One of the most difficult things to comprehend as a Christian is the simple fact that when you seem to do everything by the book, follow every principle or guideline that exists, and attempt to obey all of the rules, you still find yourself sick, unfulfilled, and still somehow missing the mark (Note: A surprisingly short self-checkup is needed to notice this if you are currently unaware of it's deep manifestation). After scanning through every list, principle, or rule possible, you realize that all of that is not only not enough, but it isn't even the point at all. You can't possibly measure up to those things and even if you could you wouldn't be following them with the right motives to drive the action. And that's when the world as you so surely thought you had "figured out" may come crashing down. It is then that you realize the only reason that you are a Christian is because He first called you child, because He suffered for you, and because He is fighting for you. And that's precisely when Christianity begins to make sense. It begins at the cross, it suffers with the cross, and it lives in light of the cross. He promised that He would send us His Spirit. He did. He promised us a life of abundance. It is here, and it can be experienced now. All that is required of us is a redeemed and willing ear that is ready to listen to the whispering call of the Father. This life was never meant to be lived out by playing off the instructions of an owner's manual. What's abundant about a to-do and not-to-do list? This life is meant to be lived out by conversing with the Maker of the game.
-burton 261E
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Descartes' Ontological Argument.
Descartes’ Ontological Argument
by: Nick Davis
In Nolan’s article on “Descartes’ Ontological Argument,” the author provides an excellent breakdown of Descartes’ so-called proof for the existence of God. He diagnoses Descartes’ argument by breaking it down into three separate parts; the first part being the simplicity of Descartes’ argument, the second the distinction between essence and existence, and the third providing various objections and replies between skeptics and Descartes himself. This paper seeks to illustrate a fair account of Nolan’s deduction of Descartes argument as well as establish its own grounds for the validity of Descartes’ ontological argument.
First, let us begin this deduction by defining what ontological is. Ontological (or a priori) is to be defined as knowledge that can be known without any empirical evidence. Now, as for the subject of ontological arguments, Descartes’ is not the only one to formulate one. An earlier version of this type of argument existed with St. Anselm in the eleventh century and had long since died out; however, Descartes’ denies any ties to this traditional argument (p. 1). Descartes’ ontological argument holds that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God, and according to Descartes, to conceptualize something posits that this certain something must exist. Thus, most simply stated, because there is a clear and distinct idea or concept of a supremely perfect being (namely, God), God must exist. Descartes also suggests that his argument is not a formal proof at all but is a self-evident axiom obtained intuitively by a mind exempt from philosophical prejudice (p. 1)
In the first part, Nolan claims that Descartes’ version of the ontological argument is simplistic in that it compares the way we ordinarily establish basic truths while using arithmetic and geometry (p. 2). This holds that God’s existence can be fundamentally known through human intuition. We are capable of attaining knowledge of God’s existence by learning that the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being is found in apprehending necessary existence, just as Nolan writes “if I am able to clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence pertains to the idea of a supremely perfect being, then such a being truly exists (p. 3).” However, the premise for necessary existence to be conceptually linked to God’s existence does not depend ontologically on anything, for He is omnipotent and exists by His own power, and if God did not exist on His own initiative then it would be impossible for God to be omnipotent (p. 4). On page 5, Nolan states that Descartes further develops his previous analogy between the ontological argument and arithmetic. In this section Descartes suggests that there is one group of “meditators for whom God’s existence is immediately manifest” through his demonstration of a triangle whereas the latter group of “meditators…require a proof to attain the requisite clear and distinct perception” through looking at the Pythagorean Theorem to see God as self-evident (or as having necessary existence contained in the idea of supremely perfect being) (p. 5). Nolan points out on page 6 that Thomas Aquinas rejected the claim that God’s existence is self-evident because what is self-evident cannot be denied without contradiction, but God’s existence can be denied. Quite frankly I would have to agree with Aquinas on this point as existence can be denied; however, merely denying that something exists doesn’t mean that that something doesn’t exist. Take a car on an empty tank of gasoline for example. Merely thinking or believing with your ability or willpower to deny that your car is not out of gasoline wont get you any closer to your destination. Denying the reality of having no more gas won’t put more gas into your tank, nor will it mean that gasoline doesn’t exist. Denial does not evoke non-existence; it only posits an opinion based upon your perspective. In Descartes’ defense, Nolan points out that he does not hold that God’s existence is immediately self-evident or self-evident to everyone, but only that it can become self-evident with meditatiors that free themselves of all philosophical prejudices (p. 6).
In the second part, Nolan shows Descartes traditional medieval perspective on the distinction between essence and existence. On this notion, it is held that Descartes believed in a version of the Theory of Rational Distinction, which articulates that “a mind is merely rationally distinct from its thinking and a body is merely rationally distinct from its extension” (p. 8) and that in the abstract essence and existence are distinctly different, but in reality they are completely identical (p. 9). From Descartes viewpoint, “God is merely rationally distinct from his necessary existence, while every finite created thing is merely rationally distinct from its possible or contingent existence” (p. 9). By holding God and created beings on these two separate grade levels, this perspective allows Descartes to account for the theological difference that God independently exists of Himself and that His creation is entirely dependent on Him for existence (p. 9). God is distinguishable because of His higher level of existence and independent being. The result of this principle leads to the belief that ontological arguments cannot be conjured up for created substances or beings but only for God (p. 10). A finite thing cannot have an ontological argument produced for it because a finite thing is dependent on God, whereas the whole idea of a supremely perfect being containing necessary existence rests upon an ontologically independent argument (p. 10).
In the third part, Nolan draws out two necessary and sufficient conditions for Descartes’ version to be held prestigiously superior to his predecessors. The first condition is the theory of innate ideas and the latter the doctrine of clear and distinct perception. These two conditions protect Descartes’ ontological argument from the charges that were made against Anselm as well as provide the tools for answering any other objections. These conditions safeguard Descartes’ argument from suffering the objection of fictional ideas by purporting that the idea of God is something innate to the human intellect (p. 10). Among the other objections, there is “the claim that even if we were to concede that necessary existence is inseparable from the idea of God, nothing follows from this about what does or does not exist in the actual world” (p. 11) of which Descartes’ responds with the principle of clear and distinct perception, which bridges the gap between mere thoughts and reality (p. 11). Another objection which is much more difficult to respond to is Immanuel Kant’s objection which states “Whenever we think of anything, we regard it as existing, even if the thing in question does not actually exist. Thus, existence does not add anything to the concept of a thing (p. 13).” This very same objection was later refined by Bertrand Russell, claiming that “the statement “God exists” is not ascribing existence to a subject, but asserting that a certain description (in single quotes) applies to something in reality (p. 13).” Nolan goes about responding to this fine objection by first, prior to mentioning how Descartes might defend himself, noting that the “question at issue is typically framed in non-Cartesian terms and thus often misses its target (p. 14),” or more plainly stated, the question (or objection) is irrelevant to Descartes’ intended framework because his argument was never meant to be picked apart by logical issues when the argument itself was constructed on subject-predicate logic inherited from Aristotle (p. 14). If Descartes were to answer the question, nonetheless, he would have defended it by conceding to certain aspects of the objection such as the point that existence does not add anything to the mere idea of something and the notion that a thing cannot have properties unless it exists (p. 14). Conceding to these aspects asserts that the distinction between a substance and its existence is limited explicitly to thought or reason, therefore rendering a substance as its existence in reality (p. 15). Nolan concludes his deduction of Descartes’ ontological argument not by demanding the verdict for the case as true but to show that Descartes had a sophisticated and systematic way of treating existence (p. 15).
Work Cited
Nolan, Lawrence. “Descartes’ Ontological Argument.” Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. 15 October 2006. Stanford University. 13 October 2008
by: Nick Davis
In Nolan’s article on “Descartes’ Ontological Argument,” the author provides an excellent breakdown of Descartes’ so-called proof for the existence of God. He diagnoses Descartes’ argument by breaking it down into three separate parts; the first part being the simplicity of Descartes’ argument, the second the distinction between essence and existence, and the third providing various objections and replies between skeptics and Descartes himself. This paper seeks to illustrate a fair account of Nolan’s deduction of Descartes argument as well as establish its own grounds for the validity of Descartes’ ontological argument.
