolutionary theory in toto...

Triablogue: A problem with arguments from poor design

The commenters are right. This world is already a complex and theodical one on the biblical worldview, in which Proverbs are expressed though comparisions of the animal kingdom, character is built through paradoxes and physical hardship, and designs which appear at first not to be optimal are in fact good.

Worst of Answers

The answer at the following hyperlink is currently showcased as one of the “Best of Answers” over at Yahoo! Answers, a place chock full o’ foolishness, irreverence and ungodliness:

What makes a human life more important than a plant or an animal life?

The thumbs of currently 475 people--most of whom are probably neither vegans nor vegetarians--bolster the idea that when one throws forfeits his knowledge of God he also forfeits wisdom. (They also prove that there is something good to be said of presuppositionalism.)

And of course, these and people like these are some of those who cast ballots in elections, hold positions of authority over other people at the workplace, lecture students at the academy, etc. Stated in another way: Western society is doomed. The end is nigh.

When Secular and Christian Philosophy Cross Paths (Existentialism)

Those who endure depression or who otherwise lead either a jaded or inaffective existence can probably agree that just about everything in this world is meaningless. If you are clinically depressed, most times you probably just don’t care about things: they simply don’t matter. And if you are the type who is bored by everything, impressed by nothing, unentertained by anything such that you experience neither joy nor satisfaction, then the real, subjective and visceral truth of the matter is that nothing matters: in relative terms, nothing has any signficance perhaps beyond the cold or mechanical requirements of moral duty.

In fact, signficance itself apparently is a subjective or relative property. While one could always view things such as holiness or obedience to God as having intrinsic worth or at least as always having worth inasmuch as the Creator and Sustainer of all things places value in such things, it is always possible for such things not to matter to some particular person, such as a reprobate and atheist. This is because the words “meaning” and “significant” in some instances refer to objects which are more or less psychological or affective in nature.

Yet this post is not meant to focus on psychology or to be a statement on the glib, foolish beliefs and judgments that people tend to have concerning those “less fortunate” than they are. The point is that the concerns expressed by the wise Teacher in the book of Ecclesiastes are existential concerns. The Teacher has examined and analyzed the life and existence that human beings have before they die, and he accordingly makes a series of comments and recommendations about the human condition or the kind of mortal existence that we all have. So in this particular instance the writings of the Teacher and of modern-day existentialists are comparable.

Moreover, the Teacher also repeatedly uses the word “vanity” or “meaningless” to describe everything. (And if a Christian will be honest with the text, then he will avoid the temptation to eisegete the text and say, “Oh, that’s just Solomon speaking as a fool or unbeliever” or “Oh, that’s just how the world is if you are without God.” People who say such things either are liars or are simply missing the boat, a lack of experience with particular parts of the dark side of life perhaps being that which won’t allow their eyes to see what is clearly before them in the Ecclesiastes text.) So if one were to stretch the use of the term, one could say that the Teacher indeeds holds to a particular form of nihlism.

**************

Meanwhile, the Teacher is nobody’s fool. His concerns in the book of Ecclesiastes are those of the heart and not so much of the mind. Therefore, he does not attempt to allay anyone’s fears or concerns with circumlocutionary feel-good, pop theology. Likewise, he does not attempt to allay anyone’s fears or concerns with merely the mechanical hard facts of the matter (i.e., that everything works out for good in the end) and thus target the mind while leaving the heart completely untouched.

No, if anyone tells the Teacher that he or she understands why this or that particular event in life occurs, the Teacher may well proceed to point out the error and naïveté of this claim, as suggested by Proverbs 20.24 and possibly Ecclesiastes 8.16-17. And though the Teacher ends his treatise with the categorical exhortation that one fear God and keep His commandments as the whole (duty) of man, throughout the book in question he never stops calling everything “vanity” or “meaningless.” It should therefore come as no surprise that the Teacher also repeatedly calls for one to eat, drink and be merry. For one knows that such things do well to lift people’s spirits, if only for a time.

Again, the Teacher is nobody’s fool. If someone’s disgust, weariness, sorrow, or grief from the human condition is first and foremost existential and psychological, what good is it to tell such a person, “Hey, this is happening because God loves you” or “This is happening because God has a plan”? In other words, is it always appropriate to say to someone “Hey, this is happening because God loves you”? Is it always sufficient to say, “This is happening because God has a plan”? Is this the right thing to say immediately after a loved one has just been shot dead in cold blood? Is this the right thing to say to someone who cannot get over the death of a son, daughter or wife and now has no further desire to live?

