A Philosophical Approach to Abortion

The goal is to arrive at a position wherein one either must accept abortion as wrong or accept that their own murder is right.  Or, that abortion is equivalently wrong to murder.

(1) Human life is intrinsically valuable.

• Within this premise is the concept of invaluable/priceless as in it cannot be measured, counted, or quantified by any utilitarian means.  By intrinsic, I'm saying it's not about what someone has done, or will do that makes one valuable, simply that life is valuable because it's life.  One cannot exchange life for money nor anything else for that matter.
• The only reason to end a life relates to (2) that is if one uses force to deny someone else their right to life (that is if someone murders someone) their right to life is invalid, that is capital punishment.  Also, the idea of war was mentioned in a comment (on Facebook).  How could war be justified if all life is valuable?  That's just it, war is only valid/justified to stop one person from killing another person/oneself.  That is self-defense or defense of the innocent.  If one can go to war for any other reason, then any killing is justifiable.
• In regards to the current state of affairs in the US, I can't speak for the government nor against the government, I obey the orders of those appointed over me.  It's not my place to make a comment otherwise.

(2) One's own rights only extend to one's own being.

• That is, one's rights end where they infringe on someone else's rights.  I have the right to say what I want to say, but when what I say actually hurts another person my right to free speech ends.  (Edit: I did some further research on this.  There is some precedence for hate speech being censored, but by-and-large hate speech has still been defended and won in high courts.  Perhaps a better analogy or example is needed here, I will work on it.)

(3) The potentiality of life should be treated with the same value as the end resultant life could be.

(4) Even at early stages of development (weeks 1-9) it is medically discernible that the group of cells comprising an embryo is going to develop into a human fetus.

(5) A fetus becomes alive while still in the womb, that is by the typical definition of human life, discernible brain waves. Approximately in the 20th to 36th weeks of pregnancy, as currently measured, not that it doesn't occur earlier, just earliest measurable.

Given the above:

(6) Abortion is wrong, equivalent to manslaughter or murder.

Some background arguments:

For (1), If one rejects this premise than one's own life is invaluable.  If one makes a case for non-intrinsic value, then what is human life's value based on?

For (2), This is a loophole of sorts.  IF a thieving murderer breaks into your house and threatens you with death, you have every right to self-defense and are perfectly justified in killing that person in self-defense.  The same could be said of a pregnancy, if the presence of a fetus in a woman's womb is killing her, with a physician's assistance making that determination she would be justified in killing the fetus.  This is a common critique for pro-lifers because many take the stance that it's never justifiable to kill the fetus.  I can only make that exception and even so, if the mother determines that it's worth the risk to her own life to provide life for the fetus that's her choice.

For (3), Take this endangered frog, the Panamanian Golden Frog

Picture Credit The Guardian

And we had some of these eggs

Picture Credit Flickr

That we know, with as much certainty as anyone can have, that they're going to hatch into these tadpoles:

How would we treat those eggs and or tadpoles?  Would we just throw them away?  Now, one might say, "they're just frogs," but remember we're talking about the same level of potentiality in the first week(s) of pregnancy as these eggs.  The parallel is clear, even the very beginnings of the potentiality to be a human life should be treated as valuable as full-grown human life.  (I personally think it's more valuable, because it has more potential than a grown human mathematically, it has more life to live and it hasn't already made choices which guide itself.)

For (4), Just as in (3) the eggs/tadpoles are almost certainly going to grow into a living thriving fetus, then baby, then child, then adult.  (I realize I left off certain developmental levels, but the argument still stands, if life is precious and the potential for life is also precious then it is clear at all levels it's precious.)

For (5), Why is there a double-standard among abortion advocates that a fetus isn't alive until it's removed from the womb, but a person is alive until they have no readable brain activities?  There's an even more telling double-standard when one considers just what we call alive?  We refer to viruses and other single-celled organisms as alive, why do we call a fetus a "mass of cells"?  I know the reason, but just wanted to point out the double-standard.

For (6), This should be clear.  I know there are many counter-arguments, I'll try to cover some of them.

(1) Some answers to the question of the value of a human life try to make it scientific, or some other rationalization.  But, no matter at whatever level one deny the value of human life, one opens the argument up to mutability/relativism.  Under relativism, one can rationalize pretty much anything including one's own murder.

(2) Some claim that the "mass of cells" is a part of the woman's body and liken it to a cancerous growth or something like that.  The answer is in (4) even at the earliest stages of development the "growth" is distinct from the mother.  Both in DNA structure and general cell structure itself.

(3/4) Some just deny (3) flat out, but I think my treatment of the concept is fair, we're as certain as anyone can be that this "mass of cells" is going to develop into a human, therefore it should be treated as such.

(5) Again I hear this double-standard from pro-abortionists.  One slippery slope this quickly leads to: If a fetus isn't alive until it's removed from it's mother, what happens as technology improves?  This will lead to earlier and earlier outside-the-womb viability, does that mean our treatment of such should change?  That defeats the purpose of developing an ethical standard.  Also, if that line is moveable, then why stop at outside-the-womb viability?  It could easily lead to out-and-out infanticide then on to euthanasia and then to genetic cleansing.

(6) There might be more objections but none that I haven't at least somewhat dealt with.

In order to waylay some reactions...  I am NOT being misogynistic.  The fact that I'm a man and cannot experience this has no bearing on the arguments I've raised.  I'm NOT seeking to "take away a woman's choice" or seeking to control a woman's body or choice, at least no more than any other social convention, do mass murderers have the right to choose to buy weapons?  Remember a person's rights end when they interfere with another's rights, and this isn't an issue about a woman's right to control her own healthcare, it's about the rights of a fetus.

Faith and Philosophy Blog Carnival, November 2013, 10th Edition

Anna M @Don't Forget the Avocados presents Variations on Normal, and How to Control the World posted at Don't Forget the Avocados.

There has only been one entry so far this month that has fit the topic of faith and philosophy or philosophy of religion.  I look forward to more entries throughout the month.

Death of Free Will

Calvinism leads to the death of free will. I know that May seem like a serious claim but let's break it down.

Freedom - The ability to do as one wants.

Now, this is a simplistic definition of freedom because there are, most certainly, limitations to freedom. Take for example, I am not free to choose to breath oxygen, freely without mechanical assistance, under water. I'm limited by the laws of physics. I'm also bound by circumstances. For example right this moment I'm not free to go parasailing because I'm sitting in my living room and part of the laws of physics and my circumstances dictates that I cannot parasail at this very moment.

One last, and possibly the most important part of this idea, one cannot go against oneself. Now, before you get in a huff about this and say that I'm Calvinist after all... Listen, there are different levels to a person. For example, I want to eat ice cream right now, but I'm choosing not to do so because my will is overriding my natural desire. Anyone who's ever dieted can attest to this conundrum. I want to but I don't want to and that's okay. In the end I'm still doing what I want on a certain level.

Choice - an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

This requires an actor, and two or more options. This doesn't mean that there cannot be agreement between two actors. Take my wife and I together we chose to attend a financial class. We came together and talked about the choice and decided that we agreed we should take this class. That's a different class of choices.  We're talking about two separate actors that do not consult each other.

Take Bob. Bob decides to murder his neighbor. Did God choose for Bob to murder his neighbor? There is no evil in God, therefore God could not have gone against His nature to choose murder.

Take Jim. Jim hates the very thought of God. His heroes are Nietzsche and Hitler. Jim is faced with a choice, to murder his neighbor or not. He chooses not to do so. Did God choose this? If all choices are God's choice then He did choose that. But, everything an evil person chooses is evil, so God couldn't have made this choice either because it's an evil choice too because Jim is evil.

If God makes all choices then God is evil.

Now, if you say God made the decision to let Bob and Jim make those decisions, that is a TOTALLY different position. That is a totally different decision. God didn't decide between the two options to murder or not to murder. That is not an option that God's nature allows. God chose to let Bob and Jim make those decisions.

Within Calvinism there are several ideas that rob everyone of this idea of choice. That is, within Calvinism mankind is limited by his nature to choose; the whole TULIP acronym, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints means that mankind has absolutely no decision in salvation.  Within total depravity, is the concept that mankind has a sinful nature, and as such people cannot choose to love God.  Also, this sinful nature is part of mankind's birthright, it has nothing to do with each individual's behavior or anything like that.  To a certain extent I can see the point there, but the problem comes when one says that a sinful-natured person cannot go against that nature and choose God.

In this Calvinist view, mankind cannot be said to be punished for individual choices, only the choices of Adam/Eve.  They're the only people who have ever been able to make the choice to love God or disobey Him, ever since that one fateful decision all mankind has been doomed to hell.  Don't get me wrong, I feel the Bible more or less supports that idea (Rom. 5:12ff).  The problem is this, if no one can choose to do good ever, that means that mankind is doomed to hell not based on his own decision but based on the decisions of someone else.  That isn't freedom, that's slavery.  Now, yes, we are slaves to sin and after forgiveness we're slaves to righteousness so, we're always enslaved, but here's the kicker, how can we be punished for our nature?  That'd be like me being punished because I'm red-haired.  So, according to this view, I'm a slave because I was born a slave and I'll be punished to everlasting torment because I didn't win the lottery?

Here's the second issue, Unconditional Election especially when coupled with Irresistible Grace.  They also together remove all choice from mankind.  So, according to Calvinism, not only can I not make the decision because of my sinful nature, God specifically chooses exactly who gets saved.  Now, don't misunderstand me, I think in a certain way God chooses.  God is omniscient, which would mean that He knows who does and who doesn't want to be saved, and God is omnipotent, which means that He could work in such a way that makes whomever He wills choose salvation.  But, again, that's not freedom.  Being chosen by God as a random (that's the unconditional part, meaning it's not contingent on our actions or choices) recipient of grace and forgiveness is not freedom.  Especially with the idea of irresistible grace.  Not only can we not choose God, but if chosen we cannot resist, we cannot go against His choice in us.

So, where's this free will again?  Oh, it's dead.  It was recently engaged in so strong an argument that I would rather be an atheist than a Calvinist.  If this God that Calvinists believe in is really that terrible I don't want anything to do with it.  Maybe it's supposedly more biblical as some seem to believe, but it's certainly not rational.

I found yet another site about Calvinism and the first point it tries to make is that "man is one hundred percent responsible for his behavior."  I found this interesting site also which makes it clear that the Bible teaches that mankind can make free choices.  "Luke reports that, “by refusing to be baptized by [John], the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (Luke 7:30, emphasis added). How could Scripture be more explicit than that? So too, in Isaiah the Lord says, “Oh, rebellious children…who carry out a plan, but not mine; who make an alliance, but against my will, adding sin to sin” (Is. 30:1). Again, how could Scripture get any clearer than that?"  So, which is it?  Did the Pharisees actually reject God?  Not according to Calvinism, they were born rejecting God as part of their sin nature, not as any actual choice of their own.  So, how is man responsible for his own choices if his choices are

I realize that philosophically speaking having at least two options presented to an individual is all that's required for choice.  However, I would posit that there's more to it than that simple concept.  I believe that for a choice to be real the different options have to be viable options.  Like in the examples in Calvinism the sinful human cannot choose God/good because of a born-in predilection to sin.  That is not a real choice.

If Calvinism is right then John the Baptist was wrong in saying: "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

In summary, I still believe in God.  I will always believe in God.  Also, I believe Christianity (really the Bible) has the best description of God available for mankind.  I will never and can never accept that Calvinism has the answers to the nature of Christianity/salvation.  I know I may be missing something, but as it stands, I don't think I will ever be dissuaded from holding that view.

Pop Culture Surprise

I have a general distaste for pop culture, especially the music scene, so I was pleasantly surprised the other day when I heard this song and it actually has meaningful lyrics that teach a positive message.  So much of pop culture today is telling kids to go out and do whatever they want, to eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die (generally that last bit is left off, who wants to be a Debbie Downer?). Then when I hear this song:

"Who Says"
I wouldn't wanna be anybody else, hey
[1st Vs]
You made me insecure, Told me I wasn’t good enough.
But who are you to judge; When you’re a diamond in the rough?
I’m sure you got some things; You’d like to change about yourself.
But when it comes to me; I wouldn’t want to be anybody else.
I’m no beauty queenI’m just beautiful me
You’ve got every right; To a beautiful life; C'mon
[Chorus:]
Who says, who says you're not perfect? Who says you're not worth it?
Who says you're the only one that's hurtin'? Trust me, that's the price of beauty
Who says you're not pretty? Who says you're not beautiful?
Who says?
[2nd Vs]
It’s such a funny thing; How nothing’s funny when it’s you
You tell ‘em what you mean; But they keep whiting out the truth
It’s like a work of art; That never gets to see the light
Keep you beneath the stars; Won’t let you touch the sky
I’m no beauty queenI’m just beautiful me
You’ve got every right; To a beautiful life; C'mon
[Chorus]
[Bridge:]
Who says you’re not star potential? Who says you’re not presidential?
Who says you can’t be in movies? Listen to me, listen to me
Who says you don’t pass the test? Who says you can’t be the best?
Who said, who said? Would you tell me who said that?
Yeah, who said?
[Chorus]
Who says you're not perfect? Who says you're not worth it?
Who says you're the only one that's hurtin'?
Trust me (yeah), that's the price of beauty; Who says you're not pretty?
Who says you're not beautiful?
Who says?

I italicized the part that really stuck out to me (also, I took out all the "Na na na na's," which there were many).  It's nice to see a positive message coming out of something that's usually as shallow as this example:

"Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)"

There's a stranger in my bed,
There's a pounding in my head
Glitter all over the room
Pink flamingos in the pool
I smell like a minibar
DJ's passed out in the yard
Barbie's on the barbeque
This a hickie or a bruise

Pictures of last night
Ended up online
I'm screwed
Oh well
It's a blacked out blur
But I'm pretty sure it ruled
Damn

Last Friday night
Yeah, we danced on tabletops
And we took too many shots
Think we kissed but I forgot

Last Friday night
Yeah, we maxed our credit cards
And got kicked out of the bar
So we hit the boulevard

The song goes on, but I'm sure you get the point.  I wasn't able to read through all the different song lyrics by either of those two artists, Selena Gomez and Katy Perry (I didn't listen to them all either), but I didn't really notice a trend either direction for either artist.  It's like they, on a whim, decided to sing these good or terrible songs.  Honestly, I have no delusions of grandeur for these artists.  I would assume they don't really have much say in the content of their works, so I don't really blame the artists as much as the producers.  I could be wrong on that account and it could be more of the artists than I think.  Regardless, whoever is responsible, I thank them.  (Lyrics by: www.azlyrics.com)

Splitting Hairs Theologically Speaking

I've recently been studying theology as part of my major at Liberty University Online.  I'm currently taking Theology 201 and let's just say, it's been an uh, interesting time.  To me, when it comes to religion I've always been very inclusionary.  Especially when I hear discussions about doctrinal issues in churches that actually drive people away from God, or make people not want to come to church.  That's one of the reasons I've always like apologetics more than theology.  It seems that apologetics is about bringing people together to reason about the things of faith, but theology is about arguing the minutiae about what "[f]or in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" exactly means.

The reason I bring that particular verse is the subject in theology class for the last two weeks has been Christology.  I won't go into the details, because I'm sure many of you don't care, but even though the class has interesting things to teach me, I don't really like the divisiveness of theology in general.  Take Christology for an example.  It is vitally important to accept that Jesus Christ is God and man, called hypostatic union.  Now, how Christ did so, is called kenosis (κένωσις) that relates to "pouring out" from Philippians 2.  Now, as an amateur philosopher, these ideas pose some interesting problems.  How can two completely different things occupy the same exact space at the same time?  Obviously, nothing is to difficult for God, as Mary was told when she questioned the impossibility of her giving birth.  But, as Prof Kreeft taught in one of his lectures on the Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, God is the God of logic and we shouldn't claim God breaks the laws of logic (even though I've thought that way before).

Now, maybe it's just a problem of teaching.  Because as much as I don't like to bash the college from which I'm seeking a degree, I don't feel like there's anyone to explain why these theological puzzles are the way they are.  On that topic of Christology, there was a section in the textbook about the wrong views of kenosis.  One of them said something to the effect of Christ set aside His attributes of deity when He was born on earth as our Savior.  However, according to the text, the "right" view is that Christ "veiled" His attributes of deity.  As I'm reading this section, I couldn't help but think that there's such a fine line there and does it really make a difference?  It's obvious from various parts of the Gospel accounts Jesus is limited.  Like, He doesn't know various facts that an omniscient God would know.  In fact He specifically says, that He doesn't know (Matt 24:36).  So, obviously Jesus didn't have His attribute of omniscience.  But wait, He did have knowledge that no mere man could have.  In several places it's said of Jesus that He knew what was in their hearts or a similar phrase.

All these doubts can be explained in the simple fact that God is omnipotent and nothing is too difficult for Him, as was noted before.  But, that makes this a mysterious concept and I distrust anyone who claims complete knowledge of any detail of these high-level theological questions.  I really have a problem with people who not only claim to have the truth but also reject those that partially disagree with their view.  I talk about this all the time, though I don't see any past entries about this... I really dislike any teaching or theology that drives people away from Christ.

Now, don't get me wrong, theology is important, and it's important to make sure we have definitions that match the teachings found in the Bible.  But, as my dad always liked to say, "let's keep the main thing the main thing."  As part of my studies I think it's important in my life to draw a line in the sand theologically speaking.  Here's an important thing to remember though, while I hold the following list to be true and in accordance with God's Word as revealed in the Bible.  If there's a mistake or a misunderstanding in the following list I can revise it without feeling I've betrayed myself somehow.  Everyone makes mistakes, I could be misunderstanding something and that's okay.

Statement of Faith

God the Father:
Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth infinite, holy and actively working in the world today.

God the Son:
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, second person in the trinity, coequal with God the Father and Holy Spirit who came to earth as a man.

God the Holy Spirit:
The third member of the Trinity who is always working to convict of sins, persuade unbelievers, and comfort the saints.

The Bible:
God's inerrant Word, His Truths written by men as they were carried along in the Spirit that we might hide in our hearts that we might not sin against God.

The Depravity of Mankind:
All have sinned and no one can save oneself from sin's hold.

Salvation:
Salvation is not by works but only through the saving work of Jesus Christ through His death and resurrection.

Resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Jesus Christ bodily rose from the dead on the third day, and it is through that work that sin and death are defeated.

Return of Jesus Christ:
Jesus Christ could return at any moment and His followers should live with that in mind.

Resurrection of the Dead:
Just as Christ rose from the grave and rules in Heaven, believers and all the dead in Christ shall someday join Him in everlasting peace and joy in Heaven.

Church Family:
As followers of Christ we need to be happily and actively involved in a local community of believers.

I've purposely left certain dividing terminology out, e.g. "Total Depravity."  I've recently had a long discussion with my theologian/friend +James Hooks and he makes a powerful argument for Calvinism/Reformed Theology.  But, I still don't see eye to eye with all the views in Calvinism.  Mainly because how it is apparently irreconcilable with the concept of free will.  I'm sure the answer there lies in some different definition of freedom and will, but that still doesn't work with the way I view free will and choice.  I'll save that for a future entry.

This same list is now on a separate tab as I'd like to join with other believers that agree with these statements to join me in sharing through this site.  I've put out the call several times, but apparently no one is interested in sharing.  The invitation still stands, if you agree with these statements of faith, and would like to share your thoughts on my blog I welcome you.  That doesn't mean that I won't host people that disagree with these statements, as I've hosted several entries in the past even from people that I don't really know, including the regular Faith and Philosophy Blog Carnival.  What I mean to say, is that if you would like to partner with me in this blog you'll have to agree with this statement of faith, but if you have something you'd like to share, as long as it doesn't contain any ad hominem attacks or illogical/irrational statements, I'd still welcome dissenting entries.  As the (current) sole administrator of this blog I reserve the right to refuse any entries.  Though I commit to fairly assess any entries and give my response with reasons for acceptance or denial of any entry.

Vagueness

I've been thinking about this for a while and I'd like to address it here.

As a bit of background, I've often mentioned the History of Philosophy podcast.  Unfortunately, I don't get the chance to take notes, so I'll be honest, I don't remember many of the names of the philosophers mentioned in the podcast.  The other day however, one of the Hellenistic philosophers had a thought lesson that goes something like this.

Philosopher: Here is one grain of sand.  Is it a "heap of sand"?
Respondent: No of course not.
P: Here is two grains, it is a heap?
R: No.
P: Here are three, it is a heap?
R: No.
.... This continues, then eventually the respondent will answer, "Yes."
P: Let me take away one grain of sand, is it still a "heap"?
R: Well...
P: Certainly you don't mean to tell me that ONE grain of sand constitutes a "heap of sand" because earlier you said it wasn't.