First, let us begin this deduction by defining what ontological is. Ontological (or a priori) is to be defined as knowledge that can be known without any empirical evidence. Now, as for the subject of ontological arguments, Descartes’ is not the only one to formulate one. An earlier version of this type of argument existed with St. Anselm in the eleventh century and had long since died out; however, Descartes’ denies any ties to this traditional argument (p. 1). Descartes’ ontological argument holds that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God, and according to Descartes, to conceptualize something posits that this certain something must exist. Thus, most simply stated, because there is a clear and distinct idea or concept of a supremely perfect being (namely, God), God must exist. Descartes also suggests that his argument is not a formal proof at all but is a self-evident axiom obtained intuitively by a mind exempt from philosophical prejudice (p. 1)
In the first part, Nolan claims that Descartes’ version of the ontological argument is simplistic in that it compares the way we ordinarily establish basic truths while using arithmetic and geometry (p. 2). This holds that God’s existence can be fundamentally known through human intuition. We are capable of attaining knowledge of God’s existence by learning that the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being is found in apprehending necessary existence, just as Nolan writes “if I am able to clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence pertains to the idea of a supremely perfect being, then such a being truly exists (p. 3).” However, the premise for necessary existence to be conceptually linked to God’s existence does not depend ontologically on anything, for He is omnipotent and exists by His own power, and if God did not exist on His own initiative then it would be impossible for God to be omnipotent (p. 4). On page 5, Nolan states that Descartes further develops his previous analogy between the ontological argument and arithmetic. In this section Descartes suggests that there is one group of “meditators for whom God’s existence is immediately manifest” through his demonstration of a triangle whereas the latter group of “meditators…require a proof to attain the requisite clear and distinct perception” through looking at the Pythagorean Theorem to see God as self-evident (or as having necessary existence contained in the idea of supremely perfect being) (p. 5). Nolan points out on page 6 that Thomas Aquinas rejected the claim that God’s existence is self-evident because what is self-evident cannot be denied without contradiction, but God’s existence can be denied. Quite frankly I would have to agree with Aquinas on this point as existence can be denied; however, merely denying that something exists doesn’t mean that that something doesn’t exist. Take a car on an empty tank of gasoline for example. Merely thinking or believing with your ability or willpower to deny that your car is not out of gasoline wont get you any closer to your destination. Denying the reality of having no more gas won’t put more gas into your tank, nor will it mean that gasoline doesn’t exist. Denial does not evoke non-existence; it only posits an opinion based upon your perspective. In Descartes’ defense, Nolan points out that he does not hold that God’s existence is immediately self-evident or self-evident to everyone, but only that it can become self-evident with meditatiors that free themselves of all philosophical prejudices (p. 6).
In the second part, Nolan shows Descartes traditional medieval perspective on the distinction between essence and existence. On this notion, it is held that Descartes believed in a version of the Theory of Rational Distinction, which articulates that “a mind is merely rationally distinct from its thinking and a body is merely rationally distinct from its extension” (p. 8) and that in the abstract essence and existence are distinctly different, but in reality they are completely identical (p. 9). From Descartes viewpoint, “God is merely rationally distinct from his necessary existence, while every finite created thing is merely rationally distinct from its possible or contingent existence” (p. 9). By holding God and created beings on these two separate grade levels, this perspective allows Descartes to account for the theological difference that God independently exists of Himself and that His creation is entirely dependent on Him for existence (p. 9). God is distinguishable because of His higher level of existence and independent being. The result of this principle leads to the belief that ontological arguments cannot be conjured up for created substances or beings but only for God (p. 10). A finite thing cannot have an ontological argument produced for it because a finite thing is dependent on God, whereas the whole idea of a supremely perfect being containing necessary existence rests upon an ontologically independent argument (p. 10).
