Obidos Vila, Natal, Portugal (photo from trekearth.com)
Social rules exist within society. Philosopher Simon Blackburn describes society as a group of persons unified by a set of distinctive and systematic normative relations. Blackburn (1996: 355). Actions of one are perceived as meriting characteristic responses by others, and to be part of society is to be subject to the norms of interaction. Blackburn (1996: 355). Blackburn also writes there is such a thing as social philosophy, which is the attempt to understand and chart the basic categories by which to think about social aspects of human life. Blackburn (1996: 354). Jan Narveson explains that social philosophy is broadly the philosophy of society that includes social science, political philosophy, ethics, and law. Narveson (1996: 747).
Romans 12:2 informs the believer not to be conformed to the world but instead to be transformed by the renewing of the mind. Mounce writes that believers are not to conform themselves to the present age and to set their minds on heavenly and not earthly things. Mounce (1995: 232). Cranfield notes that there have been debates concerning the exact Greek meaning here but writes:
By rendering the second person plural passive present imperatives (in the former case preceded by a negative particle) by ‘stop allowing yourselves to be conformed’ and ‘continue’ to let yourselves be transformed’, respectfully, we have tried to bring out both the sense of the passive imperatives and also, in each case, the significance of the use of the present imperative. Christians still live in ‘this age’. Cranfield (1992: 296).
Christians are to reject the world-system and social norms that would violate the work of God’s Holy Spirit within their lives. This is not to state that all social norms should be rejected, but ones that interfere with God’s plans for an individual need to be abandoned. This allows for the intellectual possibility that Christians as individuals are at times to act contrary to social norms to be within God's will. I reason that Christians should be socially aware, and in some situations certain Christians should follow social norms, and other times certain Christians should not.
I am in my thirties and I have limited experience with dating and romance. I have been very busy working on four academic degrees, and with God’s help striving for academic excellence with some difficult topics including the problem of evil. My main academic discipline for the last three degrees has been theology, but Biblical studies (the major of my first degree) and philosophy (with my two British dissertation degrees) have been important disciplines for me to learn as well. One can see that these three disciplines have all been presented on this blog. Learning three academic disciplines and practical and empirical theology and statistics within theology has been very energy and time consuming, especially for one that has suffered with fatiguing sleep apnea and related surgeries and allergies, and eye problems and related surgeries. I have not been able to meet a compatible Christian young woman, and living within very secular Greater Vancouver has not helped my situation either. I therefore do not share the social experience of many of the women my age who have had relationships, been married, had children, and have perhaps been divorced. Although I consider myself a mature, but imperfect Christian, I am not socially at the same point as many Christian men my age that have experience that parallels the women I mentioned. As a result, I am not ready to, or do I have the desire to date or marry a near or middle-aged woman, and neither do I have any desire at this point to take someone’s pre-teen children or teenagers as my own. Perhaps if I was more romantically experienced I would be willing to be a stepfather, but at this point I am nowhere intellectually there. I also would still like to have my own children, and would consider a relationship with a young woman with a baby or toddler, or perhaps more than one small child. This is my preference, and I reason that God guided me to have such preference. Others can criticize me for my position, as my preference makes it more difficult to find a relationship, but they need to see things from my perspective as an individual Christian that has had a difficult and yet somewhat rewarding life through God’s direction. God’s plans for me and his guidance of my personal preference should always take precedence over social norms. I am a non-conformist, but do not embrace this to be anti-establishment, but I must conform to the life that God has in store for me, and not social norms, when necessary. One should not assume that social norms are what are best for me but should prayerfully look at my individual situation. I need to be open-minded and be willing to change preference if that is God’s will.
Two recent examples of persons that have contacted me via the Christian Café on my free days.
One, 35-40 years old with three teenagers. I do not view it as reasonable to expect me to go from a man with limited experience in his 30s to instant father of teenagers, even if I was attracted to this woman, which I was not.
Two, 40-45 years old, still married but seeking a divorce, with several of her own children and a 32 year old step-son. Again, I do not view this as a reasonable option and I was not attracted to this woman.
