Methodology: William Dean (PhD Edit)

Matera, Italy, Travel+Leisure, Facebook

I do not subscribe to empirical theological views as I take to a Reformed, historical, grammatical perspective as a philosophical theologian that also works with philosophy of religion. However, quote: 'Erickson appears to agree with this notion to a point as he comments that in theology, truth and experience are always related.[1]'

This is one of the methodology sections I was required to write for my Doctorate in order to provide methodology for my questionnaires and surveys.

As noted previously, I am obviously more of a philosophical theologian than an experimental one, although for balance will admit that concepts and theology, even from a Biblical Christian perspective are examined and pondered on. A reason to have blogs such as I do. 

Thanks.

William Dean (1990) comments that empirical theology begins with a particular speculative view of life,[2] which in turn leads to the use of the empirical method.[3]

Methodology: William Dean

Dean explains that for empirical theology, method is the outcome of content and not the other way around.[4]  The empirical method contributes to the continual development, correction and revision of speculative content.[5]  He writes that empirical method is distinctive in making experience the highest authority;[6] however, he reasons that even anti-experimental theologians depend on Scripture and related tradition when they are trusted and experienced.[7]  Erickson appears to agree with this notion to a point as he comments that in theology, truth and experience are always related.[8] This connection would be denied or questioned, but theological truth will always impact experience.[9]  

F.W. Dillistone (1999) writes that it is a distinctive aspect of Christianity that one learns continually through religious experience.[10]  Revelation through Christ is the source of that experience.[11] Theological empiricism examines its perspectives to determine if they are connected to the experienced world.[12]  

To Dean, empirical theology, one, begins with a speculative view of life as a struggle.[13]  He also states that, two, from moment to moment empirical theology uses a speculative model to generate piecemeal conclusions in the face of little reliable empirical knowledge.[14]  For Dean method is the outcome of content, as empirical research and findings shall determine the reasonable plausibility of the theology.  In the end, the assumptions of practical theology must be examined by consequences, and if the theology does take root in the real world.[15]

DEAN, WILLIAM (1986)  American Religious Empiricism, Albany, State University of New York Press.

DEAN, WILLIAM (1990) ‘Empirical Theology: A Revisable Tradition’, in Process Studies, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 85-102. Claremont, California, The Center for Process Studies.

DILLISTONE, F.W. (1999) ‘Religious Experience’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press Ltd.

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. 

---

[1] Erickson (1994: 29).

[2] Dean (1990: 85-102).

[3] Dean (1990: 85-102).

[4] Dean (1990: 2).

[5] Dean (1990: 2).

[6] Dean (1990: 3).

[7] Dean (1990: 3).

[8] Erickson (1994: 29).

[9] Erickson (1994: 29).

[10] Dillistone (1999: 207).

[11] Dillistone (1999: 207).

[12] Dean (1990: 5).

[13] Dean (1990: 5).

[14] Dean (1990: 5).

[15] Dean (1990: 5).

Brief On Idolatry

Magdeburg, Germany Beautiful Earth, Google+

The sermon today at church was discussing Solomon and his quote 'seven hundred wives and concubines' and his great wealth.

In light of a comment...God does not have any ontological needs, that is not what the article is discussing. It is in context discussing God's needs for a person as in his purposes vs. natural human needs.

1 Kings 11:1-3

English Standard Version (ESV)

'11 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. 3 He had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart.'

The theme of the sermon, in my opinion was King Solomon and his discussion of the vanities of life that were a prime example of making idols of 'things' other than God.

Therefore, the key to happiness it was indicated for a human being was to trust in God and in Jesus Christ, in other words, the triune God of the New Testament.

To trust of things of spirit and soul over temporal things for happiness.

Definitions of Idolatry

Browning writes that it is 'the cult surrounding a statue of a god or goddess'. Browning (1997: 181).

'Paul warns the Corinthian Christians about a kind of idolatry (I Cor. 10: 14) which might have been a form of civic ceremony'. Browning (1997: 181).

