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.)

The Panentheism of Creation in Christ

Recently a friend online asked me a great question: "Can you tell me why you think (if you do) the creature / Creator distinction is essential to affirm?"

As in many things, the fact of the Incarnation and the paradoxical spirituality that flows from Christ makes it difficult to affirm or deny there is an absolute distinction between Creator and creation. Christianity is full of paradoxes in which two sides must be held in tension for Truth to be encountered: Christ is human AND divine; God is one AND many; Divine Providence AND Free Will; Grace AND Works; etc. One of these paradoxes is that Creation is in God, AND also distinct from God. Here’s the two poles I try to steer between:

Wisdom after Bulgakov: A Trinitarian Sophiology

I recently had an extended discussion with a couple of friends about the nature of Divine Wisdom, which is called Sophia (in Greek) and Hokhmah (in Hebrew). We find this Divine Wisdom as a feminine co-creator with God in Proverbs 8, and as the Creative Spirit sent by God to create and sustain the world in Wisdom 7. Indeed, Wisdom is strongly correlated as the character trait that is associated with God's Spirit and those indwelt by God's Spirit (cf. Deut. 34.9; Is. 11.2; Dan. 5.11, 14; Wis. 1.6; 7.7, 22; 9.17; Sir. 39.6; Acts 6.3, 10; 1 Cor. 2.4, 13; 12.8; Eph. 1.17). Anytime any person or chain of events is guided by God's will toward God's ends, this is the gift of Wisdom at work gently but persistently influencing things in a Godward direction. Thus, it is God's Spirit who is ultimately active to shape and mold and guide creation to fulfillment in its Creator, as the Spirit strives and suffers with us to bring about the new birth of Creation (cf. Romans 8).

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 Metaphysics of Materialism

Materialist determinism is a perpetually popular view in the modern world. It is the metaphysical viewpoint which denies metaphysics by positing that: 1. Reality is made of matter and only matter. The only reality is matter and the physical forces which operate within material interaction. This raises the thorny question of what exactly matter is. But let’s bracket this and assume there is something called “matter”, and it is the only constituent of reality (as opposed to “spirit” or “mind” or “consciousness”). 2. The events in reality are causally determined by material laws and forces, such that even the workings of mind and consciousness are determined by the physical states which preceded them. There is no free will or choice. All are illusory experiences formed in brains after events have happened. All phenomena can be fully explained in a mechanistic way through the matter and forces at work in an event, without any reference to choices or intentions or motives or thoughts.

However, as elegant as materialist determinism seems to be, it has some rather impractical and non-elegant implications. 

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:

Theological Topology: Placing the Trinity in Reality

At first glance, topology and theology have nothing to do with each other. Theology, on one hand, is "the rational discussion of God" (from the Greek words "theos" meaning God, and "logia" meaning study of, or reasoned discourse about). Topology, on the other hand, is the study of geometric properties and spatial relations between various kinds of objects in space, and the way in which constituent parts are interrelated or arranged. So, theology seems to deal with an Ultimate Reality beyond our world, while topology deals with spatial relations within our world. Nothing could be more different. It is like comparing apples to oranges, or Infinite Being to mere beings.

When Words Fail

How both Theistic and Nontheistic language fails to describe Ultimate Reality

In the constant back and forth between Theists and Nontheists, one of the frequent criticisms hurled from both sides regards the problem of language. Both sides claim that that other side slides into nonsensical or tautological language that fails to say anything about Reality. At some point, each side gets to ideas that are so foundational, so axiological, to their interpretive framework, that all they can say is "it is what it is".

What is interesting to me is that this point of linguistic "no return" is precisely at the same point and regarding the same issues. This break in meaningful, non-tautological language happens precisely at the ultimate origin, the ultimate value, and the ultimate destiny of all things. At these three points both the Theist and the Nontheist are effectively reduced to silence. This is when our words fail: When we lack the ability and even the concepts necessary to describe the ultimate nature of the Reality we find ourselves in.

Mundane Mysticism

Why do we look for a Divine Realm 
Of depth and richness 
Beyond the elaborately embroidered world 
We live and move and exist within? 
Why do we long for a heaven 
Outside of earth? 

The Persistence of the Fact/Value Distinction

I have encountered several attempts to derive moral values from empirical observation, from "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" by angry atheist Sam Harris, to the Lobster hierarchies of neoconservative hero Jordan Peterson. Most of these attempts revolve around the mundane rhetorical strategy of "we observed these behaviors consistently in nature, which means they must be ethically normative for humans". Which of course is the very definition of the naturalistic fallacy in logic. Furthermore, most of the attempts to collapse the fact/value distinction depend on a metaphysics of eliminative materialism, while sneaking in a transcendent value for “life” or “actualization” without acknowledging it. 

For instance, the argument is often made that “ought” is simply a function of “could”, and “could” is simply a function of “is”. The way things are implies certain possibilities about how they could be, when extended through a causal chain of events. “Ought” simply takes one or more of these potential states and designates it as preferable to other potential states. Generally, the preferable states are those that maximize life and health and creative capacity. Why are these states preferable? Because in evolutionary biology we see that creatures seek to maximize survival through adaptation, therefore the universal drive to maximize life is something like an empirical fact. Thus the “ought” of maximizing life is dissolved into the “is” of evolutionary observation. 

