Animal Pain Revisited

Unique

2015

I do not want to approach this topic as a hypocrite.

I do eat animal meat, although much less than I used to as eating more grains, fruits and vegetables is part of my diet.

I actually ate in a similar way living in the United Kingdom, both times basically eating fruits and vegetables primarily for the first two meals of the week day.

This is likely a permanent diet.

On this planet, land and sea creatures, aquatic life and plant life are at times used as food, as this is an aspect of the ecosystem.

However, I am opposed to abuses, by human beings, of these creatures and plant life within that ecosystem, of any kind.

I am also opposed to the killing of creatures that are endangered or legally protected.

But recent news events had me consider this section from my MPhil.

Biblically and theologically, there is a clear distinction, ontologically between human beings and the animal kingdom.

Distinctions many in Western society will not intellectually reasonably grasp, being largely untrained philosophically and theologically.

Via the media it can be seen that certain persons are more upset, or not upset at all, over the unethical killing of an animal than she/he is over the death of a human beings, including the unborn.

Some apparently, would not have an ethical problem with an animal killer that is reported to have killed an animal illegally, being killed himself.

This is a grave error theologically and philosophically and a sign of an unregenerate person.

Biblically only human beings. and not the animal kingdom was created in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1). This provides humanity with a special spiritual status and greater value ontologically, although granted human nature is fallen and corrupted in the present realm (Genesis 2, Romans).

Related Post

June 9, 2008

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Animal Pain

Lewis was not sure why animals suffer, and stated that no human being knew. He doubted that animals had a soul of consciousness as human beings do. Without consciousness an animal experiences sensations, but does not deal with it in a deep, soulful way as a human being would.

He stated: But at least a great deal of what appears to be animal suffering need not be suffering in any real sense. It may be we who have invented the ‘sufferers’ by the ‘pathetic fallacy’ of reading into the beast a self for which there is no real evidence. Lewis (1940)(1996: 137).

Animals after all do not build civilizations, nor do they have families as we understand them. Animals communicate and live based on instinct and sensation rather than conscious rational thought, so their pain would be different. I am not minimizing their pain, and I think cruelty to animals is appalling, but I think Lewis correct in indicating that animal pain in not well understood by humanity.

What can be deduced is that it is not comparable to human pain which is experienced by rational beings.

Additional 2008

The term rational is a tricky one. In the MPhil I was meaning that the concept of being rational would consist of reasoning.

Blackburn provides a good explanation that reasoning would consist of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises. Blackburn (1996: 320).

Osterhaven explains that Biblically animals are considered to have a soul. Osterhaven. (1996: 1036).

I provide here again in this article the most commonly used Greek word for soul ‘psuche’ psoo-khay according to Strong's Concordance. Strong (1986: 106).

Osterhaven also notes that beasts as a principle of life are stated to have a spirit as well in Genesis 6:17 and 7:15. Osterhaven (1996: 1041).

Strong is in agreement on the verses and the most common Old Testament word for breath or spirit ‘ruwach’ roo’-akh is used, and I provide this once again. Strong (1986: 142).

Theologically in Scripture animals are not described as communicating with God in a spiritual way, and therefore theologically the soul/spirit nature of animals is considered unable to spiritually communicate with God.

The theological assumption can be made that the animal soul/spirit is limited to the temporal earthly realm and when an animal body dies, so does the soul. I lean toward this understanding, and do not reason that there are animals in soul/spirit form in God's presence after death.

However, in the new heaven and new earth (Revelation), God if he so pleases could resurrect animals seemingly easily. This could be done if God desires that some of his animals inhabit the Kingdom of God and it could also occur since many resurrected persons will seemingly desire to love their deceased pets.

If there were animals in the culminated Kingdom would they be immortal? Perhaps, but if they were not, certainly God, or even perhaps resurrected persons could in faith with God's power maintain the life of animals as they could be virtually immortal even if they were not technically immortal.

So, do animals go to heaven? Well, the answer could be yes and no. I doubt animals are in God's presence in a strictly spiritual realm, but some animals could be resurrected as the Kingdom of God is culminated.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Soul’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Spirit’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Maple Ridge, British Columbia

Gustav Aulen & The Ransom View Of Atonement (PhD Edit)

Sweden-Denmark Oresund Crossing

Matthew 20:26-28 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His [a]life a ransom for many.”