This speaks to many different issues, one of which was that the sage (wise man) will withhold judgement, and the topic I have been thinking about, vagueness.

This basically falls into the philosophy of language subset of philosophy but it has serious ramifications for all levels of philosophy.  Think about it, the term "human" as clear as it seems, has at least some vagueness to it.  From Dictionary.com; the Science Dictionary, "A member of the species Homo sapiens;  a human being."  A member of any of the extinct species of the genus Homo,  such as Homo erectus or Homo habilis,  that are considered ancestral or closely related to modern humans.  Assuming darwinian or neo-darwinian evolution, when does that start?  How many human characteristics does something need to have to be human?  How can you define something so vague?  No matter how detailed a dictionary may be, there's always going to be some level of vagueness.

Obviously I've picked one of the hardest definitions to start out with, but this relates to epistemology as well.  If there's skepticism in everything including definitional issues, how can we communicate at all?  How are you reading this blog?  What if you don't even define blog the same way as I do?  Granted my definition is the correct one!  Obviously we're standing on some amount of common ground, but that brings up what type(s) of common ground we need to communicate.  There's vagueness within my talk about vagueness.  Definitions, what's a definition?  We need a definition of definition before we can talk about vagueness because we need that common ground.  Are definitions subject to the will of the people?  Dictionaries change and disagree, which one do we trust?  Even if we agree on which dictionary we should use, what about when dictionaries change?  Do we both agree with the new definition?  What about what made the definition change, do we agree on the reason why the dictionary decided to change the definition?

Now that we've not decided on that bit of common ground, now we need to decide how much common ground we need to have before we can communicate.  So we don't completely completely agree on the exact word-for-word definition of each and every word used in this discussion, does that mean we can't communicate?  Apparently not, because I'm assuming you can read and understand what I'm writing here.  So now, even if we have a level of acceptable vagueness in definitions and definition change, what about agreeing on how much difference is acceptable?  There's vagueness in the amount of vagueness acceptable for communication.

I don't have any answers for you here, only questions.  Just casting doubt on everything we say and the very basics of communication.

Faith and Philosophy Blog Carnival, October 2013, 9th Edition

Sorry for the delay in posting, but we've had bad weather here and I've been busy with schoolwork and there haven't really been very many entries this month.

Mark David Henderson presents Do Christians and Atheists View Reason differently? | The Soul of Atlas posted at The Soul of Atlas.

Shahzad Rupani presents Story Of Tunnel Theory posted at Once Upon a Life.

These are all the submissions that "made the cut" this month so far.  I have started being more selective in what submissions are shared in the carnival.  ONLY entries that are about the relationship between faith and reason or philosophy are included.  Entries that are only about faith or only about philosophy are not included.  I will admit that even a tenuous link will be considered a connection between the two and will (most likely) be shared.  Thank you to all the submissions and I hope there will be many more to come.

Intermission

Obviously I haven't been able to continue my writings on my series on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas but here's the kicker.  My lack of time for the series is hindering me from writing any other entries.  Honestly, I haven't had much to write about lately but I think I'm going to pause the series to write more on random topics.  I've been busy with college courses online and I don't really have that much time to write, but now I won't have the series getting in the way of writing other things.  Well, I'm sorry for the long delay and I'll get back to writing as much as I have time for soon.

Also, I have a request...  I've been trying to revamp my website to be a collaborative blog site for philosophers/theologians that are wanting to share their ideas together.  If any of you are interested, please submit entries and your testimony or statement of beliefs via the "Contact Me" tab above.  That's one of the reasons I'm taking a break from the series on Aquinas, I feel a bit swamped as the only writer for this blog and I would like to join with others and share the load of coming up with content.

One last thing, I've recently started another site for my photography pieces.  The site is http://samuelronicker.smugmug.com/ and I plan on sharing as many of my photos there that I can.  I will probably only upload the best of my photos there, but they are available for purchase from the smugmug printing company, and in the interest of full disclosure I do get some amount of commission on each sale of my picture(s).

Faith and Philosophy Blog Carnival, September 2013, 8th Edition

Joshua Tilghman presents The Deeper Mystery of the Virgin Birth posted at The Spirit of the Scripture.

So far, this is the only entry that has fit the carnival topics of faith and philosophy.  Thank you all for your submissions so far if more submissions come in that fit the topic, I'll add them to the carnival.

The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas: Part 5: Our Knowledge of and Language About God

Continuing the series on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas with lecture five how much can we know about God and what we can say about God.  Let's jump right in, Prof Kreeft starts off with an analogy of the premodern thinking with a preteen child, interested in the world around them, curious and asking questions about objective reality like, "what is God?"  They spend less time than modern thinkers who asked more subjective questions like, "How can we know God?" or "How can we express our knowledge of God?"  One is not better than the other, just different.

The three questions laid out are the same anyone can ask of anything, What is it? How can we know it? and How can we express it or communicate it?  The Greek word Logos (λόγος) is a powerful word to express all these ideas together, intelligible being/reality, human knowledge/wisdom/reason/science, and language/communication.  The ancients/premoderns focused on the first part, metaphysics, and moderns, starting with Descartes, were more concerned with the second question, epistemology.

After Thomas' five ways to God he summarizes the way he's going to approach these questions about knowing God (as quoted in the lecture notes, the brackets are Prof Kreeft's interjection):

"When the existence of a thing has been ascertained, there remains the further question of the manner of its existence, in order that we may know its essence. [“Essence” means “manner of existence” for Aquinas.] Now . . . we cannot know what God is but rather what He is not . . . therefore we must consider, first, how He is not, second, how He is known by us, and third, how He is named."

Though Thomas believes that faith, divine revelation, and religious experience are all valid ways of knowing God, this discussion focuses on philosophical/epistemological knowledge by natural reason.  Thomas seeks to show that there are (at least) four metaphysical principles that answer how man can  know God: creation, cosmic hierarchy, the analogy of being, and human reason as participating in divine reason.  If any one of these weren't true then man couldn't know God by natural reason.

Creation, this doesn't tell us much about God, but it does tell us some.  As Thomas' five ways show that God created the universe, now the fact that He did so tells us a bit about Him.

From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of the cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of its cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects even though from them we cannot know God as He is in His essence.

So we can know that God is a God of cause by the effects we see, though that doesn't tell us much about Him.  Not a complete rationalist/gnostic or agnostic, but a little more agnostic.

Cosmic Hierarchy, implied in creation is a sort of hierarchy that God is the top of the cosmic ladder of existence and mankind is somewhere on this ladder below God.  Incidentally, Thomas didn't think you could prove the existence of angels, but he thought it would certainly make sense that there be at least one level of existence between God and mankind, just as there are different levels between mankind and a slug.

Analogy of being, this goes along the same lines as cosmic hierarchy that along the cosmic ladder of existence there are bit of analogy.  In the case of life, there is an analogy in that there are lower forms of life but they're still life and there are higher forms of life.  The highest in divine life, not that God's existence mirrors ours but that we mirror God's existence because we get our existence from Him.  This same chain of analogy is in logos/orderliness.  Even the simplest pieces of matter are orderly.  In fact, to me the more order we see at these "lower" levels is a clear indication of design.  So, along the rungs of this ladder of analogy the higher levels have more order and reflect God's orderliness (and other characteristics) better.  Until you get to the top of the ladder, God, from which all orderliness and design comes.

Divine reason, this is not some mystical experience, it's more akin to the idea that all logic and reason finds its source in God.  This part of the lecture actually reminds me of presuppositional apologetics (as I've discussed with +James Hooks a few times).  To medieval logicians there were three basic acts to the mind conception, judgement, and reasoning from judgements.  First, one must recognize concepts, "man," "apple," "animal," "is," "not" etc.  Then one judges from these simple concepts, "man is an animal," "apples are not animals."  Then finally, the reasonable moving from premises to conclusion(s) "therefore man is not an apple."  Thomas is referring to all three of these acts in saying that man's intelligence is a dim reflection of God's divine intelligence.  God doesn't have to judge and reason, He just knows everything all the time, but mankind as a small reflection of that, can only do bit by bit.  As a dim reflection of God, we share in His divine reason/intelligence as participating in His intelligence.  One of the main presuppositions in this part of the argument is that God is rational/mind, not just a blind force.  There are many assumptions in Thomas' philosophy as it's more like a mapping of a complex universe than the dry-step-by-step-deduction-only-philosophy of the moderns.