But notice the transcendent value that has been assumed and snuck in: That life ought to be preserved and maximized. Why? 

Five Persistent Illusions: Ownership, Separation, Time, Death, and Self

Four seductive myths beguile us, and five persistent illusions blind us to the Reality of Love that we live and move and exist within: Ownership, Separation, Time, Death, and Self. 

On Chins and Spandrels, God and Gaps

The other day I had a conversation with a student and a biology teacher about whether human chins have a purpose. Yes, chins. As in the outcropping of bone beneath your lower lip. That kind of chin. 

Apparently, humans are the only animals to have a chin, according to this article which was sent to me by the teacher. In this article, it compares the evolution of chins to Spandrels in classical architecture. And since I totally tend to geek out on stuff that interests me, this sent me down a couple-hour-long rabbit hole reading where the idea of Spandrels came from and how they are applied to evolutionary biology, as well as some of the pushback against Spandrels as an analogy to evolution. 

Models of Metaphysical Cosmology

In my philosophy class my students are trying to wrap their minds around what is different about how Plato and Aristotle viewed Reality, and how this relates to other thinkers and models of Reality. Basically, Plato is seen as the prototypical rationalist, viewing Reality from the "top down", while Aristotle is seen as a proto-empiricist, viewing Reality from the "bottom up". If this is already confusing, Crash Course has a nice summary HERE.

Anyway, there are many terms that could be used for comparing different views of how to understand the essence of Reality. In one way, we are discussing Metaphysics, because it is a discussion of how the realm of physical reality might relate to "higher" or more fundamental levels of reality (if there are such levels). In another way, we are discussing Ontology, because we are trying to understand what the natures of things are, and what are the essential aspects that make a thing what it is. In a final sense, we are discussing Cosmology, because we are seeking to understand the nature of the Universe (the Cosmos) in relation to various ways of understanding Ultimate Reality. 

So, I have chosen to call it "Models of Metaphysical Cosmology". I know people may disagree, but it's what I will go with right now. My summary chart for teaching can be seen by clicking the JPEG at the top of this post, or by clicking on THIS PDF.

And, if you are up for more charts, you can see my whole collection of charts for teaching Religion, Scripture, Theology, and Philosophy HERE. 

Credo: The Story that Reads Us [A Mini-Systemic Theology]

This was originally written in 2006 in partial fulfillment of requirements for Systematic Theology at Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University. It is fairly representative of my current thought, although in several ways I have built on, or superseded, what is written here. This is especially true in matters dealing with Science, World Religions, and Socio-Economic Justice.

This is the FULL 18,000 word original version that was trimmed to around 10,000 words to be turned in. Note that all endnotes have been removed from this version, due to the limitations of the blog format. However, all sources cited and consulted are found at the end of the essay.

A Prayer: Lord Jesus Christ, send forth your Spirit that I may say what needs to be said, in space allowed, and bear witness fully to your Father's Glory and His Story which writes us all. Amen+

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.

On Noah’s Flood and the Nephilim

I often have friends and congregants who decide to read the Bible from front to back. But getting past the first few chapters is a formidable challenge, because the literature is so very different from what we expect from the Bible. We expect a Law Book or a History Book or objective reporting like a Newspaper. But what we get is something that is neither history nor fiction nor poetry nor prose. It is not until we reach the story of Abram and Sarai in chapter 12 that the story becomes predictably “human”. Until then it is a bit… weird.

If modern readers can get past the conflict between the two Creation narratives in chapters 1-2 (and their conflict with the narrative of evolution), and then make it past the talking snake in chapter 3, the next big shock to the system happens in chapter 6:

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.

The Crisis Point of Human Evolution

This will probably wind up being one of my more hokey blog posts, and it will probably bear the stamp of staying up too late at night watching videos about aliens on youtube (oh the things we do when insomnia strikes!). But, then again, perhaps this needs to be said. And on the off chance it might need to be said, I guess I will say it.

On the Ecology of Progress

Most people are not aware of how delicate of an ecology is involved in the formation of the psychology of progress and discovery. We tend to think that our progress in science and technology is something that comes natural to us, an ineradicable drive that most humans possess. They forget that radical change is an anomaly only a couple of centuries old, and that it is a crescendo of moral and metaphysical assumptions that took thousands of years to put in place.

Eucharist, Epiphany, and Richard Feynman

Today I celebrated Eucharist for Epiphany at TMI - The Episcopal School of Texas. Since our chapel service on Monday was our actual reading of the Epiphany narrative, I chose to talk about the Epiphany that happens within Eucharist, where the Risen Jesus is "known to us in the breaking of the bread". Of course, I used the Gospel text of Luke 24, where Jesus talks with the disciples on the road to Emmaus, but they do not recognize him as Jesus until he breaks bread.

And then suddenly the Epiphany dawns on them: It is the Risen Lord!

And as I was thinking about how the deep mysteries of the Universe can be revealed to us in something as simple as a meal that remembers a man, I remembered a toast given by Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman. He spoke of seeing the interconnections of all things in a glass of wine: