Prayer to, Fear of, and Trust in God

I have heard two different people in the past week emphasize the power of prayer. One of the people said something along the lines of "when people pray, things start happening" the other something like "if all the people in [some town--or it may have just been a church] prayed, [said town] would be changed," but it's sort of like... well, yeah, people praying is quite a change, but it isn't the cause of the change, it's an effect. God is the cause of the change, and the further changes might not be along the lines that those people are praying. On the one hand, yes, God hears us when we pray, but on the other hand, while the emphasizing was not in a trivial context, I fear a vending machine god. It seems important to keep the power of prayer as derived from the power of God, and then to keep the fear of God in view.

The Fear of God, so far as I can tell, arises from the acknowledgement that God can do whatever he likes. God is good, yes, but we must be humble and acknowledge that what good may turn out to be in this or that situation may well be something we don't like. The Fear of God is the fear that God will do something we don't like. This Fear of God must, however, be set together with the goodness of God and our trust in him. God is good, and many have realized that God, in his goodness, was calling them to do what they did not want. The Fear of the God who is good appears throughout scripture, note the various times, as with Moses, where God says "I am calling you to lead my people," and the one he is speaking to replies "but I don't want to!" The one God calls ends up going. The realization that God may do that to me should cause me to be, in a way, terrified, or exhilarated (but there is still a sort of fear in exhilaration).

To trust in God, one must place all of oneself in God's hands. But then all of oneself is in his hands, and he gets to do as he likes with you, whether strike you with sores, send you as a missionary, or pastor, or plumber, or truck driver, or accountant, lock you away, sit you in doubt, or whatever else he may choose to do. We may not like it. We may love it. Either way, it is what God has chosen to do in us, and thus we ought to give glory to him for it, for he is good. Wherever God has you now, it is good for you to be there now. This is not to say that you should necessarily remain there, but that your being there now is good. Press on to the goal, but in the knowledge that it is Christ who works in you--your pressing on is also something God is doing with you.

Logical Positivism, Russell, Quine, and the New Atheists

First off, the New Atheists currently bore me. Unfortunately, they do still get some attention from a few people: atheists, agnostics, and Christians, not just other atheists.

Secondly: Bertrand Russell's famous china teapot thought experiment. Thirdly: Quine and Two Dogmas of Empiricism.

Tea! In Space!

Russell's china teapot was one which is a matter for belief. Is it right for me to believe that there is a china teapot orbiting around earth at this moment? The point is that I can't know, nor do I have any way of checking, whether there is or is not a china teapot. I only know that it would be very strange if there were one, as I have not heard of anyone launching a china teapot into orbit, and anyways it probably would not last long (Mythbusters should test that last one, if they haven't yet). But still, there might be a china teapot orbiting the earth. Maybe someone had one specially put into orbit just a moment ago, and I just didn't hear about it.

Russell claimed that one should not, and that it would be silly. This is part the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument against theism. I have seen people argue that theism is not such an extraordinary claim, and I have seen arguments to the contrary.

Removing Assumptions

W.V.O. Quine wrote Two Dogmas of Empiricism, which you can read of you click the link above. In that article, he effected the end of Logical Positivism, a line of thinking which involved a theory of truth where a statement had empirical content, which thus must be verifiable through sense experience, in order to be true, and is also thus interchangeable with other statements with the same empirical content. Logical Positivist philosophy is also famous for arguing that the term "God" has no meaning (since it seems to have no empirical content).

The article includes one line where Quine says, "Any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system," that is, our system of beliefs.

Back to Russell's for Tea

My point in all this is that "x is true come what may" may be translated as "x is 100% likely to be true." Thus, since what Russell is saying when he says that theistic belief is an "extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence" is that theistic belief is not 100% likely to be true, Quine has also removed that argument from the game as it stands.

This is not to say that an argument might be able to be worked out that said "x is unlikely, and we have no proof for it, so let's not believe it." It is, rather, to say that such an argument rests on the assumption that x is unlikely. Russell's argument from unlikelihood really is a nothing argument. To make it a real argument against the existence of God, he would have to show that God's existence is actually unlikely. This is what the problem of evil tries to do, and why it is so successful (when met in person, rather than in a classroom, at least).