I should not be expected to socially follow norms just because of my age, and the fact that due to ageism many younger Christian women in their twenties do not want to date someone in his thirties, despite my commitment to Christ through study, which often seemingly appears unimportant to many. If I cannot find a woman compatible in her twenties to thirties with God’s help, the wise thing is not to conform to social pressure, but to simply stay single. I appreciate those who lovingly and with good intentions provide constructive criticism at church and such, but I must respectfully disagree when needed.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Social Philosophy’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 354. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Society’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 355. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
NARVESON, JAN. (1996) ‘Social Philosophy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Ilulissat, Greenland (photo from trekearth.com)
I do not personally relate to any of these situations!
Russ;)
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/12/yesterdayi-threw-
my-common-sense-away.html
Hey Russ, not to play the age game, but I'm a little bit older than you, and can really relate to the not fititng into your social circle of compatible mates etc. My reasons are very different, but its something I can surely relate to. (spending around 12 years in the funny farm, mental hosptial whatever name you want to call it, including most of my teenage years, robbed me of much of the normal experiences in life with little chance to regain them back later) But on the other hand, we seem to have our mind set againstw something, (such as what you said you were not looking for) and God seems to open that door and push us through it in many circumstances in life.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Deejay.
ReplyDeleteI can tell from looking at your blog that you have had a tough life. I am sorry. Whether I remain single or not, I hope and pray I will obey God, and that I will not miss out on something really good because of my own mistakes.
Russ:)
Hahahaha, nice comics! (I can identify with that last one...!) You know, I think you have your head on straight when it comes to relationships. I mean, duh, like you needed me to tell you that, but I mean, you know who you are, you know who you want, you're willing to wait for it, and you're putting God first. That's about the best any of us can do. My situation isn't as bad as yours - San Diego is filled with beautiful women. But finding a Christian woman who is compatible with me here is like finding a needle in a haystack. Sometimes I wonder, "What's the deal, Lord? How come everybody else gets to experience this, but I don't?" But when it comes down to it, the Lord is in heaven and He does what pleases Him. That would be bad if He were a vengeful dictator, but He's loving and kind and has good plans for us. So I guess even though we don't get it sometimes, we just have to trust.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your continued encouragement on my blog. I really appreciate it.
Hang in there!
My situation isn't as bad as yours - San Diego is filled with beautiful women. But finding a Christian woman who is compatible with me here is like finding a needle in a haystack.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your continued encouragement on my blog. I really appreciate it.
Cheers, David.
Yes, you live in Christianised America, even if it is Southern California. A pastor at my church states that only 4% of people attend church in Vancouver on a given Sunday, and I would deduce that the statistic for Greater Vancouver would be only slightly higher. Yes, we might as well encourage each other, and we need to keep trusting in God.
Russ:)
Yes, time does "march on" and oft times we can feel like we have missed out somehow by not conforming to the norms. God has a plan for each of us and I know from reading your work that you placed your life in His hands so many years ago. If God had wanted you to live a more normal life by having a relationship, being married, raising your own family, etc., he would have put the opportunity in front of you at some point. I believe, however, that the choices you have made to keep studying and following God's direction, and to become a pervayor of your knowledge of God's will, you are living the life that has been chosen and planned for you. If future paths in your walk through life lead you to a relationship with a good Christian woman, and it is in God's plan, be it exactly as you had planned or not, keep reminding yourself that you are in God's hands and he has his own plans and reasons for leading you in any direction he wishes. My prayers are with you--keep moving forward in God's will!
ReplyDeleteThe 32-year-old stepson would be about your age, wouldn't he? That could be weird.
ReplyDeleteHow strange that we're blogging on the same topic. It must be the time of year...
Minnesota is full of nice, eligible Christian women. I have lots of single, educated, pretty Christian friends here. (Really.. I can think of six off the top of my head. One is in medical school. The others are grad students or residents.)
So if Vancouver gets old, you can always try the U.S. I'm just saying.
Thank you, Anon.
ReplyDeleteI agree that to study at this level and find a woman simultaneously has not been God's will for me.
Hi Ruthie.
You make sense, and yes the stepson would be close to my age, and totally weird...I shall skip. Not only were you and I blogging on this general topic, but David from San Diego was as well. It is the time of year and also in my case, a result of two people getting on my case at church. One of them makes some sense and the other, not so much. I had to explain to the second man that women have menopause, and he is in his 50s! I agree, Ruthie, Minnesota is likely going to be better than Vancouver/BC for finding Christians.
Hi Russ.
