Evidence for the Existence of God - Consciousness

I thought that I would address this argument as it came into the conversation that I was having with Nate on Thursday night. This issue is a major challenge for materialists/naturalists as it is difficult, if not impossible to explain why and how we have consciousness if all that we are are walking chemical reactors. How does consciousness arise from non-consciousness (to be distinguished from unconsciousness).

Although consciousness has many different aspects to it, we will look at a few that are germane to this discussion. The first idea is that of sentience which Armstrong describes as being "capable of sensing and responding to its world." We would think of this response as more than a mere involuntary reaction. A deeper level of this idea is that of self-consciousness, which the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes "as those that are not only aware but also aware that they are aware." When we look at the world and are aware of it and aware of our place in the world, that becomes a state that requires explanation. We know things about ourselves that no other human will even know unless we tell them. So, how do we explain this?

Philosopher Peter Kreeft makes the following argument:

1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
3. Not blind chance.
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

The questions that this argument include: why should the universe appear to be intelligible by us if it is the product of chance?; how does the impersonal take on personal qualities?; or, are those personal qualities illusion?; does the outside world really exist, or are we merely part of a larger illusion? These may seem like silly questions to some of you; however, these questions and others have plagued thinkers for generations, and continue to do so.

The direction that may have gone is to pursue pantheism as the lowest possible entry point into a non-material reality. Why pantheism? Well, first of all it answers how the material world can experience a non-material reality - mind. Second, it is a spiritual step that does not put many requirements on its adherents. The god(s) of pantheism are generally not those who would require anything of its/their adherents, rather, the adherent can control the gods. Think back to the Star Wars movies and how Obi-Wan Kenobi teaches Luke Skywalker to harness the force to his advantage. What was that force, nothing other than a pantheistic representation of god, a god who could be controlled and manipulated to one's advantage. A god that also had a light side (pursued by Luke) and a dark side (pursued by Darth Vader).

The God of the Bible is a God that, by his very nature, deserves and commands our worship and obedience, not as a dictator, but as a loving ruler who created us in His image and desires what is best for us. However, as C.S. Lewis wrote in the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe of Aslan, the representation of Christ in his series:

“Is -- is he a man?” asked Lucy. “Aslan a man!” said Mr. Beaver sternly. “Certainly not. I tell you he is the King
of wood and the son of the great Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea. Don't you know who is the King of the Beasts?
Aslan is a lion -- the Lion, the great Lion.” “Ooh,” said Susan, “I thought he was a man. Is he -- quite safe? I
shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.” “That you will, dearie, and make no mistake,” said Mrs.
Beaver, “if there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver
than most or else silly.” “Then he isn't safe?” said Lucy. “Safe?” said Mr. Beaver, “don't you hear what Mrs.
Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell
you.”

God has given us consciousness and minds such that we could know Him, love Him, and worship Him. He has also given us self-awareness so that we could know ourselves, and by doing so, to know our true need for redemption from our fallen condition. Our salvation is not to look within, as so many tell us to do, and as Obi-Wan told Luke to do, but to look above and beyond ourselves to the great God who created us to be in relationship with Himself.

Psalm 123

¹To you I lift up my eyes,
O you who are enthroned in the heavens!
²Behold, as the eyes of servants
look to the hand of their master,
as the eyes of a maidservant
to the hand of her mistress,
so our eyes look to the LORD our God,
till he has mercy upon us.

³ Have mercy upon us, O LORD, have mercy upon us,
for we have had more than enough of contempt.
⁴Our soul has had more than enough
of the scorn of those who are at ease,
of the contempt of the proud.

Evidence for the Existence of God - Aesthetic Beauty

I know that I wrote about aesthetic beauty a few weeks ago; however, it is actually a very effective argument for the existence of God. I was thinking about this argument as I sat through my daughters' piano recital today. As you might expect, my daughters performed the pieces that they selected to play beautifully, as did the other 25 performers. Of special treat at these events are the performances of the Billingham kids, two sons and a daughter of Dr. William Billingham, the assistant conductor of the Lyric Opera of Chicago. They are also trained by our daughters' piano instructor. A few times, including today, we have had the opportunity to hear Dr. Billingham play a duet with one or both of his sons. Today he played Mozart's Concerto, No. 20, K 466 (I. Allegro) with his younger son, Adam and Mendelssohn's Concerto, No. 1, Op. 25 (I. Molto allegro con fuoco) with his older son, Josh. The recital was held at our nearby Steinway music store on two Steinway concert grand pianos (retail value of $130,000 each).

