Sunday, September 08, 2024

My forgotten Existential Theology


Paul Tillich 1886-1965

Existentialism was huge 60 years ago, it's totally forgotten today, being out of sink with the zeitgeist of scientism. I don't care I am an existnetial9sit, it give meaningto my life ant existentialism with his self authentication must beprepered to disregard popilarity. How do I define the term? Existentialism, is an intellectual movement, essentially a philosophy but it's themes developed beyond philosophy and sppread over all hummanties.It centers upon the notion that humans are compeslled to be free, It seeks to find one's meaning in the realization of what to do with freedom. It tends to be highly individualistic and not systematic those are reflections of the consequences of freedom which culentates in individuality. It is often associated with niotion of life as meaningless or absurd. Exitentialissm has aso been associated with atheism and it is from the rootless notion of the abyss in place of God that existentialists such as Sartre and Neitzshe base their notions of life as meaningless and absurd.

As an intellectual movement that exploded on the scene in mid-twentieth-century France, “existentialism” is often viewed as a historically situated event that emerged against the backdrop of the Second World War, the Nazi death camps, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of which created the circumstances for what has been called “the existentialist moment” (Baert 2015), where an entire generation was forced to confront the human condition and the anxiety-provoking givens of death, freedom, and meaninglessness. Although the most popular voices of this movement were French, most notably Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, as well as compatriots such as Albert Camus, Gabriel Marcel, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, the conceptual groundwork of the movement was laid much earlier in the nineteenth century by pioneers like Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche and twentieth-century German philosophers like Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Karl Jaspers as well as prominent Spanish intellectuals José Ortega y Gasset and Miguel de Unamuno. The core ideas have also been illuminated in key literary works. Beyond the plays, short stories, and novels by French luminaries like Sartre, Beauvoir, and Camus, there were Parisian writers such as Jean Genet and André Gide, the Russian novelists Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky, the work of Norwegian authors such as Henrik Ibsen and Knut Hamsun, and the German-language iconoclasts Franz Kafka and Rainer Maria Rilke. The movement even found expression across the pond in the work of the “lost generation” of American writers like F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, mid-century “beat” authors like Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsburg, and William S. Burroughs, and the self-proclaimed “American existentialist,” Norman Mailer (Cotkin 2003, 185).[1]
I was strongly drawn to existentialism when I was an atheist, when I became a Christian I was naturally interested in findig out about Christian existetialism.I had heard of it, it seemed silly to me from an atheist point of view. Wth religious experience it suddenly made a lot of sense I began to define myself as a christian existntaist.To me this means an empnasis upon personal relationship with God,meakomga leap of faith, placing above systematic theology and chruch authority, although it's not an excuse to ignore either. It also means an awareness of God as the source of meaning and rationality in life.

Free Will and The Leap Of Faith: The Christian Existentialist philosopher Karl Jaspers: (1883-1969) argued that the concept of Free Will makes all Faith essentially (pun intended) Existential:  that one is ultimately free to choose or not choose faith, or, for that matter, which or what faith to choose from:  you must choose whether to be a Catholic, or a Baptist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, or an atheist. Ultimately, you and you alone are responsible for this choice.[2]
Soren Kierkegaard(1813-1855). SK is super nuanced and provides the reader witha rich world one could spend one's life in his writtings,I aca only toucj the surface SK lived in a society where everyone was a christian,what that meant in his setting was that everyone went to chruch follow teachings by wrote and never had to think about it the ret 0f the week, For Kierkegaard this was abhorrent,for his faith was an individual choice based upon a leap of faith.[3]

In 1846, Kierkegaard wrote, "The leap becomes easier in the degree to which some distance intervenes between the initial position and the place where the leap takes off. And so it is also with respect to a decisive movement in the realm of the spirit.[4]

Twp Other major christian existentialists are Paul Tillich (1886-1965) and Reinhold Neibhur. Tillich was a major thinker of the 20th century and led the way in Christian eistential thought. He was German and came to America in the 30s to escape the Nazis.His popularizing work on Christian existentialism is The Courage to Be.[5] But one of my favorite books from which on can learn a great deal about theology, including the existential, is Tillilch's History of Christian Doctrine.[6]Tilluch jas been ny favrite theologian for a long time,I am especially drawn to his notions about God as tye object of humanities ultimate concern. Out of this notion that God is being itself. He also put that as God is the ground of being.

Niebuhr (1892=1971) was German American. He is best known for his great great book Moral Man, and immoral Society.[7] One doesn't hear much of Neibuhr now days but he was a major figure in the 20th cetntury.He was oneof the firt acadmics to oppose the war in Vietnam.Two things I like about his thought: (2) People can be moral but in group and as society they have a harder time, it's much easier to be carried away by class interests in the group. (2) He translated the literal view of doctrines like the Genesis creation myth in terms of Anxiety broughto y sekf transcedence is what leads to sin. One finds this in his major work, The Nature and Destiny of Man, in two volumes.[8]



NOTES

[1] Kevin Aho, "Existentialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Summer 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = .

[2] "Christian And Theological Existentialism," University of Idaho, no date https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/lecture%20notes/christian_existentialism.htm

[3]Ibid.

[4] Soren Keirkegaard,"concludig unscientific post script to Philosophical fragments....," Translated from the Danish by David F. Swenson, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941, pp. 326–327.