ReplyDeleteHeart felt post mate. Good on you for sharing what's close to your heart. I have a brother in law who is 52 and never married. He seems fine. He likes to study and always has some interesting theological deep and meaning fulls to discuss with me. I have learnt a lot from these discussions. He actually suffered from Agoraphobia for many years. He now enjoys a great life with many outdoor activities and has many friends both male and female. He understands God's will in his life and is very satisfied.
Trust is the word that come to mind mate.
Russell.
Thanks, mate.
ReplyDeleteYour advice is good...trust. As much as I have a supportive family and good friends it is hard presently and will always be difficult if I stay single. Related struggles make it even more difficult. I hate being lonely at times, but as you stated...trust, in God.
Well, one advantage of staying single is having the time to maintain cool blogs.;)
Cheers, Russell
Oh there's no need to be sorry over the funny farm, I take it as evidence of God at work, that he kept me thru all those years, and a testimony to His grace.
ReplyDeleteI didn't relaize just how busy you were with studies. I find really long blog posts hard to read, so have likely missed many good things you have said. But I certainly admire your tenacity, and perseverenace in how much you are studying to get your PH'D's etc.
I hope God blesses your labours and diligence.
Thanks, Deejay. I shall be honest, I do not often read long blog posts of others as I am too busy and committed to my own set of intellectual issues to spend more than scanning time on other blogs. However, I do scan quite a few blogs and attempt to comment accurately. Satire and theology offers similar material theologically to this blog, but with shorter and simplified articles.
ReplyDeleteBeing divorced since 1990 and having adult children, I too am convinced that God is in charge of relationships. 2 things have been said to me in this last year that I find encouraging: #1 A dear friend of 20 years told me that after watching God's and my relationship (and the men that have passed through) she has determined that God has a jealous love for me. I found that quite interesting and have pondered it a while. I love Him so much - and I deeply desire to serve Him and Him alone. If He wants me single - I want to be here. #2 there is no formula for relationship. Simply stated - if two single people(I repeat TWO already single) love God and each other, it matters not whether they know each other for 4 years prior, or 2 months, have kids/have none, kids could even be a bit uncomfortably close to your age... but the operative words here are TWO SINGLE people who love God and each other.
ReplyDeleteMay God bless your desire to serve Him above all else.
Thanks,
ReplyDeleteThat is a helpful essay. I am open to having my present preferences changed if that is God's will. I am of course stating my preferences as is. I totally agree that the two persons seeking a relationship should be single, but there is no exact formula. No exact social formula. Many persons in today's society seem to overlook the importance of seeking someone that is not attached to another. I realize that with some of my secular friends/family there is the attitude that if one is not happy it is morally acceptable to purse an affair, and I must reject this notion. Exodus 20:14 prohibits adultery and I reason that personal happiness should never override morality within God's plans for humanity. This is a difficult idea to accept for many, but if one understands that the world is faced with a problem of evil the pursuit of happiness should not be the primary consideration, as seeking happiness at the expense of others can contribute to more evil. God had established certain guidelines within humanity to limit evil, but there is no guarantee of happiness, by 21st Century standards, following God's rules, only that one is being obedient. There are spiritual blessings by following God in obedience with his guidance.
Please have an excellent Christmas!
Ok, my two cents as an atheist outsider...you're fighting a losing battle mate. If you're that obsessed with studying theology/christianty by doing three simultaneous degrees (or is it four) you will scare of 99.99% of the female population anyway. And here's the rub, not without good reason. It's a clear signal to any woman that your spirtual beliefs of curiosity far out weight your interest in a human relationship. Not impossible (to find a woman who would actully admire your devotion) but obviously she too would need to be fanatically christian, and probably more akin to finding a needle in several fields of many haystacks. This saddens me, as from my cursory reading you your site, you seem like a decent chap and I imagine you do have a heartfelt need for a relationship or companionship. Two ideas for you. If you must live within your own self created ideals, then do look beyond Vancouver or other places where the christian population is low: maybe the bible loving USA, maybe a traditionally christian culture like Poland, maybe an Asian culture where a plurality pf religous devotions are tolerated. The second idea is longer term, and that is to finish off you papers and then re-enter the real world; tone down your beliefs, believe in yourself as a person rather than someone who is a christian authority. You probably don't see it, but the path you have taken and the things you imply suggest an internal arrogance. Probably not what you want to hear, given all the yes-sayer comments I see on you site, but you should think about the fanatical box you are building around yourself. As I said, very sad that religon can warp so easily. Try reading Richard Dawkin's book, you know the one, and give it some thought. And good luck.
ReplyDeleteRuss replies:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments, even from a critic. Critics are welcome on this site, but one can expect possible criticism back, of course.
Ok, my two cents as an atheist outsider...you're fighting a losing battle mate.
A good point. I am a Christian in a secular world, and many within the church think rather secular.
If you're that obsessed with studying theology/christianty by doing three simultaneous degrees (or is it four) you will scare of 99.99% of the female population anyway.
Another good point.
And here's the rub, not without good reason. It's a clear signal to any woman that your spirtual beliefs of curiosity far out weight your interest in a human relationship.
Hmm, I would word it differently. My intellectual, academic philosophy and beliefs are very important. I have plenty of human relationships, but I have not met a right woman as of yet. I notice you state spiritual beliefs. I contend that there are plenty of philosophical deductions and arguments on this site that require rational thought and belief. Those that would disagree with my views and have rational thoughts also have beliefs, even if not spiritual or Christian.
Not impossible (to find a woman who would actully admire your devotion) but obviously she too would need to be fanatically christian,
Fanatical? Or instead rather educated and open-minded? I do not think my work presents irrational zeal my friend.
and probably more akin to finding a needle in several fields of many haystacks.
Good point.
This saddens me, as from my cursory reading you your site, you seem like a decent chap
Yes, very good point.;)
and I imagine you do have a heartfelt need for a relationship or companionship.
Yes.
Two ideas for you. If you must live within your own self created ideals,
My ideals are not primarily self-created, but come from years of study.
do look beyond Vancouver or other places where the christian population is low: maybe the bible loving USA, maybe a traditionally christian culture like Poland, maybe an Asian culture where a plurality pf religous devotions are tolerated.
Yes.
second idea is longer term, and that is to finish off you papers and then re-enter the real world;
Hmm, how can one greatly understand the real world without significantly understanding the philosophy behind it? Granted there is some truth to your statement in that I am not presently employed full-time. But, I contend that having real world experience, which I do in many ways, is much more beneficial if one understands the philosophy of life. Therefore, my studies are of prime importance.
tone down your beliefs,
Toning down or changing my beliefs is not based mainly on pragmatism, feelings, or social pressure, but evidence and that would include the philosophical, theological, and scientific.
believe in yourself as a person rather than someone who is a christian authority.
Lol. My pastor's would enjoy that one mate. I have been in disputes with authorities at my former Bible School, former seminary, former secular University (not Wales), and former church. I am hardly a yes man, and my Christian views are primarily based on academic research and not by the authority of the Church alone. Every Christian authority and scholar is to be questioned, including myself.
probably don't see it, but the path you have taken and the things you imply suggest an internal arrogance.
I perhaps have arrogance, because I have views that differ from yours? Suggesting I have arrogance because I make philosophical and theological deductions and arguments is not persuasive at all, and proves nothing. Suggesting alternative deductions to my own may prove beneficial, and arguing against what I write may prove something, but trust me I have worked with this difficult material for several years, and it is not easy to write about and discuss for anyone.
Probably not what you want to hear, given all the yes-sayer comments I see on you site,
Most blogs primarily have supporters. Two commenters on this site went to an atheist blog recently and were called a holes, and told not to try to convert someone. On this blog, I will not call someone a name, and persons are welcome to comment as long as they are respectful, consider what I write, and do not take up too much of my time as I am a busy man with sleep apnea.
but you should think about the fanatical box you are building around yourself.
I have a fanatical box? Do I not at times present other ways of looking at issues? Again my presentations are hardly that of irrational zeal.
As I said, very sad that religon can warp so easily.
It is warped because you disagree with it? All religion is not the same, by the way. It is not wise to try and review all religion under one umbrella. Each philosophy and belief system, whether religious or not, needs to be reviewed with an open-mind individually.
Try reading Richard Dawkin's book, you know the one, and give it some thought. And good luck.