Footnotes: Matthew 20:28 Or soul

Matthew 20:26-28 English Standard Version (ESV)

26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[a] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,[b] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Mark 10:43-45 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

43 But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His [a]life a ransom for many.”

Footnotes: Mark 10:45 Or soul Footnotes: Matthew 20:26 Greek diakonos  Matthew 20:27 Greek bondservant (doulos)

Mark 10:43-45 English Standard Version (ESV)

43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[a] 44 and whoever would be first among you must beslave[b] of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Footnotes: Mark 10:43 Greek diakonos Mark 10:44 Greek bondservant (doulos)

1 Timothy 2:5-6 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony [a]given at[b]the proper time.

Footnotes: 1 Timothy 2:6 Or to be given 1 Timothy 2:6 Lit its own times

1 Timothy 2:5-6 English Standard Version (ESV)

5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Footnotes: 1 Timothy 2:5 men and man render the same Greek word that is translated people in verses 1 and 4

Gustav Aulen & The Ransom View Of Atonement (PhD Edit)

Origen presented the ransom view of atonement. In his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Origen explains that the atoning work of Christ was a ransom price as Christ gave up his life in order that human beings could have their lives back. Origen (ca 203-250)(2001: 30).

The primary historical exponent of this view is Gustav Aulen, a Bishop in the Church of Sweden who wrote Christus Victor and the journal article ‘Chaos and Cosmos: The Drama of Atonement’ both in 1950. In Christus Victor, he explains that the central theme of atonement is Christ’s dramatic victory over Satan, sin, and death. Aulen (1950a: 14). Through the incarnated Christ’s death and resurrection, Aulen notes in this drama that Christ reconciles the world to himself. Aulen (1950a: 5). I

In ‘Chaos and Cosmos’ Aulen writes that every Christian doctrine of atonement should include the concept that the love of God through Christ destroys the evil powers. Aulen (1950b: 156). The atonement should be primarily viewed as the means by which God provided humanity with victory over evil and reconciliation with God. Aulen (1950b: 158).

Aulen like Anselm did view Christ’s atoning work as sacrifice, but Aulen points out it was done willingly by Christ who suffered and then overcame evil. Aulen (1950b: 162).

The ransom theory of atonement places less importance on God’s need for justice and sacrifice, and more of an emphasis on God freeing humanity from the bonds of Satan, sin, and death. Instead of atonement being mainly about a sacrifice offered to God for sin from humankind in Christ.

Gustaf Wingren states that Aulen’s view is primarily concerned with God overcoming evil for his people. Wingren (1965: 310).

Bloesch reasons that Christ has purchased and redeemed his followers through the atoning work. From this task God’s love for humanity is shown as persons cannot save themselves through merit. Bloesch (1987: 97).

2015 Additions

Millard J. Erickson points out, atonement theory is multifaceted including the concepts of sacrifice, propitiation (appeasement of God), substitution and reconciliation. Erickson (1994: 811-823).

The ransom view is within multifaceted atonement theory as a Biblical position.

Oxford and Browning state that from Mark 10:45 that the Son of God is vindicated in victory, but only after suffering and service. Browning (1997: 315).

From the Matthew and Mark verses λύτρον, ου, τό :something to loosen with as in redemptive price. Figurative : atonement as in ransom. Strong (1890)(1986: 60).

λύτρον, ου, τό: Price, release and ransom, and specifically from Matthew and Mark verses as a ransom for many. Bauer (1986: 482).

From 1 Timothy ἀντίλυτρον, ου, τό: a redemption price-ransom. Strong (1890)(1986: 13).

ἀντίλυτρον, ου, τό: Ransom. Bauer (1986: 75).

AULEN, GUSTAV (1950a) Christus Victor, Translated by A.G. Hebert, London, S.P.C.K.

AULEN, GUSTAV (1950b) ‘Chaos and Cosmos: The Drama of Atonement’, in Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, Volume 4, April, Number 2, New York, Interpretation.

BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ORIGEN (ca. 203-250)(2001) Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Peter Kirby, California, Early Christian Writings. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-matthew.html.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

WINGREN, GUSTAF (1965) ‘Gustaf Aulen’ in A Handbook of Christian Theologians, Nashville, Abingdon Press.

Previous related posts

January 9, 2008

February 4, 2009

The World Is Becoming More Evil: Revisited

Conwy, Wales-trekearth

Preface

At work there are corporate internet terminals. I check Facebook to see the 'PC' version as just opposed to the 'Mobile' version. They have some differences as many will know. After I logged in past the regular corporate security I went to Facebook and realized it was someone else's account. I did not alter their account and stayed ethical, but noticed that my most recent posts and status updates on my main page do not appear to a non-friend. The non-friend page does more so place emphasis on 'new friends'.

