I have written on the concept of truth in previous posts (April 2009); however, it is an important topic and I would like to address it from a different direction in today's post. As many of you are aware, we live in a post-modern generation where truth is considered to be relative. In other words, a thing is true if you believe it to be true, but that same idea does not need to be true for me if I don't want it to be. Confused yet? Let me explain further.
Many are most familiar with this concept in the area of morals. We are often told, "that may be true for you, but not for me" when it comes to a person's favorite cause or sin (as the Bible would describe certain actions). This statement is often followed by an admonition to not be intolerant or try to force our beliefs on the other person (a principle that most people consider to be as close to absolute as possible!) I would like to look at whether this idea is true (objectively) and also whether a person could even live consistently with such a belief.
So, is it true that something could be true for one person but not for another, whether it is a moral truth, a scientific truth, or any other type of truth? I don't think so, let me explain. Could we ever conceive of an instance where murder (the taking of innocent life) could be justified? How about an issue that has been in the news recently, racism? I think in both of these cases one would have to say no to both questions, and those are just two of a number of cases in which I am sure we would also give the same answer. However, I only need to show one case in which a moral value is objective, that is, that it is true whether or not anyone on earth believes it to be true, to make the case that morals are objective in nature.
This week we saw the "Beer Summit" in which a white police officer and a black professor sat down with our President (himself black) and our Vice President (who is white) to discuss a recent incident in which the black professor was arrested by the white officer. Apparently, the officer was provoked by the professor according to witnesses, some of whom were black, when the professor broke into a tirade after being questioned about breaking into his own house when he apparently forgot his keys. The President was asked about the incident at a press conference, not knowing all of the facts surrounding the case, and claimed that the police officer "acted stupidly" and the race discussion was set off in the media.
The question is whether it is ever justified to be a racist, no matter what a person's skin color? When we say that someone is a racist, I mean that they judge a person solely by the color of their skin, not, as Martin Luther King, Jr. hoped for, by the content of their character. I submit that it is never justified to judge a person solely by the color of their skin and would challenge anyone who tried to justify such behavior. However, according to the postmodernist, it is possible that it may be justified for a person to be a racist, or a murderer, or exhibit any number of other behaviors that the average person would call immoral. We simply cannot say that anyone is really wrong as that would be imposing our beliefs on them.
Now, let's look at whether a person could consistently live by this belief or philosophy. Again, I would say that a person could not and have challenged many who espouse this belief. In fact, I was temporarily suspended from a message board recently when I challenged a poster on this issue. What is interesting is that he was willing to impose his morality on me when I offended him. Fortunately, we were able to exchange some messages and have actually begun some good dialog with each other.
The question is whether a postmodern would fly with a postmodern airline pilot who believed that landing in the ocean is the same as landing on the runway. Or, would a postmodern go to a postmodern surgeon who believed that removing the liver is the same as removing a kidney, or a heart bypass can be done using a piece of the intestine. Postmoderns obey traffic signals, read labels on medicine bottles to make sure they are taking the right one in the right dosage, and get highly offended when told that they are wrong. In fact, I heard the story of a postmodern who fired off a terse letter to a reviewer of his book claiming that the reviewer didn't understand his book! In other words, his words did have objective meaning after all.
So, truth is something. It is often described as that which corresponds to reality. If I say rock, you know what I am talking about, even though you may not be picturing the same rock that I am, you know what a rock is. If I say look up, we all would look in the same general direction. Words mean things and we usually all understand them to mean the same thing. Jesus spoke often about truth, telling the woman at the well that we must worship God in spirit and truth. He often started important statements with "truly, truly" to let us know that these were important statements and that they were true statements.
However, the Bible tells us that truth is not just a what, but it is also a who. Jesus told Thomas and the disciples, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) Jesus also told us, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32) I don't believe that Jesus meant that we must simply understand some ideas or concepts to be free, although we must understand and trust the gospel, but we must also know Jesus, the truth, in order to be set free.
