Yeah, so this is better than Monday, but hopefully, I don't have another moment in chapel, where I think, "Oh, this would make a good blog post idea. OH, I didn't publish one today!" They really aren't fun.
You've heard me say before that the purpose of man is to love God and enjoy Him forever, and through that, we glorify Him. This is the essence of something I am desperately seeking to know. How does one die to self and live for Him? If He is all that it takes to serve Him, then what effort must we do? What is our part? How does dying to self actually look in our life on a day-to-day basis?
And with today's chapel message, I begin to be more and more convinced that the main thing we need to do is just get to know and appreciate God more and more. As we study more and more about Him, and spend more and more time with Him, serving Him and living appropriately just starts to flow.
Not that it becomes easy or that our nature suddenly stops wanting to sin, but we start to more successfully abide in Him. We surrender to what He wants, and we're already all ready to accept His grace immediately when we sin and move on to serve Him greater.
So how do we do die to self? By fully knowing and understanding God, and asking Him to grant us a love and desire for Him. At least, that's part of it. I'll let you know what else the Lord teaches me on this subject as time goes on.
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Friday, August 21, 2015
Monday, March 16, 2015
The Idea of God: Why Descartes' Model of Epistemology is Preferable to those of Locke and Kant
Little did Descartes know about the influence that his model of epistemology (philosophy of how we obtain knowledge) would have upon the course of philosophy. After Descartes’ rationalism, Locke responded with his own empirical model of epistemology. In response to the later radicalization of Locke’s view, Kant articulated the constructivist view of epistemology.
But of these three primary views, which had the best model of epistemology? To be fair, they each have their strengths, but the most important element to consider is which one best understands the reality and idea of God. After all, as all three men believe, God is necessary for any epistemology (also see Proverbs 1:7), no matter how nuanced, to work. Therefore, if one cannot properly account for God, this poses a difficulty for any attempt to obtain knowledge through their epistemology. Through analysis, it becomes clear that Descartes’ view of epistemology is the one which can most accurately account for God.
(Of course, absent the Bible, none of these men (or any men) will be able to come to a full nuanced understanding of who God is and what his attributes are. General revelation as discussed in this paper can bring us to a god, but not necessarily the God of the Bible.)
Descartes started our controversy with his Meditations. Unsettled that his understanding of the world is based entirely on the accounts of others, Descartes attempts to doubt everything that he has ever thought to know. But he finds there is one proposition indubitable: that he doubts. As R,C. Sproul brilliantly puts it in his book The Consequences of Ideas, "To doubt doubt is to doubt."
From this, Descartes draws two conclusions. First, he exists (cogito ergo sum) as in order for doubt to exist, someone must exist. Second and more importantly, Descartes reasons that the only way he can doubt is if he has an idea of God.
Descartes understands that to doubt is to discern imperfection. Since imperfection can only exist in contrast to perfection, Descartes reasons he must have an image of perfection. From here he reasons that the cause needs to be as strong as the effect. To illustrate, when you get slapped in the face, there must be an equal amount of muscular strength (cause) as the force of the impact (effect).
But as imperfect finite beings (alleged cause), we cannot create an image of a perfect, infinite being (effect). Further, since we have never perceived God either, we must have innately held this notion since birth. Ultimately, that means that God exists and placed in us the idea of perfection, more accurately known as the idea of God.
From this innate knowledge, Descartes builds the rest of his epistemology declaring that the things which we clearly and distinctly perceive can indeed be trusted because a perfect God could not be a liar.
One might question how Descartes’ proof for the existence of God fits within the parameters of Romans 1:20, which states that, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that were made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” It does not seem like Descartes is explaining that God exists based on what is seen in the “creation of the world.”
However, as reported in the A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, the Greek word translated here as “Seen,” – kathoratai (from kathoraō) – is most literally translated “perceive, notice, also of inward seeing.” Thus, it would seem that the scripture is not making a case that our sensory experiences allow us to find the truth about God, but natural revelation more generally.
