YouTube Atheist on Dawkins and Religion

Jastrow on Cosmic Origins

Craig on Wide Teleology

Craig on Cosmic Origins

the pre-Plantingian argument that (naturalistic) evolution is self-defeating.

Prior to Plantinga’s notorious argument C.S. Lewis, much to my astonishment, articulated the self-same idea. I say ‘much to my astonishment’ because I’ve always maintained that Lewis is way overrated. I remember during my first few years at Biola rolling my eyes in annoyance at the constant ‘Well C.S. Lewis says this’, or ‘The Abolition of Man is sooooo awessoooooooooome, dude’. Suffice to say, amongst all of this C.S. Lewis worship, I felt entirely vindicated when I read Craig (William Lane) saying that ‘Dostoevsky was a far greater writer’ than Lewis. Take that Clive Staples! But now I’m not so impressed by Craig’s comment, for Dostoevsky and Lewis are hardly comparable authors; the genres of Dostoevsky and Lewis are not comparable. Anyway, I was delighted when I came across this, and I wonder why I haven’t come across people giving credit to Lewis for this. The following excerpt is from Lewis’ The Funeral of a Great Myth. ‘The Great Myth’ is Lewis’ term for the theory of evolution:

What makes it impossible that [evolution] should be true is not so much the lack
of evidence for this or that scene in the drama or the fatal self-contradiction
which runs right through it. The Myth cannot even get going without
accepting a good deal from the real sciences. And the real sciences cannot
be accepted for a moment unless rational inferences are valid: for every science
claims to be a series of inferences from observed facts. It is only by
such inferences that can reach your nebulae and protoplasm and dinosaurs and
sub-men and cave-men at all. Unless you start by believing that reality in
the remotest space and the remotest time rigidly obeys the laws of logic, you
can have no ground for believing in any astronomy, any biology, any
paleontology, any archeology. To reach the positions held by the real
scientists- which are then taken over by the Myth- you must- in fact, treat
reason as an absolute. But at the same time the Myth asks me to believe
that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless
process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of
the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly
believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is the product of the
irrational- if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a
creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel- how shall I trust my mind when it
tells me about Evolution? They say in effect ‘I will prove that what you
call a proof is only the result of mental habits which result from heredity
which results from bio-chemistry which results from physics.’ But this is the
same as saying: ‘I will prove that proofs are irrational’: more
succinctly, ‘I will prove that there are no proofs’: The fact that some
people of scientific education cannot by any effort be taught to see the
difficulty, confirms one’s suspicion that we here touch a radical disease in
their whole style of thought. But the man who does see it, is compelled to
reject as mythical the cosmology in which most of us were brought up. That it
has embedded in it many true particulars I do not doubt: but in its entirety, it
simply will not do. Whatever the real universe may turn out to be like, it
can’t be like that.

That’s basically Plantinga’s argument in a nut-shell; without the symbolic notation of course, but just as powerful.

On a related note: Assuming that some-ultra sophisticated evolutionist can answer this objection cogently, I have another related but distinct complaint. If evolution, broadly construed, is true, then the reason I would instinctively react in fear if a black widow spider were crawling on my foot is because, somewhere in the evolutionary story of my heredity, a freak mutation occurred in the human (whatever that is) genome that caused people to react in such a way to spiders. The ‘people’ who didn’t have such a mutation got killed by spiders, the ones who did survived and passed the instinct on. This story is dramatically opposed to how we normally consider the phenomenon. If I were to see a black widow crawl on my foot it seems to me that I would react in fear in virtue of the fact that black widow spiders look scary and are dangerous. But the evolutionary story says that they only look scary and seem dangerous because a mutation in my genome made me think that way, and it just so happened to keep my species surviving. That’s the queerest thing I’ve ever heard: that I think that spiders are dangerous because of a freak mutation, not because I see a spider that is dangerous.

The point is subtle, I suppose, but hopefully it’s starring you in the face.

Anyway, kudos to Clive, may his memory be Eternal.

Justice

I am interested to know what people here think about the concept of "justice" and Christianity. Also, justice and God. Basically, what people think justice is and how that plays into our Christian life, if that makes sense? I just want opinion.

Roundtable on Christian Socialism

http://www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/
This page contains this link: http://theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/docs/mp3/bbc4_beyondbelief_ChristianSocialism.mp3, which contains the recording of a roundtable on Christian Socialism.

Historical Christianity in the Region Now Called Germany

Mission in the Context of the Region Now Called Germany:
A Historical Look at Christianity
During
 the Millennia Leading up to Nazi Supremacy

May 24th, 2007

Updated for the Internet
September 12th, 2007

 

At one point in history Germany was the center of the Holy Roman Empire: a “Third Rome” and a “First Reich”; a capital of Christendom.  By the time the “Third Reich” rolled around, Germany had wantonly killed between 5.6 and 5.9 million Jews (Microsoft, 2007).  This is not to mention non-Jew, non-Aryans that were killed.  Millions of families and individual lives were rent by the Nazis of early 20th century Germany.  She marred her people, Europe, the West, the reputation of Christ, and human history.  But not only that, Germany did so in the name of Christ!  What happened?  What was Mission[1] like within such a context?  What did Christians do during this metamorphosis?  How did they react to the Beast in its final form?  Is Christianity compatible with Nazism?  Socialism?  Does Christianity ever lose itself in its host culture?

While the above queries cannot all feasibly be handled in depth of detail by the present work, the intuitions behind these questions will be explored during this study.  In the stead of exhaustive answers, this work argues that the ideology of the Nazis could not have been formulated or caused to take root in Germany without the socio-political Christian foundation it was built on.   However, Nazi dogma is mutually exclusive with Christian orthodoxy, and the story of Germany illustrates that doctrinal and philosophical commitments have consequences.  Christians should therefore vigorously study, maintain, and defend their core beliefs in order to reduce the odds of another hijacking.  To make this case, this work explores the various socio-political textures created by the phantasmagoria that produced the Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler.  But to understand Nazi Germany, one has to understand its historical roots in Christian Rome, and its global position inside Europe and next to the Soviet Union...

It is out of the fog that obscures most of Ancient history that a clear picture of Rome emerges, expansive and strong.  Jesus Christ, the heir to the throne of Israel[2], was crucified by His own people there.  And then His apostles were hunted and killed for holding fast to their faith in Him.  But the least of the apostles, Paul of Tarsus, was eventually able to move about the empire preaching the gospel because of his citizenship[3], although not without many dangers, toils, and snares[4].  However the Roman position on Christianity was ultimately transformed, and in 313 the emperor Constantine I moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium, which came to be called Constantinople[5], then issued the Edict of Milan, which made religious worship legal.  Finally, “in AD 391 the Emperor Theodosius declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and closed pagan temples in Rome” (Barrs, 2003).  The political foundation for what billions have considered to be the institution of Christ’s church on earth were laid.

But the present work is not about Rome proper.  This was cloven in two, and then felled in 476, when the emperor of the Western half of the Empire, Romulus Augustulus, was forced to abdicate.

