Monism and Dualism, Metaphysics and Ethics

Contrary to persistent misperceptions: 

Metaphysical dualism implies Ethical monism. 

Metaphysical monism implies Ethical dualism. 

A Theology of Jesus and Aliens

I recently got into a discussion with someone about the growing evidence that our planet has been visited by Extraterrestrial Beings for some time now. My friend speculated that perhaps God and Jesus and Muhammad and Buddha could have been aliens. He ended his statement with "one thing is certain, Earth isn't special enough to be the only planet that has life. Not even close."

I have written bits and pieces about this in other places, speculating about how aliens could be tied into Christian Theology and World Religions (if aliens exist at all). I have speculated about how alien life could tie into an overall framework to understand why God made the world, as well as how alien life might be part of the evidence for God's existence. But I have never written a full description of why I think aliens probably exist, and how we might understand their possible visitation to our planet. That is what I would like to do here.

Chasing Falsifiability down the Rabbit Hole to Transcendence

In my Philosophy of Religion class the other day, a student brought up Karl Popper’s principle of “falsifiability” as a criteria for whether a knowledge claim is valid. The way that my student put it: A claim that is empirically sensible is thus falsifiable (it can be refuted by empirical observation), and thus counts as real knowledge. But knowledge claims that are not empirically falsifiable— such as claims about God, ethical value, aesthetic value— do not count as the same kind of knowledge. Perhaps they are a lesser, derivative kind of knowledge. But they are not the kind of absolutely true knowledge one would want to build their world view upon, because they cannot be empirically falsified. And thus, while God, might be an optional or extra belief added onto a scientific worldview, God could never be essential to a worldview, or even a necessary explanatory hypothesis for the nature of Reality, because the idea of God cannot be falsified scientifically.

Neuroscience, Philosophy, God and Jackson Pollock

A Pollock painting or random paint splatters? You decide.

A friend of mine who is a librarian recently sent me a link to an interesting video by a neuroscientist and neurosurgeon named Robert Sapolsky (who also happens to have an awesome beard!). In this video Sapolsky brings together key findings on brain structure and function to "explain the Biological Basis of Religiosity, and What It Shares in Common with OCD, Schizophrenia & Epilepsy".

Although Sapolsky was raised as an Orthodox Jew, he has since left his childhood faith and describes himself as an atheist. However, he says, "I’m not saying ‘you gotta be crazy to be religious. That would be nonsense. Nor am I saying, even, that most people who are, are psychiatrically suspect." Sapolsky is fascinated by the underlying biology of these traits common to to both certain kinds of abnormal psychology and extreme religious experience. And he confesses that his atheism seems to be something he "appears to be unable to change".

Metaphysics and Moral Value

Thus spake Nietzsche: Courageous enough to admit what morality without metaphysics entails.

One of the fundamental claims of most forms of religion is that Metaphysics-- the Ultimate Reality that grounds and upholds physical reality-- is somehow necessary for moral values to really exist. The claim is often made that without Metaphysics, moral statements become mere statements of personal preference. This is a hard claim for many to understand, so I wrote this to help.

Divine Infinity and Human Epektasis

Jacob's Ladder: A common symbol for the ascent into God's Infinity (epektasis)

If God is infinite, how can we relate to such a God? How does the infinity of God relate to our ultimate growth and development as sentient beings "made in God's image"? Does the infinity of God, the boundless depths of Divine Love, open for us any surprising developments for our own spiritual progress? If God is in some sense a field of infinite potential that invites us ever-deeper, what implication does this have for spiritual projects that stress the "unchanging" nature of God and spiritual truth? Can one hold any "unchanging" ideas about God and still embrace a universe that is characterized by change and flow and evolution?

All of these questions have been swirling around my head for a couple of years now. And I want try and connect the Triune God, Divine Infinity, Change and Development, Cosmic Evolution, and Epektasis (the continual pursuit of God by the human soul). The following essay will seek to elucidate a systemic connection between these ideas based upon material in Scripture and Christian Theology, while touching upon certain themes in philosophy, biology, and physics. And we shall start by postulating that the God revealed in Jesus Christ is Infinite:

Ethics precedes Metaphysics and constitutes Epistemology

The following mediation uses quite a bit of philosophical jargon. It is based on two propositions I have been playing with for a while in my mind, which seek to provide a relation between three major area of philosophy: Ethics (how we act), Metaphysics (what we know about Ultimate Reality), and Epistemology (how we know). I'm not entirely sure what I think about these propositions, or how they relate to my theology as a whole. And the only way to figure it out is to write it out. So, here is attempt #1.