As you can imagine, it was a beautiful and emotional experience to hear them play together. As I sat there, I could only wonder why, if we are the product of random processes and natural selection as many would have us to believe these days, would this music even exist, let alone move a person to emotion? It really doesn't make any sense at all as it does nothing to add to our survival as a species. It doesn't gather any more food for us (although we did have snacks afterward - but we, the parents even brought those), it doesn't lead to an increase in the population, and the lessons actually cost money, as do the instruments on which the music is played. It just seems nonsensical that people would create music that has order and does something to us that we identify as emotions, which themselves don't make sense from an evolutionary viewpoint.

Boston College professor of philosophy, Dr. Peter Kreeft developed a simple, but thought provoking argument for the existence of God on which I will leave you to ponder. It is a short argument in number of words, but a deep argument in the ideas that it can evoke. Here it is:

Premise: There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach (or, you could substitute Mozart, Mendelssohn, Beethoven, or any number of classical composers)

Conclusion: Therefore there must be a God.

Kreeft finishes this argument by saying, "You either see this one or you don't." I hope you get it. Today was a reminder that I do.

Evidence for the Existence of God - Argument from Contingency

One argument for the existence of God that I have overlooked up to this point is the argument from contingency. It is a very strong argument and one that may take some thinking through to properly grasp the concepts. The argument traces back to Thomas Aquinas and was discussed later by philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) who asked the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" He continued, "After all, nothing is simpler and easier than something. Also, given that things have to exist, we must be able to give a reason why they have to exist as they are and not otherwise." (The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Based on Reason) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the formal argument as follows:

1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
   

Now, from this argument we can look to science and philosophy to see that all material things are contingent upon something or someone else for their existence. So in this argument, unlike the Kalam Cosmological Argument, we are not looking for a cause of existence, but an explanation of existence. That explanation is either found outside of itself or found within itself. When we look at physical objects we know from philosophy and science that the explanation is always found outside of the object. The reason of my existence is found in the fact that my father and mother gave life to me. I am a contingent being. The reason for that my house exists in found in the builders, etc.

The skeptic will generally accept premises 1-3, but will attack premise 4. However, I have often heard atheists try to argue that the universe just exists as a brute fact. To that objection, philosopher William Lane Craig gives the following illustration to show the absurdity of denying that the universe is a contingent entity simply due to its immensity.

Imagine that you’re hiking through the woods one day and you come across a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would naturally wonder how it came to be there. If one of your hiking partners said to you, “It just exists inexplicably. Don’t worry about it!”, you’d either think that he was crazy or figure that he just wanted you to keep moving. No one would take seriously the suggestion that the ball existed there with literally no explanation.

Now suppose you increase the size of the ball in this story so that it’s the size of a car. That wouldn’t do anything to satisfy or remove the demand for an explanation. Suppose it were the size of a house. Same problem. Suppose it were the size of a continent or a planet. Same problem. Suppose it were the size of the entire universe. Same problem. Merely increasing the size of the ball does nothing to affect the need of an explanation. Reasonable Faith.org, Q&A Question #25: Argument from Contingency

So, the point is that just because an object is large doesn't lessen the liklihood of it being contingent upon something or someone else as the cause. Skeptics will also attack premise #3 by referring to philosopher David Hume who denied the validity of the principle of causality. However, denying the principle of causality is to ultimately deny the validity of science, which rests on this principle. Think about trying to prove anything scientifically if we couldn't count on causality and uniformity. Doctors would be out of business. Science would be akin to magic. Imagine what life would be like.

The argument also rests on the logical impossibility of an infinite regress of temporal causes. Stephen Hawking illustrates the absurdity of this concept in his book A Brief History of Time:

A well known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on.” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

The argument goes back to the absurdity of having an actually instantiated infinite, which Craig and others argue is logically absurd. Craig argues that if you do things like divide an infinite in half, you still end up with an infinite. Or, if you subtract all odd numbers from an infinite set, you still end up with an infinite set. The second problem is that if there is no first cause, there are no subsequent causes, and to argue for an infinite series of causes/effects is to say that there is no ultimate first cause and therefore, no ultimate explanation for the effects in our world.

So what is the explanation of a necessary being? Simply, a necessary being is one whose existence is explained within himself and who cannot not be. We have two possible explanations for the universe, either it is a necessary entity, which most scientists, even atheists, would argue; or, it is the effect of a necessary cause, which would be God. If you want a more detailed explanation of this argument, I suggest that you click on the two links contained within this post for more information.

Evidence for the Existence of Jesus - Extra Biblical Sources 2

Last week I gave you the first three extra-Biblical sources that attest the the life of the actual person by the name of Jesus. As I mentioned last week, many these days are making claims that Jesus never existed. Even this week, in a discussion online, one of the people with whom I am interacting brought up this issue again by claiming that "scholars" question the veracity of the existence of Jesus. I assure you that the term scholar here is a loose term as there may be scholars who raise this question, but few, if any, are scholars in the field of historical New Testament study. There are plenty of scholars, even atheist scholars in the field of historic New Testament study who would put these questioners in the fringe camp. The historic existence of Jesus of Nazareth is not widely questioned among scholars in the field.

Today I will present a few more extra-Biblical sources that give attestation to Jesus' life and that of the early church. Why am I starting with extra-Biblical sources rather than the Bible? Mainly because skeptics are quicker to dismiss the Bible than they would be sources outside of the Bible whom they would not believe would have an ax to grind. Later, we will look at the historical reliability of the Bible as an ancient text and the reliability of the witness contained therein. Last week we looked at Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, showing them to be credible sources of historical information, this week we will look at four additional sources: Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, and the Jewish Talmud.

Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

Mentions the fact that Christians and sang hymns to Christ as God, as well as moral commitments that they made. He also expresses in his letters that the teachings of Jesus and the disciples was excessive and contagious superstition.

Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:

"The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Information without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age."

Although this excerpt does not mention Jesus directly, it does speak to the persecution of the early church for not worshiping the gods of Rome.

The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

Mentions Jesus crucifixion (hanged) on the eve of the Passover.

Again, these are early sources that give attestation to the facts set forth in the Gospel accounts and that all fill in some of the history that we know about the treatment of the early church. I set this forth as more and more people these days are expressing doubts about the veracity of Jesus life and the facts of the early church. Our best evidence, however, is from the New Testament accounts, and in coming weeks I will give evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament writings that we have.

Evidence for the Existence of Jesus - Extra-Biblical Sources 1

Today I would like to discuss an exchange that I have been engaged in recently with a group of skeptics who deny that Jesus was a historical person. The original poster on this thread said that he was having a hard time denying that Jesus was real. My response to him was that he has reason to be troubled about denying that Jesus was a real person since he was a real person. I told him that if he didn't want to start with the Bible for evidence, he could look to extra-Biblical sources. So, over the next few weeks I will give the evidence as to why most scholars, even liberal ones, believe that Jesus was a historical person. As with the poster, I will begin with the extra-Biblical sources since non-believers seem to put more trust in them than they do the NT sources; however, in future posts I will also give evidence as to why we can trust the NT as a valid source for historical information about Jesus. Due to the length of some of these quotes, I will only give a few each week.

Source 1: Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 A.D.), Roman Historian

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

• This passage discusses the early Christians; Christus (Christ), from whom they they derived their name, and the early persecutions and the charge on which it was based.

Source 2: Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (117-138 AD), Chief Secretary of Emperor Hadrian

"Because the Jews of Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."

"After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign] ... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."

• Mentions Chrestus (Christ) and the punishments of Christians for supposedly buring Rome.

Source 3: Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), Court Historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

• Mentions Jesus, his crucifixion, the disciples mentions that the disciples reported seeing him alive after his crucifixion, perhaps was the messiah.
• Note: there is a disputed passage of Josephus' writings that may have been altered by Christians who were the keepers of many documents of antiquity; however, this passage is not that one and is not considered be in dispute as to embellishment. In other words, some skeptics will want to throw out all of Josephus because a passage was added to; yet, that should not be done since we know what is authentic and what is not. This passage is believed by most scholars to be the authentic account of Josephus.

I hope that gives you a taste of some of the historic extra-Biblical accounts that testify to Jesus as a person from history. I will give you more accounts next week.