The Empire was not the only entity to be halved, however.  The one holy catholic and apostolic global congregation of Christians, “The Church”, underwent schism in 1054.  The sundering was due to disagreement over the “filioque” clause of the Nicene Creed, which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.  Whether the doctrine is true, the Western Christians under the Roman patriarch decided the doctrine outside the accepted mechanism for settling such matters, and were excommunicated for doing so.  The Eastern Church had other complaints against the West as well, such as with the nature of Papal authority and what they had done during the crusades[6].  But the West disagreed with the East regarding iconography and other matters that were taken very seriously, and so they excommunicated the Eastern Church right back.

Just like the Western Church survived the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christendom outlasted the Eastern Empire.  The Byzantine Empire suffered barbaric invasions and political shortness of breath until its complete strangling by the hands of Mehmet II, who dealt Constantinople itself a fatal blow in 1453.

Though this date is typically considered the end of the End of Rome, the peoples who constituted the Empire still occupied its former territories, alongside their philosophical and religious ideals.  Those in Western Europe had been reorganized in various ways, and terms like “emperor”, “august” and “Roman” were still applied to certain political leaders of Germanic-Latin provinces in the West.  In fact it was the Pope himself, Leo III, who performed Charlemagne’s coronation in 800.

Another of these leaders, Frederick I Barbarossa reigned as a king in the late 1100’s.  He then became emperor over the entire region, and promoted ideas about how the peoples of the West could resurrect Rome[7].

Although such unifying ideas were well received, the empire actually functioned as more of an alliance of smaller kingdoms.  Despite infighting, political leaders began to congregate in a type of parliament they called the “Reichstag”, or “Imperial Assembly”.  Gradually, the political structure of the Empire was corporately engineered.  And by 1512 it came to be known as the “Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation” or "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation".  Barbarossa’s wish came true for the region Americans now recognize as Germany, Eastern France, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Holland, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy, and Poland.

The Holy Roman Empire had at least one major problem.  While it was self-identified as the center of Christendom, so were the cities of Rome and Constantinople, and so was Moscow.  Thus, the Holy Roman Emperor was the head of Christianity, and so was the Catholic Pope, and so were the Orthodox Patriarchs.  In this way, a Christian political entity and two Christian religious institutions all vied for headship over the global community of Christians.

But religious institutions have more than just the problems that arise regarding authority.  In the case of the Catholic Church, many grievances were raised about ecclesiastical and doctrinal positions.  Many Christians in the West identified false doctrines and corruption within the structure of the Church.  John Wycliffe and John Hus were two early leaders of this intellectual insurrection.

These thoughts culminated when a devout German monk nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on the Power of Indulgences to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany.  Other leaders and thinkers such as John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli joined Martin Luther’s cause, to reform the Catholic Church into an institution with integrity, which truly sought to worship God in spirit and in truth, while serving humanity charitably and humbly.  But the Catholic Church, for various reasons, was not subject to reformation.  Rather, it responded with a “counter-reformation”.

Luther’s works were rapidly spread by the power of the printing press, which also greatly propagated Bible translations throughout Europe.  These Western Christians promoted literacy and education parallel to Eastern Christians like Saint Cyril, who developed an entire written language for the Slavic people so that they could come to know Christ by reading the Bible.

Out from under Luther’s initial leadership came the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anabaptists.  From these groups there eventually came countless sunderings, and hundreds of thousands of Protestant denominations: the Catholic Church’s fear of disunity was realized.

While it is no doubt true that the Catholic Church suffered many problems, the Protestant Reformation created others.  For, although it may be argued that the Catholic Church taught certain dangerous and false doctrines, the unity it provided was at least partially valuable.  For without creeds and councils, every Believer became free to determine his own doctrinal positions.

This tumult opened the door to other alarming doctrines, such as dogmatic anti-Semitism. Many German Christians including Luther believed that it was the Jews’ fault that Jesus died. This belief can only have been made possible by a deviance from traditional Christian teaching, for there are several orthodox teachings that are incompatible with this type of thinking.

Firstly, back in the original Roman Empire, Jesus Himself humbly accepted His own death.  In fact, when the authorities arrested Jesus for the purpose of killing Him, one of His disciples reacted violently, and Jesus rebuked him!  The narrative is found in Luke’s history of Jesus’ life, chapter 22, verses 47 to 54:

While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said to him, "Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness."

Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house, and Peter was following at a distance.

If the German Christian anti-Semites had understood Jesus’ position on violence, especially as it concerns His own death, they would not have aggressed against the Jews.  Rather, they would have echoed Jesus’ own words shortly before His death, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”[8].

Yet this stands in stark contrast to Luther’s linguistically vulgar, scripture-twisting justification for Jewish expulsion, which was set forth in his pamphlet, On the Jews and Their Lies,

So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). (Luther, 1543)


Secondly, Christian orthodoxy holds that Jesus died for the redemption of everybody[9] from sin and Satan, and even though it may have been the Jewish court that physically crucified Jesus, it was the sins of the world[10] that necessitated God’s arrangement of such crucifixion.  In this way Martin Luther was just as responsible for the death of Christ as Pontius Pilate.  Such a humbling idea surely would have prevented the development of doctrines that were aggressive toward the Jews.

However theologically or morally wrong it may have been, rallying against common enemies – the Catholic Church and therefore the Holy Roman Empire, and the Jews – united much of the grass-roots in Europe, as well as many Germanic dukes.

At the same time many royal bloodlines had been funneled into the veins of Charles V, who united under himself an “empire on which the sun never set”, incorporating most of Europe.  Viewing his power as God-given[11], he sought to conquer with the sword and the cross, saving souls and gaining riches from around the world.  His conquistadors toppled Incan and Aztec rule in the Americas, and it was he that began the Inquisition into “heresy”, torturing and killing many for their “own good” and for the “glory of God”.

In this way, the peoples of the Holy Roman Empire became sharply divided.  Northern and Eastern areas joined the Protest against the Catholic Church and the Holy Empire under Charles V, while Southern and Western regions countered the reformation and a series of religio-political conflicts built on one another.

Eventually Ferdinand, the Catholic Duke of Styria, was elected to succeed Matthias as Emperor of Bohemia.  And in 1617, the Catholic Church used its power to stop the construction of Protestant Churches in regions over which it claimed jurisdiction.  Fearing that once Ferdinand ascended the throne he would completely crush Protestant’s rights, Bohemian aristocrats led by Count Thurn tried the Imperial governors Wilhelm Slavata and Jaroslav von Martinicz on May 23rd for violating the freedom of religion established by the Letter of Majesty, and then proceeded to literally defenestrate them.  Fortunately, the former governors and their scribes landed in a heap of manure at the foot of Prague Castle.

Despite their survival, this “rebellion” against the Holy Roman Empire incited the “Thirty Years’ War”, which lasted until 1648.  France and other European powers got involved, mostly by aiding the revolt against the Empire and acquiring territories of their own in the process.  The War devastated the Empire, and the Peace of Westphalia, which turned over sovereignty to each territory, worked the ends of both.

What remained was not much more than what existed before the official Holy Roman Empire, but it continued to sometimes be called by that name.  Louis the XIV rose to power in France and engaged in several military campaigns against other European states, and even after his death, France periodically waged war against members of the Empire.