In the third part, Nolan draws out two necessary and sufficient conditions for Descartes’ version to be held prestigiously superior to his predecessors. The first condition is the theory of innate ideas and the latter the doctrine of clear and distinct perception. These two conditions protect Descartes’ ontological argument from the charges that were made against Anselm as well as provide the tools for answering any other objections. These conditions safeguard Descartes’ argument from suffering the objection of fictional ideas by purporting that the idea of God is something innate to the human intellect (p. 10). Among the other objections, there is “the claim that even if we were to concede that necessary existence is inseparable from the idea of God, nothing follows from this about what does or does not exist in the actual world” (p. 11) of which Descartes’ responds with the principle of clear and distinct perception, which bridges the gap between mere thoughts and reality (p. 11). Another objection which is much more difficult to respond to is Immanuel Kant’s objection which states “Whenever we think of anything, we regard it as existing, even if the thing in question does not actually exist. Thus, existence does not add anything to the concept of a thing (p. 13).” This very same objection was later refined by Bertrand Russell, claiming that “the statement “God exists” is not ascribing existence to a subject, but asserting that a certain description (in single quotes) applies to something in reality (p. 13).” Nolan goes about responding to this fine objection by first, prior to mentioning how Descartes might defend himself, noting that the “question at issue is typically framed in non-Cartesian terms and thus often misses its target (p. 14),” or more plainly stated, the question (or objection) is irrelevant to Descartes’ intended framework because his argument was never meant to be picked apart by logical issues when the argument itself was constructed on subject-predicate logic inherited from Aristotle (p. 14). If Descartes were to answer the question, nonetheless, he would have defended it by conceding to certain aspects of the objection such as the point that existence does not add anything to the mere idea of something and the notion that a thing cannot have properties unless it exists (p. 14). Conceding to these aspects asserts that the distinction between a substance and its existence is limited explicitly to thought or reason, therefore rendering a substance as its existence in reality (p. 15). Nolan concludes his deduction of Descartes’ ontological argument not by demanding the verdict for the case as true but to show that Descartes had a sophisticated and systematic way of treating existence (p. 15).
Work Cited
Nolan, Lawrence. “Descartes’ Ontological Argument.” Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. 15 October 2006. Stanford University. 13 October 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Good Ol' Clive.
"To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket — safe, dark, motionless, airless — it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable."
-C.S. Lewis
-C.S. Lewis
Thursday, October 16, 2008
True Love.
Love is not desire, as Professor Dallas Willard would say. Desire seeks to have it's way with what is desired. It wants to eat it. It craves it, but it does not love it. Desire does not want to serve the beloved, for the beloved is not a beloved at all but is rather the belusted; treated by the one desiring it's own way without any respect for her at all.
Love seeks the good of that which is loved.
True love is marked by giving, not getting. Just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for us, so we too are to exemplify His love for one another by living for one another in an exceedingly sacrificial way. Go above and beyond in loving one another. Evoke the beloveds' beauty with your love. Bring out the best in the one whom you love. If you want to love as Christ loves, you must give your whole being to the practice of love, treating others as you would want to be treated. You cannot do this apart from God. You need His generous love abiding in you in order for you to truly love as Jesus has loved. The more time you spend in the presence of the One who is Love [God], the more readily you will become a loving being. Dwell with Him, love Him, and learn to love like Him.
-burton 261E
Love seeks the good of that which is loved.
True love is marked by giving, not getting. Just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for us, so we too are to exemplify His love for one another by living for one another in an exceedingly sacrificial way. Go above and beyond in loving one another. Evoke the beloveds' beauty with your love. Bring out the best in the one whom you love. If you want to love as Christ loves, you must give your whole being to the practice of love, treating others as you would want to be treated. You cannot do this apart from God. You need His generous love abiding in you in order for you to truly love as Jesus has loved. The more time you spend in the presence of the One who is Love [God], the more readily you will become a loving being. Dwell with Him, love Him, and learn to love like Him.
-burton 261E
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The University of Knowledge.