'Idolatry is also used metaphorically for evil desires (Col. 3:5)'. Browning (1997: 181).

This I reason is the primary use of terms idol, idols, and idolatry in the Western evangelical church today.

Colossians 3:5

'English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you:[a] sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Footnotes: Colossians 3:5 Greek therefore your members that are on the earth'

Evil desires are therefore the theological and philosophical opposite of good desires that would be based on a love for God and desires to serve God, in Christ; although admittedly human beings in a corrupted, sinful state are not perfectly good and holy.

Therefore desires are never perfectly good and holy.

P.C. Craigie defines idolatry as 'The worship of an idol or of a deity represented by an idol, usually as an image. Craigie (1997: 542).

He as did Browning acknowledges that the New Testament deals with idolatry in a more metaphorical context than the Hebrew Bible. Craigie (1996: 542).  As in one should not covet for example (Ephesians 5: 5 and Colossians 3: 5).

Ephesians 5:5

English Standard Version (ESV)

'5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.'

Again in context, this is evil desires, the opposite of good desires. Another way a stating this would be that the Holy Spirit is not being sought in these desires, but sinful human desires are being followed.

A theological key here is the idol becomes 'the immediate focus of a person's desires and 'worship' displacing the worship of God.' Craigie (1996: 543).

The sermon's assumption being, and I agree, that this type of metaphorical idolatry will ultimately in this realm lead to vanity and unhappiness.

However, where I take some issue is with what is lacking, in an admittedly non-theological lecture format of preaching, as the message, as are many evangelical presentations, is over-simplistic.

Clearly it is intellectually and theologically possible to desire things in Christ through the Holy Spirit and still not be happy. 

Personally, I do not even reason that happiness should be our goal in such a fallen realm, rather it should be peace, joy and fulfilment in Christ even while there are problems of evil and suffering.

I do think that lack of misery should be a goal, that is lack of extreme suffering for prolonged periods.

There are many things that could make a sincere Christian unhappy apart from being in a state of idolatry.

These include, non-exhaustively, starvation, physical injury such as a serious wound needing treatment, physical assault, rape, loneliness, poverty, amputation, blindness, deafness, physical deformity and social ramifications, diseases such as cancer, ALS, apparent lack of salvation for friends and family, death of friend or family member and so on.

To simply state that when Christians are suffering with unanswered prayer, that these are 'felt needs' as one pastor stated at another church, when God does not grant them, does not seem accurate.

That type of theology also plays philosophically, in my humble opinion, into the Christian critic's hands because a realistic apologetic of reason is not being used.

Some claim atheism or agnosticism in part I reason because seemingly like many evangelical Christians they expect more from God. But the Christian believes in faith and the critic does not.

But, there are true needs that in this realm of problems of evil and suffering are not always met by God.

I realize that this is very difficult for some evangelicals to accept, but examine the evidence.

As God meets the needs of his saints in order to accomplish his will.

1 John 5:14-15 English Standard Version (ESV)

'14 And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.'

This is my view is not stating that God will meet all needs, 'felt needs' or actual needs such as losing a leg due to amputation and needing a new one, in this realm.

Are we as an apologetic going to seriously state to the amputee that you really do not need that leg, or God would give it to you?

Or rather is the situation more accurately a reflection of God's sovereign will.

Suffering included.

R.W. Orr in regard to I John, notes that persons praying into the will of God are brought into the 'fellowship of divine life'. Orr (1986: 1584).

I do not find the idea from 1 John or the New Testament that God meets all of our needs in Christ in this realm, but rather his needs for us are met in prayer as in his purposes for persons.

Not ontological divine needs of God. There are none.

Therefore, this allows for the possibility for suffering, lack of fulfilment and misery to some extent for a person that has the Holy Spirit and the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied to them by grace through faith alone, leading to good works.

This is not idolatry. This is not idolatry to desire for things to be better, to be fixed.

Although I can admit that where there is natural good desires, related evil desires can also exist which would be idolatry. Therefore idolatry remains a very significant issue.