The final official Holy Roman Emperor Francis II begrudgingly acquiesced to Napoleon, giving him the hand of his own daughter and most of his Empire in 1806.  Francis then founded the Austrian Empire, becoming Francis I to the Austrians.  The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, the First Reich, had officially ended.

It was not long before the proud peoples of the former Empire through off French hegemony: The prime minister of Prussia, Otto von Bismarck, united Germany ideologically and militarily.  Through several martial successes, he amassed enough power to win the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.  His entourage seiged the Palace of Versailles in Paris and proclaimed the formation of the German Empire, whose first king was Wilhelm I.  Bismarck set to work on the constitution, which gave Prussia most of the power in this Second Reich.

The Second German Empire had at least one major problem: social and religious diversity.  The inherent tension between Germany and the Catholic Church surfaced again under the New Empire.  Pius IX formalized the dogma of Papal Infallibility, and other conservative Christian ideas laid the foundation for political radicalism.  Many conservative Catholics joined the emerging Social Democratic Party, while others joined the Catholic Centre Party.  The Socialists and the Catholics, along with the different economic systems functioning in their respective geographic regions, were the main barriers to unification.  The military was the main avenue to unification, and Bismarck managed to persuade the Catholic Centre Party to side with him against the Socialists.

Despite going to the lengths of developing a welfare system to compete with the appeal of socialism, the religious right-controlled German government watched with disdain as the SDP gained great popularity.  In the meantime, Bismarck’s policies united the states and constructed the great Spartan-like German war machine.

The affairs of the Christian Second Reich and Orthodox Russia became entangled by a series of complex events.  The archduke Francis, or Franz, Ferdinand was the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his controversial marriage, and dreaded political intentions, made him an enemy of a group called the “Black Hand”.  During a trip to Sarajevo, Bosnia, he and his wife were murdered by Gavrilo Princip.  Austria-Hungary blamed the Orthodox Serbian government, on the word of a criminal who said that Serbia had supplied the guns, and issued them the famous July Ultimatum.  When the Serbs agreed to all but one point, Austria-Hungary declared war.  A web of alliances was activated, and the world broke out into its first global war.

Russia, because of Orthodox/Slavic commitments, as well as formal pacts made with several smaller countries, backed Serbia.  Germany invaded Serbia and declared war on Russia.  Thanks to Bismarck, Germany commanded the most powerful military in the world.

The war broke Russia’s back. In March of 1917, a socialistic political party known as the Bolsheviks[12], led by Lenin, forced the Czar to establish a provisional government.  Lenin began working to setup a communistic state founded on the German political philosophy of Karl Marx[13].

The parallels between the development of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are very striking.  Germany was built on a Protestant foundation, while the USSR was built on an Orthodox foundation; both Christian.  The Nazis hijacked the Protestant cause only to turn on Christian churches, while the Soviets hijacked Jewish and Orthodox causes only to turn on all religious institutions.  And although the two powers were archrivals, Soviet Socialism was logically rooted in the philosophy of German Materialism.

A few points about atheism and its philosophical and theological consequences are in order.  The present work is not to argue that atheism logically entails Communism, only that it historically led to it and that the founders of Communism believed that their ideology was the logical result of atheism.

Quite simply, atheism is the belief that there is no God.  This differs from agnosticism, which is the failure to believe in a God without denying His existence.  Both views contain many variations and subtleties.  For example, there are some atheists who believe that God is possible, but He simply doesn’t happen to exist.  There are other atheists who believe that the very concept of God is incoherent, and it is therefore impossible for God to exist.  Some agnostics simply admit that they do not yet know whether God exists.  Others teach that it is impossible for anyone to know whether God exists.

The theoretical transition into Communism that Marxism proposes is not all there is to the picture.  Rather, such proposed actions were the inevitable result of three central ideals in the mind of Marx: atheism, materialism, and determinism.

Marxism is founded on the specific belief that there is not a God who exists.  This is not a mere absence of a belief in God, but a definite dogma that bears significant and devastating political and moral implications.  Despite all the persuasive rhetoric, Marxism is not trying to abolish dogma but establish its own as incontrovertibly correct and its application worthy of enforcement.  Lenin himself opened his own pamphlet on religion with the statement “the philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is… absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion.” (Lenin, 1900, Preface)

Lenin, like Marx, was an atheist both chronologically and logically before he was a Communist.  In fact, in 1914 he published annotations on Hegel’s Science of Logic, a particularly interesting note is one on God and objective reality and morality, “nonsense about the absolute. I am in general trying to read Hegel materialistically: Hegel is materialism which has been stood on its head (according to Engels) - that is to say, I cast aside for the most part God, the Absolute, the Pure Idea, etc.” (Lenin, 1914, Section I)

Lenin read Hegel because Marx read Hegel.  The ironic thing is that Hegel is an idealist in the sense that he believes that ideas are more real than matter.  So the one who presupposes materialism while reading Hegel will exegete unintended axioms.  For the materialist who holds a rock, he believes that the physical properties of that rock are what are most important.  For Hegel, the rock is mostly a series of ideas that come together (like roundness, hardness, and the color grey) in a “rockish” way.  But even the rockishness of the rock is an idea.  The matter itself is a mere reflection, and becoming of these ideas.  The separation of these ideas from their instances is called alienation.  The alienation of matter from its ideas is a tension that needs to be resolved.

Another tension needing to be resolved is the confrontation of opposites.  In Hegelianism, this is expressed in highly complicated and nuanced language.  The resolution of these tensions is called dialectics.  The progress of Reason is the inevitable outcome of the interaction between opposing forces.


Labor was the key in bridging the gap between the physical and this abstract lump of ideas existing in the ether called Reason.  Labor transformed people into humans and advanced them toward consciousness.  This particular rendering of Hegelianism was taught at the University of Berlin, where Marx studied.  The movement Marx became a part of wanted to criticize society to accelerate the inevitable process toward freedom under wholly rational laws (Ozinga, 1987, 12-19).

With materialism comes problems.  “Materialism” is the doctrine that the only objects that exist are those that are merely physical.  Materialism is quite often psychologically motivated by a man who does not want to face God and repent.  For, if nothing metaphysical exists, then that certainly excludes God, and there becomes no need to face one’s own depravity.  It should be obvious that under a materialistic worldview, the value of humans would be reduced to labor alone.

If one does not believe in ideas that exist independent of humans, then there is nothing to anchor humanity’s advancement toward such ideas.  This is why Lenin’s atheistic, materialistic reading of Hegel logically generates a sort of perverted Humanism where man makes up his own laws, and morals are transfigured into nothing more than successes; pragmatism wins out.

Marx and Lenin start with a brute, dogmatic denial of the existence of God and the doctrine that justifies it: that the only things that exist are physical.  The logical conclusion of these doctrines is that man is all and only made up of the exact same things that everything else is.  There are no ideas, emotions, moral oughts, gods, or sentiments.  Man is therefore naught but an animal.  Needless to say, there were no overtones of man being made in the image of God, for neither images nor God existed in the minds of Marx and Lenin.