Evidence for the Existence of God - Moral Argument

As some of you know, I was introduced to the site ex-Christians.net some time ago when engaging an atheist on William Lane Craig 's discussion board on the existence of God. I hadn't gone to the ex-Ch site for some time and recently began to track the discussions via RSS feed. A couple of weeks ago a troubled young man posted that he couldn't understand why it was so hard for him to deny the existence of Christ. This intrigued me, so I posted a quick note telling him that it was not unusual that he had this difficulty as even non-Christian historical writers documented the existence of Christ. Well, this started a flurry of responses from the atheists on that site and off we went. Now, this site has rules, for which I wasn't aware, that restrict Christians from posting in certain safe areas of the site, and apparently I was posting in one of those areas, so they moved the discussion to the Lions Den and I quickly found out why the called it this.

The discussion has touched on many different issues, including whether these historical, extra-Biblical writings were legitimate and actually give the evidence for which Christians claim; whether God is evil; whether the origin and design of the universe point toward God; and other fun subjects. Today, I thought I would focus on one of the evidences for the existence of God; this is one of the stronger arguments for God's existence in my book. So, here is the moral argument for God's existence:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Now, what counter-arguments would an atheist have for this argument? Well, they might first argue that objective moral values can exist without God. This would require them to provide an objective basis for morality in the absence of God. On what could they base these values? Well, one person that I debated said that objective moral values just exist as Platonic forms. He argued that this is how people like John Locke grounded moral values and that he influenced Thomas Jefferson when he wrote of unalienable (or inalienable, if you prefer) rights in the Declaration of Independence. This person said that Jefferson was an atheist, so he didn't mean God as we know him, when he said we were endowed by our Creator with these rights. It was a strained argument to be sure, but even if he were correct and these moral values do exist, they would not have an oughtness to them. In other words, there is no reason that I ought to obey them if all they are are brute facts. What are the consequences if I choose to ignore them? These people would come back and say, "I don't need a God to threaten to punish me to obey to be moral." The problem is they can't obey the rules when there is a God who can punish them, so why would I believe that they would obey them in God's absence? The bottom line is that there is no reason that I should obey morals that are disconnected from a lawgiver.

Others would say that we do have objective moral values and these are derived through evolution. They would say that evolution has "selected" for moral behavior that benefits the group or society, therefore, we should obey them. The question is, how do we know these morals? Clearly, they weren't spoken to us, they must come through instinct. The problem with this view is that we have competing instincts, how do we know which to obey? How do we really know which behaviors will lead to the ultimate survivability of the species? We cannot see into the future and know which decisions we make are going to promote the highest possibility of the survival of the species.

Still, others would say that we can just look around us and see which behaviors are good and which are bad. In essence, we work from particular behaviors to a universal moral code. Here is the problem with that view. When we see behaviors on what basis do we know which are good and which are bad? We still need a basis on which to judge them that is independent of us. If I asked you, which is better foowqof or xupsil, what would you say? On what basis would you judge? Well, you might go to a dictionary and try to determine what these words mean. Not finding them in an English dictionary, you would search foreign dictionaries, again you would fail. So, what would you do? Your first response to words for which you were unfamiliar was to compare them to an objective standard (dictionaries), yet when objective standards fail, you are left to your subjective opinion or preference. You might prefer one word to another (maybe you like the sound of one or prefer shorter words to longer ones), but you would not be making an objective decision at that point since you have no objective basis on which to make a determination. The same is true of observing moral behavior, unless we have an objective standard by which to judge behavior, it becomes a matter of preference.

God is the only reasonable objective basis that can fit this need. The source must be transcendent, above us. The source must be personal in order to communicate these values. The source must have authority by which to enforce these standards. The source must be inherently good. The source must be immutable or unchangable. All of these characteristics are descriptive of God.

The next question revolves around whether objective moral values actually exist. If they don't exist, then the atheist would have a basis on which to say that God doesn't exist. So, let's look at whether this claim number 2 is true. To do so, we look at certain moral behaviors and ask whether they could ever be justified. Could murder (the wanton taking of innocent life) ever be justified? What about rape? Child abuse? Racism? The list could go on, but the truth is that only one example is needed to prove that objective moral values do exist, and I have not met anyone yet would could justify any one of these. I have heard the scenario that says, suppose someone were holding your family hostage and threatening to kill them unless you murder (or do some other behavior usually considered immoral) another person, wouldn't that make that behavior ultimately good as it saved your family? The answer is no, the behavior is still evil, even though it may prevent a greater evil from occurring. So, point two of the argument is sustained.

That leads to the logical conclusion that God does exist.

Now, when you engage in this conversation with an unbeliever, they will have a tendency to shift the argument. They might say things like, "are you saying that I cannot be a moral person unless I believe in God?" The answer is you can, but on what objective standard do you base your morals? One can live a moral life as God has given us a conscience so that we know right and wrong, but that is a question of how we know morals, not whether they actually exist. They might also say that cultures that have never heard of God know that murder and rape are wrong, but again, that goes back to how we know versus whether they exist. I generally have to repeatedly steer people back to the main argument from these sidetracks in a conversation. The question of how we know what moral are is a separate question from whether objective moral values actually exist, and we must establish the existence of objective moral values before we discuss how we know what they are.

One poster wanted to drag me into the discussion of God's commandment to Israel to wipe out the Amalekites, and this is a common complaint among atheists. I asked the poster to first establish his objective basis for morality before we could discuss this subject, since he needed an objective basis on which to indict God. He was borrowing from a Christian worldview (objective moral values) to indict God. I didn't allow him to do that, I made him answer for his basis of objective moral values apart from God before he could indict God. If someone is going to claim objective moral values, they cannot, at the same time, argue that God doesn't exist. They would be using an argument for God's existence to try to prove that he doesn't exist, which is illogical.

I am sure that I have stirred up more questions than I have answered with this post, so if you have questions, feel free to send them my way and I will try to clear them up.

Seeing God in Aesthic Beauty

This past Thursday night a small group of us gathered to discuss the topic of how aesthetics fits in with our understanding of the world. Aesthetics is the study, reflection, and critique of art and culture. I have recently been reading a couple of books that are well known reflections on these fields. The first book, The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom, a University of Chicago professor, was written over 20 years ago; yet, it is still very pertinent to the cultural situation today. Bloom talks about how we have moved from a culture based in objective morality to a culture of subjective values; from a culture based in truth to a culture based on the self as the center of reality. Bloom shows how these moves have left the modern university in disarray and education in chaos.

The second book is becoming my new favorite non-fiction book. Prior to reading this book, my favorite had been The God Who is There by Francis Schaeffer. So, who could top Schaeffer on my list? Only Francis Schaeffer himself with his book How Should We Then Live? Schaeffer follows the historical development of thought through philosophy, the arts in their various modes of expression, and into religion. Schaeffer explains how man moved from explaining the world from God (the universal) to how we live our lives (the particulars), and then transitioned to trying to explain life from the particulars in order to reach a universal explanation (without God). I know that this may not make sense, but you will have to read the book to understand it, and when you do I believe it will be revolutionary to your thinking and the way you understand the world in which we live.

Schaeffer explains how artists tried to express a universal understanding of the world through their art, music, and literature, and in so doing blurred the particulars more and more in order to reach that universal. This is why we see art go through the phases of expression, where the paintings moved farther away from realism and eventually into modern art, where expressions of man were lost altogether in the painting. Marcel Duchamp expresses this in one of his famous paintings (see if you can find the person descending the stairs in this painting).

Later, artists moved away from the optimism of trying to find meaning and to express the universal through their art and moved into despair and the loss of that hope. This type of art was expressed by people like Jackson Pollock who would suspend paint cans above the canvas to create paintings "by chance" (both the title and the method of creating this work.) Because we live in a world where people believe that we are the product of chance, it is not unusual that these people would create works by chance. This idea carried into a school known as the Dadaists, the name was chosen by randomly opening a French dictionary to a page and randomly pointing to a word on that page; it is the art and form of the absurd (btw, the word dada means rocking horse.) Others, including John Cage in the field of music, tried to create works of randomness as well. Later, artists tried to make the "leap of faith" to the universal from the particulars by using other methods including meditation and drugs, which is what led to the drug culture of the sixties and its impact in the field of music.

So, in the discussion on Thursday we had an interesting time. One member of our group, is an artist and I asked him to speak first from his perspective. He, surprisingly, believed that man could truly know aesthetics through experiences with art. This person is not an evolutionist, which is why he holds this view. From a hardcore evolutionary position, aesthetics, like truth do not make sense. Evolution, as Schaeffer would say, makes man out to be a machine. Man is determined by his DNA and so understanding things like truth and beauty, or even love, don't fit into the model - man must make a leap of faith to believe that these exist and could have meaning. That was the gist of our discussion on Thursday and most, if not all in the room understood the implications. However, I don't know that anyone in the room was a hardcore atheist or evolutionist, so that wasn't a hard conclusion to which to come. However, it is further evidence pointing to God.