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

CRAIGIE, P.C. (1996) 'Idolatry', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ORR, R.W. (1986) I John, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Too much time...Boom 99.7, Facebook

Philosopher Frederick Ferre: Incompatibilism (PhD Edit)

Paris-Travel+Leisure, Facebook

Frederick Ferre (1973)(1976) presents an incompatibilist view called self-determinism.[1]  Ferre reasons that, although there are external conditions relevant for every action, the outcomes of these actions are not fixed by any causal chain.[2]  Ferre here is suggesting that for some events there is not a prior determined cause.[3] Therefore, within this theory some human actions would not be caused or simultaneously determined by God or any external force,[4] and some human actions could be considered self-determined.[5] 

Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will theodicy that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action.[6]  There can be no antecedent[7] conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed.[8] 

Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form.[9]  P.S. Greenspan (1998) writes compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible.[10]  Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions.[11]  Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed.[12] 

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

FERRE, FREDERICK (1952)(1976) ‘Self-Determinism’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 10, Number 3, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids,  Zondervan Publishing House.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland.

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

---

[1] Ferre (1973)(1976: 31-44).

[2] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[3] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[4] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[5] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[6] Feinberg (1994: 64).

[7] In his article entitled ‘Conditional’ Simon Blackburn writes that an antecedent exists if  p causes  q.  P  is the antecedent or prior cause of  q  which is the conditional and the consequence.  Blackburn (1996: 73-74).

[8] Feinberg (1994: 64).

[9] Pojman (1996: 596).

[10] Greenspan (1998: 1).

[11] Feinberg (1994: 60).

[12] Feinberg (2001: 637).

Incompatibilism, Libertarian Free Will and Political Libertarianism (PhD Edit)

Provence, Travel+Leisure and Facebook

Provence, France-Travel+Leisure and Facebook

I noticed this tonight in an edits file, then noticed there was a version in my PhD and so therefore I share...

Based on quick searches, the first appearance of Oxford Philosopher, Tim Mawson on my blogs.

Yes, I do check.

I share, and provide additional perspectives on my material. I hold to compatibilism, but academic balance is needed in PhD work and blogging for that matter.

Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism in regard to human free will,[1] believes that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states.[2] Thus within incompatibilist theory, a human action would never truly be free because God would have willed and determined it on his own before he simultaneously willed it with a given person.[3] 

Mawson writes that incompatibilism, which is closely related to libertarianism in regard to human free will,[4] states that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states[5]  This view would rule out God as a preceding force that determines the human will and actions.[6]  Libertarianism[7] is often viewed as a form of indeterminism.[8]  An action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire.[9]  Indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions) or simultaneous causes of human actions.[10]  All human actions are only free if a person could have done otherwise.[11]  

I reason that many church attendees in our modern society make a connection, perhaps unconsciously, between libertarian political,[12] religious, social type freedom, and libertarianism[13] in regard to God.  However, political forces that grant some freedoms are finite (limited) entities and should not be equated with the freedom allowed by the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God. At the same time, God’s power to determine events is much greater than any political entity.

With a compatibilistic model, if the infinite, omnipotent God restrains himself and allows his permissible rather than perfect will to take place, his will is still being done, and he is still determining events, by allowing evil and sin to occur and not intervening.

---

[1] Mawson (1999: 324).

[2] Mawson (1999: 324).

[3] Mawson (1999: 324).

[4] Mawson (1999: 324).

[5] Mawson (1999: 324).

[6] Mawson (1999: 324).

[7] Libertarianism supposes that human free choice is not causally determined, but is not random either.  Blackburn (1996: 218).

[8] Geisler (1996: 429).

[9] Mawson (1999: 324). 

[10] Geisler (1996: 429).

[11] Geisler (1996: 429).

[12] Political libertarianism maximizes individual rights and the state has its power minimized.  Blackburn (1996: 218).

[13] Blackburn (1996: 218).  

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

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MAWSON, TIM (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil and Moral Indifference’, in Religious Studies, Volume 35, pp. 323-345. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.