The third core doctrine of Communism is determinism.  This is a most natural and logical result of affirming materialism.  For if there is no Divine force, and no immaterial human souls interacting with the world, then whence cometh movement?  When materialism is presupposed, only material causes may be postulated.  Within a material world, there is no room for robust, metaphysical freedom.  This is so, because the physical state of the world must be sufficient to cause the next physical state of the world.  Otherwise, no movement would occur.  But this system cannot be loose, there cannot be forks in the road, for what force would deliberate between options?  To even posit “randomness” would be to suppose a nonphysical force, destroying one’s materialism.

But Marxist Communism did not frame its determinism with these categories.  Rather, Marx made his grand contribution to human understanding according to Engels, by transforming psychology into economic science.  Marxist determinism found economics to be the locus of causality when it came to human behavior.  Therefore all personality, thoughts, emotions, religions, art, and philosophy were the pure result of Capitalism.  Communism combined its appeal to the poor with a natural appeal to the intellectuals: science.  Communism praised science (defined as physical science) as the only means to transformation.

Despite the denial of ideas, ideals, God, and morals, Marx and Lenin were realists when it came to acknowledging human depravity.  Laziness and ignorance were not desirable, attractive, or helpful behaviors.  They were thus understood to be the result of the prevailing economic system.  Humanity needed to be advanced toward Reason, toward their ideas.  Humans were socially causing one another’s behavior, but Capitalism was too individual.  Humans needed to converge with Humanity, and a new, Communist social order established.

The absence of objective ideas and morals because of a denial of God and the supernatural vexed Communism from the beginning.  For the advancement of Humanity might be by any means normally outside of human intuitions about right and wrong.  For even those were the result of Capitalism, and hindered Humanity from progress.

The result of such thinking led to the proposed process of overthrowing the “evil” Capitalist System by violent revolution, instituting the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, ridding society of class, utilizing those diseased yet capable of work in labor camps, hospitalization of the curable diseased in corrective camps, education of the masses that emphasized atheism and labor rather than morals and economic reward, the raising of an untainted generation, the perfection of human nature, the final dissolving of the state into pure, utopian, Communism.

The essentials of the Communist dream bear striking resemblance to Christianity.  For example, Communism promises a single world order, the abolition of evil and of pain, the unity of mankind, and even a plan for bringing it all about.

Yet in spite of the parallels between Christians and Communists, and those between Germans and Russians, World War I was devastating to everyone.  The United States had entered the conflict in 1917; Bismarck’s machine buckled and Wilhelm II was exiled.

Apropos, the end of the Second German Empire was wrought in Versailles, the place of its genesis.  Germany shriveled as it lost territory to nearly every surrounding power, was forced to give up its colonies, and was forced to pay reparations.  The world held Germany sufficiently responsible for the war.  The terms of the treaty were incredibly harsh, and dealt a heavy blow to the corporate ego of the German people.  Not to mention the fact that Germany’s economy spun off its orbit, causing loaves of bread to literally cost wheelbarrows full of money.

And this was the context for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”, or “National Socialist German Workers Party”, often abbreviated NSDAP: the Nazi Party.  The ashes of the Second Reich, made of Romanism, Christianity, Marxism, Imperialism, and economic turmoil, were pregnant with an imperial Phoenix.

Hitler’s personal life began in the ashes as well.  He became homeless because of a failed painting career in the early 1900’s, and then joined a home for poor working men.  He later petitioned to fight with the Bavarians in World War I.  His own account reports that he first became an anti-Semite in Vienna, a place flooded with a deluge of Jewish refugees from Russia.  The seeds that men like Martin Luther had sown resulted in fully matured racist religious and political systems of thought.  The writings of others such as Lanz von Liebenfels and Karl Lueger, mayor of Vienna and creator of the Christian Social Party, no doubt shaped Hitler’s worldview as well.

Hitler’s own account goes like this:

There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism.


Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. I carefully watched the man stealthily and cautiously but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German? (Hitler, 1925, Ch. 2)



Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” was an autobiography that also set forth his political philosophy, and it reeked of its roots: the atheistic philosophies of Hegel, Nietzsche and Marx.

Strangely enough, Hitler was careful to verbally oppose Marxism in his work.  He denoted specific forms of Socialism, including that of the Bolsheviks, as Jewish.  Perhaps it is not so strange that he verbally denounced Marx!  It made it possible for him to blame the Jews (an immediate scapegoat) for the destruction of the Second Reich by the hands of the Soviets (everyone’s enemy).

Perhaps not so stranger still, Hitler’s work spoke highly of the Christian reformer Martin Luther.  He refers to Luther as a “true statesmen” and a “great reformer” among other giants of Germany’s past.  Hitler was a man who understood the sentiments of millions Germans who had been steeped in two millennia of Pride and Protestantism.

Hitler came into family money and relocated to Munich.  Then, after the War, his charismatic gab and deep understanding of the German psyche escalated him up successive political steppes.  Just as the Jews were easy to blame, Hitler was easy to hope in as a messiah, one to bring Germany out of economic depression and out against the Soviets.

Under Hitler’s leadership, Germany’s economy and infrastructure blossomed.  The details of the inner structure of this progress and its possibility of long-term persistence are the subject of much critique, however.  But the people loved Hitler, the military grew exponentially, and with hard work families were able to simply purchase decent food again.  Hitler viewed families as the building blocks of the German nation, and encouraged women to cease working, and take care of their children.

Hitler also built on the military traditions of Bismarck, but his war machine did have an equal: his propaganda machine.  Despite the reality of the construction of civil works and other nation-building enterprises, Hitler’s propaganda campaigns illustrated Aryan superiority, and embedded ruthless social policies into beautiful films.

Hitler won over the population with grandiose dreams of a powerful Third Reich, in the tradition of Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, and the German Empire: the fulfillment of the Latin-Germanic racial legacy.

The ensuing World War is familiar to every American raised in the public school system.  What may be unfamiliar, is Hitler’s religious beliefs.  Although born into a Catholic family, he cared much more about the ascension of the Aryan race to European dominance.

It is therefore unclear whether Hitler really believed himself to be a Christian.  The Protestant tradition was certainly a convenient base to adopt for his purposes.  Most Germans were Protestant, winning him an audience, and the liberal theologies of German theologians like Bultmann set a precedent that made it socially acceptable for Hitler to propose his “Positive Christianity” – a theology gutted of whatever Hitler objected to, and shaped into a story making Jesus out to be a Jew-fighter!

It was the military foundation laid by Bismarck that Hitler used to give wings to the object of Bismarck’s hatred: Socialism.  And it was the insurrectionist attitude of the Protestants and the homophily of the Christian eye toward Communism that lent Hitler the popularity necessary to keep the conflict-wary Catholic Church pacified.  It was the passion of the Christians that was harnessed by Hitler to gain power and crush their churches.  It was the common ideology and the common enemy that motivated Stalin to ally with Hitler, which in turn afforded the German military the ability to first wage war on Europe, and then concentrate its forces on the Soviet Union.  The footing for Nazi Germany was liberal Christianity, and the pilings for it were those constructed by Hegel and Marx.  Hitler hijacked everything he could for his own evil designs.  But it would not have been possible if Christians had not abandoned their ideological anchors.