[5] Paul Tillich, The courage to be,New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959.

[6]______________, the history of christian thought, New York City:Touchstone books, 1972.

[7]Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society two volumes,Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013, originally published by Scribner in 1932

. [8]_______________, The Nature and Destiny of Man, vol I, and II, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press; 1996/ first published 1943 taken from his Gilford lectures.



Friday, August 30, 2024

Hebrew Roots of Trinity Doctrine



Before getting started we need to define some words:



'Memra'-- is the Aramaic for 'word.' Intervhangeable for Jews of 1 century with logos

Targum-- second century Aramaic translation of Hebrew Scriptures.

Targumim (translations into Aramaic for use in worship services)

One of the most common beliefs among Pagan cultures was in a trinity of gods. We find this among the Egyptians, Indians (of India), Japanese, Sumarians, Chaldeans, and of course, the Babylonians, to where historians trace the roots of trinitarism.

Church history shows a gradual assimilation of Pagan ideas into Christianity, brought about mostly by the Roman or Western Church, which became a political/religious extension of the Roman Empire. Foremost among the pagan ideas was the adoption of the trinity doctrine into the dogma of the church. Pagan holidays (holy days) were also incorporated into tradition by “Christianizing” them, thus we end up with Christmas being celebrated on Dec 25th; Easter, which combined the resurrection of Christ with the pagan goddess Ester, and Halloween combined with All Saint’s Day.[1]
This view is bunck. I find little evidence that these pagan notions were a real Trinity like the Christian Trinity (three perona in one esence) and not just three gods closely identififed. More importantly, all the intellectual material necessary to formulate the doctrien is present in Judaism and no need need to appeal to pagan ideas.

Turnig to the works of Kaufmann Kohler:

Despite the fact that the Doctrine was formulated by the church over several centuries, the basic elements of it can be seen clearly in the New Testament. Several verses actually dipict the there persona of the Godhead working together at the same time, in concert but distinctively seperaate.In fact, a formula of the Trinity can be seen in many passages:

Matthew 28:19
Father, Son, holy spirit
1 Corinthians 12:4-6
Spirit, Lord, God
2 Corinthians 13:14
Christ, God, holy spirit
Galatians 4:4-6
God, Son, spirit of his Son
Ephesians 4:4-6
Spirit, Lord, God
1 Peter 1:2
God, Spirit, Jesus Christ

Kufmann Kohler:

"The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.


The point starting here,ryhhing thorughit the essay, is that John was not reaching to paganism but tryig to express in Greek an older idea from Judaism, that of the emeinationsof God.god, the Logos means word. This is going to be hard to understand. The word of God is distinct frm God and yet is God. Logos means word the logos is the word of God.

—Biblical Data:

In Scripture "the word of the Lord" commonly denotes the speech addressed to patriarch or prophet (Gen. xv. 1; Num. xii. 6, xxiii. 5; I Sam. iii. 21; Amos v. 1-8); but frequently it denotes also the creative word: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made" (Ps. xxxiii. 6; comp. "For He spake, and it was done"; "He sendeth his word, and melteth them [the ice]"; "Fire and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his word"; Ps. xxxiii. 9, cxlvii. 18, cxlviii. 8). In this sense it is said, "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps. cxix. 89). "The Word," heard and announced by the prophet, often became, in the conception of the seer, an efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messenger of God: "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel" (Isa. ix. 7 [A. V. 8], lv. 11); "He sent his word, and healed them" (Ps. cvii. 20); and comp. "his word runneth very swiftly" (Ps. cxlvii. 15).[2]

Personification of the Word.

—In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature:

While in the Book of Jubilees, xii. 22, the word of God is sent through the angel to Abraham, in other cases it becomes more and more a personified agency: "By the word of God exist His works" (Ecclus. [Sirach] xlii. 15); "The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world by the 'Ma'amar'" (Mek., Beshallaḥ, 10, with reference to Ps. xxxiii. 6). Quite frequent is the expression, especially in the liturgy, "Thou who hast made the universe with Thy word and ordained man through Thy wisdom to rule over the creatures made by Thee" (Wisdom ix. 1; comp. "Who by Thy words causest the evenings to bring darkness, who openest the gates of the sky by Thy wisdom"; . . . "who by His speech created the heavens, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts"; through whose "words all things were created"; see Singer's "Daily Prayer-Book," pp. 96, 290, 292). So also in IV Esdras vi. 38 ("Lord, Thou spakest on the first day of Creation: 'Let there be heaven and earth,' and Thy word hath accomplished the work"). "Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things" (Wisdom xvi. 12); "Thy word preserveth them that put their trust in Thee" (l.c. xvi. 26). Especially strong is the personification of the word in Wisdom xviii. 15: "Thine Almighty Word leaped down from heaven out of Thy royal throne as a fierce man of war." The Mishnah, with reference to the ten passages in Genesis (ch. i.) beginning with "And God said," speaks of the ten "ma'amarot" (= "speeches") by which the world was created (Abot v. 1; comp. Gen. R. iv. 2: "The upper heavens are held in suspense by the creative Ma'amar"). Out of every speech ["dibbur"] which emanated from God an angel was created (Ḥag. 14a). "The Word ["dibbur"] called none but Moses" (Lev. R. i. 4, 5). "The Word ["dibbur"] went forth from the right hand of God and made a circuit around the camp of Israel" (Cant. R. i. 13).
II.Hebrew Emanations embedded in Trinity.