To those who debate atheists: congratulations, you both take God's existence or non-existence as true come what may. A Christian sees no problem of evil because he has the belief that God exists, and God is good, so the problem of evil poses no real problem for his belief. On the other hand, the atheist sees the problem of evil quite clearly, and is not satisfied with the Christians faith in a good God without some kind of answer to the problem of evil. Now, I'm not saying that there is no use to trying to figure out how it can be that God exists and there is apparent evil in the world, just that a lack of explication is not grounds for dropping one belief over the other, only grounds for holding an unresolved tension with the expectation that it can be resolved, or for dropping one of the two beliefs. What I am saying is that when a Christian and an atheist debate such things as faith, they are coming at it with largely different views on the matter, such that the problems one has with the other person's view may not even make sense to the other person. So, yeah, good luck (I'll save my thoughts on how to do apologetics well for later).

Also: I do not see why God's existence is so much more unlikely than, say, living in a world where there is matter and energy (and they can be converted into one another--that is weird) and your senses can actually, rather reliably, tell you what that matter and energy is doing. (I'm sure there are numerous other things of the same sort)

How to Prove God's Existence

If God exists, then he must matter to life. He must show up in lives and in the world. I do not doubt that he shows up in lives, however few...

The question is, does he show up in the world enough to say that he is a personal, good, wise, powerful God? This is to ask whether he shows up in ways that are separable from how he shows up in people's lives particularly as a personal, good, wise, powerful God.

This morning I overheard people saying that both the God of the old testament and new testament were both good and angry. Well sure! And you can point to verses to support each statement. But what if I want to know whether God is both a good God and an angry God? I have not seen God avenging his people, or rescuing the oppressed. Certainly, you can spiritualize it, but then God appears to have become weak! Can he no longer work in the world in physical ways? Is he not the creator of the world, both physical and spiritual?

The problem of evil would not be a problem if we could see that it was a good God who hated sin who was in control of the whole world who we were dealing with. Then the problem would be, "Weird, what is he up to?" and not "how could there possibly be such a God?" since we would see that God. So this is the real problem: not the problem of evil, but the problem of the hiddenness of God. And for those who have faith the problem is "weird, what is he up to?" Faith solves problems, because faith is the assurance of God, and particularly Christ.

This problem is to say "whatever happened to miracles?" It is also to say "the change which you say God has brought about in your hearts is not so great." And this latter is a problem for Christians. The change which must be brought about is a change to a sort of love which is impossible apart from God--how else could it be the way that the world can tell who is Christ's disciple? I have seen it here and there, but if Christians are salt and light, then the part of the world I get to see needs more salt, and we're working with candles over here (or I'm just cranky). And this love which is to prove God by being shown in Christians, it must not be faked--it cannot be faked--it must be real, genuine, not forced. It cannot be something learned, in the way that one learns to follow the rules, rather it must become a real part of one's character so that it is what comes out when one drops all inhibitions--drunk Christians should still be loving (which is not to say that Christians should get drunk, since it is hard to see how one would get rid of one's rationality in a loving way).

Miraculous love: love the unlovable without hesitation. I don't care if it does not happen often with you, but that is the love of God you say has been put in your heart. Is it really there or not? Don't lie. Lying won't fix this problem, it is counterproductive to fixing this problem.

I can guess what people might want to say to defend themselves from this: "but we are all broken, right?" Well, yeah, but you could at least try to be honest about it. Or at least be honest about your dishonesty! Can you at least say "we are all broken, but we really aren't showing each other as much as we should be..." and mean it. And by mean it I mean, be distressed by the fact that you are dishonest and hiding your brokenness. Besides, you don't talk like God matters, or like he is personally involved in your life. And when you do? It sounds cliche a lot of the time, it sounds fake usually (and I don't doubt that it is usually fake). What kind of Christians do you think fake being good and talk about God as an abstract ideal, or as a model of right behavior to be followed? I thought he lived in you! I thought he was with you! Act like it, or admit he isn't. Faking it is ugly, and it sometimes makes me think "well, if they have to fake it, God must not be with them at any rate."

I do believe that Christianity is true. I'm just not sure I know many people who know Christ.

On the Logical Possibility of Single Predestination

A Calvinist will argue that God predestines some to be saved and equally predestines others not to be saved. This is called double predestination. A Lutheran, on the other hand, will argue that God predestines some to be saved and merely fails to predestine the others either way, so that they default, due to their sin nature, to being damned. They are left in their condition, not actively predestined to be damned. This is single predestination.