Mate, that makes me chuckle. I have been working on the problem of evil and theodicy for 9 years. I have read atheists who have more credibility than Dawkins when it comes to philosophical and theological issues. I can agree with atheists Mackie and Flew (now former atheist) when they state contrary to free will theodicy, God can create significantly free creatures that would never commit evil actions. I contend in my PhD and on this blog that God has good reason to create significantly free creatures that would commit evil actions, and the solution to evil includes the atoning and resurrection work of Christ and the culminated Kingdom. I have also dealt with atheist William Rowe's gratuitous evil argument in my PhD and on this blog. I have as well read plenty of liberal scholars who disagree with my views. Wales, where I earned my MPhil and am working on my PhD, is secular and is in many ways theologically opposed to my views. I am not a scientist, but if I could not intellectually stand up to scholars such as Dawkins when it comes to the subject of religion, I would have been done years ago. Dawkins stated basically on Charlie Rose that religious people were not educated and that is an unwise statement. I am not an expert on Dawkins, but if he assumes that, he is in tough. However, there is always more that I do not know, than I know, and so one must be humble.
Happy New Year!
Hey Russ,
ReplyDeleteI think Anon is the first compassionate atheist I've ever "met"!
I didn't comment before because I've never been great at advice on relationships. But let met assure Anon that although he may be right about the 99.99%, the 0.01% do exist . . . and are worth waiting for!
Look at me for instance, I grew up in a very conservative church and home, went to a small christian school all the way from Kindergarten through college, publicly prayed and preached, led communions, and held Bible studies and men's prayer groups out of my apartment . . . and somehow managed to find a woman who I could convince to spend the rest of her life with me.
Granted, I live in the Bible Belt where there's a greater population of those who share my beliefs - but Kelly did not grow up going to church. Yet today, she has a faith that I admire!
Dear Anon, do not look at us and try to make sense out of the choices we make. It's not because we are a great authority - it's because we willingly and joyfully live under The Great Authority. One which tells us that we are not of this world. Those who live their lives by their own "self created ideas" will always look at us and scratch their heads.
I too applaud Russ and the choices he had made in his life. Although he continues to search for a meaningful relationship, he already has a relationship with The One who gives life all meaning.
The rest, we have faith, will just take care of itself . . .
W
Thanks, Wade.
ReplyDeleteIt can be difficult for the atheist to understand the Christian world view, as those in Christ accept the historically based Biblical revelation, and the atheist does not. Biblically Christianity, if properly practiced should not be primarily based on human authority, or be self created.
I can appreciate some of the comments of this compassionate atheist, Wade, but sadly after looking at my blog, he/she makes some false assumptions. There is a great gulf in understanding between Christianity and atheism in many cases which can be seen in this dialogue. I should also add that there are friendly disagreements between myself and my Christian blog commenters and so it is too simple to suggest they are yes people. Our debates on infant baptism, for example, show otherwise.
Two things.
ReplyDelete1. simply trust God, if He does not have plans for you to get married, then so be it.
2. Jesus was not married and not every human gets married, it's not the end of the world, Jesus first.
Do you know why Single people have Single problems? Because they are single.
Do you know why married people have marraige problems? Because they are married. Rick b
Thanks, Rick.
ReplyDeleteYes, if I was to be in a romantic relationship and perhaps married, I would be exchanging one set of problems for another.
Thanks for the considered reply. There is little point for a confirmed atheist and a confirmed christian to change one another's view, so I won't pursue that particular debate. I am interested to read you best bit on the "problem of evil" so please feel free to point to the part of your large blog where you cover it best. The evil problem is certainly what enlightened me on rejecting christianity as the age of fourteen, and I am please to say I have never looked back. The main thrust of my original post stands, that there is a "real world" and it is a world of mundane joy. The joy of romantic love, the joy of children; not everyone experiences this, but every compassionate person should. It is worthwhile being more pragmatic in human reltionships, and that is my encouragement to you. Good luck.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
ReplyDeleteI can agree there needs to be some pragmatism in romantic relationships. Sure, here is a list of what I consider problem of evil/theodicy related articles on this blog and one from satire and theology. Other readers are free to check into to these and make comments as well, of course. If a new discussion arises I can repost on Facebook, for example, or email out a link to persons that may be interested. I still revise some of these articles from time to time.
mphil with phd revisions in red
arminianism
first cause
knowledge
edwards and free will
vicious regress
eternal vs. everlasting
problem of evil
meaning of life
theodicy
deism
two types of knowledge
god and two wills
gratuitous evil
fatalism
defence vs. theodicy
regression
It's hotting up here in blogsville Russ.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that some people received their enlightenment about evil at a very young age. It would appear to me that you Russ are still developing yours. I'm over the big 50 and I'm still developing my thinking and values in life. I've seen quiet a few atheists change their thinking and values in life just as I have seen many Christians change theirs.