Proposition 1: Ethics precedes Metaphysics and constitutes Epistemology.

Proposition 2: We choose therefore we are, and our choices shape how and what we can know.

The Perfectly Imperfect Journey

"Although Christ was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God as something to be held onto, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant..." [Philippians 2:6-7]

The perfect journey. The perfect meal. The perfect destination. We throw the word "perfect" around a great deal to signify our search for something or someone that is without flaw, without taint, without regret. At the very heart of human existence is a yearning for a transcendent experience or relationship that will somehow complete us and leave us without yearning or need. One of the reasons why we journey, in fact, is to seek such an experience. We want to leave the mundane, imperfect world we inhabit and find somewhere that is, well, perfect.

But what we often find is that our journeys are not perfect.

Is there any better symbol for God than the Trinity?

What is the best, most complete possible way to speak of the nature of God? In the Christian Tradition, the answer is clear: The Holy Trinity. And for the sake of argument, let us posit that the idea of the Trinity is the most complete expression of the data about God that has been revealed in Christ, through Scripture, within the Christian Tradition.

Even if it is the most complete expression of God available on the basis of the data of revelation, does this mean that there could not possibly be a better model, or symbol, of God's nature, if we were only able to increase our intellectual ability, or develop new categories of linguistic expression?

Is Data Real?

After tutoring one of our Residential Life students in philosophy today, I was pondering yet again how to explain the reality of the non-empirical world.

And I thought that the ontological status of whether data is something "real" might be a way to get the point across. Specifically, what is the ontological status of data stored in digital form?

And while I am sure someone has written about this somewhere. This is a new analogy for me.

It seems that the ontological status of digital data may be a concrete way of expressing the ontological status of any type of symbolic information. And the ontological status of symbolic information is a sub-type of the ontological status of all non-empirical realities (maths, logic, signification, etc.)

So, back to digital data: Is it real?

Images of Eternity: Paths to the Transcendent (A Book Review)

Keith Ward's book "Concepts of God", which is also titled "Images of Eternity" when first published in the U.K., is a distillation of some of the key discussions in Ward's much larger four volume magnum opus on Comparative Theology (i.e. the academic discipline of comparing models of God across religions and across linguistic/cultural divides). This book takes a representative thinker/theologian/philosopher from each of the major world religions (Jnana and Bhakti Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity), who is considered "orthodox" within that religious tradition, and compares them with each other on key structural claims about the nature of "Ultimate Reality" or "God", which Ward tends to refer to as "The Transcendent".

Friend or Frenemy? A Review of Peter Rollins' "Insurrection"

This is an off-the-top-of-my-head review of Peter Rollins newest book "Insurrection", which I read this weekend. The book was incredibly good, in that I deeply enjoyed reading it, and it gave me a great deal to ponder and wrestle with. At the end of the day, I value Rollins' ideas about how to existentially live out our faith in Christ on a daily basis. However, I have serious concerns over Rollins' re-visioning and re-definition of key elements of the Christian tradition. As such, Rollins is a sort of "frenemy" who, on one hand is a very helpful friend in elucidating certain aspects of what it means to follow Jesus in our culture. On the other hand, he is an enemy of certain historic Christian affirmations about God and Christ.

As a "frenemy" of Christ, Rollins maintains a place for God, at the cost of flattening God into just a Name for the structure of human psychological experience. As such, his thought is helpful as a bridge to Christ, in the same way that pantheism, panentheism, psychoanalysis and even Marxism can be bridges to Christ, all of which offer various points of commonality and intersection with Christ while also displaying broad areas of discordance. Here are some of the theological moves that Rollins makes in the book:

Ockham Rap

This has to be one of the Geekiest things I have ever written. I am co-teaching a class called "The God Debate" about religious belief and unbelief. Several of the thinkers we have examined on both sides of the debate have referred to William of Ockham and his [in]famous "razor". For those who do not know, Ockham was a 14th century Franciscan Friar, a professor at the University of Oxford, one of the founders of the scientific method, and also excommunicated by the Pope for reasons that are partially philosophical and mostly political. 

A great summary of Ockham’s contributions to western thought is summed up by Roger Olson in “The Journey of Modern Theology”: Among other controversial ideas, Ockham expressed what came later to be known as Ockham’s razor—that simple principle that when one cause sufficiently explains a phenomenon, more should not be posited. At the time, and long before and afterwards, people tended to appeal to two causes for most events—a natural one and a supernatural one. For example, if a person became ill, it could be both because of an imbalance in the body’s humors and a demon. Also, celestial bodies such as planets were widely believed to be moved both by natural forces among them (such as some kind of magnetic field) and by angels. Ockham, much to the dismay of the church’s magisterium, suggested that the simplest explanation was always the wisest and only one. Many scholars see in Ockham and his razor the subtle beginning of a cultural earthquake whose shocks were to be felt much later in the scientific revolution.