A. Hebrew view of God is emanation theory.

This concept is more often found in the Kabala, where it is more explicit, but it can be seen in the Torah and in Rabbinical writings too. In the Intertestamental period, Philo the Jewish philosopher uses the term Logos (as Edersheim documents, op. cit) to refer to the emanation of God's presence in the world. The notion of memra is used in that way as well. Emanation is like light from the sun, or form a light bulb, the light is emanating out in continuous manifestations. We cannot go into the origins of Kabalism here, but even though the actual Kabala was written in the middle ages, the ideas contained in it, and the basic style of mysticism, go back to intertestamental times. Many, both Jews and Gentiles are suspicious of it, because it is basically the Jewish occult. But one of the oldest if not the earliest Kbalaistic works, Yetsirah, shows us something of the use of this term Memra. Kabalism contains influences of Hellenization through Platonism mixed with Hebrew mysticism. The basic question here is, according to Edersheim, God's connection with his creation. That connection is an emanation. God is emanating through the Sephiroth, realms which make up the world.[3]

"These 10 Sephiroth occur everywhere and the sacred number 10 is that of perfection. Each of these Sephiroth flows from its predecessor and in this manner the divine gradually evolves. This emanation of the 10 Sephiroth then constitutes the substance of the world; we may add it constitutes everything else. In God in the world everywhere we meet these 10 Sephiroth at the head of which is God manifest or the Memra "(Logos or Word). From the Book of Yetsirah Edersheim quotes Mishnah 5: "The Sephiroth Belimah--their appearance like the sheen of lighteing (reference here to Ez. 1:14) and their outgoing (goal) that they have no end, His Word is in them (The Logos Manifest in the Sephiroth), in running and in returning and at his word like storm wind they peruse and before his throne they bend in worship." [Edersheim--693]

Note: This is not to say that the Jews thought of these things as a "Trinity." If one says Memra, to a Jew, he/she does not say "ah, yes the second person of the Jewish Trinity." There is no Jewish Trinity. To a Rabbi this is just a word for God's presence. But the Messianic Rabbis do take a similar approach to my own in their understanding of Trinity. After all, This self revealing presence of God is what John was driving at in his use of the term "logos" just as a Word reveals, so is the Logos the revelation of God.

B. Hebrew Emanations at the root of Trinity.

Hebrew emanation theories influence upon the Trinitarian doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity is too complex to cover in full here, but it can be sufficed to say that in seeking meaning within the Pagan world, early Christian theologians borrowed from Middle Platonism which committed them to a view of three persons in one essence. However, even this view borrows from emanations views already within Platonism, and earlier Jewish notions. "Middle Plantonism can be described as emmanationist, predominately Binartarian, and possibly subordinationist. Not much needs to be said about the middle platonist preference for emanation theory in its theology of origin, partly because such imagery remains just as much at home in the Christian binartarian and Trinitarian theology..."[4]. According to this same article there may also be some influence from Philo's Middle Platonism directly upon Christian thinkers.

The first Christian theologian to coin the term "Trinity" was Tertullian, and the analogy he used was that the sun, it's rays dappled and visible as three separate shafts but all of the same substance and emanating form the same source. Classified list of passages in which the term Memra occurs in the Targum Pseuo-Johanthan on the Pentateuch

C. Edersheim's List of uses of Memra.

Edersheim complied an amazing list of several hundred instances of the use of Memra in Targimum translations:

(From Edersheim, p 663--partial list) Gen. 2: 8, 3: 8, 10, 24, ; 4: 26; 5: 2; 7: 16, 9:12, 13, 15, 16,17; 11:8; 12:17; 15:1; 17: 2, 7,10, 11; 18: 5; 19: 24;20: 6, 18;21:20, 22, 23, 33, 22: 1; 24: 1,3; 26: 3, 24,28; 27: 28,31; 28: 10,15,20; 29: 12; 31: 3,50; 35: 3, 9; 39: 2,3, 21,23; 41: 1, 46:4; 48: 8,21; 49: 25, 1,20;

Exodus 1: 21; 2: 5, 3:12; 7: 25; Lev. 1:1; 6: 2; 8: 35...

Examples: Gen 2:8 "Now The Lord God had planted a Garden in the East and there he put the man he had formed." (presumably Lord God is Memra).

Gen. 7:16 "And the animals going in were 2 of every kind as the Lord God had comanded."

(The original list is 16 rows long) The Notions on Memra and especially on the Kabala are very complex. Edersheim goes into it in much more detail. We do not have the space to follow this in that sort of detail. But I urge anyone who understands Hebrew and is familiar with Hebrew writings to get Edersheim's Book and read this section and contemplate it deeply. In fact I urge them to read and contemplate the whole book deeply.

The Point of all of this:

1) John uses Logos as the Greek for Memra.

Through looking at the way in which the Targumim translate certain words for God's presence as "memra," and the interchangeability of Memra and logos, we can understand the way that John used Logos in his Gospel; he used it in the way that the Targums use Memra. In other words, the logos is an emanation of God's presence.

The point here is John was not reaching to paganism but trying to express in Greek an older idea from Judaism, that of the emeinations of God.