It may be noted that I have, before today, regarded single predestination as logically absurd. That line of thinking goes like this: God is omnipotent, thus he is able to do whatever he wills. A lack of willing to save is, given what he knows (i.e., given how things are), indistinguishable in its results from a willing to damn. Thus, if God does not will to save some, then those he wills to damn. I am not now changing my position, only raising an objection to such an over-simple argument against single-predestination which will require further investigation as to whether God must intend all that occurs or merely knowingly cause all that occurs (this distinction should become clear soon, if it is not already).

In the philosophy of morals, there is a suggested moral principle, which appears to be at work in most human moral reasoning, called the principle of double-effect. This principle, which may be regarded as an outcome of Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative (always to treat humans as ends, never merely as means), is that one may cause harm in doing good if the harm is a side-effect of doing good, and not necessary to the doing of that good. This does not yet provide a basis for single predestination.

Let us consider a variation of the classic trolley dilemmas: There is a trolley coming down the track, and if nothing is done, it will run over five men. I am at a switch. If I pull the switch, then the trolley will go on another track which reconnects to the original track before where the five men are (so that if nothing happens on the side-track, the trolley will still run over the five men). Now, let us suppose there is a large weight on the track which will stop the trolley, thus saving the five men if I pull the switch (I should note that this version of the trolley dilemma did not originate with me, but it also seems to be in a variety of places, so I am unsure of the source).

The principle of double effect may be considered as the rule that one may knowingly cause harm, but one may not intend harm. This gets us closer to understanding a possible basis for single-predestination. If I do an act, one might ask me what I am doing, and I may say "pulling a switch," and they may ask me what I am doing that for, to which I may respond "saving five people from being run over by a trolley." They may then ask how it will save them, to which I may respond, "it will make the trolley hit that large object, and thus stop before it returns to the track." Now, if there is a man standing in front of the weight, this makes no difference to my intent. However, if the weight is, itself, a very large man, then I am intending harm to a person. The first is allowed, given the principle of double-effect, the second is not.

Now, to return single-predestination, the point of single-predestination is that God intends those who are saved to be saved, but that God does not intend the damnation of the others, despite the fact that he knows that they will be damned. The argument of single-predestination is that there is no action which God does where you could ask what he is doing in any way so as to get the answer "damning some."

Now, the moral problem of an omnipotent God saving some and not others is much more complicated than any trolley dilemma (for one, most would argue that God could have saved all, or none, if he had wanted), and it is not clear that it is right to argue that anything happens in the world which God does not intend, rather there are those who hold, and take comfort from, the belief that God intends all things for his glory and our good. The above was simply to show that, implicit in the disagreement between those who hold single-predestination and those who hold double-predestination, is a disagreement about whether God intends everything or simply knowingly causes everything, while intending only a part.

The Lonely World

"We do not just live in the world. We live in a picture or vision of it: of how it hangs together and what it means" --King's College Chapel, Cambridge

The above quote is on a bulletin board on the floor that houses the Philosophy, Religion, and Bible departments of my college. The problem is, "we" might not be, by itself, right, but maybe "we each." You see, given our various lives, we each see a different world. I'm not necessarily saying that what is, for you, a tree may be viewed as a chair by me, nor am I advocating any kind of relativism. What I do want to say, however, is that you do not know what world others are living in, and, yes, they do not know what world you are living in, and each of these worlds is very different, some more than others. The more different one's world is from most people's worlds, the more alone they are likely to feel. This is the lonely world. The term is usually used in reference to solipsism. Here is why the problem of other minds even comes up: you are foreign. You are not merely odd, or strange, you are living in another world which I have never been to, and I do not know. Now, your actions may turn out to be relatively predictable, but you, yourself, as a person: you are often opaque.

That this bothers us makes me think that there is something wrong with it. That there is something wrong with it makes me expect that there is something to be done about it. What?

Given that the problem is with a lack of understanding of others' worlds, the solution would seem to be to learn how others view the world. Only another can tell you how they view the world, and it will be a garbled communication, since they are speaking their language, and you are hearing it through your ears. But, slowly, you may begin to see how they use words in their context. You may begin to understand their language and, in doing so, or in order to do so--the tasks are the same--begin to understand their context, their view of the world. And then, well, there will be similarities when you get right down to the basics. And when you believe that there is another who sees the world in a way somewhat like yours, at least enough that their world doesn't feel like it is out to destroy you, or at least enough to say that it is a human world, then you are no longer alone. Maybe their world is foreign, but maybe you will find that they are people too, valuing, caring, and getting frustrated. You are not alone in this world, you are not the only one who crashes hard into walls.

But they are different worlds, different views on the world. What you see makes you act the way you do. Do not say to another "that was bad" but rather "what makes that good?" Let them say for themselves, or find for themselves, if there is some reason they cannot say "it was good" if they must say "I guess I can't reasonably say that what I did was right." Maybe they say it was good, but that doesn't mean it was. I am not a moral relativist. If something is wrong, then there is some inconsistency somewhere. But everything is based on something. What do you see, that you did that? What does the world look like, what inconsistency have you missed, that you think that was an appropriate measure to take? How can I show you that the world is not the way you think it is?

There is more to be said, I suppose, about the love of God, and how we are not alone because Christ has promised to be with us always. About the power of the Holy Spirit which enables us to love others. About how great God is, and how he will protect us from mere harm, and how this means we do not need to worry about what others will think when we say "I see the world like this," and we think they will think less of us because of it. To love another is to care about what they do because you care about them, and that means that your care of them will not be changed by the fact that they do something stupid, or brilliant. Funny, I can talk about that without reference to God, but really, you have to care about something beyond yourself if you're going to care about anything for reasons beyond what it does for you.
And if you don't believe these things, maybe it makes sense not to let anyone know what your world is like: they might hurt you, they might hate you, they might just not care, and then you will know that at least his person doesn't care about you, just, maybe, what you do.

Here is the culture of the world--at least the western world now--your value is based on what you do. Is it surprising, then, that depression is as common as it is? There are other reasons, yes, but this is tied into our culture at a deep level. It creeps everywhere, even into churches: "having to be "on" at church exhausted me." (from this article). I can understand a certain amount of wanting to hide while being around a large group of people, and it is not necessarily a condemnation of the church to say that we aren't quite ready to share ourselves with everyone, but the church itself ought to be as willing as God is to let people be broken. If the exhaustion from having to be "on" at church is because the church isn't willing to let one relax, then there is a problem. We say that we are one body, that we are siblings. We say that we have fellowship with each other, but if it is really fellowship, then being "on," putting up a bit of a mask as it were, gets in the way. If you want to have fellowship, then let people speak their pain to each other so that each one can bear each others' burdens. Not just the little pains, the acceptable pains. I mean, not just the ones that our culture is okay with, like being busy, but also the ones that our culture is afraid of, that our church culture is afraid of. If I walk into your church and express doubts that what you are saying is true, are you going to dismiss me with easy, and unhelpful, answers? Or will you accept that there are hard questions which need to be wrestled with? There are things you cannot just say, but must show. Yes, show with words, but not just say. Express! Draw a picture. Show me, first, that you understand my questions, that you see what I see, then lead me from my world into a better, a more real world. Point to what I have not yet seen, do not just drop a Bible verse on my head. Do not just give me an answer, rather, lead me to it. And let me challenge everything you say and still be loved, not because of what I do, but just because I exist as one who, like you, values. Because God loved enough to send his son to save rebels, the church must love enough to let rebels come as they are, and let God change them.

The more you want your church to just "be good," the less it will be church. The more you want your church to know they are loved even when they sin in the worst ways, the better it will be. I cannot love if I have no notion of what it is to love, as you show love, others will see and imitate--show the love of God, and they will join you. Yes, you too will mess up, you will fail to love, but isn't that to be expected? Do you think you understand what it is to love? I know that I don't. I am irritated when others think they get this concept. Why are we bothered by constraining God who is love into a box, but we are fine with constraining what it is to love into a box? Go, in the love of Christ, by the power of the Spirit, under the sovereign protection of the Father, and love in the grace in which you are forgiven for your failures to love, and for you inadequate love. He loves you, and it does not depend on whether you love anyone at all... but you will.

Wittgenstein's Birthday

"I am certain that we will not understand [him] unless we feel some sympathy and comprehension for [his] persistent intention to change his whole manner of life" --Maurice Drury about Wittgenstein


"We tend to take the speech of a Chinese for inarticulate gurgling. Someone who understands Chinese will recognize language in what he hears. Similarly I often cannot discern the humanity in a man." --Wittgenstein
 "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." --the last line of his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
"What can be shown cannot be said." --and an earlier one.
"to imagine a language means to imagine a form of life." --from his Philosophical Investigations







So often misunderstood, it seems reasonable to think that his native language has never been common.