The problem with fundamentalism is that both sides are in danger of closing their heart (which is a valid part of mankind) and mind to other views about life.
I really don't think you will become more romantic Russ if you become an atheist because your enquiring mind would probably want to get to the very bottom of that system of thought and philosophy. The atheists are celebrating Dawkins and they use him often in their preaching and he's no dill that's for sure.
So keep up the good work mate. Don't let them rattle you. Keep studying and developing your heart and mind.
Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known.
Blaise Pascal.
Russell.
Hi Russell.
ReplyDeleteIt's hotting up here in blogsville Russ.
Yes, on thekingpin68 and satire and theology there have been some debates occurring recently. Well, these are good opportunities for learning, especially if persons keep cool. I deduce an Aussie like yourself can give as good as he gets, mate.:) The fact is that my blogs are somewhat controversial by nature, even though I try to be pleasant and respectful when I write. I do not mind debate, but once I become a professor I will have less time for blogging.
The problem with fundamentalism is that both sides are in danger of closing their heart (which is a valid part of mankind) and mind to other views about life.
Yes, I have come across this on Christian and atheist blogs, it is best to avoid such persons as these discussions often end up being a waste of time. In blogging there are individuals/groups at times which do not respond well to outsiders.
I really don't think you will become more romantic Russ if you become an atheist because your enquiring mind would probably want to get to the very bottom of that system of thought and philosophy. The atheists are celebrating Dawkins and they use him often in their preaching and he's no dill that's for sure.
Good point. I could see myself as a secular philosophy professor if I was not a Christian, and I would still not relate well to many women, although it would be a better situation than present.
Thanks, Russell, I am not rattled and appreciate new commenters, including respectful critics. I am glad others can read the dialogue for educational purposes.
Having read several of your problem of evil pieces, I conclude that the christian response (at least the response you make) is a fantastic house of cards, predicated on semantics and complex philosphical arguments to support the christian myth or dismiss scientific conjecture. Freewill is an awfully convenient concept, particularly when we can not even begin to guess at an underlying motivation. The problem with faith is that, unlike the scientific approach, it cannot admit that there are holes in the theory. Bon chance et au revoir.
ReplyDeleteHaving read several of your problem of evil pieces, I conclude that the christian response (at least the response you make) is a fantastic house of cards, predicated on semantics and complex philosphical arguments
ReplyDeleteSince the articles contain complex philosophical deductions, information and argumentation, you cannot have properly processed them in less than 24 hours. Therefore, your approach is rather closed-minded.
to support the christian myth or dismiss scientific conjecture.
On what basis is it Christian myth? Both educated Christian and secular scholars will usually support scientific truth, but philosophical scientific conjecture is up for debate as is Christian philosophical conjecture.
Freewill is an awfully convenient concept, particularly when we can not even begin to guess at an underlying motivation.
Freewill is not the beginning of the chain, as I trace it back to God's will, nature, consciousness, desires, and then a limited free will in the case of humans. It is hardly convenient, but is debated within theism and theism/atheism debates.
The problem with faith is that, unlike the scientific approach, it cannot admit that there are holes in the theory. Bon chance et au revoir.
My friend, concerning philosophical non-empirical reasoning both theists and atheists, since they lack 100% certainty, use reason and have faith that they are dealing with evidence reasonably. There are holes in all kinds of theistic and atheistic theories.
Goodbye and I hope and pray you consider other philosophical options which may challenge your own.
Russ:)
anonymous atheist said:
ReplyDeleteFreewill is an awfully convenient concept, particularly when we can not even begin to guess at an underlying motivation.
If you had read any of the blog articles relating to free will, it would be clear that this is NOT the concept that Russ is defending, but rather "soft determinism" (see the Jonathan Edwards article for a good description).
Yes, thanks Chucky.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not have a lot of extra time, but if I visit blogs with complex material there is no point providing dismissive type comments. Freewill, whether incompatibilist or compatibilist is complex and needs serious reflection over a long period of time.
These guys astonish me. They want us to read their stuff and belief it wholesale. What about Josh McDowells, Evidence That Demands a Verdict or Lee Strobels, The Case For Christ to name just two must reads for anyone period. I challenge Anonymous to read them both.