Now, in light of these four assumptions we should try to understand what Thomas actually says about knowledge of God.  Remember that he's closer to agnosticism than rationalism (gnosticism).  Prof

Kreeft has this to say about the articles immediately preceding the ways to God in the Summa, "...God’s existence is not self-evident to us, though it is self-evident in itself. So it has to be made evident to us... God is not directly and innately known—our mind is not that strong—but His existence can be made known by reason, can be demonstrated—our mind is not too weak for that."  (Quote from the lecture notes, emphasis mine.)  This is from the next part of the Summa about being able to know about God.

Since the ultimate beatitude of man consists in the use of his highest power, which is the operation of the mind, if we suppose that the created intellect can never see God, it would either never attain to beatitude or its beatitude would consist in something else besides God. This opinion is against reason, for there resides in every man a natural desire to know the cause of any effect which he sees, and thus arises wonder in man. But if the intellect of the rational creature could not reach so far as to the first cause of things, this natural desire would remain void. But no natural desire is in vain.

So, we may not be able to fully know God in this life but we will attain sure knowledge of God in the next. Thomas uses this statement many times, that “no natural desire is in vain.”  Seems reasonable to assume that the desire for a more perfect understanding of something and that that desire can be fulfilled though perhaps not fully in this life.

There are two levels of understanding here that we must distinguish.  Comprehension and apprehension, we as created beings will never be able to surround in knowledge, God.  But, we will someday, be able to apprehend God. Just how far can we get? Thomas give four things we can know: He exists, He is the cause of creation, that He has a certain deducible attributes, and what He is not: He is not a creature and not at the same level as creatures.  In His being, He is infinite, unlimited being in itself, while creatures only have being in a limited way sourced from God.

According to Thomas outside of analogical knowledge our knowledge of God is only negative.  The reason for this is the fact that we are created, finite creatures and cannot know by experience things that apply only to God, like infinitude.  We can see the art that only resembles the Artist but we cannot know all that is in the Artist.

This next bit I really liked so I'm just going to let Prof Kreeft speak for himself (quote taken from the lecture study guide):

"I suspect that most of the time, belief or unbelief in God’s existence depends on understanding the meaning of the term “God.” I never met an atheist who I thought fully understood what an intelligent theologian like Aquinas meant by “God.” After talking for a while with an intelligent atheist I always find myself agreeing with him in denying the God he denies; only I claim that’s not the God Aquinas is talking about. For instance, a God who moves around in time and changes, and therefore gets either better or worse in some way, or a God that’s timeless and changeless by doing nothing. Both of these concepts of God are imperfect. Aquinas says God’s perfection is pure act, pure actuality, and pure activity of knowing and loving. He doesn’t change, He doesn’t learn truth because He is all truth, and He doesn’t fall in love for the same reason water doesn’t get wet: because He is love. "

I've seen this in many arguments against God, including my previous series from Prof McGinn.

This next question is also eloquently answered by Prof Kreeft, it's the question commonly brought up even as recent as this post on Google+.  The answer isn't really all that complicated!  It's a linguistic problem, that goes something like this: God has infinite power so asking this question is like asking if a rock could exist that infinite power couldn't pick up.  So, the easy answer is no, but not that God isn't all-powerful, it's a misunderstanding of infinite power.  A similar answer can be given to many of the questions concerning God.  Who created God?  That's like asking, what existed/happened before infinity past?  That's a contradiction.  My personal view is that we shouldn't limit God to a logical anwer, but within our limited perspective, these questions don't make any sense.

One last point (sorry these posts tend to be so long).  There are two more critiques of Thomas' view of knowing God.  One from Hindu philosophy that sees god as a meaningless personless entity, that beings cannot be eternal.  They see one of the definitive aspects of being as finite.  The recent pope John Paul II answered this with an ontological argument that personhood is the pinnacle of being not a defect of it.  One other argument is from science/logic, that says these arguments only give a start.  Which is exactly what Thomas wants to do here.  Build a foundation upon which the rest of theology can be built.