However, my Facebook blog page seemed up to date.

From

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

Previous related posts

April 11, 2013

October 17, 2007

Question 46: The world is becoming more evil

With these questions the scale changed, and is now ranging from 1 to 5, 1 being ‘little’ and 5 being ‘much’. 

One hundred and eleven respondents (52.1%) chose ‘4 to 5’ meaning a majority favour the proposition.

Sixty persons (28.2%) chose ‘1 to 2’ and 42 (19.7%) chose ‘3’.

The World Is Becoming More Evil: Revisited

Within my doctoral problem of evil survey results, 52.1% of respondents within Christian churches supported this proposition.

Are individuals and institutions becoming more evil, making the world more evil, and/or are incidents of evil simply being reported in greater numbers due to more television stations and the internet?

In the Western world there are commercially far more television stations available today than in the 1970s.The internet and the worldwide web also provide worldwide coverage of events and therefore the problem of evil on a global scale can be digested by persons in local markets, and evil can appear to be greater in amount than it was thirty to forty years ago.

From a Biblical Christian world-view there has been some negative trends in the world, including within Western society and the Christian Church itself. Those within the Christian Church, which hold to a Biblical world-view, may tend to see the world, the Western world, at least, as becoming more evil as many tend to reject Christian concepts.

Hal N. Ostrander, Chair of the Religion & Philosophy Division at Brewton-Parker College in Washington State, explains that in today’s post-Christian era and society, Christians will face cultural and intellectual challenges to the faith. Ostrander (2004: 1). The Church is in a defensive position where it needs to defend a faith, not accepted by most in Western society. Ostrander (2004: 1)

Harold Lindsell provides the opinion that many Christian institutions have slowly over time moved away from orthodox, Biblical theology and have gone astray. Lindsell (1976: 185). If Biblical theology is rejected within very liberal theology, then what occurs is that Biblical Christianity is replaced by a human made religion. This religion is not of God, but rather represents the attempts of certain religious persons to make God palatable for 21st century consumption.

2015 Comments

I listened to an online pastor the other week that stated the world will continue to become worse and worse in regard to evil until the end of this age, this based on a Biblical worldview of Genesis to Revelation.

Contrast that view with what I heard on a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation news program earlier this week that stated (paraphrased) that Papal views in regard to the decline of Western society over the last five hundred years are an example of an outdated worldview.

The commenter, a business professor, noted that there have been many vast improvements for the typical Canadian example, in just the last few decades, economically and socially.

He then asked (paraphrased) if the Pope would like Western society to go back to the Middle Ages?

The Professor, as he often does on the program, made some good points, although I doubt he holds to a Biblical Christian worldview...

But I am not a supporter of the Papacy and I would definitely not like to live in the Middle Ages or a similar era.

In regard to the survey, I answered that particular question during the PhD research rather cautiously and non-dogmatically.

This was because I can acknowledge both sides.

There have been technological and social improvements in the Western World over the past decades and centuries.

I am in agreement basic with Ostrander and Lindsell, that there is a decline in Christianity in the Western World. I reason there are many spiritual negatives as a results which will occur in all aspects of humanity.

There have been many technological and social improvements made in the Western World. But I do not reason this is because human beings have evolved in nature. The nature remains the same, fallen and sinful (Romans 1-6, Genesis 2-3) and in need of the Gospel for salvation.

Sin and death remain theologically and philosophically unsolved as ultimate human problems, within a secular worldview.

With abortion on demand still taking place in the Western World, for example, it has not as of yet become pragmatic socially and politically to protect the unborn as a class of human beings, although scientifically human at the earliest stages.

Cited

Medicine Net

'Embryo: An organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation, from fertilization to the beginning of the third month of pregnancy (in humans). After that point in time, an embryo is called a fetus.'

This distinguishes the embryo from non-fertilized human genetic material, such as semen.

Some would like to state that they are virtually the same thing in favour of a pro-choice position, but scientifically the first is a fertilized egg, while semen is non-fertilized male reproductive fluid.

This demonstrates as example, that human nature as sinful has not changed. Human lives are still being taken unjustly by Western society.

Circumstances have caused many positive changes over Western history, as opposed to a change in in human nature or the evolution of human nature.

As the Pastor at church recently noted (paraphrased), human beings are just as evil and as capable of barbaric acts as ever. This explains the brutality of ISIS he noted on a world scale, or the disgruntled employee that goes on a killing rampage in the Western World.

Then there is my example of abortion on demand in the Western context, specifically which demonstrates the termination and therefore killing of unborn human beings.

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

OSTRANDER, HAL N. (2004) ‘Defending the faith in a post-Christian era’, The Christian Index, Duluth, Georgia, The Christian Index. http://www.christianindex.org/206.article

Thomas Aquinas On Privation (PhD Edit)

Venice: trekearth

Preface:

My work week ends early as I am taking today, Friday, off to see Rush at Rogers Arena. This will be the tenth time viewing Rush and perhaps the last, as they are ending major touring.

I thought I would once again look through my MPhil/PhD theses material for something not fully presented previously and I had dealt with privation previously mostly from the perspective of Augustine and John Hick that were major and significant PhD exemplars. 

------

Thomas Aquinas (1261)(1920) writes in Summa Theologiae that evil was only possible from a corruption of the good.[1]  Leibniz noted that evil itself only comes from privation.[2]

Since evil cannot exist by itself[3] it would be impossible, in Augustine’s view, for all good to be removed from the nature of a being as there would therefore be no entirely, purely evil entity.[4]  He went on to say that an incorruptible nature, such as that of God, would be far better than a corruptible nature,[5]  but for the corruptible nature to exist it must possess some goodness.[6] 

John Hick concludes that Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) were not content with merely establishing a Biblical doctrine of God’s goodness and the related goodness of his creation.[7]  

Augustine and Aquinas were influenced by Neo-Platonic thought and equated being with goodness, so that greater existence (existence without evil) meant greater goodness.[8] Aquinas postulates that everything desired as an end is perfection,[9] and that since every nature desires its own being and perfection, this is good.[10]  Therefore evil cannot signify a being, form, or nature, as evil is not desirable and is only possible by corrupting the good.[11] 

It appears that Hick’s point is reasonable,[12] at least to the extent that greater goodness does not equal greater existence.[13]  This is difficult to measure because as discussed previously in this work, much of traditional theology states that all creation has been corrupted.[14]  

We are therefore comparing imperfect creatures that are in existence with hypothetical perfect creatures, and we are attempting to judge whether or not these hypothetical creatures would have greater existence because they were perfectly good.  This becomes a very speculative procedure, and I agree with Hick that the Augustinian view of God’s goodness is accurate in regard to human goodness being secondary to God’s, as finite beings contain finite goodness.[15]  Hick, however, denies the metaphysical doctrine that human beings were created good,[16] and I would respectfully differ siding with Augustinian and Reformed traditions.[17]    

AQUINAS, THOMAS (1261)(1920) Summa Theologica, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, London, Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

http://www.op.org/summa/

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

           

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw,  Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

http://www.knight.org/advent

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

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.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics.

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

---

[1] Aquinas (1261)(1920: 1.48.1).

[2] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 219).  Schelling also discusses this view of Leibniz.  Schelling (1845)(1936: 45).   

[3] Aquinas (1261)(1920: 1.48.1).  Leibniz (1710)(1998: 219). 

[4] Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 7).

[5] Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 7).

[6] Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 7).

[7] Hick (1970: 176).

[8] Hick (1970: 176).  Augustine (388-395)(1964: 117).  Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 7).  Aquinas (1261)(1920: 1.48.1).

[9] Aquinas (1261)(1920: 1.48.1).

[10] Aquinas (1261)(1920: 1.48.1).

[11] Aquinas (1261)(1920: 1.48.1).

[12] Hick (1970: 62).

[13] Although I reason God is infinitely good and Satan, for example, can at best be finitely evil. But satanic power can conceivably grow.

[14] Within Augustinian and Reformed models.

[15] Hick (1970: 178).

[16] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).

[17] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33).  Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 2, 7).

Rome: Facebook

Also on Privation

June 28, 2007 Augustine and Hick

November 19, 2008 Augustine and Hick

Philosopher Louis P. Pojman (PhD Edit)

National Geographic: San Buenaventura, Mexico

Hard Versus Soft Determinism

Louis P. Pojman (1996) explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism,[1] and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism.[2]  Within determinism or hard determinism, God[3] causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions,[4] while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily.[5] The human will would be the secondary cause in human decisions.  Persons would still therefore be morally responsible for moral actions.  Pojman (1996: 596). 