D.A. Carson quotes Dodd in his The Gospel according to John, saying, Because of truth's intimate connection with Jesus, true disciples 'must not only hear his words: they must in some sort be united with him who is the truth'" (349). So, when your friends ask you, as Pilate did to Jesus, "what is truth?" (veritas) (John 18:38) you can tell them that it is a what and a who and it is found in Jesus.
Two weeks ago today I was finishing up a class on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ taught by Dr. Gary Habermas, one of the foremost experts on the resurrection in the world. Dr. Habermass was instrumental in the life of Antony Flew, one of the leading atheists of the 20th century in moving him away from atheism. Habermas has debated many of the leading skeptics around the world on the issue of the resurrection of Jesus. One of the things that I appreciate about Dr. Habermas is that he is willing to test his argument with these skeptics to make sure that he is not misrepresenting them or over stating his own arguments. He counts many of these skeptics to be friends even though they which keeps their exchanges from getting acrimonious. He mentioned the number of times he would have Antony Flew over to his house to spend time with his family.
Habermass has developed what he calls the minimal facts approach to arguing for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He presents 12 facts from the gospels that are generally accepted by New Testament scholars from both the conservative and the liberal sides (even scholars who remain skeptical of the resurrection or deity of Jesus Christ). This would include approximately 95% of NT scholars.
The minimal facts that Habermas lays out include the following:
1. Jesus' death via crucifixion
2. The despair of the disciples
3. The disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus
4. The transformation of the disciples such that they were willing to die for their convictions
5. Paul's conversion after reporting seeing the risen Jesus
6. James' (the brother of Jesus) conversion after reporting seeing the risen Jesus
In addition to these six which are agreed to be very reliable by NT scholars, Habermas lays out other bits of evidence that are not considered as reliable by skeptical NT scholars, but still held as reliable by a majority of NT scholars.
7. Jesus burial in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea
8. The tomb in which Jesus was laid being found empty
9. The resurrection was the central message of their preaching
10. They preached that message in Jerusalem
11. The birth of the church
12. Sunday worship in remembrance of the resurrection (moved from Saturday, the Sabbath)
Using these minimal facts, and even limiting the discussion to the first six which are generally accepted by even the most skeptical of scholars, one can present a case for the resurrection that stands up to all of the counter arguments. Some of those arguments (followed by the number of the argument for which this counter-argument fails to account) include:
1. The disciples stole the body (3,4,5,6)
2. Jesus merely appeared to have died, but revived in the tomb (3,4,5,6,9, as well as other reasons not contained within these arguments)
3. Hallucination (8, and other reasons not contained within these arguments)
4. Legend or myth (3,4,5,6,8,11,12, and other reasons not contained within these arguments)
5. Many other naturalistic explanations are also defeated by these points above.
This is an effective way to present evidence for the resurrection and a presentation that has been made and defended by Dr. Habermas in a number of written and live debates with skeptics. It is worth memorizing these points for those occasions when you are asked why you believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
It has been a few months since I have written about the moral argument, so I thought I would revisit this issue again. I think that the moral argument is one of the cornerstone arguments for the existence of God. The key to the argument is not whether we can know how to live morally apart from God, we know that we can as we all have consciences. However, the key question is whether objective moral values exist at all.
So, what do we mean by objective moral values? These are values that would be true whether or not anyone ever believed them to be true. They are true independent of every single person on earth. They derive from outside of our existence, for if they were derived from man in any way, they would be subjective in nature (derived from the subjects).
This is a very important distinction to keep in mind when discussing the moral argument, their origin versus how we know them. This is where the conversation so often gets off track as the person with whom I am speaking wants to jump to the how we know question from the do they exist question. Skeptics want to discuss ideas like how could God command the slaughter of the Canaanites or some related accusatory question against God. In those cases I simply steer the conversation back to the question of origins by asking them on what objective basis they are accusing God of wrong doing.
The first thing a court must establish before allowing a case to move forward is whether the plaintiff has grounds to bring the charges (i.e., was a law broken, are they in the right jurisdiction, etc.). Unless the plaintiff has grounds to bring the charge the judge has to throw the case out of court or redirect them to the right jurisdiction. So, does the atheist have proper grounds to bring charges against God? I would argue that they do not since they don't have an objective basis for morality.
Suppose I made up a rule that said that any car passing within 15 feet of my driveway without permission will be fined $100. Well, as I look out my window I have dozens of cars that pass my driveway on the street in front of my house ever day that come within 15 feet, so I would be rich. But wait a minute, first I must go to court and get the judge to find them guilty of the violation and impose the fine on them. What judge is going to uphold a law that I arbitrarily imposed on the passing motorists? The answer is that I would be tossed out for having no grounds to bring charges.
Now, suppose there is no objective basis for morality and morality is what we create and that is as real as it gets. And, suppose this person creates a rule that says that what God has done in the Old Testament is wrong, is it really wrong? Why would it be wrong if I don't recognize the jurisdiction of the accuser? Why should I recognize that persons jurisdiction when I have my own? You see, it ends up that morality is ultimately meaningless as we are all a law unto ourselves. We can bring accusation all we want, but no one is obliged to recognize our jurisdiction.
I won't get into the conversation of whether God was justified with a skeptic until he has established that he has grounds to bring the charge, he must show that morals are objective in nature apart from God's existence, which is usually their position. I have gone around this discussion a few times now with skeptics and have yet to have one establish that morality is objective apart from God. Most either assert that they are without evidence, or simply say that they are subjective but still meaningful. Neither argument is acceptable or logical.
We are living in a time much like that depicted in the book of Judges in the Old Testament, twice it says (and if fact the book ends with these words) "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." Everyone was a law unto themselves and lived according to their own code of ethics. If you have read the book lately, you remember that the time of the Judges was a time of turmoil and cycles of rebellion, followed by the people being trounced by a foreign army, followed by woe, sorrow and repentance, followed by God's rescue of Israel, followed by more rebellion.
If God doesn't exist, then we truly do live in a time when everyman will do what is right in his own eyes - and be justified in doing so. Some will try to explain morality through evolution saying that it is conducive to survival, yet that simply begs the question why should survival be an end to a people without a purpose? Evolutionary biologist and atheist, Richard Dawkins was recently asked whether it would have been alright with him if evolution turned out different such that rape was considered normal. Dawkins' reply was telling as he said that he was glad that he lived in a society where rape was considered to be wrong. In essence, Dawkins was saying that rape was objectively wrong and he was glad it was, while still trying to hold onto evolution as its origin - the problem is he can't have it both ways, either evolution produced morals and they are subjective, or morals came from an objective source - which must be God.
I pray that Christians, myself included, will live in the reality of objective moral values and not live like Israel in the time of the judges - let us do what is right in God's eyes.
This week I am going to help you to do a little brain exercising. The ontological argument has been an argument that has intrigued me from the first time I heard it 20 years ago as a Moody Bible Institute student. Now, some of you are going to think I am weird for making that statement and others will probably do so after familiarizing yourself with the argument. I also know that many in the New Atheist camp like Richard Dawkins give it short shrift in their books, but there are a lot of bright young philosophers who are building on the work of people like Alvin Plantinga and the argument has gained new attention.
I just finished a class in Philosophy of Religion during which I re-read Alvin Plantinga's treatment of the ontological argument. Now, if you are ever having a problem with pride because you think you are really smart, I would suggest that you read an article from Plantinga, I am sure that it will plant your feet back on Terra firma. I did a brief synopsis of Plantiga's treatment of the ontological argument and will review it below:
Overview of the argument
1. There is a world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.
2. A being has maximal greatness in a world only if it exists in every possible world.
3. The property has maximal greatness entails the property has maximal excellence in every possible world.
4. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
5. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.
6. There is a world W* and an essence E* such that E* is exemplified in W* and E* entails has maximal greatness in W*
7. For any object x, if x exemplifies E*, then x exemplifies the property has maximal excellence in every possible world.
8. If W* had been actual, it would have been impossible that E* fail to be exemplified.
9. There exists a being that has maximal excellence in every world.
Argument explained
I think that it is helpful to look at his premises (numbered) and conclusions on their own without the related commentary. I find that the key to Plantinga's argument is that he states it somewhat differently from what I have heard before in that his initial statement is:
1. There is a world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.
This statement, I believe puts the skeptic in the defensive position of trying to prove that this world could not exist. Plantinga goes on:
2. A being has maximal greatness in a world only if it exists in every possible world.
A fancy way of saying that if this being exists, this being would have to exist where ever existence could happen. This would be true since a being that existed in every possible world would certainly be greater than a being that only existed in a limited number of possible worlds.
3. The property has maximal greatness entails (results in) the property has maximal excellence in every possible world.
Simply stated, if the being is maximally great, it has the property of maximal greatness in every possible existence.
4. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
Omniscience (maximal knowledge or seeing), omnipotence (maximal power), moral perfection (self-explanatory) are qualities we would expect from a maximally great being.
5. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.
The first of these statements seem fairly straightforward and non-controversial. The second is definitional as to what is entailed in maximal greatness and, although it is not a comprehensive definition, it also seems not to be controversial. The third statement is the one that a skeptic may push back on. However, they are still in the defensive position showing why this could not possibly be the case.
6. There is a world W* and an essence E* such that E* is exemplified in W* and E* entails has maximal greatness in W*
So, what he is saying is that there is a possible world in which an essence, has maximal greatness entails or would be exhibited. This is a follow on to the prior statement and just showing that a possible world could exist where this essence would entail. The skeptic is still on the defensive to prove otherwise.
7. For any object x, if x exemplifies E*, then x exemplifies the property has maximal excellence in every possible world.
So, if an object exemplified the essence that was described in the previous step, it would follow that that object would exemplify maximal excellence in every possible world. In other words, going back to his previous description that maximal greatness would be exhibited in every possible world (for otherwise it would be limited and not maximal), and maximal greatness exhibits maximal excellence, therefore maximal excellence would be exhibited in every possible world.
8. If W* had been actual, it would have been impossible that E* fail to be exemplified.
This just means that if possible world W* actually existed, then E* (maximal greatness) would have to be exemplified in that world. This relates back to #6. So, since there is a possible world in which E* is exemplified and, therefore, by definition established in the argument, E* entails maximal greatness and maximal greatness would be exhibited in every possible world, then,
9. There exists a being that has maximal excellence in every world.
Here is where brains can melt down and people throw up their hands, scratch their heads and say "huh?" But keep reading until it sinks in and you will almost visibly see the light bulb go on and should say aloud, "Aha!". The conclusion is that if that possible world exists where the maximally great being exists and, by definition that being would exist in all possible worlds since that follows from maximal greatness. Since it is impossible for E* (maximal greatness) not to be exemplified in W* (a possible world), then if follows that it is impossible for E* to be exemplified in every possible world, therefore, that being exists and that being is God.
Again, it is worth pondering this argument until it makes sense to you. If you still find yourself scratching your head and in utter confusion, feel free to drop me an email and I will try to clarify it further. Now that you have had your minds exercised,go take a cool down lap outside in the fresh air!
This week the discussion in our Interfaith group centered on the idea of the mind and whether someone like the cute little robots in Wall-E could ever experience true love or whether Data from Star Trek TNG would ever become human, even if they put in that emotion chip. What separates man from machine? Could my computer ever develop a free will with the right programing and hardware? I hope not, I have enough trouble with it as it is!