Without creeds, any cause can be hijacked.

Appendix A: The Definition of “Mission”

On the first day of his Foundations of Global Studies class at Biola University, Dr. Murray Decker typically cites David J. Bosch’s definition of mission, which is that “Mission is a multifaceted ministry, in respect of witness, service, justice, healing, reconciliation, liberation, peace, evangelism, fellowship, church planting, contextualization, and much more” (Bosch, 1992, p. 512).

Then Dr. Decker cites John R. W. Stott, who says that “Mission concerns [God’s] redeemed people, and what [He] sends them into the world to do… mission arises primarily out of the nature not of the church but of God himself” (Stott, 1980, p. 21).

“Mission” as widely used by Evangelical missiologists, is a broad word that denotes God’s purpose with humanity.  While God is loving, creative, and merciful, His plans are detailed, and the present age is one of critical importance to the establishment of the Kingdom.  Under this conception of “Mission”, everyone who wants to follow Jesus and imitate Him should participate in Mission.  This means that every Christian in this era should prayerfully, intentionally, and strategically consider how to best contribute to the making of disciples in every nation.

This does not mean that every Christian should rush headlong into the front lines.  For every member of the body is important.  Each Christian is to use his talents and Spiritual gifts to help prepare the way for the Kingdom (Rom. 12:3-7, 1 Cor. 10:16-18, 1 Cor. 12:4-26, Eph. 4:3-8, Col. 3:14-16, Heb. 2:3-5).  Thus, those gifted in thinking clearly, and organizing the truths of God’s word and God’s creation, ought to perform such work heartily, with integrity, and in a manner that advances the gospel into every nation.  Similarly, those gifted in administering group efforts and organizing human resources should serve in such an area, and in a manner that in some way ultimately contributes to the redeeming of men from every nation.

Even athletes and mechanics can in this way be “Missionry”, as they can and should contribute to God’s overall Mission on earth.

Appendix B: God’s Plans for Israel

Although Jesus’ offer to restore the Kingdom of Israel was legitimate, its rejection by the Jews did not escape the confines of God’s sovereign plan.  The scriptures even prophesied it.  One of the ways God worked this evil for good[14], was to order events such that “through Israel’s trespass salvation has come to the gentiles, making Israel jealous” (Rom. 11:11).  Paul says that all of this was included in God’s Mission; a “partial hardening” and a “stumbling” has happened to Israel, and God is using it to bring salvation directly to the Gentiles (instead of offering salvation to the Gentiles through Israel, as in the past).  God is also using this Gentile-direct method to provoke Israel to jealousy, and thereby carry out one of the highest pinnacles of His Mission: the restoration of Israel.  For “if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?”  (Rom. 11:15).  And “a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.  And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written” (Rom. 11:25-26).

Although in the current age all true believers, regardless of whether they are Jews or Gentiles, constitute a single body, God maintains some distinction in His mind between the nation of Israel and others.  Salvation has always been by grace through faith, but God made other promises to Isaac.  Paul communicates this at the beginning of Romans 11 when he says, “God has not rejected His people?  By no means!”  God’s promises to the Old Testament patriarchs will be fulfilled.  Believers have been grafted into the family of God (Rom. 11:17-24), but there remains a future restoration for national, ethnic Israel according to Ezekiel 29 and Jeremiah 31.

Appendix C: The Definitions of “Socialism” and “Communism”

Karl Marx was a German political philosopher who lived from 1818 until 1883, his later years he spent in England.  He worked with a man named Friedrich Engels to write the Communist Manifesto in 1848, describing the process and realization of a state without class in which people would contribute according to their abilities, and the bounty would be distributed according to each man’s needs.

“Socialism”, is Marx’s proposed transitional state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.  During Socialism the means of production and distribution, as well as the product, are owned and regulated by a government run by the workers.

“Communism” is the final social state constructed by Marxism wherein the government withers away along with every other institution, and the public owns everything such that individuals own nothing.  Occupations and pastimes may be moved in and out of at the will of each individual.  Communism carries with it a very appealing vision of a promised utopia.  It is a validation of the needs of the oppressed, thus

To the poor of the earth—and they are legion—the servants of Communism go with this message: “Follow me, and I will build a new world for you and your children, a world from which hunger and cold have been forever banished; a world without exploitation of man by man, a world without racial animosity and discrimination, a world of peace and plenty, a world of culture and intellect, a world of brotherhood, liberty, and justice” (Schwarz, 1952, p. 7)


These terms are to be understood historically.  For “Communism” is not some abstract political philosophy floating around in the ether before apprehended and communicated by Marx.  Rather, Communism is the name of the ideal state in Marx’s mind, and he outlines a plan of action to get there.  The Bolsheviks founded their very revolution on Marx’s book.

References

Anastasia, Corie. Telephone interview. 16 November 2006.
Barrs, Ian (2003). Constantine to charlemagne: The Medieval church creates christendom.  Christian Heritage Cambridge. Retrieved May 22nd 2007.  Available online.
Bosch, D. J. (1992).  Transforming mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission.  US: Orbis Books.
Hitler, Adolf (1925).  Mein Kampf.  Vol. I.
Lenin, Vladimir Illych (1900).  Attitude of the workers party to religion, the.  Proletary, No. 45.
Lenin, Vladimir Illych (1914). Conspectus of hegel’s book:  The Science of logic.  Lenin Miscellany IX.
Luther, Martin (1543). On the jews and their lies.  Translated by Martin H. Bertram.  Available online at Available online.
Microsoft (2007).  Holocaust, the. Retrieved May 22nd 2007.  Available online.
Ozinga, James (1987). Communism: The story of the idea and its implementation.  New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Schwarz, Frederick (1952). Heart, mind, soul of communism, the. Iowa: Merris Printing Co.
Stott, John R. W. (1980).  The Bible in world evangelization. Perspectives on the world christian movement.  Ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven Hawthorne.  United States: William Carey Library. Pages 21-26.

Annotated List of Additional References

Blackmore, Christopher. Hitler thing, the. Available online.  Retrieved November 13th 2006.
This is a blogger’s argument that Hitler’s political philosophy was at the very least earnestly perceived as logically founded on Protestantism.  It contains a lot of historical information and noteworthy sources.

Hartfeld, Hermann. Faith Despite the KGB. Germany: Stephanus Publishers, 1976.
A primary testimony of several imprisoned Christians under Soviet oppression.  It gives some statistics, but it is mostly a narrative of the enduring faith of Christians despite persecution.
 
Helmreich, Ernst Christian (1979).  German churches under hitler, the.  Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
This work studies and examines those Christian institutions that did not succumb to Hitler’s policy of regimentation.  It looks at the history of the ecclesiastical traditions in Germany, and what caused them to unite and sunder.  Pages 361-367 handle racial policies and Papal hierarchy in the Catholic church.  There is history for Catholics to be proud about and some for them to be ashamed of.
 
Henderson, Sir Neville (1940).  Failure of a mission.  New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
This is a type of autobiography of a man on a mission to improve Anglo-German relations just prior to and during World War II.  It is another emic perspective on Nazi Germany and its inner social mechanics.
 