It brings me great grief to be amidst the presence of a handful of students and a professor fifteen years older than I all laughing at the pitiful and hopeless people who still hold some kind of belief in "God," equating this belief with the belief that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy actually exist. They laugh as though those people who place their belief in God do so with hardly any thought past "He just does.", and that the thought that those people do put into His existence contains little, if any, depth at all. The professor rips away any bit of potential evidence for God's existence, extracting a well constructed thesis out of context and picking bits and pieces out of history as though these small chunks contained the real remnant of truth. The very basis or starting point of most arguments that aim at destroying belief in God begin with false pretenses, and they do not give even remotely a fair representation of the biblical view of God in relation to humanity. To rebuke such false statements is difficult when the starting point of the statement claimed starts with a lack of the bigger picture. I want to so desperately present the whole picture in its entirety, but in order to do so requires an audience that is willing to listen. Thus far, I have found nothing but meaningless knowledge and questioning that leads herds of beautiful minds nowhere.
We all place our belief in something. It may not be God, but every human being believes in something as the ultimate cause or the primary source of all living things, and if he does not believe in an ultimate cause or a primary source then he believes in nothing, and to claim belief in nothing is still claiming belief in something. It is impossible to believe in nothing unless you also (along with that belief in nothing) don't believe in your own existence (or don't believe that you do exist), thus if you believe in your own existence you believe in something--namely, yourself. When I was religious, focusing on morality and obeying rules, I placed my trust in the law. When I was an Atheist, I put all of my trust in myself and it brought me much depression, purposelessness, and pain, for I knew that with all of the powers I could personally gather, those powers, in the end, matter very little at all in relation to everything else that has gone on over the progression of time. Now that I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, I put all of my trust in God and He has given me hope, joy, peace, and a great sense of purpose. Where are you putting your trust? Is it in yourself, humanity, material objects, rules, or people? Examine yourself and see what you believe in, what you hope in. Would you die for that belief? I will die for mine.
-burton 261E
We all place our belief in something. It may not be God, but every human being believes in something as the ultimate cause or the primary source of all living things, and if he does not believe in an ultimate cause or a primary source then he believes in nothing, and to claim belief in nothing is still claiming belief in something. It is impossible to believe in nothing unless you also (along with that belief in nothing) don't believe in your own existence (or don't believe that you do exist), thus if you believe in your own existence you believe in something--namely, yourself. When I was religious, focusing on morality and obeying rules, I placed my trust in the law. When I was an Atheist, I put all of my trust in myself and it brought me much depression, purposelessness, and pain, for I knew that with all of the powers I could personally gather, those powers, in the end, matter very little at all in relation to everything else that has gone on over the progression of time. Now that I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, I put all of my trust in God and He has given me hope, joy, peace, and a great sense of purpose. Where are you putting your trust? Is it in yourself, humanity, material objects, rules, or people? Examine yourself and see what you believe in, what you hope in. Would you die for that belief? I will die for mine.
-burton 261E
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
My Apologies.
I do want to apologize for my lack of updating this blog. It's been quite some time now, and for many different reasons it makes complete sense to me as to why it has been so terribly long.
I have been on a wonderful quest of learning, and upon this quest I have begun to make numerous discoveries through which my eyes have seen a much larger horizon that is greatly beyond me. It's difficult for me to explain right now, but my time is going to be better spent gathering my thoughts and writing them in the form of a book for a while, and whence this book is filled with all of its pages (however many pages that may be), I will then, once again, continue to post regularly.
If I had all of the time in the world to write bits and pieces of my thought processes, I would, but life is such that I am forced to many other obligations as well as time commitments and must spend this short time that we call life as efficiently as possible.
Hope to return sooner, rather than later (or rather than never again),
burton
P.S. Please keep me in prayer.
I have been on a wonderful quest of learning, and upon this quest I have begun to make numerous discoveries through which my eyes have seen a much larger horizon that is greatly beyond me. It's difficult for me to explain right now, but my time is going to be better spent gathering my thoughts and writing them in the form of a book for a while, and whence this book is filled with all of its pages (however many pages that may be), I will then, once again, continue to post regularly.
If I had all of the time in the world to write bits and pieces of my thought processes, I would, but life is such that I am forced to many other obligations as well as time commitments and must spend this short time that we call life as efficiently as possible.
Hope to return sooner, rather than later (or rather than never again),
burton
P.S. Please keep me in prayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)