Further, it is important to note that our minds are part of the “creation of the world,” as well as the “things that were made.” Thus, when Descartes examines his mind, he is basing his idea of God on that which he sees in the creation of the world and understanding from the things that were made.
Then comes Locke. According to Locke, all people were born as a tabula rasa – blank slate – with no innate knowledge. Instead, Locke opines that we learn about the world exclusively through our sense experiences. Locke points out that children and the uneducated do not seem to understand these so-called “innate truths” until someone explains it to them. But if a statement must be learned, it cannot be innate.
While this argument may be compelling for those things which Descartes describes that we “clearly and distinctly perceive,” this argument does little to confront the origin of the idea of the perfect and infinite being that we call God. In order for Locke’s epistemology to form an understandable picture of the world, he would have to show that God exists purely from our sense experiences.
This poses a problem for Locke as no man has actually observed God. So Locke must argue that we get the idea of God by observing all these attributes God is said to have. We do not see perfection in this world, but we do see goodness; we do not see omniscience, but we do see knowledge. For Locke, all we must do to find God through our senses is to take our sensual perceptions of good character traits and imagine them as infinite.
But this cannot account for our idea of God. For one thing, God is not a cumulative being; he is not just a combination of all these various character traits. Rather he is the perfect encompassment of all these traits in one being. We perceive these traits individually and cannot comprehend them together unless we were given that innate knowledge from the start.
Additionally, Locke’s view is that we have placed all of these qualities together to form our idea of God, but how did we know which qualities to put together? Without an innate knowledge and idea of God, then we are left with no way of knowing what is and is not godly. Hence, at the very best, Locke has smuggled in his own view of God, or put another way, he has smuggled in his innate idea of God.
Perhaps most damning of all, Locke argues from the basis of imagining certain observable traits infinite, but we cannot observe infinity through our sensory perceptions. Indeed if we are going to have the idea of infinity, it must have been some form of innate knowledge.
Seeing the pitfalls of Locke (and Descartes to a degree) Kant attempts to bring Descartes’ rationalism and Locke’s empiricism to a synthesis. It is then Kant’s contention that Locke is correct in stating that we have no innate ideas, but Descartes is correct that we have innate structures or categories.
In other words, we have certain axioms, such as the law of causality and the concepts of space and time that allow us to draw conclusions from our sensory experiences. Without either our innate structures (reason) or our sensory experiences, we would have no truth.
It is then that Kant realizes that epistemology without God is meaningless because we would have no reason to trust our senses or our reason without the Lord. Yet Kant understands that we have not perceived God and cannot prove God from our experiences even with innate structures. Thus, Kant argues that we must postulate God’s existence.
Since God does exist, it is not obvious that this would pose difficulty. But as aforementioned, Romans 1 indicates that either through our reason, our senses, or both, we should be able to prove God from general revelation alone (though not necessarily all attributes of the Christian God). Therefore, when Kant argues that his epistemology has to assume God, it does not account for the reality that God has revealed Himself to man through His creation.
Further, to postulate God’s existence, we need to have an idea of what exactly it is that we are assuming exists. Locke’s attempts demonstrate that we cannot reach the idea of God through our sensory experiences. After all, no matter how many innate structures you have, your sensory experience cannot go from time to infinity or from place to omnipresence. As a result, without the innate idea of God, we are unable to postulate that God exists. In other words, the only way we can get at the idea of God – the foundation for all epistemology – is if we accept Descartes’ epistemological distinction of innate knowledge.
Ultimately, both Locke and Kant’s epistemological models fall short for the same reason – they are unable to account for our idea of God. This is the foundation of all epistemology, and so without this foundation, Locke and Kant’s models simply cannot bring us to any knowledge. In contrast, Descartes’ model, because it accepts the idea of God as innate knowledge, provides the foundation for knowledge. Consequently, it is the better model of epistemology.
But of these three primary views, which had the best model of epistemology? To be fair, they each have their strengths, but the most important element to consider is which one best understands the reality and idea of God. After all, as all three men believe, God is necessary for any epistemology (also see Proverbs 1:7), no matter how nuanced, to work. Therefore, if one cannot properly account for God, this poses a difficulty for any attempt to obtain knowledge through their epistemology. Through analysis, it becomes clear that Descartes’ view of epistemology is the one which can most accurately account for God.
(Of course, absent the Bible, none of these men (or any men) will be able to come to a full nuanced understanding of who God is and what his attributes are. General revelation as discussed in this paper can bring us to a god, but not necessarily the God of the Bible.)
Descartes started our controversy with his Meditations. Unsettled that his understanding of the world is based entirely on the accounts of others, Descartes attempts to doubt everything that he has ever thought to know. But he finds there is one proposition indubitable: that he doubts. As R,C. Sproul brilliantly puts it in his book The Consequences of Ideas, "To doubt doubt is to doubt."
From this, Descartes draws two conclusions. First, he exists (cogito ergo sum) as in order for doubt to exist, someone must exist. Second and more importantly, Descartes reasons that the only way he can doubt is if he has an idea of God.
Descartes understands that to doubt is to discern imperfection. Since imperfection can only exist in contrast to perfection, Descartes reasons he must have an image of perfection. From here he reasons that the cause needs to be as strong as the effect. To illustrate, when you get slapped in the face, there must be an equal amount of muscular strength (cause) as the force of the impact (effect).
But as imperfect finite beings (alleged cause), we cannot create an image of a perfect, infinite being (effect). Further, since we have never perceived God either, we must have innately held this notion since birth. Ultimately, that means that God exists and placed in us the idea of perfection, more accurately known as the idea of God.
From this innate knowledge, Descartes builds the rest of his epistemology declaring that the things which we clearly and distinctly perceive can indeed be trusted because a perfect God could not be a liar.
One might question how Descartes’ proof for the existence of God fits within the parameters of Romans 1:20, which states that, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that were made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” It does not seem like Descartes is explaining that God exists based on what is seen in the “creation of the world.”
However, as reported in the A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, the Greek word translated here as “Seen,” – kathoratai (from kathoraō) – is most literally translated “perceive, notice, also of inward seeing.” Thus, it would seem that the scripture is not making a case that our sensory experiences allow us to find the truth about God, but natural revelation more generally.
Further, it is important to note that our minds are part of the “creation of the world,” as well as the “things that were made.” Thus, when Descartes examines his mind, he is basing his idea of God on that which he sees in the creation of the world and understanding from the things that were made.
Then comes Locke. According to Locke, all people were born as a tabula rasa – blank slate – with no innate knowledge. Instead, Locke opines that we learn about the world exclusively through our sense experiences. Locke points out that children and the uneducated do not seem to understand these so-called “innate truths” until someone explains it to them. But if a statement must be learned, it cannot be innate.
While this argument may be compelling for those things which Descartes describes that we “clearly and distinctly perceive,” this argument does little to confront the origin of the idea of the perfect and infinite being that we call God. In order for Locke’s epistemology to form an understandable picture of the world, he would have to show that God exists purely from our sense experiences.
This poses a problem for Locke as no man has actually observed God. So Locke must argue that we get the idea of God by observing all these attributes God is said to have. We do not see perfection in this world, but we do see goodness; we do not see omniscience, but we do see knowledge. For Locke, all we must do to find God through our senses is to take our sensual perceptions of good character traits and imagine them as infinite.
But this cannot account for our idea of God. For one thing, God is not a cumulative being; he is not just a combination of all these various character traits. Rather he is the perfect encompassment of all these traits in one being. We perceive these traits individually and cannot comprehend them together unless we were given that innate knowledge from the start.
Additionally, Locke’s view is that we have placed all of these qualities together to form our idea of God, but how did we know which qualities to put together? Without an innate knowledge and idea of God, then we are left with no way of knowing what is and is not godly. Hence, at the very best, Locke has smuggled in his own view of God, or put another way, he has smuggled in his innate idea of God.
Perhaps most damning of all, Locke argues from the basis of imagining certain observable traits infinite, but we cannot observe infinity through our sensory perceptions. Indeed if we are going to have the idea of infinity, it must have been some form of innate knowledge.
Seeing the pitfalls of Locke (and Descartes to a degree) Kant attempts to bring Descartes’ rationalism and Locke’s empiricism to a synthesis. It is then Kant’s contention that Locke is correct in stating that we have no innate ideas, but Descartes is correct that we have innate structures or categories.
In other words, we have certain axioms, such as the law of causality and the concepts of space and time that allow us to draw conclusions from our sensory experiences. Without either our innate structures (reason) or our sensory experiences, we would have no truth.
It is then that Kant realizes that epistemology without God is meaningless because we would have no reason to trust our senses or our reason without the Lord. Yet Kant understands that we have not perceived God and cannot prove God from our experiences even with innate structures. Thus, Kant argues that we must postulate God’s existence.
Since God does exist, it is not obvious that this would pose difficulty. But as aforementioned, Romans 1 indicates that either through our reason, our senses, or both, we should be able to prove God from general revelation alone (though not necessarily all attributes of the Christian God). Therefore, when Kant argues that his epistemology has to assume God, it does not account for the reality that God has revealed Himself to man through His creation.
Further, to postulate God’s existence, we need to have an idea of what exactly it is that we are assuming exists. Locke’s attempts demonstrate that we cannot reach the idea of God through our sensory experiences. After all, no matter how many innate structures you have, your sensory experience cannot go from time to infinity or from place to omnipresence. As a result, without the innate idea of God, we are unable to postulate that God exists. In other words, the only way we can get at the idea of God – the foundation for all epistemology – is if we accept Descartes’ epistemological distinction of innate knowledge.
Ultimately, both Locke and Kant’s epistemological models fall short for the same reason – they are unable to account for our idea of God. This is the foundation of all epistemology, and so without this foundation, Locke and Kant’s models simply cannot bring us to any knowledge. In contrast, Descartes’ model, because it accepts the idea of God as innate knowledge, provides the foundation for knowledge. Consequently, it is the better model of epistemology.
Friday, November 7, 2014
Ignorance is no Excuse
"Well, it's ok because I didn't know that was wrong!"
So the ancient Israelites were held accountable for sacrificing for sin that they did not know they were doing, or did not know was sin. That's all for today because I have a debate tournament.
Such goes the typical excuse for many horrendous things we do. I stole some money, I clearly was under the impression that private property didn't exist, and thus, I thought my actions were completely and entirely justified!
A quick look at the sacrificial system of the Old Testament (or maybe just a quick look at one passage of Scripture within the Old Testament that happens to be about sacrifices) reveals that ignorance does not excuse sin.
Leviticus 5:15-19, declares,
"If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering. And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him. And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord."
So the ancient Israelites were held accountable for sacrificing for sin that they did not know they were doing, or did not know was sin. That's all for today because I have a debate tournament.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Oddest Rebuke in the History of Mankind
I have made it to the end of the book of Job. As most of you know, the book ends with the Lord rebuking Job for four chapters.
As I was reading Job truly to figure out what Job was being rebuked for, I was paying rather close attention to what the Lord said, so that I could determine whether my prior guesses were correct.
But the rebuke doesn't like a typical rebuke. Outside of maybe Job 40:2, the Lord says absolutely nothing of what Job's sins are, and what Job has done that has engendered this rebuke. Instead God spent His time explaining His transcendent power and majesty.
Naturally, this rebukes produces very much of the desired effect (how could God fail in His efforts?). In Job 42:5-6, Job responds,
And there you have it - repentance comes as the result of the Lord's rebuke. Repentance comes because of a further knowledge of who God is. I don't believe it is too much of a stretch to say that ultimately all true repentance will come from a greater knowledge of who God is.
Perhaps if we want to live a life of godliness, we ought to start by gaining a greater knowledge of who God is. And we also ought to continue by gaining a greater knowledge of who God is, and you know what? We ought to end by gaining a greater knowledge of who God is.