Lenin, Vladimir Illych (1918). State and revolution, the: Collected works, Vol. 25, 1918: p. 381-492 IX.
Another of Lenin’s important works to study, as it gives his views on the purpose and nature of a government overthrow.
 
Marx, Karl (1848). Manifesto of the communist party. Berlin.
This is Marx’ famous work, which he wrote in conjunction with Engels.  One of the main logical and practical sources of both Nazi and Soviet Socialism.



Matheson, Peter (1981).  Third reich and the christian churches.  Scotland: T & T Clark Ltd.
This is a chronological compilation and commentary on primary sources that concern the “Church Struggle” during the Third Reich.

Paton, William (1942).  Church and the new order, the.  New York: The MacMillan Company.
Paton explains his own work well in the preface, “Christians… must face and answer the questions raised by the fact of power and the part it plays in human affairs; that the key to the future lies in the use we make of the present emergency and the instruments it calls into being; that within the human scheme of things an immense responsibility rests to-day upon the British Commonwealth and the United States of America, which they can only discharge by acting together as the leaders of those who agree with them; and that the Church of Christ (that word being used in the widest sense…) has a task of its own to fulfil, distinct from, though intertwined with, the efforts of statesmen to obey the ethical imperative in in affairs of state.  If my book aids in even a slight degree in forcing these four convictions upon the minds of others, it will not have failed.”
 
Tec, Nechama (1986). When light pierced the darkness: Christian rescue of jews in nazi-occupied Poland.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This work chronicles the efforts of Christians who endangered their lives to protect and rescue Jews in Poland.  It explores the motivations of such benevolent Christians, and what happened to them when caught by the Gestapo.
 
Tolkien, J. R. R. To christopher tolkien 28 december 1944. Letters of j. r. r. tolkien, the. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1981.
In this letter, J. R. R. writes to his son as he is interrupted with news about the Soviet invasion of Berlin.  The emic perspective of a British Catholic on Nazi Germany is very insightful.

 
Wilson, M. Wayne (1984).  Biblical boundary of civil resistance:  A Thesis presented to the department of systematic theology talbot theological seminary.  La Mirada: Biola University.
Wayne Wilson’s thesis in partial fulfillment of a degree in Master of Arts in Theological Studies offers theological, biblical, and practical considerations on the topic of civil resistance.  He advocates the use of the political system at large, organized speech and social and political pressure, potential flight, non-violence, an attitude of service and submission, and limited disobedience.  It is a bitter pill to swallow, but he makes a very logical and biblical case for absolute non-violent protest, for the use of force ought to be reserved for the state.  Compare this to Norman Geisler’s view on civil disobedience.
 
Wurmbrand, Richard (1987). Marx & satan. Illinois: Crossway.
This is an interesting work that examines primary sources in detail in such a way so as to find an eerie pattern in history, especially the life of Stalin.  The author convincingly argues, in so many words, that Satan himself was heavily involved in the plans of the Soviets, and especially Stalin’s life.  It is insinuated that Stalin was in some sense either in cooperation with, or possessed by, the Devil.

Notes

[1] Cf. Appendix A.
[2] Cf. Matthew 1 and Luke 3
[3] According to the historian Luke, in Acts 22:22-29, “…when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, "Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?" …So those who were about to examine him withdrew from him immediately, and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him.”
[4] In chapter 11, verses 24-28 of his second letter to the Christians in Corinth, Paul wrote, “Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches.”
[5] Or the “Second Rome”
[6] Especially the 4th, wherein certain Germanic peoples under the authority of the Western Pope Pius III sacked the Eastern Orthodox city of Constantinople on their way to taking back Jerusalem from the Muslims.  Ironically, it was these internal ills that caused Rome to crumble, paving the way for the Muslim Ottomans to eventually erect their own empire from the ruins.
[7] This notion was not at all dissimilar to its contemporary Russian conception of Moscow as the “Third Rome” under “Czar”, or Caesar, Ivan III who married a niece of a Byzantine Emperor.
[8] Luke 23:34
[9] Or at the very least the elect, a group that is made up of individuals from every tribe, tongue, and nation, including and especially Israel.  See Appendix B.
[10] Cf. Romans 3:23
[11] Cf. Romans 13:1
[12] English “majority”
[13] See Appendix C.
[14] cf. Romans 8:28

Do physical facts determine species or not, Mr. Chalmers?

Not that this is highly relevant to the overarching discussion that Chalmers is dealing with, but I am having trouble understanding something specific in his book.

Namely, I do not understand whether Chalmers believes that physical facts (e.g., the "location of every particle") determine which species an organism belongs to.

Here is what's causing my confusion:

On p. 34 he says "It is... conceivable that PHYSICALLY IDENTICAL organisms could be members of DIFFERENT SPECIES, if they had different evolutionary histories".

BUT, on p. 35 he says that a being who knows "the location of every particle in the universe... has all the information it needs to determine... which systems belong to the SAME SPECIES... As long as it... has a full specification of the microphysical facts, no other information is relevant."

Now, here is what I think the overarching points are that he is making in this section of this chapter:

"Supervenience is a relation between two sets of properties: B-properties-intuitively, the high-level properties--and A-properties, which are the basic low-level properties." (p. 33).

I think he is saying that the physical world is built bottom-up: once physics is complete, chemistry is explained. And that chemical properties "supervene" on particle physic properties means that you can find patterns when you zoom out. Similarly, biological properties supervene on chemical properties, so that when you are done describing the chemical properties of a physical system, the biological properties are fixed - there is no room for them to budge - they supervene on the lower level properties.

I think in the first quote, from p. 34, he is saying that two physically identical organisms have identical higher-level ("B") properties, because the physical properties of a system determine that system's biological properties. And yet two physically identical organisms can have different evolutionary pasts, and therefore be categorized differently in that sense. He gives the example of the Mona Lisa, versus a replica. Since they are physically identical (numerical identity and "bare particularity" aside), they have the same A, and B properties. For example, they have paint in the same spots (an A-property?), and THEREFORE have "blue" in the same spots (a B-property?). BUT because they have different pasts (one was painted by Leonardo), they are valued differently.

In the second quote, from p. 35, I think Chalmers is saying that having the physical facts is all you need to determine what kind of species an organism is - the physics of the animal determine what it is.

So in the first quote, I think he uses "species" in a technical sense, which includes evolutionary descent (an "extrinsic" property), whereas in the second quote he uses "species" in a straightforward sense, which includes only the present "intrinsic" properties of the organism.

So it is just a minor semantic problem that Chalmers has - an incidence of slightly unclear or unhelpful writing, not any argumentative flaw. Shame on you, Mr. Chalmers; I know where your home-page is...

Chalmers and Free Will

When Chalmers frames the mind-body problem by asking how the body effects the mind, it makes me wonder whether he leaves room for any free will. Granted, this can only be a preliminary question, as I have just started the book. At any rate, I think he does. Under the first part of the mind-body problem, he admits that there is "fertile ground" for discussion as to how a functional analysis of human psychology should run. He mentions that beliefs and desires might play a causal role (read: indeterminism), and even says that there might not be strict laws connecting psychological states with behavior. I am really interested to see the structure he imposes on the dialogue going on right now in the philosophy or mind, the questions he asks, and the theory he proposes.

Cognitive vs. Behavioral Psychology

In the previous post I said that Chalmers defines "psychology" in the narrow sense, using it to refer to "cognitive science" or "behaviorism". Specifically, cognitive science seeks to determine behavioral causes and effects.

Well this morning I picked up one of Lindsey's cognitive psychology text books, and found that it distinguished between even cognitive psychology and behavioral psychology. Namely, it says on page 14 that the "cognitive revolution... came to believe that no complete explanation of a person's functioning could exist that did not refer to the person's mental representations of the world. This directly challenged the fundamental tenet of radical behaviorism, that concepts such as "mental representation" were not needed to explain behavior" ("Cognitive Psychology: In and Out of the Laboratory" Third Edition, by Kathleen Galotti).

So is it that cognitive psychology is still behavioral in nature, but searches for explanations of behavior in both the psychological third-party data, and the phenomenal first-person data, while behavioral psychology proper ignores mental experiences when searching to explain and modify behavior? Does this mean that Chalmers' question of consciousness differs even from this construel of cognitive psychology in that it is not in search of behavioral explanations, but of how and why any of this stuff is accompanied by conscious experiences? If so, it seems that cognitive psychology proper can handle mental states as best it can, using them to explain behavior, without ever questioning how and why such mental states exist. Also, Chalmers might be questioning how and why such mental states exist, without trying hard to apply any of his findings immediately to behavior theories or behavior modification. Both fields are necessary and helpful, but they are distinct, and Chalmers is after the "hard question".

Mind-Body Problem According to Chalmers & Feser

I always framed the infamous mind-body problem as something like 'how can a truly non-physical object produce any physical effect, or effect any physical object?'. It is easy to see the problem when it comes to movement. If you happen to deny that telekinesis is possible, and yet affirm that your immaterial soul is MOVING your material body, how do you reconcile those beliefs?

Edward Feser, who teaches philosophy at Pasadena City College, defines the problem a little differently in his book. He calls it the "interaction problem", and argues that it doesn't undercut any arguments for dualism, or constitute an argument for materialism. It is simply a question about dualism. Namely it is the question "how do the mind and body interact". He conjures an understanding of the basic problem for his readers, but doesn't make the framework of the question transparent. His view of the problem differs from my old view in that it questions how the mind and body interact, not just how the mind effects the body.

I just started reading David Chalmers' book on consciousness, which has proved fascinating so far. I really appreciate the depth of research and earnestness reflected in his prose. He nuances the mind-body problem a little further, by splitting it into two parts.

First he distinguishes terms for the purpose of his arguments. Namely, he decides to use the term "psychological" in its cognitive scientific sense. So, he uses "psychological" to basically mean "behavioral". Therefore psychological matters are those concerning data available to the outside world. One can examine how a stimulus produces a given behavior, and this is a psychological experiment.

This Chalmers distinguishes from "phenomenal", which relates to first-person experiences. A phenomenal property is "what it is like" to experience thus and such (Chalmers borrows Nagel's terminology at several junctures).

He then states that this division of mental properties divides the mind-body problem into two problems, or rather two parts.

The first part of the mind-body problem is psychological, and goes something like "how could a state of a physical system play such-and-such a causal role?" (p. 24 in the paperback version of "The Conscious Mind"). This sort of question, he contends, is mostly dissolved into smaller technical problems. Without belittling the search for answers to such problems, he brings up the "harder", second part of the mind-body problem.

To Chalmers, the phenomenal aspects of mind give rise to unsolved mysteries. He says that for all the progress cognitive science has made, it "hasn't shed significant light on the question of how and why cognitive functioning is accompanied by conscious experience" (p. 25). He sort of rephrases it as "how could a physical system give rise to conscious experience?" (Ibid.).

He characterizes the two parts of the mind-body question into (1) the link between the physical and psychological, and (2) the link between the psychological and the phenomenal. So while we have good ideas about how physical systems can react and learn and remember, or we at least know where to look for answers to questions about such things, we have no clue about how such psychological affairs cause experiences. And even more baffling than 'how' is 'why'.

Setting the psychological question aside, Chalmers' version of the mind-body problem differs from Feser's and mine in that it asks how the body can effect the mind.

Where do I stand now?

I have direct and indirect philosophical reasons to prefer some sort of substance dualism to materialism. This is because I believe I have strong independent evidence for the existence of a nonphysical God, and in favor of the veracity of the Bible, which discusses "souls". I hold my dualism extremely tentatively though. Meaning, the details are sketchy, and my position is tender. What of the mind-body problem? I have no idea man...

Teach me, Chalmers...

Plotinus on beauty.

Lately I’ve been getting really frustrated with contemporary philosophy of mind for the simple reason that I think it’s just crazy to think my thoughts are atoms; and further because I can’t prove this by some more basic argument. Anyway, I came across the following passage in Plotinus and it reminded me of an age much more intellectually profound than this one, of the things I believe most fervently, and why I love philosophy.







Plotinus on the affect of Beauty, its nature, and where it comes from (its cause).



Our interpretation is that the Soul- by the very truth of its nature, by its affiliation to the Noblest Existents in the hierarchy of Being- when it sees anything of its kin, or any trace of that kinship, thrills with immediate delight, takes its own to itself, and thus stirs anew to the sense of its nature and of its affinity.
But, is there any such likeness between the loveliness of this world and the splendors of the Supreme? Such a likeness in the particulars would make the two orders alike: but what is there in common between beauty here and beauty There?

We hold that all the loveliness of this world comes by communion in Ideal-Form (e.g. God).

“… Your will be done
On earth as it is in Heaven….”

A Summary of Craig's Reply to Mackie's Critique of the Kalam

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/mackie.html

In the above cited paper Craig replies to Mackie's posthumously published tome "The Miracle of Theism". Specifically, Craig responds to Mackie's attack on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument. I will summarize, with too many direct citations to properly mark, Mackie's critique and Craig's reply.

The Kalam goes like this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Mackie objects to both premises, starting with the second.

The second premise is traditionally defended by saying that an infinite spatial or temporal distance cannot be traversed. Craig's version of this argument is found in premise (2.2) If it is posited that the universe has always existed, then it must be that the time the universe has existed is infinite. Since an infinite time cannot be crossed, today cannot be reached. However, today has come to pass, therefore the universe cannot have existed eternally, but must have had a beginning.

Against this Mackie says that the argument assumes a beginning point infinitely far away, and then argues that the distance between it and today cannot be traversed. Mackie contends that this fails to take infinity seriously, for from any point in the past there exists only a finite distance between it and today.

Against Craig's (2.1) argument, Mackie says that it fails to reflect a complete understanding of infinite set theory. The alleged absurdities that Craig draws from the notions inherent in the concept of infinity can be coherently explained by advanced mathematics. Our simplified understanding of "smaller" and "equal to" don't fully take into account the differences in adding and subtracting from sets versus adding and subtracting single members.

Against premise (1), Mackie says that there is no strictly logical a priori reason to assume that an undetermined event is utterly impossible.

Mackie goes on to say that in fact, the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is problematic. If God had a beginning, then we run into the same question of causality. If God always existed, then we run into the same problem of infinite regress. If God doesn't exist in time, then we are left with something extremely mysterious.

Mackie asserts that the best way to go for the theist is to use the empirical evidence available to support the idea that the universe had a beginning. However, this position has a problem too: such a position assumes that God's self-existence and omnipotence are self-explanatory. Why should we prefer the mystery of God's self-existence to the mystery of the universe's self-existence? it begs the question.

Mackie argues that if we prefer to believe that the Big Bang had a cause, then we should begin to doubt that the Big Bang was the beginning. In other words, we should prefer that the Big Bang had a material cause to the silly notion that the Big Bang had an immaterial cause.

In summary, Mackie contends that the notion of Divine Creation is only temporarily satisfying until thoroughly examined, under which circumstances it is best abandoned.

Craig says that against (2.2), Mackie's rebuttal is a straw-man. For Mackie calls it a prejudice against infinity, while (2.2) does not deny the possibility of infinity, only the inability to reach it by successive addition. If infinity may be instantiated, then it cannot be reached by counting one at a time, or by days passing one at a time.

Regarding Mackie's contention about proponents of the Kalam assuming a beginning point of the universe infinitely far away, Craig says that he does not know of any proponents who do this. In fact, it is the proponents of the Kalam that are the ones who take infinity seriously, by arguing that if the universe has always existed it has no beginning point. This notion demonstrates just how difficult it is to even coherently imagine. For, if the universe never had a beginning, how could it have begun? How could we even begin counting the days between today and the "beginning" of the universe? The number of days is "infinite", or absurd to even think about counting, much less traversing!

Craig then offers Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. But in the case of the eternal universe theory, it would be as if Achilles had to cross an infinite series of intervals, from a beginningless and open end. Therefore it is unlike the tradition paradox, because in it Achilles only had to cross a finite distance in an infinite number of intervals.

The fact that the universe has no beginning, according to Mackie, makes the difficulty in rebutting the Kalam worse, not better.

Craig then demonstrates why a collection of the order-type *w is non-constructible, and therefore there is not reason to think it can represent an infinite series of past events.

Craig then turns his attention to Mackie's comment about a given point in the past having only a finite distance between itself and today. He remarks that this is a red herring, being completely irrelevant. For, even granting such point, the proponent of the Kalam requires an answers as to how the entire series may be traversed, not a given finite segment of it!

Then Craig addresses Mackie's contentions about coherent, non-Euclidean set theory. Craig makes the point that even if infinite set theory is mathematically coherent, there is no reason to suppose such infinities can obtain in the real world. If such infinities were instantiated in the real world, they would create logical absurdities like those found in Hilbert's Hotel.

Craig goes on to actually admit that even a proponent of the Kalam may grant the principle of correspondence in lieu of Euclid's theorem, and remind us that it brings no ontological commitment regarding the real world. It isn't as if we have any example of a real infinite collection sitting around somewhere.

Craig then points to all of Mackie's humble admissions that not every professional will grant his views, and that scientific evidence has in fact turned up plenty of support for the idea of a finite past for our universe.

So Craig continues working through Mackie's contentions by looking at Mackie's call for an argument in support of (1), that everything with a beginning has a cause. As Mackie had cited Hume, Craig digs into Hume's writings to pull out full-fledged contentions amounting to the premises of the Kalam! He then repeats his favorite line about how giving an argument for this premise might be unwise, as one ought not try to prove the obvious via the less obvious.

Does the reader of this really actually believe that at any moment an object like a Tiger may simply pop into existence right in front of him, uncaused? Can a whole universe simply pop into existence like that? Can God pop into existence? How does such a believe prove useful or explanatory or even remotely rational?

Craig then ceases to pull philosophical punches, and concisely unveils the view he takes on God and creation. Such view seems to avoid Mackie's critiques about the existence of God raising even more problems.

Craig states his view thusly:

...God without creation exists changelessly and timelessly with an eternal determination for the creation of a temporal world and... with creation God enters into temporal relationships with the universe, time [arises] concommitantly with the first event. This may be mysterious in the sense of being wonderful or awesome, which indeed it is, but it is not so far as I can see unintelligible, as is something's coming into being uncaused out of nothing.

Craig then briefly delves into modern cosmological science, which actually supports the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In order to make his case, it is incumbent upon Mackie to produce an alternate model of the beginning of the universe to the orthodox one. Craig briefly undercuts oscillating models of the universe.

Craig concludes with this, second-to-last paragraph:

What is Mackie's counsel? We should infer that the universe must have had some physical antecedents, even if the big bang has to be taken as a discontinuity so radical that we cannot explain it, because we can find no laws which we can extrapolate backwards through this discontinuity.' Here I think we see more clearly than ever the quasi-religious character of Mackie's atheism. Either we believe that the universe came to exist uncaused out of nothing or else no matter what the empirical evidence for an absolute beginning, no matter how deep a caesura we have to carve in nature, we should infer that the universe must be eternal. The existence of a creator God is not even an alternative. The theist can hardly be blamed for not impaling himself on the horns of this dilemma. On the contrary, in light of the foregoing discussion, of the three options, theism seems the most plausible route to take.

a Lockean argument for the redistribution of wealth.

According to Locke, value is created by an agent when he engages upon labor; the sweat of his brow, so to speak, when combined with his intention, spawns ownership and merit. Furthermore, from God’s eye view of the universe, the merit ascribed to agent engaged in intentional labor is proportional to how much intention and labor the agent causes. Thus, the more intense the labor for the body and the soul the more merit is bestowed (from God’s point of view) and the more merit ought to be bestowed (from our point of view); hence it’s a natural right of all men to be both able to work and to be compensated for it.

Enter Economy.

Everything previously mentioned should be qualified to some extent. The type of labor proceeding from a given agent is relevant too. An agent who digs a ditch for no particular reason and to no particular benefit of his peers is instancing both intention (I suppose) as well as hard work; but we naturally would deem his efforts as misguided and idle (and God would, I think, agree with us). Hence his efforts should not be rewarded by himself (in the form of satisfaction) nor by us; there are greater goods that can be had with the same effort.

In this country this schema is fundamental; so fundamental, I might add, it goes without saying. We reward Bill Gates because his labor, so we have perceived anyway, benefited us. If you ever scoff at how much money he has you can thank only yourself. Bill Gates is Rich because we made him that way.

So here’s my somewhat Lockean argument for the need of some type of the redistribution of wealth. Bill Gates, despite his effort and genius, could not have benefited us in the way we think he has without the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people who produced the things he developed. If everyone who makes that production possible stopped doing what they have in fact done, then we wouldn’t have computers and Bill Gates wouldn’t be a multi-billionaire. Since everyone who labored to bring us computers are essential to bringing us computers, then those people ought to be rewarded appropriately, and that would mean the a huge hunk of what Microsoft owners enjoy is not theirs to enjoy. There should be corporate salary caps, and at least 70% of a given companies' profit should be sent back to the production line.