What is the use of translating a text which speaks in a completely unknown language? This is more than simply to translate from one language to another, but also to make the context clear. There are some who live in a certain context which is so alien from how others live that, though the language is, at surface, the same, the language is itself quite different. The more different our contexts--our ways of life--the more different our languages. There is enough similarity to be frustrating, and some are lucky enough to have others who speak a relatively similar language, but then there are those who stand in the world and live in a way that is so different from others that the gestures others make about themselves look more akin to the kind which a dog makes by scratching at the door. Sure, the dog gestures toward what seems to be a desire to go out, but surely I ought to expect people who are like me to make more important gestures than that? You want to go here, do that, but so few even bother to scratch at anything of real value. This is what it is to be alone in the world: to find yourself among fools--"persons" who don't care about anything worthwhile. Or perhaps they do... but so often the gestures do not gesture right. They do not treat people as valuable, really. It is as if I were to say "I love cake" but never eat any, even refuse it when offered. People speak, but they do not show, and thus their speech is wasted. And these inconsistencies: at least dogs are consistent! People say one thing, but they lie. Do they care that they say one thing and show another? This at least would show that I am not alone, since I admit I fail to be consistent. But I hate that I am inconsistent, whereas so many laugh it off. Do you think it's funny? Do you think you are here for fun and games? Is that enough? You mock yourselves! Surely there is something that you value like nothing else, with awe and reverence? And yet these words fall flat in front of you, I could write them in Latin or Greek! Fear? You hate fear, but not because you understand it. Don't you think there is anything bigger than you? Something that could destroy you? Haven't you seen the pictures from disasters? If that is the only way to make you stop being chipper, happy without cause, then you are pathetic and shallow. Oh, be joyful, but have a reason! What can inspire joy in the face of such hideous evil but something on your side which may put even death in the position of having this hanging there over its head, able to destroy it. And if you can have joy, if such a thing exists, well, surely it could annihilate you several times over! Does it matter that it is on your side? That gives you joy, but the fear is still proper. If you never really fear, then you have no basis for joy. The exhilarating awe, that is fear and joy. Imagine holding a magnificent, sharp sword in your hands. Fear the blade! It cuts. It doesn't matter that you hold it, and how much more if all you know that the power is on your side. Maybe you don't like it. Maybe it will hurt you to keep you from getting killed. Don't you fear this power? Do you think it is on a leash? Do you think it is predictable? You can fear something even when you are certain that it is for your good. But you don't even know what a "solemn assembly" is well enough to even fake one!

This is the struggle, the frustration of one who looks out on featherless bipeds and hears about video games and movies and drama with no sounds of weeping or awe. No one is unsettled. No one is surprised in their cozy little happy worlds. And then it breaks. Because, if nothing else, we are all squishy mammals, and the world is certainly able to break in, and eventually does, and then you are crushed. Or are your worlds not cozy and happy? Well, then, don't lie to us. Weep, fear, show awe. Gesticulate madly and without thinking, show that you care about something beyond stuff and emotions in themselves! There must be something beyond those that underlie why you care about them. What is it?

So, why do you translate this book? Look: the Bible is utter gibberish if you don't understand the language. And they didn't have an easy time understanding it in its time: look at the disciples' reactions to Jesus. To understand the Bible requires one to see another way of life. One where people are valuable and God is awesome and sin is ugly and God is love. Well! "God is love"! That's easy enough, right? Hah! One might think it is simple because most people have given up trying to figure it out. "Love" Do you have any context for that concept? In the context of an awesome and magnificent and powerful God? Really? Explain! Show this context! Explain this way of life! Or is it rather like this: we cannot speak about this, but only show it? Well, then, how are we to start? To show a concept which no one can explain, we mimic the ones who have seen it. Ah, but has anyone really shown it? Who am I to follow? Jesus? What the Bible says he does is certainly expressing it, but this amounts to circularity: I do not understand this way of life. Is it not, rather, the case that I cannot do what must be done? We can show, sort of, what this love is, but in the end it takes another understanding the language and living in this way of life for us if we are to really get it at all.

Rough Sketch of Solution

I take it that a person is one who values. I am a person (I cannot help but be one who values). Because I have values, I must order these values: I must be consistent.

You gesture towards your mind. I must take that as either a gesture toward a mind or a lie. If a lie, I should stop using those gestures to indicate my own mind, thus, I take the gesture to be honest. Therefore I believe you have a mind.

There is more to it than this (what I have here given has certain gaps left in it), but I have little interest in writing it all out at the moment. What I have given seems sufficient to allow one at least to be able to take breaks from the problem, and this is all I feel the duty to do.