No, it is dubious that such things are either appropriate or useful in all circumstances. On the other hand, the effects of good food, drink, and even sleep are such that they just do tend to make things better, if only temporarily. But temporary things can make for more permanent things, and one should never underestimate the importance of morale in any situation. Morale is life. Morale is the antithesis of apathy. Morale is what produces will, and will is what produces action. Action is how we live our lives and do the things we need to do, whether it is work, play, or worship.

So what is the meaning of life, according to the Scriptures? None of us knows the answer entirely, and none of us knows why God has orchestrated the universe exactly as He has done so. (These are things which Romans 8.28 does not answer.) However, we do know that one must fear God and keep His commandments. And while one keeps God’s commandments, with all the duties entailed by these commandments, the best way to cope with life on this miserable planet is to do what is pleasing; eat, drink, marry, enjoy the benefits of your labor, and have fun, for this is a gift of God (Ecc. 3.12-13; 5.18-20; 9.7-10).

When Secular and Christian Philosophy Cross Paths (Karma)

In its most basic form, the concept that what goes around comes around is correct. But this isn’t correct precisely because of some impersonal force of the universe, or the work of deities, or because people choose to repay in kind other people who they know to have done good or bad. Moreover, justification of a belief that “what goes around comes around” is not limited to wishful thinking or to observation of unfortunate series of events which may (all things considered) turn out to be mere conicidences in the first place. On the contrary, a full account of the matter at hand cannot be made without those truths of which the Scriptures have already informed us:

Evil pursueth sinners: but to the righteous good shall be repayed. (Proverbs 13.21)

The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways: and a good man [shall be satisfied] from himself. (Proverbs 14.14)

I the LORD search the heart, [I] try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, [and] according to the fruit of his doings. (Jeremiah 17.10)

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16.27)

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (Galatians 6.7)

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Revelation 22.12)

So God will repay people for their deeds, whether these deeds were good or bad and whether these deeds were done openly or in secret. Repayment may be unpleasant (Romans 12.19, 2 Thessalonians 1.3-10, Revelation 2.21-23), in some instances. Repayment also may admit of degrees of unpleasantness (Luke 12.47-48), in some instances. And rewards may amount to far less than what some might imagine in the evil of their hearts, as in Matthew 6.1-6:

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

On the other hand, those to whom God has granted repentance and who obey his commandments can focus on truths which are far more upbeat, like those of Proverbs 19.17, Proverbs 25.21-22, Matthew 5.11-12, Luke 6.34-35, Luke 14.12-14, Ephesians 6.8, Colossians 3.24, Hebrews 10.35. After all, those who have been saved by God also act in a manner which reflects gratitude for this salvation, right?

When Secular and Christian Philosophy Cross Paths (Providence)

“Things happen for a reason.” This is what some non-Christians will say, whether they speak of “unfortunate” events or events which seem to occur without a motivation or intention as a cause.

Of course, there is something to be said about the idea that all things happen for a reason. To be sure, a reason behind many actions and events is human foolishness or frailty. However, that all things happen because of a divine motivation or intention as a proximate cause* seems less clear. One thing that is clear is that God causes all events--and no, the verbs “cause” and non-auxiliary “do” are not semantically interchangeable--whether He brings about these things directly in some instances or by a diversity of means in other instances. For example:

36 To subvert a man in his cause, the LORD approveth not. 37 Who [is] he [that] saith, and it cometh to pass, [when] the Lord commandeth [it] not? 38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3.36-38)

The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. (Proverbs 16.4)

Man’s goings [are] of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way? (Proverbs 20.24)

For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen. (Romans 11.36)

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (Ephesians 1.11)

However, there seems to be ample reason to believe that not all of God’s causing all events is done in a recurrent, everyday, and case-by-case manner of his commanding, “Let the sun rise tomorrow morning” or “You electrons over here, continue to orbit this atomic nucleus” or something like this. Based on two different kinds of texts it seems safe to say that some events are brought about by natural law or natural laws which were given long ago and continue to act consistently in virtue of inherent properties of these laws.** First there are what appear to be “fire-and-forget” ordinances, decrees or laws:

Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? (Job 38.33)

When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: (Proverbs 8.29)

Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand [for] the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it? (Jeremiah 5.22)

24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. 25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant [be] not with day and night, [and if] I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; 26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, [so] that I will not take [any] of his seed [to be] rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them. (Jeremiah 33.24-26)

(Compare Job 38.8-13, Psalm 33.6-9, Psalm 148.2-6, Isaiah 45.12, 2 Peter 3.5, et al.)