Spources:

[1] Ed Torrence, "Pagan Roots of the Trinity Doctrinem" Bibical Unitarian, wevsite, 2024m from Rediscovering Original Christian Theology,” Pagan Roots of Trinity Doctrine by Ed Torrence © 2002 https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/pagan-roots-of-the-trinity-doctrine-ed-torrence-2002

[2] Kaufmann Kohler, "MEMRA (= Ma'amar' or 'Dibbur,' 'Logos'"Jewish Encycloedia, website,1897 https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memr%CE%B1 Kaufmann Kohler (born May 10, 1843, Fürth, Bavaria [Germany]—died Jan. 28, 1926, New York, N.Y., U.S.) was a German-American rabbi, and one of the most influential theologians of Reform Judaism in the United States. [3]Alfred Edersheim, Life and Times ofJesus the Mssiah,Andesite Press (August 8, 2015) The life and times of Jesus the Messiah. by: Edersheim, Alfred, 1825-1889. Publication date: 1907. Topics: Jesus Christ. Publisher: New York

Alfred Edersheim (7 March 1825 – 16 March 1889) was a Jewish convert to Christianity and a Biblical scholar known especially for his book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messia .He was a major scholar in late 19th century teaching at both Oxford and Cambrige at the same time. His faily was wealthy he was trained to be a rabbi while growing up up but and to went college in Eourpe he became a christian.

[4]"Trinity" Westminster's Dictionary of Christian Theology p582).


God,Science, and ideology, by Joseph Hinmman

This is an important book that spans an immense literature in a balanced and very readable form. For anyone interested in why some believe and others do not, this book will inform you of the entire range of literature in which not only can the proper questions be asked, but the reader can evaluate the often hidden ideological nature in which answers are proposed

Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies

Hinman is highly stimulating, brilliant in places. It is rare to find a book so exuberant yet still rational.

Lantz Fleming Miller, Ashoka University

https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765

Order book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765



Tuesday, August 27, 2024

God,Science, and ideology, by Joseph Hinmman This is an important book that spans an immense literature in a balanced and very readable form. For anyone interested in why some believe and others do not, this book will inform you of the entire range of literature in which not only can the proper questions be asked, but the reader can evaluate the often hidden ideological nature in which answers are proposed Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies Hinman is highly stimulating, brilliant in places. It is rare to find a book so exuberant yet still rational. Lantz Fleming Miller, Ashoka University https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765 Order book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765


Friday, August 23, 2024

Debunking the Atheist Fortress of Facts Part 2

Photobucket

Karl Popper

footnote numbers taken over from part 1.

Not Facts but Verisimilitude:

Karl Popper (1902-1994) is one of the most renewed and highly respected figures in the philosophy of science. Popper was from Vienna, of Jewish origin, maintained a youthful flirtation with Marxism, and left his native land due to the rise of Nazism in the late thirties. He is considered to be among the ranks of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century. Popper is highly respected by scientists in a way that most philosophers of science are not.[15]

He was also a social and political philosopher of considerable stature, a self-professed ‘critical-rationalist’, a dedicated opponent of all forms of scepticism, conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairs generally, a committed advocate and staunch defender of the ‘Open Society’, and an implacable critic of totalitarianism in all of its forms. One of the many remarkable features of Popper's thought is the scope of his intellectual influence. In the modern technological and highly-specialised world scientists are rarely aware of the work of philosophers; it is virtually unprecedented to find them queuing up, as they have done in Popper's case, to testify to the enormously practical beneficial impact which that philosophical work has had upon their own. But notwithstanding the fact that he wrote on even the most technical matters with consummate clarity, the scope of Popper's work is such that it is commonplace by now to find that commentators tend to deal with the epistemological, scientific and social elements of his thought as if they were quite disparate and unconnected, and thus the fundamental unity of his philosophical vision and method has to a large degree been dissipated.[16]

Unfortunately for our purposes we will only be able to skim the surface of Popper’s thoughts on the most crucial aspect of this theory of science, that science is not about proving things but about falsifying them.

Above we see that Dawkins, Stenger and company place their faith in the probability engineered by scientific facts. The problem is probability is not the basis upon which one chooses one theory over another, at least according to Popper. This insight forms the basis of this notion that science can give us verisimilitude not “facts.” Popper never uses the phrase “fortress of facts,” we could add that, science is not a fortress of facts. Science is not giving us “truth,” its’ giving something in place of truth, “verisimilitude.” The term verisimilar means “having the appearance of truth, or probable.” Or it can also mean “depicting realism” as in art or literature.”[17] According to Popper in choosing between two theories one more probable than the other, if one is interested I the informative content of the theory, one should choose the less probable. This is paradoxical but the reason is that probability and informative content very inversely. The higher informative content of a theory is more predictive since the more information contained in a statement the greater the number of ways the statement will turn out to fail or be proved wrong. At that rate mystical experience should be the most scientific view point. If this dictum were applied to a choice between Stenger’s atheism and belief in God mystical God belief would be more predictive and have less likelihood of being wrong because it’s based upon not speaking much about what one experiences as truth. We will see latter that this is actually the case in terms of certain kinds of religious experiences. I am not really suggesting that the two can be compared. They are two different kinds of knowledge. Even though mystical experience per se can be falsified (which will be seen in subsequent chapters) belief in God over all can’t be. The real point is that arguing that God is less probable is not a scientifically valid approach.