Anyway, I thought, "Hey, I should write a rap song to explain Ockham." So, I did. What makes this even stranger is that I am more of a mystical Thomist with a serious affection for postmodern deconstruction. So, it is odd that after an hour and a half of doodling, this came out:

The Moral Argument Against Religion

I am currently reading and teaching from the infamous books by Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great". In pondering Hitchens' arguments against God, I find myself continually underwhelmed (although very entertained). I do not find him persuasive, but rather rhetorically brilliant.

I think that the god Hitchens is arguing against is a god which I would argue against: A kind of "dictator in the sky" who cannot wait to damn the maximum number of people possible. The god he lambasts seems to be an evil elementary school principal writ large, and as such is the common concept of god among grade schoolers and teenagers. And since this is the age when a great many people stop going to Sunday School or challenging their ideas of god, it is also the god of a great many Americans.

JESUS AND GTD

JESUS AND GTD

A Sermon for Passion Sunday, Year C

I. INTRODUCTION: Today is the day when we come face to face with one of our curious and horrendous human tendencies: Our ability to completely turn our back on those who care for us the most when they don't meet our expectations. Did you notice what happened in the readings today? In the span of one week the crowd in Jerusalem went from welcoming Jesus as a King to spitting on Him as a criminal. The whole crowd. In one week the disciples went from being willing to die for Jesus to being unwilling to admit they even knew Him.

I want you to notice that [PAUSE].

They expected Jesus to be one thing, and He turned out to be another. They expected Jesus to be the Warrior Messiah who was going to destroy the Roman Army, kill all the infidels, and set up God's Kingdom on Earth, where all nations would grovel before the Jews and pay tribute money. What they got was a Jesus who came to usher in a Kingdom of Love, where ALL people- Jew AND Gentile- would Love God above all and Love each other as themselves.

The crowd expected power, and they got peace. They expected victory, and they got humility. The expected hate, and they got Love [PAUSE]. So, they turned on him and got rid of him.

And, like pretty much every story in the Bible, the important thing is not just that it happened then. But it happens now too. Because that crowd was not just them, then. It is us now. The only major difference in how we turn our backs on Jesus is that while their rejection was hot-blooded and violent, our rejection is often cold and bland. We simply don't care: about Jesus then, or about God now. We have better things to do. And we only think about God when it suits us… When we NEED something!

A Letter to some "Biblical Unitarians"

Sent to the fine folks at: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/ and http://www.truthortradition.com/

Aha! Some post-modern day Arians! You are aware that your position has been rendered non-credible officially since the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and again at Constantinople in 381 AD (even though the church and empire was overwhelmingly Arian, I mean... "Christian Unitarian"... during the intervening 50 years)? You simply must read not only your Bible again (in original languages, please), but also your church fathers: Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, etc. They are all far more scriptural (not to mention artful) than anything found on your website. Or you can simply read any one of several hundred catholic, reformation, or modern systematic theologians. They all present an infinitely more coherent interpretation of Scripture than your private interpretations.

But, if you persist in being Unitarian, may I suggest the following:

Really? I hate that "god" too!

Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens--what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave--what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. (Job 11:7-9)

But Moses protested, "If I go to the people of Israel and tell them, 'The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,' they won't believe me. They will ask, 'Which god are you talking about? What is his name?' Then what should I tell them?" God replied, "I AM WHO I AM". Just tell them, 'I AM has sent me to you.' ...This will be my name forever; it has always been my name, and it will be used throughout all generations." (Exodus 3:13-15)

Will the real God please stand up?

When I talk to people who say they do not believe in God, or that they hate Him, one of the first questions I ask them is "What kind of God do you not believe in"? This may sound like an odd question, because it is clear what we mean when we say "God", right? Wrong. There are lots of misconceptions out there about who and what God is. Some of these misconceptions have, sadly, even been taught to people in Church. It is no wonder they have turned from "god", because their "god" is not really "god" at all, but a very poorly drawn caricature of the God who reveals Himself in the Bible. It often turns out that I do not believe in their "god" either. In fact, I often hate the god they hate too, because their god is a false, harmful lie that drives people from the real God.

So what are some of the misconceptions? I will mention a few: