Wittgenstein and Hope beyond hope

Recently a friend of mine posted a neat quote by Wittgenstein:

One can imagine an animal angry, fearful, sad, joyful, startled. But hopeful? And why not? A dog believes his master is at the door. But can he also believe that his master will come the day after tomorrow? —And what can he not do here? —How do I do it? — What answer am I supposed to give to this?Can only those hope who can talk? Only those who have mastered the use of language? That is to say, the manifestations of hope are modifications of this complicated form of life. (Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Philosophy of Psychology — a Fragment,” i.)

All is Center: CS Lewis’ vision of the Great Dance

Frequently I have discussions with people who want to de-center humanity from the most important place in the universe, in order to help us realize that we are part of a greater whole as people who live interdependently with the rest of creation. This attempt is noble, because many have misused Scriptures such as Genesis 1 where it tells the first humans they are “made in God’s image” to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and rule it” along with the creatures who dwell on Earth. A dominionist reading of this can lead to a theological form of “manifest destiny” which makes humans entitled to pillage and pollute creation in order to gratify selfish desires for consumption and domination. 

The Complexity of Love's Simplicity

After posting my last essay, Fr. Kimel has noted that David Bentley Hart affirms Divine Simplicity in many places and "divine simplicity is an expression of negative theology. It doesn't say anything positive about God; it simply denies that he is composed of parts." And this is absolutely true about Hart, and his recent book "You are Gods" has several mentions of the implications of Divine Simplicity. But the important distinction I would like to make is that in the West, Divine Simplicity is frequently tied to knowledge of evil which determines created beings to be evil. This makes God the cause of evil, because nothing could be otherwise than God has known it and made it to be. 

Hart's concept of Simplicity states almost the exact opposite conclusion: God's Simplicity implies that God will inexorably work good for all beings, even after their choices have led them into bondage to evil. Yet, for Aquinas (and those who follow him) the simplicity and unity of God leads to the inexorable conclusion that God will damn some or most eternally, for God's own glory. So, while I can agree that the concepts of Divine Simplicity as put forward by Aquinas and Hart are similar insofar as they are an apophatic statement of what "God is not" in Godself, they are perfectly opposite as regards what this entails for God as God relates to a created world. At least this is what it seems to me, and it seems that with such a wide difference of effect, therefore one cannot say they are the same concept of Divine Simplicity.

So the major difference I am getting at is that Divine Simplicity is pernicious if it is used as a rationale for why God would will and cause evil in the world, including damning many or most humans eternally. 

Divine Simplicity is simply too simple

Recently the amazing Fr. Aidan Kimel has written an article on how the "free will theodicy" is incompatible with Thomas Aquinas' concept of Divine Omniscience. This "free will" argument is that evil and suffering and death are the consequence of creatures freely choosing to deny and destroy themselves and others, and not because God has directly willed evil to happen. Yet, Aquinas' account of Divine Knowledge would deny this, and posit God as the active cause for all choices and events.

On Miracles that seem “trivial”

Every now and then we come across stories of religiously significant events that do not seem to be adequately explained by natural laws, but which seem to be trivial or silly or even harmful to the non-initiated. In Christianity, these often happen around supposed “Eucharistic Miracles” such as where the consecrated host appears to bleed, or stigmata appear on the hands of the priest, or when communion bread or wine is suddenly multiplied. I have also seen stories on icons that weep sweet smelling oil, or bodies of saints that appear to never decompose. But events like this also happen in other religions, such as in the late 90’s when Hindu statues miraculously leaked milk. 

Why you matter

Life can be difficult, and we all have days when we wonder who we are, why we are here, and if any of this matters. And when I have days like this, here is something that reminds me why I matter. Perhaps this insight might help you on days like this, and help remind you why you matter. And it starts with God:

Where Freedom and Determinism Meet

It was God who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water; stretch out your hand for whichever you choose. Before each person are life and death, and whichever one chooses will be given. (Sirach 15.14-17)

So every now and then I see some supposed scientific reason why free will does not exist. This week it is quantum mechanics that supposedly rules out free will (although I’ve more frequently seen quantum mechanics cited as a reason why freedom is an irreducible aspect of the universe). However, let’s say for argument’s sake that there is a way of conceiving the universe as a completely closed system such that, if we know all inputs, we can accurately predict all outputs. In principle, this means all things are determined and there is no free will (no freedom at all in a strong sense). So what are we to make out of these mutually incompatible conclusions that quantum physics can be enlisted to support EITHER determinacy OR indeterminacy?

De Chardin on the necessity of evil in a finite creation

For three decades I have actively pondered and written on the problem of evil and sin. We could sum it up this way: If God is so good, how come life is often so bad? This problem has no one single answer, and is addressed in several overlapping perspectives. But today I was again reading some of the writings of the scientist-theologian Teilhard De Chardin, and he helped me describe yet another perspective that has been bubbling up inside my prayer and meditation for a decade or more. Over 100 years ago, he wrote this:

“We often represent God to ourselves as being able to draw from non-being a world without sorrows, faults, dangers--a world in which there is no damage, no breakage. This is a conceptual fantasy, and makes it impossible to solve the problem of evil. No, we have to accept that in spite of his power God cannot obtain a creature united to himself without necessarily engaging in a struggle with some evil.” (Teilhard De Chardin, Christianity and Evolution: Reflections on Science and Religion, location 360)

In this, and the rest of the essay after this, I hear him saying the following:

A Prayer for Uncertainty

A poem and a prayer for those facing an uncertain future and trying to find the way forward. Let us pray:

Did Christ have to die on the Cross?

On Holy Saturday I often do a lot of thinking about the meaning of the Cross and Death of Christ. I've written before about how I explain the meaning of Christ's death, and the role it plays in bringing atonement, or "at-one-ment", with God through Christ. But here I would like to ponder the meaning of Christ's death in light of the questions: Did Christ have to die? If so, did that death have to happen by crucifixion? In what sense did God "will" for Christ to die, or even "cause" Christ's death?

Bart Ehrman, Theodicy, and Leaving Evangelicalism

Recently I posted a chart about various models of dealing with "Theodicy" (the problem of how evil and God can co-exist in the same reality). Someone asked me if I had read the 2009 book by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman on Theodicy entitled "God's Problem". Now I have read a couple of Ehrman books on Biblical studies, and heave seen several of his debates, lectures, and interviews (including him talking about his deconversion and the problem of suffering). But I have never read this book, although I have heard him sum it up several times in his videos on YouTube.

Ehrman's book and his talks strike me as having very similar themes to other books I have read, particularly by Evangelicals who have lost their faith. As a former Evangelical, I have experienced much of what Ehrman (and others like him) have experienced, except that it turned me to a broader and deeper faith in Christ rather than abandoning Christ. While I disagree with Ehrman on several core ideas, from the Divinity of Christ to the basic reliability of Scripture, I do find him to be a rational, honest, and well-intentioned thinker who is pursuing the truth as best he can. Erman’s story, as I understand it, points out several gaping holes (or persistent heresies) in American Evangelicalism:

Why God feels sorrow and joy

Is God able to truly feel sorrow over our failures? Does God truly rejoice with our successes? Today in Church our lectionary included the text from 1Samuel 15 that "The  Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel". This is a wonderful text which leads into several interesting theological places I have wanted to write about for some time. To get to those places, let's start Biblically. 

On Physics, Possibility, and Resurrection

Recently I was in a discussion about the Resurrection of Christ in which someone posted that "classical theism allows for the possibility of such contravention of the ordinary laws of physics". This raises the most commonly voiced objection I hear to the Resurrection, which was popularized by philosopher David Hume: The resurrection cannot occur because it is a miracle, and miracles are violations of natural laws, and since natural laws are universal, then we know a priori that miracles cannot violate them. For Hume, physical laws govern causality and what can, and cannot, happen to matter and energy within spacetime. This is further complicated by Hume's insistence that we can never "prove" causality, we can only note a correlation between two events. So for Hume, physical laws govern causality, while at the same time causality is a mental inference and not objectively part of the universe.

