 |
| Bermuda, Google+ |
Preface
Once again a post on this website from my PhD for balance from a different perspective.
I must admit that Clarence Darrow (1857-1938) also puts a smile on my face…
I must admit that Clarence Darrow (1857-1938) also puts a smile on my face…
On the resurrection
Clarence Darrow (1928)(1973) writes that resurrection of the
body is purely a religious doctrine.[1] He reasons that few intelligent persons when
faced with evidence would hold to a doctrine of resurrection.[2] He deduces that those within the New
Testament era had little scientific knowledge, and therefore resurrection
doctrine is a product of those with blind faith, wild dreams, hopeless hopes,
and cowardly fears.[3] Darrow’s
assumption[4]
would more likely be correct if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament were written
by persons that were clearly writing mythological literature with the primary
use of metaphorical language.[5] However, as noted (in my PhD) there are those within both
conservative and liberal Christian traditions that would reason the historical
writers of Scripture wrote what they saw and experienced, and therefore many of these modern scholars accept a
doctrine of physical resurrection.[6]
On the afterlife
Those such as Clarence Darrow, who wrote ‘The Myth of the Soul’ in The Forum,[7] would disagree claiming belief in the afterlife was a product of blind religious faith, ignoring facts.[8] Phillips and Roth raised similar objections against Hick’s view, claiming there was no good reason to think that the human condition would become better after death.[9] For those that deny the existence of the human soul, soul-making would seem untenable and ‘wild dreams’ and ‘hopeless hopes’ as Darrow states.[10] However, for those within mainline, liberal Christian traditions and other religious systems that believe in a spirit or soul that exists after death, an improved quality of life for all persons after this earthly life,[11] can be a thing to be considered and welcomed.
Clarence Darrow (1932)(1973) writes that the best one can do is hold on ‘to the same speck of dirt’ as we proceed ‘side by side to our common doom.’[12] Phillips doubts that there is a God that works things out in the end times in order that there is a reality on earth that consists of happiness[13] and perfection.[14] Phillips reasons his criticisms will fall on ‘deaf ears.’[15]
Clarence Darrow doubts there are proofs available for life after death,[16] and states there is strong evidence against the idea of personal consciousness after death.[17] For Darrow the immaterial soul does not exist and cannot be reasonably conceived.[18] It is true that a culminated Kingdom of God is not presently empirical,[19] but has been presented as Biblical teaching and theology in academic circles for two millennia.[20] As noted earlier in this work, Darrow writes the best one can do is basically cling to life on earth as we head toward ‘a common doom.’[21]
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology,
Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know
and When Does He Know It? Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’,
in The Forum, October, in Paul
Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York,
The Free Press.
DARROW, CLARENCE (1932)(1973)
‘The Delusion of Design and Purpose’, in The
Story of My Life, October, in Paul
Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York,
The Free Press.
GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. VERMEER, PAUL (1999) Learning Theodicy, Leiden, Brill.
HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.
HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future
Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2,
January-April, Harvard University.
HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering
Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God,
Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor
of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.
HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and
Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’,
in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of
Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.
MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil,
Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of
Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
[1] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266).
[2] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266).
[3] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267).
[4] Darrow
(1928)(1973: 266-267).
[5] This as opposed to
writing historical based religious history with the use of plain literal and
figurative literal language.
[6] Moltmann (1993: 160-199). Erickson (1994: 1194-1204). Excepting that there are those that
reinterpret such as Gebara with her feminist views. Gebara (2002: 122-124).
[7] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267).
[8] Darrow (1928)(1973: 267).
[9] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58). Roth in Davis (2001: 62).
[10] Darrow (1928)(1973: 267).
[11] Hick (1978:
13).
[12] Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).
[13] Phillips (2005:
265).
[14] Phillips (2005: 266).
[15] Phillips (2005: 273).
[16] Darrow
(1928)(1973: 261).
[17] Darrow (1928)(1973: 261).
[18] Darrow (1928)(1973: 261).
[19] It is predicted to
occur within Scripture, but has not as of yet. Moltmann (1993: 171-172). A
non-traditional and metaphorical understanding of this concept may view a
literal Kingdom of God as a reality where all souls eventually evolve to a
place of belief and trust in God. Hick
in Davis (2001: 51).
[20] Moltmann (1993: 166-196).
[21] Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).
Website work
This website article updated for an entry on academia.edu, 20250712.
Cited
'As part of a public symposium on belief held in Columbus, Ohio, in 1929, Darrow delivered a speech, later titled "Why I Am An Agnostic", on agnosticism, skepticism, belief, and religion.[45] In the speech, Darrow thoroughly discussed the meaning of being an agnostic and questioned the doctrines of Christianity and the Bible. He concluded that "the fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom. The fear of God is the death of wisdom. Skepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom."[46]'
45 The Essential Words and Writings of Clarence Darrow. Modern Library. 2007. p. 20. ISBN 978-0812966770.
46 Darrow, Clarence (1929). "Why I Am An Agnostic" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 21, 2016. Retrieved October 15, 2015.
'From a symposium with three other speakers: a rabbi, a Protestant bishop and a Catholic Judge, in Columbus, Ohio, March 12, 1929. Suggested for reprint by Foundation member Richard Regner, Wis.'
'To say that God made the universe gives us no explanation of the beginning of things. If we are told that God made the universe, the question immediately arises: Who made God? Did he always exist, or was there some power back of that? Did he create matter out of nothing, or is his existence co-extensive with matter? The problem is still there. What is the origin of it all? If, on the other hand, one says that the universe was not made by God, that it always existed, he has the same difficulty to confront. To say that the universe was here last year, or millions of years ago, does not explain its origin. This is still a mystery. As to the question of the origin of things, man can only wonder and doubt and guess.'
---
My Blogger article is brief and non-exhaustive, already revised with additions from its original version. I will answer this key Darrow objection to theism and Christianity.
God is infinite, all things created by God, including time, space and matter, are finite. God is, always was, and always will be. If God had a creator, infinitum, this creates the problem of vicious regress.
In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324). A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).
An example of a benign regress is infinite numbers both plus and minus, as they in reality represent conceptualized things as opposed to being real things. 'Problem' solved.
Bradley mentions that it is not illogical, and not a vicious regress that each act of free choice is caused by another act of free choice. I agree that it is not necessarily illogical, but disagree that the argument as described is not a vicious regress.
Time is caused by time, is caused by time, is caused by time, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause. (If there is an infinite distance between Maple Ridge and Vancouver, one will never arrive in Vancouver.)
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
---