This is a key question in the whole debate over naturalistic evolution, what is the mind and how does it work? Some of the key figures in the debate from an evolutionary perspective are Daniel Dennett from Tufts and John Searle from U.C. Berkeley. Dennett and Searle are naturalists/physicalists, in other words, they believe that the totality of existence is contained within the physical universe. Now, they each have different approaches to attempt to explain mind; however, in each case mind is ultimately an emanation from the brain and not an entity unto itself. This position, however, leads to many difficulties that neither has successfully overcome. I won't be able to go through all of the problems, nor would you patiently read through the whole post if I did, but here are a few.
First, there is the problem of how to understand mental states in the first place. Some in this camp would reduce mental states down to the physical. In other words, the mind is just a emanation or extension of the brain. This runs into all kinds of difficulties as far as how to understand identity, intentionality, and ultimately, morality. For, if a persons actions are merely determined by their biology, then no one can ultimately be held accountable for his or her actions. Yet, we see more and more of this playing out in our society today.
Second, I mentioned intentionality in the previous point; however, it is a problem of its own. When my brain tells me to lift my thumb or type on my computer, we aren't really challenged by that thought. However, when you begin to add steps and branches and sub steps to arrive at an intended destination, this is where it runs into problems. For example, if my intention was to go to work so that I could complete a proposal, I would have to get up, get ready for work, drive my car through a series of streets, roads and highways to get to work, go into my office, turn on my computer, log in, start my word processing program, find the file, and search for the place where I left off. This series of steps does not seem unusual to us, yet this poses massive problems for a physicalist since it involves so many sub intentions to arrive at the goal of writing my proposal. There is a real challenge trying to figure out how a person can have intentions that are far removed from immediate actions, something that we just take for granted.
Third, concepts like truth are ultimately meaningless if all we are can be reduced down to physical properties. There is no reason that we could be confident that we know truth if we are simply acting according to causal events directed by our biology. Why would we be confident that our biology led us to truth rather than just to that which will allow us to survive another few minutes? If we are finite creature stuck within a finite existence, then we should have no confidence at all in this regard.
These issues are overcome in a theistic worldview as mind is separate but related to the physical body. God is the eternal mind who has created us in his image (Imago Dei) and given us characteristics that allow us to be in relationship with him. He has instilled us with personality, will and characteristics related to these. This is why when I tell my wife or my kids that I love them it cannot be reduced down to some physical properties of my brain or body, but is something real and meaningful that I am expressing. When I choose to do something right or wrong, I am making a real choice with real consequences. Also, we serve a God who came to live among us by taking on human flesh. Jesus told Pilate, "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32) Jesus understood that truth could be known. He also demonstrated that we are more than more than just physical bodies by rising from the dead. However, even intuitively, we understand that we are more than just physical beings. Our love is real love. Our emotions are real emotions. Our thoughts cannot be reduced to physical mere physical properties. We are more than just the sum of our parts.
Psalm 139
1O LORD, you have searched me and known me! 2You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.
3You search out my path and my lying down
and are acquainted with all my ways.
4Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.
5You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high; I cannot attain it.
13For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
14I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16Your eyes saw my unformed substance;in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
17How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
I awake, and I am still with you.
Here is an interesting argument that philosopher Peter Kreeft puts forth that ties into our discussion of the existence of the mind and truth. Kreeft derives this argument from Augustine and puts it this way,
- Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
- Truth properly resides in a mind.
- But the human mind is not eternal.
- Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
Kreeft explains that this argument appeals to those who hold to a Platonic view of knowledge based on his use of forms. Forms are abstract entities or ideas that exist independently of us. Ideas like truth, perfection, equal, etc. are concepts that we understand even though we may never have seen them in their completion. An example given would be two things that appear equal; however, if we were to examine them more closely and precisely, we would find differences in them. Yet, we still understand the concept of equal. Kreeft explains that this view holds that there are "are Eternal Intelligible Forms which are present to the mind in every act of knowledge.[1] If these concepts are within our finite minds, Kreeft argues that it is a short step to conclude that they reside within an eternal mind beyond ours. He basically leaves the argument there as it is much too detailed to get into it in anything less than a full length book.