What good does it do to #prayforparis?

Tonight, as the media was broadcasting the terrible news of today's terror attacks in Paris, one of my students emailed me this question:

"As I come back home from a long day...  [I am] watching the news about the shootings and bombings in Paris. NPR, the TV, and all my social media are swarming with the news. Everywhere I am seeing #PrayforParis, and it makes me wonder, does it really matter if we pray for these things? Prayer alone will not mobilize action, and although it is a nice gesture, what is the purpose? Is this because it is more convenient or commonplace  for us to pray about something than to go and send money, or take reactive measures? Surely many more people will know about this news than the amount of people that will do something to actually help the situation."

And so I replied, summarizing some points I made in some previous essays on prayer here and here:

The Most Common Objection to Prayer

There are several objections to prayer. I read them all the time on blogs, websites, and comments sections. I hear them from students and parishioners. Many people experience a profound discomfort with what prayer DOES, even if they pray all the time.

Miracles and Minds, Science Fiction and Scientific Probability

Dr. Manhattan ponders the possibility of miracles by reading this absurdly long essay.

For years I have wanted to deal with one of the greatest philosophical and pragmatic objections to the idea of "revealed" religion. This objection is second only, in my opinion, to the question of "theodicy": How can a supposedly loving and powerful Creator allow his creation to suffer and die in such excruciating and wasteful ways? I will briefly return to this "greatest of all" objections at the end of the essay.

This "second greatest" objection makes "revealed religion" of any type-- whether Christian or non-Christian-- appear foolish, hokey, folksy, credulous, silly, superstitious, and fundamentally ignorant of the way the world works. This, of course, is the objection against miracles. Because if miracles are impossible, and therefore false, it renders any kind of Divine intervention or communication impossible and false. And if there is no Divine communication, then all religions that claim to be based on it are fundamentally flawed.

I would like to deal with this objection from my unique threefold perspective: First of all, as someone who has grown up in the fastest era of technological change known to humanity. Second of all, as someone whose favorite genre of literature is science fiction. And thirdly, as a committed if somewhat progressive follower of the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. I think these perspectives can help us understand the issue in a way that avoids the pitfalls of merely rejecting miracles on one hand, and accepting illogical and impossible claims of the miraculous on the other.

God of the Gaps or God as Singularity?

Many skeptics (and thoughtful Christians) find problems with the model of God as a "God of the Gaps". By this, they mean a God who periodically invades history to keep the universe running when the complexity of the physics gets beyond our current ability to model. I agree that "God of the gaps" is a bad idea, both because of what it does to our image of God and what it does to human learning. However, I would also caution against understanding the universe as such a closed-system that it rules out interactions with other dimensions in an "a priori" manner irrespective of the evidence.

What does prayer do?

This is a theological meditation on something that I have been pondering for a while now: How can we conceive of prayer working if we operate within a contemporary scientific understanding of physics? Can a physicist- or anyone else- really pray and mean it? Or is prayer simply a form of talking to ourselves at a deep level?

On Miracles, Hubris, and Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law

Today in chapel I preached on resurrection. And in speaking of the miracle of the resurrection, I invoked Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law of Technology to talk about the events which we describe as miracles. Clarke's Law states:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (or miracle)."

I went on to talk about how the miracle of the resurrection perfects nature, not by working against nature, but by working through the "laws" of physics. I used the analogy of all the technology we use today, that works WITH the "laws" of nature, which would seem like magic or miracle to earlier humans. I continued by saying:

Stop the Storm or Ride the Rapids?

A Sermon by Nathan L. Bostian
For Year B, Proper 7, based on Mark 4:35-41

When I read stories like today's Gospel reading- stories where Jesus does something awesome that literally moves heaven and earth- I often find myself asking a question that goes something like this:

"Jesus, why don't you calm MY storms like that?"

Have you ever found yourself wondering the same thing? Have you ever found yourself drowning in trouble, knocked back and forth by waves of anger and sorrow and frustration and fear, wondering "Where is God in this?".