With that said, it is possible to issue a ordinance, decree or law for precisely one particular reason while also willingly allowing such a thing to act otherwise indeterminately. If I were to command someone saying, “Go and buy a new car” there is no one particular object out there in the world which the name “car” denotes in this instance or which I have in mind; the name “car” here is non-referential and only connotative. Yet the command ultimately can still have the effect of causing someone to buy a particular and real automobile, as with a rich oil sheikh’s commanding a servant to buy him a new BMW, or something on that general order. The real and actual car which is eventually bought is not something which was particularly requested by this sheikh, yet there are inherent properties of the issuing of the command which go on to produce the effect of the purchase of a particular object.

Now imagine that there are inherent properties of both natural law and physical objects, ones which God uses as He will yet also are allowed to act indeterminately. Given that the apostles Paul and Peter use the word “flesh” to speak of evil inclinations of human nature, though everything which was created at the beginning the world was good, one can then go on to imagine that fallen human nature exists as such on account of inherent properties of natural law and/or physical objects--mix two chemicals together and you get one result from the combination; mix two other chemicals together and the combination produces still another result; etc. One is inclined to believe that these are concepts which make the best sense of Scriptures where someone is said to be “given over” or “given up” to evil as opposed to being “sent” or “caused to go,” as in the following:

41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. 42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices [by the space of] forty years in the wilderness? (Acts 7.41-42)

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1.21-32)

What this means, unless someone can explain otherwise, is that not every Scripture which speaks of God’s causing all events--both human events and events not involving human beings--is necessarily one which demonstrates that every event happens for a proximate reason. The spirit of the sentence “Things happen for a reason” seems to be one of proximate causes, and if this is so then it is questionable. On the other hand, if the purview of that sentence is unrestricted, then it is perfectly clear that everything does indeed happen for a reason. The clarity exists in virtue of the testimony of the Scriptures as opposed to what either believers or unbelievers will suppose to be intuition.

---------------
* Proximate, as in not several hundred steps-removed in a causal nexus or a chain of causality from efficient cause, to medial causes to occasion--but rather a cause with only one step or a few steps between it and its effect.

** Of course, even if all instances of God’s working all things, to use the language of the apostle Paul in Ephesians 1, were theoretically reduced to nothing more than age-old natural laws of God that He issued once and never had to issue again, it would still be fair to say that God works (present tense) all things. This can be seen by analogy of a murderer who poisons and then leaves the state of California on Monday, and lounges in Nevada on Tuesday at which time the victim also dies back in California; only those who are dead have been murdered, and so the murderer becomes such a person not before Tuesday and in virtue of a remote past action.

For future reference

There is a reason that jargon and tediousness exists in various academic fields or fields of inquiry: necessity. I type this that I may never have to explain myself again.

**************

1. Words refer to things, without being those things.

If I type “Barry Obama,” the 44th President of the U.S. is not suddenly on your computer screen where the name “Barry Obama” appears. There is a difference between the sign and the signified.

2. Words do not necessarily mean any particular thing, or IOW, the meaning of words is not intrinsic.

That is, suppose you have a baby lying in a crib in America who uses the word “dada” to refer to his father. The fact that “dada” denotes and connotes his father here does not mean that the physical set of sounds [dada] now refers to someone’s dad and necessarily carries ideas of the same when someone in who lives in Ghana and speaks only Ewe uses that set of sounds. No, if that person in Ghana says “dada” to refer to his sister and everyone belonging to his speech-community thinks of qualities or properties of sisterhood when they hear that word, then that word does not absolutely refer to fathers or connote fatherhood. That physical set of sounds does not have an intrinsic meaning.

Notice that this has nothing to do with ideas of deconstructionism or postmodernism.

3. What a word means and refers to are not identical.

The classical demonstration goes more or less as follows; compare the following two sentences:

(A) Hesperus is Hesperus.
(B) Hesperus is Phosphorus.

Naively speaking, A is not informative since we all know that any given object is itself. However, B is informative as it tells those of us who may not have heard the name “Phosphorus” before that there are certain properties attendant to the name “Phosphorus.” So the two sentences do not “say” the same thing though there is only one object being named by them. Meaning and reference are not identical.

4. The word “connotation” is ambiguous, and there is a particular word that can be used in lieu of it.

What word refers to it denotes, and vice versa; in fact, reference and denotation are the same. Meanwhile, connotations in one sense are those things which mediate the denotation relation, or the relation that holds between the sign and the signified. So if I say “Obama’s mama” and you have never heard this phrase before you nevertheless know that I denote the mother of Obama; for the ideas which are commonly and conventionally attached to the word “mama” determine how we use the word to denote new objects.