As I was reading Job truly to figure out what Job was being rebuked for, I was paying rather close attention to what the Lord said, so that I could determine whether my prior guesses were correct.
But the rebuke doesn't like a typical rebuke. Outside of maybe Job 40:2, the Lord says absolutely nothing of what Job's sins are, and what Job has done that has engendered this rebuke. Instead God spent His time explaining His transcendent power and majesty.
Naturally, this rebukes produces very much of the desired effect (how could God fail in His efforts?). In Job 42:5-6, Job responds,
"I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."
And there you have it - repentance comes as the result of the Lord's rebuke. Repentance comes because of a further knowledge of who God is. I don't believe it is too much of a stretch to say that ultimately all true repentance will come from a greater knowledge of who God is.
Perhaps if we want to live a life of godliness, we ought to start by gaining a greater knowledge of who God is. And we also ought to continue by gaining a greater knowledge of who God is, and you know what? We ought to end by gaining a greater knowledge of who God is.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but...
Many are familiar with the text we have for today. It is the time in which Peter confesses that Jesus if the Christ.
It is hard not to admit that Peter has made an excellent proclamation here. Obviously, Peter is correct when he asserts that Jesus is the Son of God. It is clear that Peter isn't just saying this, but actively believes it, as Jesus validates what Peter has said by explaining that it was revealed to him by God.
So we must understand as we follow this passage onward that Peter truly holds to the correct belief that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Thus, it seems odd that immediately after these events, Matthew tells us (as does Mark), that Peter rebukes Jesus for explaining that He must die for salvation to occur before all men. In verses 21-23,
It seems that while Peter knows who Jesus is, he hasn't quite acknowledged the importance of that fact. While Peter knows that Jesus has ultimate authority on earth, he somehow still thinks he knows enough to be able to rebuke the Son of the living God.
I wouldn't be too quick to judge here; after all, God had revealed to Peter who Jesus is. I also wouldn't be too quick to judge Peter here because I think I struggle with much of the same tendency. I know who Christ is, but I don't seem to acknowledge the importance of the fact.
I may not necessarily rebuke the Lord for his actions, but I do spend far too much time looking for my own support rather the Lord's in troublesome situations. I do spend far too much time "savoring the things that be of men," rather than those that are of God.
I wonder how many Christians go around, knowing God and yet not living as though that should have any effect on their life. As if they were self-sufficient without God in their lives to begin with. But that's absurd.
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. We should probably trust His power and authority in our life.
I have decided to look at Matthew 16 because that's where the events of the story became sensitive to my life (because Matthew is the book I'm reading through for my Spiritual Formations class). The events unfolded more specifically in verses 13-18,
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
It is hard not to admit that Peter has made an excellent proclamation here. Obviously, Peter is correct when he asserts that Jesus is the Son of God. It is clear that Peter isn't just saying this, but actively believes it, as Jesus validates what Peter has said by explaining that it was revealed to him by God.
So we must understand as we follow this passage onward that Peter truly holds to the correct belief that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Thus, it seems odd that immediately after these events, Matthew tells us (as does Mark), that Peter rebukes Jesus for explaining that He must die for salvation to occur before all men. In verses 21-23,
"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."
It seems that while Peter knows who Jesus is, he hasn't quite acknowledged the importance of that fact. While Peter knows that Jesus has ultimate authority on earth, he somehow still thinks he knows enough to be able to rebuke the Son of the living God.
I wouldn't be too quick to judge here; after all, God had revealed to Peter who Jesus is. I also wouldn't be too quick to judge Peter here because I think I struggle with much of the same tendency. I know who Christ is, but I don't seem to acknowledge the importance of the fact.
I may not necessarily rebuke the Lord for his actions, but I do spend far too much time looking for my own support rather the Lord's in troublesome situations. I do spend far too much time "savoring the things that be of men," rather than those that are of God.
I wonder how many Christians go around, knowing God and yet not living as though that should have any effect on their life. As if they were self-sufficient without God in their lives to begin with. But that's absurd.
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. We should probably trust His power and authority in our life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)