Thus the statements which are of special interest to the scientist are those with a high informative content and (consequentially) a low probability, which nevertheless come close to the truth. Informative content, which is in inverse proportion to probability, is in direct proportion to testability. Consequently the severity of the test to which a theory can be subjected, and by means of which it is falsified or corroborated, is all-important.[18]

Scientific criticism of theories must be piecemeal. We can’t question every aspect of a theory at once. For this reason one must accept a certain amount of background knowledge. We can’t have absolute certainty. Science is not about absolute certainty, thus rather than speak of “truth” we speak of “verisimilitude.” No single observation can be taken to falsify a theory. There is always the possibility that the observation is mistaken, or that the assumed background knowledge is faulty.[19] Uneasy with speaking of “true” theories or ideas, or that a corroborated theory is “true,” Popper asserted that a falsified theory is known to be false. He was impressed by Tarski’s 1963 reformulation of the corresponded theory of truth. That is when Popper reformulated his way of speaking to frame the concept of “truth-likeness” or “verisimilitude,” according to Thronton.[20] I wont go into all the ramifications of verisimilitude, but Popper has an extensive theory to cover the notion. Popper’s notions of verisimilitude were critixized by thinkers in the 70’s such as Miller, Tichy’(grave over the y) and Grunbaum (umlaut over the first u) brought out problems with the concept. In an attempt to repair the theory Popper backed off claims to being able to access the numerical levels of verisimilitude between two theories.[21] The resolution of this problem has not diminished the admiration for Popper or his acceptance in the world of philosophy of science. Nor is the solution settled in the direction of acceptance for the fortress of facts. Science is not closer to the fact making business just because there are problems with verisimilitude.

Science doesn’t prove but Falsifies

The aspect of Popper’s theory for which he is best known is probably the idea of falsification. In 1959 He published the Logic of Scientific Discovery in which he rigorously and painstakingly demonstrated why science can’t prove but can only disprove, or falsify. Popper begins by observing that science uses inductive methods and thus is thought to be marked and defined by this approach. By the use of the inductive approach science moves from “particular statements,” such as the result of an experiment, to universal statements such as an hypothesis or theories. Yet, Popper observes, the fallacy of this kind of reasoning has always been known. Regardless of how many times we observe white swans “this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.”[22] He points out this is the problem of universal statements, which can’t be grounded in experience because experience is not universal, at least not human experience. One might observe this is also a problem of empirical observation. Some argue that we can know universal statements to be true by experience; this is only true if the experiences are universal as well. Such experience can only be a singular statement. This puts it in the same category with the original problem so it can’t do any better.[23] The only way to resolve the problem of induction, Popper argues, is to establish a principle of induction. Such a principle would be a statement by which we could put inductive inferences into logically acceptable form. He tells us that upholders of the need for such a principle would say that without science can’t provide truth or falsehood of its theories.[24]

The principle can’t be a purely logical statement such as tautology or a prori reasoning, if it could there would be no problem of induction. This means it must be a synthetic statement, empirically derived. Then he asked “how can we justify statement on rational grounds?” [25] After all he’s just demonstrated that an empirical statement can’t be the basis of a universal principle. Then to conclude that there must be a universal principle of logic that justifies induction knowing that it ahs to be an empirical statement, just opens up the problem again. He points out that Reichenbach[26] would point that such the principle of induction is accepted by all of science.[27] Against Reinchenback he sties Hume.[28] Popper glosses over Kant’s attempt at a prori justification of syetnic a priori statements.[29] In the end Popper disparages finding a solution and determines that induction is not the hallmark of science. Popper argues that truth alludes science since it’s only real ability is to produce probability. Probability and not truth is what science can produce. “…but scientific statements can only attain continuous degrees of probability whose unattainable upper and lower limits are truth and falsity’.”[30] He goes on to argue against probability as a measure of inductive logic.[31] Then he’s going to argue for an approach he calls “deductive method of testing.. In this case he argues that an hypothesis can only be empirically tested and only after it has been advanced. [32]

What has been established so far is enough to destroy the fortress of facts of idea. The defeat of a principle of induction as a means of understanding truth is primary defeat for the idea that science is going about establishing a big pile of facts. What all of this is driving at of course is the idea that science is not so much the process of fact discovery as it is the process of elimination of bad idea taken as fact. Science doesn’t prove facts it disproves hypotheses.. Falsifying theories is the real business of science. It’s the comparison to theory in terms of what is left after falsification has been done that makes for a seeming ‘truth-likeness,’ or verisimilitude. Falsification is a branch of what Popper calls “Demarcation.” This issue refers to the domain or the territory of the scientists work. Induction does not mark out the proper demarcation. The criticism he is answering in discussing demarcation is that removing induction removes for science it’s most important distinction from metaphysical speculation. He states that this is precisely his reason for rejecting induction because “it does not provide a suitable distinguishing mark of the empirical non metaphysical character of a theoretical system,”[33] this is what he calls “demarcation.”

Popper writes with reference to positivistic philosophers as the sort of umpires of scientific mythology. He was a philosopher and the project of the positivists was to “clear away the clutter” (in the words of A.J. Ayer) for science so it could get on with it’s work. Positivistic philosophers were the janitors of science. Positivists had developed the credo that “meaningful statements” (statements of empirical science) must be statements that are “fully decided.” That is to say, they had to be both falsifiable and verifiable. The requirement for verifiable is really a requirement similar to the notion of proving facts, or truth. Verifiability is not the same thing as facticiy or proof it’s easy to see how psychologically it reinforces th sense that science is about proving things. He quotes several positivists in reinforcing this idea: Thus Schlick says: “. . . a genuine statement must be capable of conclusive verification” Waismann says, “If there is no possible way to determine whether a statement is true then that statement has no meaning whatsoever. For the meaning of a statement is the method of its verification.”[34] Yet Popper disagrees with them. He writes that there is no such thing as induction. He discusses particular statements which are verified by experience just opens up the same issues he launched in the beginning one cannot derive universal statements from experience. “Therefore, theories are never theories are never empirically verifiable. He argues that the only way to deal with the demarcation problem is to admit statements that are not empirically verified.[35]

But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it

is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest

that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a

criterion of demarcation. In other words: I shall not require of a

Scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and

for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall

be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a

negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.[36]

What this means in relation to the “fortress of facts” idea is that it transgresses upon the domain of science. Compiling a fortress of facts is beyond the scope of science and also denudes science of it’s domain.

He deals with the objection that science is supposed to give us positive knowledge and to reduce it to a system of falsification only negates its major purpose. He deals with this by saying this criticism carries little weight since the amount of positive information is greater the more likely it is to clash. The reason being laws of nature get more done the more they act as a limit on possibility, in other words, he puts it, “not for nothing do we call the laws of nature laws. They more they prohibit the more they say.”[37]

sources

[15] Steven Thornton, “Karl Popper,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2011 edition Edward N. Zalta Editor, URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/popper/ vested 2/6/2012

[16] ibid

[17] Miriam-Webster. M-W.com On line version of Webster’s dictionary. URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verisimilar?show=0&t=1328626983 visited 2/7/2012

[18] Thornton, ibid.

[19] ibid

[20] ibid

[21] ibid

[22] Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, New York:Routledge Classics, original English publication 1959 by Hutchison and co. by Routldege 1992. On line copy URL: http://www.cosmopolitanuniversity.ac/library/LogicofScientificDiscoveryPopper1959.pdf digital copy by Cosmo oedu visited 2/6/2012, p4

[23] ibid

[24] ibid

[25] ibid, 5

[26] Hans Reinchenbach (1891-1953) German philosopher, attended Einstein’s lectures and contributed to work on Quantum Mechanics. He fled Germany to escape Hitler wound up teaching at UCLA.

[27] Popper, ibid, referece to , H. Reichenbach, Erkenntnis 1, 1930, p. 186 (cf. also pp. 64 f.). Cf. the penultimate paragraph of Russell’s chapter xii, on Hume, in his History of Western Philosophy, 1946,

p. 699.

[28] ibid, Popper, 5

[29] ibid, 6

[30] ibid 6

[31] ibid, 7

[32] ibid

[33] ibid 11

[34] ibid, 17, references to Schlick, Naturwissenschaften 19, 1931, p. 150. and Waismann, Erkenntnis 1, 1903, p. 229.

[35] Ibid 18

[36] ibid

[37] ibid, 19 the quotation about laws is found on p 19 but the over all argument is developed over sections 31-46 spanning pages 95-133.

________________


God.Science, and ideology, by Joseph Hinman, is a great book. Ot argues that positions which teach the superiority of science over religion in such a way as to negate the truth content of the religious is not a scientific position but an ideological one. The books takes down such atheist greats as Dawkins and discusses the strongest God arguments.

This is an important book that spans an immense literature in a balanced and very readable form. For anyone interested in why some believe and others do not, this book will inform you of the entire range of literature in which not only can the proper questions be asked, but the reader can evaluate the often hidden ideological nature in which answers are proposed

Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D.


Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies

"Hinman is highly stimulating, brilliant in places. It is rare to find a book so exuberant yet still rational."

--Lantz Fleming Miller, Ashoka University

https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765

Sunday, August 18, 2024

Resurrection: Litteral or Metaphorical?



Crosson

John Dominic Crosson views the Resurrection of Christ as a metaphor. That means he doesn't believe it actually happened but the story points to a grand meaning.The meaning is true even though the event itself is not.[1]Crosson thinks iconography of the Eastern church points to the grand meaning much more clearly than does the Western. The Western is more individualistic. the Eastern is more social and it accomplishes this by including other people in the image.

In the West, we have Jesus coming out of the tomb, alone, looking a bit like an athlete coming out well buffed from the gym. But in the East, you have Jesus holding the hand of Adam and Eve and leading them out of Hades. We could see it everywhere we went in Turkey...The Eastern churches have a universal vision of Jesus arising with all of humanity, symbolized by Adam and Eve. Western Christianity has a more individualistic vision of Jesus, arising glorious and triumphant but also solitary and alone.[2]


The eastern iconogrphy puts more eople wit Jesus coiimg otoftheto,b and tatindicates theresrrection frthem hhas abroader aplication to the people asa ehommentjust theindividiual for one's own salvation.As Crosson says, "In the Eastern vision, all of humanity is inside the story. I’m participating in the story. It’s not outside of me; it’s not like somebody is doing it for me. We in the West have far too much substitution."[3]

"The resurrection of Jesus Christ, the focus of this study, is understood by Crossan as a parabolic metaphor—infused with meaning, but not intended to convey historical fact. Easter means for me that the divine empowerment which was present in Jesus, but once upon a time limited to those people in Galilee and Judea who had contact with him, is now available to anyone,...." [4]

Corsson puts a negative spin on the literal view:

The last chapters of the gospels and the first chapters of Acts taken literally, factually, and historically trivialize Christianity and brutalize Judaism.  That acceptance has created in Christianity a lethal deceit that sours its soul, hardens its heart, and savages its spirit.  Although the basis of all religion and, indeed, of all human life is mythological, based on acts of fundamental faith incapable of proof or disproof, Christianity often asserts that its faith is based on fact not interpretation, history not myth, actual event not supreme fiction.  And because I am myself a Christian, I have a responsibility to do something about it."[5]


I value the political implications Crosson brings out in the metaphorical meaning of the resurrection. I can't understand why we can't have both.Jesus could be Christ and really rose from the dead and that action could then have meaning such that it speaks to liberation theology. Crosson goes on to assert that a literal resurrection, or belief in such, is socially oppressive Why this should be so is clear as mud.

I guess it's because the emphasis upon individual salvation seems to make the individual more important than the group. The fallacy there is that Jesus has a church and being saved means being added to "the body of Christ." Then the upshot of the literal view is that we become part of a community. Surely that has value toward building the community and liberated
society. If, as Crosson charges, the east has an iconography more conducive to social consciousness, then change the iconography not the doctrine.

There is good reason to believe in the literal resurrection A resurrection that was purely metaphor probably would have been exposed as not literal then announced a hoax.No amount of intellectualizing about metaphors would silence the critics. The bursting onto the world scene of christianity in the first century is hard to explain, The idea that there was no empty tomb no witneses to risen christ ian leaves the sucess of the faith more mysterious.

It seems to me that the metaphorical camp is embarrassed that their views are not sanctioned by science. They are catering to doubt and unbelief.

Sources

[1] Alicia von Stamwitz,"John Dominic Crossan on what we get wrong about Easter," Boardview, March 31, 2020, https://broadview.org/john-dominic-crossan-interview/

[2]Ibid

[3]Ibid

[4] Tawa Jon Anderson, "The Myth of the Metaphorical Ressurection," PhD dissertation for The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, May 2011. "The Centrality of Resurrection Belief in Christianity" https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/2847/Anderson_sbts_0207D_10031.pdf?sequence=1

[5] Erick Nelson quoting Crosson: in "John Domanic Crosson," July 2003, up dated December 03, 2007 https://www.ericknelson.net/Apologetics%20Papers/Metaphorical%20Gospel%20Theory/MG10/EInFavoOfMG/CScholars/C3JohnDominicCrossan.htm quoting Crossson in The Westar Institute web autobiography "Almost the Whole Truth - an Odyssey", _________________________________________

God,Science, and ideology,a book by Joseph Hinmman



God.Science, and ideology, by Joseph Hinman, is a great book. Ot argues that positions which teach the superiority of science over religion in such a way as to negate the truth content of the religious is not a scientific position but an ideological one. The books takes down such atheist greats as Dawkins and discusses the strongest God arguments.

This is an important book that spans an immense literature in a balanced and very readable form. For anyone interested in why some believe and others do not, this book will inform you of the entire range of literature in which not only can the proper questions be asked, but the reader can evaluate the often hidden ideological nature in which answers are proposed

Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D.


Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies

"Hinman is highly stimulating, brilliant in places. It is rare to find a book so exuberant yet still rational."

--Lantz Fleming Miller, Ashoka University

https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765

Saturday, August 10, 2024

Science is a Social Construct

Wiliam James 1842-1910


I.Closing off other valid forms of knowledgeand losing the phenomena.

The upshot of this entire argument is that scientific reductionism reduces the full scope of human experience and reduces reality from its full frame to preset conclusions than are already labeled "science" and "objectivity" and which screen out any other possibility. One of those possibilities is the phenomenological apprehension of God's presence through religious experience. In the conclusion to his famous Gifford lectures, Psychologist William James, whose Varieties of Religious Experience, is still a classic in the filed of psychology of religion, concluded that reductionism shuts off other valid avenues of reality.

The world interpreted religiously is not the materialistic world over again, with an altered expression; it must have, over and above the altered expression, a natural constitution different at some point from that which a materialistic world would have. It must be such that different events can be expected in it, different conduct must be required.This thoroughly 'pragmatic' view of religion has usually been taken as a matter of course by common men. They have interpolated divine miracles into the field of nature, they have built a heaven out beyond the grave. It is only transcendentalist metaphysicians who think that, without adding any concrete details to Nature, or subtracting any, but by simply calling it the expression of absolute spirit,you make it more divine just as it stands. I believe the pragmatic way of taking religion to be the deeper way. It gives it body as well as soul, it makes it claim, as everything real must claim, some characteristic realm of fact as its very own. What the more characteristically divine facts are, apart from the actual inflow of energy in the faith-state and the prayer-state, I know not."