However, a name like “Omar” sounds hopelessly Arabic; but that does not mean that any object denoted by that name is Arabic, for there are people called Omar who are not Arabs. In other words, in the vernacular sense of the word “connotations”the name “Omar” carries Arabic or maybe even negative connotations those these same ideas or concepts play no part in the denotation process.

For this reason, it is helpful to use jargon to avoid confusion. The denotation of a name can instead be its extension and the properties which one has in mind and which one uses to determine the appropriate/conventional use of a name in referring to something can be called its intensions, with an “s.”

5. Just as words denote objects without their being identical, sentences express propositions without their being identical.

The physical set of letters “La neige est blanche” and the physical set of letters “Snow is white” are not identical. They have different locations and different forms. However, both sets of letters commonly and conventionally express the very same idea: that snow is white.

So sentences express propositions without being identical with them. However, the relation of expression is not the only relation that obtains between sentences and propositions....

6. Some propositions are merely implicated by particular sentences.

Thanks to HP Grice we have the terms conventional implicature and nonconventional implicature. Both matter.

But first, the word “many” simply means a large number of. So if any one of us were to say “Many people didn’t show up for work” we would be asserting precisely that a large number of people did not show for work: nothing more, nothing less asserted. However, we also know in experience that such a sentence will virtually never be spoken unless some people nevertheless did show for work. In this case, implicature is at work. The sentence itself expresses one proposition as true while pragmatic rules accidentally suggest that another given proposition is true—the sentence “says” one thing and “implicates” another. In this case, the implicature is also conventional since words such as “many” and “some” are commonly employed where implicature is at work.

Finally, nonconventional implicature shows up in random exchanges such as the following:

Smith: You going fishing this weekend?
Jones: I’ve got something else I have to do.

Jones does not say “no,” but it is understood nonetheless that Jones expects that he won’t be fishing.

7. Grammar can be the study of the rules by which words and phrases are put together. Pragmatics can be the study of the rules by which some words and phrases are selected against other ones per context. Discourse analysis takes things to a third tier and looks at how sentences and surrounding sentences and paragraphs work together.

8. Lexemes are analogous to morphemes and phonemes in linguistics.

For example, allomorphs belong to morphemes and allophones belong to phonemes. Likewise, allolexes would belong to lexemes. An example of a lexeme would be “baptize” where the words “baptizes,” “baptized,” and “baptizing” could be thought of as variants of the parent word “baptize.”

9. The meaning of the word “intuition” varies with context.

In linguistics, it more or less speaks of knowledge that a speaker may have without necessarily being cognizant of it. In philosophy, it can refer to direct or basic knowledge, knowledge which one does not learn through lessons or anything of the sort, but rather more or less something had from the time of a person’s conception or birth.

10. Though we are all familiar with the probabilistic from of reasoning which is inductive reasoning, there is also abductive reasoning.

An abductive argument may go as follows:

(1) It sounds like Smith just insulted me.
(2) But it is extremely unlikely that Smith would ever do such a thing.
(3) So Smith (probably) did not insult me.

Note immediately that this form of reasoning is not necessarily based on repeated observations of data, as is the case with inductive reasoning.

11. Some noun phrases are adjectival in function.

This is pretty much the case with Saul Kripke’s “rigid designators.” If I stop to ask, “Who is the 44th President of the United States?” I am not asking who Barack Hussein Obama is, but rather am making an inquiry into who has certain properties at the present moment. This is not to suggest that such phrases are many. Just a point of reference; that’s all.

12. Some words are non-referential, including nouns.

The word “nothing” is non-referential. Likewise, the word “car” in “I need to buy a new car” apparently refers to nothing since, if one will be honest with himself, the car he now has is hardly an object which he did have in mind when he says this and goes looking for a new car. Sentences like this seem to function in virtue of connotations and not so much denotations.

13. “Just in case” and “iff” mean the same thing in philosophy.

They mean if, and only if.

14. Sums

A particulate object is not identical with any of its constituent parts. Again, an object is not its parts. Want proof? Take that coffee table in your living room that is five years old. The table is five years old, but the atoms which compose it are 16 billion years old, or rather thousands of years old if you are a YEC. Nevertheless....

15. Metonymy

People do and will speak of objects as if they were identical, and not necessarily of ignorance or subterfuge.

Some metonymy involves synecdochy: “All hands abandon ship!” where the part represents the whole. Other metonyms pertain to relations which do not obtain between an aggregate and its constituent parts: “Germany invaded Poland in 1939.” But there is always some close psychological or extrapsychological connection between the two objects which are treated as being identical.