Pragmatism

Pojman defines pragmatism as the theory that interprets the meaning of a statement in terms of practical consequences.[6]  Some judge the truthfulness or falseness of a statement/proposition on whether or not it is pragmatic.[7]  Gene Edward Veith, Jr., (1994) states ‘what works and what’s[8] practical’ is pragmatism.[9] 

Cosmology

Whale writes that cosmology is looking at the cosmos and visible universe from a theistic perspective denying that it is self-explanatory.[10]  Pojman mentions that theistic versions of cosmology deduce something outside of the universe is required to explain its existence.[11]  Paul Edwards (1973) explains cosmology reasons that all things come into being through other things,[12] and since a causal series of events cannot go back in infinity, there must be a first cause.[13]  Thomas Aquinas is famous for discussing The Five Ways and his cosmological argument within Summa Theologica.[14]  Plantinga reasons that aspects of Aquinas’ presentation[15] are reasonable, but overall the argument is unsuccessful.[16]  I reason this does not render all arguments for first cause unsuccessful, but Plantinga points out difficulties with Aquinas’ approach,[17] which is perhaps too extensive.[18] Edwards comments[19] would adequately explain a more modest and reasonable idea concerning first cause.  

AQUINAS, THOMAS (1261)(1920) Summa Theologica, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, London, Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973)(eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

VEITH, GENE EDWARD, JR. (1994) Postmodern Times, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books. 

---

[1] Pojman (1996: 596).

[2] Pojman (1996: 596).

[3] This could be an outside force, as well, that is not God.  An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist, or one could hold to hard determinism.  Schelling suggests that ‘absolute causal power in one being leaves nothing but unconditional passivity for all the rest.’  Schelling (1845)(1936: 11).  This would be a difficulty with accepting hard determinism.

[4] Pojman (1996: 596). 

[5] Pojman (1996: 596). 

[6] Pojman (1996: 598).

[7] Pojman (1996: 598).

[8] Veith uses a contraction, which I do not normally use in academic work.

[9] Veith (1994: 83). 

[10] Whale (1958: 22).

[11] Pojman (1996: 37).

[12] Edwards (1973: 377-378).

[13] Edwards (1973: 377-378).

[14] Aquinas, Thomas (1261)(1920) Summa Theologica, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, London, Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

[15] Aquinas, Thomas (1261)(1920).

[16] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 80).

[17] Aquinas, Thomas (1261)(1920).

[18] Aquinas’ presentation although classic and important, is very speculative and Plantinga has disagreements with his overall work. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 80).  Geivett reasons Plantinga is too negative concerning natural theology as possibly working.  Geivett (1993: 59-60). 

[19] Edwards (1973: 377-378).

Brief On Scholarship

Wales-trekearth

Gary Habermas interview from his site 2014 03-19

Dr. Habermas states again and again, basically (paraphrased in interviews) for the most part Biblical scholars conservative and liberal generally reason those that wrote the Scriptures honestly believed what they wrote (therefore the people noted within were real), but there is a difference in the acceptance of the supernatural related doctrines between conservative and liberal scholarship.

He mentioned in the interview that a recognized scholar would need to have to have a terminal degree from a (paraphrased) accredited institution, be working in the field and have a peer reviewed publication.

He stated that blogs are questionable for scholarship. Agreed.

Generally, bloggers are not scholars, but I am an exception, due to the nature of my work.

For disclaimer, I have met Dr. Habermas in person and have emailed with him for career advice.

He is quite helpful and a friend.

Although I do not have a peer reviewed journal article and do not work in the field as a primary career. I do consider myself a scholar, although certainly not well-known, due to the peer review nature of five hundred pages of  major PhD and MPhil, United Kingdom theses, and as well my blogs, particularly this academic one which uses scholarly documentation.

I did do significant work in the areas of theodicy, the problem of evil, free will, determinism and embedded my own Reformed solution the problem of evil, within my PhD thesis.

That qualifies as scholarship.

If I stay outside of primary employment in the fields of philosophy of religion and religious studies and do not write any other major works this will keep me rather unknown but does not prevent me from writing shorter scholarly documented posts on this site or even on Satire And Theology.

I largely agree with Dr. Habermas in his evaluation of what is a scholar and the need to be careful when he states that many of the web sources in regard to philosophy of religion and religious studies today are questionable and lacking proper academic credentials, regardless if whether they are conservative or liberal, Christian or non-Christian in view.

South Wales-trekearth

Just emailed today with a well-known philosopher of religion, historian and New Testament scholar that told me that among his friends, including me, basically no one is being hired, and he knows of another with two PhDs, including one from Wales. I of course have my PhD and MPhil research only degrees from Wales.

I will continue to earn my primary living elsewhere and continue with daily study.