Professor Angus Menuge cites Harvard professor of psychology, Steven Pinker who wrote, "our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth.”[2] Menuge goes on to summarize Pinker’s idea by saying, “our cognitive capacities, including reason, are there because they are useful in the Darwinian sense of promoting the flourishing of our "selfish" genes.” The bottom line is that, according to a naturalist/evolutionary model, our brains aren’t wired so much for truth as they are for survival. Truth is not necessary as long as what we know and believe leads us to make decisions that promote survival.
Menuge goes on to say that evolution simply tests us for our behavior and that false believes are as good as true ones as long as the right behavior is produced, that is, behavior that leads to survival. He quotes from Lewis Wolpert’s book, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast, where he states, "our brains contain a belief generating machine, an engine that can produce beliefs with little relation to what is actually true."[3]
Even the scientific method, the core of truth claims for a materialist, is based upon core truth claims that cannot be scientifically verified in and of themselves. These include the principle of causality, uniformity, and others.
So, for these and other reasons we are led to understand that truth exists and that it is not simply an outworking of an evolutionary framework, but is required to understand any scientific framework. If truth exists, then it is a short step to believe that an eternal and objective source of truth exists – God. I will write more on this later as I am reading some interesting work on how truth and beauty point us toward an ultimate designer.
[1] Peter Kreeft, “Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God”; available from http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
[2] " Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works, New York, W.W. Norton & Co., 1999, 305. As found in Angus Menuge, “Truth and Usefulness”; available from http://www.epsociety.org/blog/2008/11/truth-and-usefulness.asp.
[3] Lewis Wolpert, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief, New York, W.W. Norton & Co., 1977, 140. Ibid.
I had a conversation last night with some friends of mine, one of whom is a Muslim. I had the opportunity to explain to them the significance of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This led to a number of questions from Fatemeh, a Muslim who is schooled in her faith. She asked how God could become less than he is by becoming a man. She asked how God could be three persons. She asked how the Old Testament prophets could have sinned. These and others are common questions asked by Muslims and are put forth as logical contradictions; however, when probed more deeply, they are not contradictions at all. First, when we say that God is one in being yet three persons, we often get confused with humans who are one in being and person for the most part. In listening to William Lane Craig answer questions of a person who was engaged in a conversation with a Muslim, he answered the question this way. God is one, yet with three separate and distinct centers of consciousness. Those centers of consciousness are the three persons of the godhead. This was a bit difficult for Fatemeh to understand partly due to her Muslim biases and partly due to language barriers, but I think she at least understood what I was saying.
Regarding the question of Jesus becoming a man, and therefore in her estimation, less than God, here is how I answered that question. As we read in Philippians 2, Jesus took on the nature of a man; however, in doing this he didn't become less than God, but simply added a human nature to his divine nature. So, Jesus didn't become 50% man and 50% God, or any other breakdown that would add up ultimately to only 100%. He was 100% God and 100% man, fully encompassing both natures without those natures intermixing or being in any way separable. This issue was debated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. which produced the following statement:
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation (in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter). The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.
Fatemeh's last question had to do with God's justice. She believed that Christianity was not based on a view of a just God. I that it was quite the contrary; that every other religion is based upon works as a means of earning ones salvation; however, I explained that this diminishes God's holiness in that we could sin against an eternal God and pay it off with finite and temporal payments. I explained that only God himself was capable of paying the debt that we owed, in that only God was capable of paying for an infinite debt. In Islam, God would have to ultimately overlook sins committed against him by accepting good works as payment. This is true of every other religion as well as all others are ultimately works based. So, it is Christianity that is built of perfect justice, as well as perfect grace and mercy.
I hope you will ponder these ideas as you celebrate the resurrection of our sin-bearer, Jesus. He is Risen...He is Risen, Indeed!
Posts