But the over-belief on which I am ready to make my personal venture is that they exist. The whole drift of my education goes to persuade me that the world of our present consciousness is only one out of many worlds of consciousness that exist, and that those other worlds must contain experiences which have a meaning for our life also; and that although in the main their experiences and those of this world keep discrete, yet the two become continuous at certain points, and higher energies filter in. By being faithful in my poor measure to this over-belief, I seem to myself to keep more sane and true. I can, of course, put myself into the sectarian scientist's attitude, and imagine vividly that the world of sensations and of scientific laws and objects may be all. But whenever I do this, I hear that inward monitor of which W. K. Clifford once wrote, whispering the word 'bosh!' Humbug is humbug, even though it bear the scientific name, and the total expression of human experience, as I view it objectively, invincibly urges me beyond the narrow scientific bounds. Assuredly, the real world is of a different temperament,- more intricately built than physical science allows. So my objective and my subjective conscience both hold me to the over-belief which I express. Who knows whether the faithfulness of individuals here below to their own poor over-beliefs may not actually help God in turn to be more effectively faithful to his own greater tasks?"[1]

II.Philosohpical naturalism based upon: Circular Reasoning and Contradictions,

In fact this way of arguing is wrong on two counts. First, it is based upon circular reasoning. The reasoning behind this notion goes back to the Philosopher David Hume who argued that miracles cannot happen because we do not have enough examples of them happening."A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, form the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can be imagined."[2] We see this same sort of thinking used over and over again. Scientists sometimes resort to it. Nobel prize winning geneticist A.J. Carlson, "by supernatural we understand...beliefs...claiming origins other than verifiable experiences...or events contrary to known processes in nature...science and miracles are incompatible."[3]

The great Theologian Rudolf Bultmann, "modern science does not believe that the course of nature can be interrupted or, so to speak, perforated by supernatural powers"[4]. The context of Bultmann's comment was in proclaiming the events of the New Testament mythological because they "contradict" scientific principles.B. Hume's Argument against Miracles.The nature of this circular reasoning is pointed out by C.S. Lewis, who wrote:

Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely uniform experience, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all reports of them have been false. And we can know all the reports of them to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.[5]

The circular nature of the reasoning insists that there can be noting beyond the material realm. Any claims of supernatural effects must be ruled out because they cannot be. And how do we know that they cannot be? Because only that which conforms to the rules of naturalism can be admitted as "fact." Therefore, miracles can never be "fact." While this is understandable as a scientific procedure, to go beyond the confines of explaining natural processes and proclaim that God does not exist and miracles cannot happen far exceeds the boundaries of scientific investigation. Only within a particular situation, the investigation of a particular case can scientists make such claims.

Philosophical Naturalism based upon Metaphysical assumptions

Philosophical naturalists go beyond the claims of scientific methodology to take up a metaphysical position. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy which seeks answers beyond the confines of the physical realm. Philosophical materialists claim to know that there is no God, or at least to be convinced of it. They rule out miracles from a philosophical basis rather than an empirical one. This is in fact a metaphysical position. But philosophical materialists also claim to debunk metaphysics. Since metaphysics holds to knowledge of things beyond the material realm philosophical materialists must count themselves its enemies. But to say that there is no God is to make a metaphysical statement. To claim to know that there is no God is claim to have knowledge of things beyond the material realm. Philosophical materialists are, in fact, taking up a position contradictory to their stated philosophy.What I am saying should not be construed as an argument against scientific investigation of miracle claims. Science should investigate with all the scientific techniques and assumptions fit for the task of valid investigation, but to the extent that such claims are ruled out science should not make blanket assumptions that God does not work miracles, but must pronounce only on those particular cases

. Notes

[1]William James, The varieties of religious experience: a study in human nature. London,New York: Longman, Green, and Co. 1902/1911, 518

[2]John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Chicago IL.: Open Court 1958, 126-27

[3] A.J. Carlson, Science Magazine Feb. 27, 1937, 5

[4] Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, New York: Schribner and Sons, 1958, 15

[5]C.S. Lewis, Miracles: a Preliminary Study. New York: MacMillian, 1947, 105



____________________________ God,Science, and ideology,a book by Joseph Hinmman



God.Science, and ideology, by Joseph Hinman, is a great book. Ot argues that positions which teach the superiority of science over religion in such a way as to negate the truth content of the religious is not a scientific position but an ideological one. The books takes down such atheist greats as Dawkins and discusses the strongest God arguments.

This is an important book that spans an immense literature in a balanced and very readable form. For anyone interested in why some believe and others do not, this book will inform you of the entire range of literature in which not only can the proper questions be asked, but the reader can evaluate the often hidden ideological nature in which answers are proposed

Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D.


Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies

"Hinman is highly stimulating, brilliant in places. It is rare to find a book so exuberant yet still rational."

--Lantz Fleming Miller, Ashoka University

https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765

Thursday, August 08, 2024

Book add



____________________________ God,Science, and ideology,a book by Joseph Hinmman

God.Science, and ideology, by Joseph Hinman, is a great book. Ot argues that positions which teach the superiority of science over religion in such a way as to negate the truth content of the religious is not a scientific position but an ideological one. The books takes down such atheist greats as Dawkins and discusses the strongest God arguments.

This is an important book that spans an immense literature in a balanced and very readable form. For anyone interested in why some believe and others do not, this book will inform you of the entire range of literature in which not only can the proper questions be asked, but the reader can evaluate the often hidden ideological nature in which answers are proposed Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies

"Hinman is highly stimulating, brilliant in places. It is rare to find a book so exuberant yet still rational."

--Lantz Fleming Miller, Ashoka University

https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765