ReplyDeleteRussell.
Good point, Russell. Should we not be open-minded concerning claims from different perspectives? I have McDowell's New Evidence, but have not used it much. It looks useful.
ReplyDeleteThanks, mate.
Hi Russ.
ReplyDeleteYeah I've read some of Dawkins stuff and Bertrand Russell's and are always left wondering where they get their morals for life from. I seems to me that they have stolen them from the Bible but I will stand corrected.
Russell.
I have read a bit of Russell, watched Dawkins on Charlie Rose, and have read several atheists. When reading philosophy journal articles concerning the problem of evil, it is sometimes not clear whether the author is a theist or an atheist.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Russell.
I think you're missing the point chaps. What I am saying is that the "soft determinism" freewill that Russel supports (or any other qualified modified adapted version of freewill) is an inadequate response to the Problem of Evil. Granted, there is some elegant argument being made, and it in isolation it borders on plausibility, but when one steps back one realises that the freewill response is convenient but contradictory to the whole notion of a benificient god. It is not unlike the physics proof which shows that a bumblebee cannot fly (solid theory, but ultimately at odds with reality). Surely it would be better to accept that the Problem of Evil is unresolved than to select a plausible but untrue explanation as a solution to the problem. Especially with a problem of this gravitas. What about old Lucifer (aka 666) does he not figure in the Problem of Evil explanation or is that the more mainstream version!
ReplyDeleteAs for "Christian myth" I don't mean to be dismissive or offend, but rather frame Christianity (along with any of the other great religions) within its natural atheistic context. I am always open to consider alternative philosophical views (hence my interest in the Problem of Evil) but, I suppose not open to take the crucial and massive tiny leap into faith. Having been a Christian, I know it would only take an imperceptible flick of an imperceptible switch in my head to rejoin the "lambs" but, interestingly, it is the enormous weight of freewill which holds me back. It does come down to a question of freethinking or entrapment.
Best wishes for 2008 KP68 and pals.
Best wishes for 2008 KP68 and pals.
ReplyDeleteBest wishes to you as well. Although we disagree on some issues, this type of dialogue can be beneficial for ourselves and readers. It also helps me prepare for my verbal defence in Wales.;)
I think you're missing the point chaps. What I am saying is that the "soft determinism" freewill that Russel supports (or any other qualified modified adapted version of freewill) is an inadequate response to the Problem of Evil.
I will answer this from my perspective alone. I do not think I have missed the point. With your atheistic assertions you are not likely going to accept, based on your presentation, any response to the problem of evil that uses free will within a defence/theodicy. That is understood.
Granted, there is some elegant argument being made, and it in isolation it borders on plausibility,
Both Plantinga's free will/incompatibilism, and Feinberg's sovereignty/compatibilism approaches which use free will solve their logical problems of evil. Whether or not either view is true, would be a secondary issue within Christian philosophical/theological studies. The primary source for Christian belief is Biblical revelation and resulting theology.
but when one steps back one realises that the freewill response is convenient but contradictory to the whole notion of a benificient god.
Human free will is not contrary to God being free, and perfectly good, as creatures made in his image have finite versions of his attributes based on his will in creating these beings. God can logically and reasonably create creatures without significant free will, and God can logically and reasonably create creatures with significant free will. Free will cannot reasonably be dismissed as illogical convenience. There are theists and atheists who are incompatibilists and theists and atheists which are compatibilists. I define these below.
It is not unlike the physics proof which shows that a bumblebee cannot fly (solid theory, but ultimately at odds with reality). Surely it would be better to accept that the Problem of Evil is unresolved than to select a plausible but untrue explanation as a solution to the problem.
Many Christian scholars view the problem as unresolved. Ultimately the Biblically based atoning and resurrection work of Christ and the culminated Kingdom of God is the remedy to evil. In my view, compatibilism which includes among other things, accepting the atheistic and theistic/Calvinistic criticisms against free will/incompatibilism, as I mentioned in my first comment to you, is the most effective, speculative approach to dealing with theodicy. It takes much of the emphasis off human free will and places it on God's sovereign will and ability to will things for the greater good with holy motives. The death of Christ is an example of this, as in many ways this was an evil, but God willed it with good intentions, although the enemies of Christ willed his death with evil motives. The infinite God can use actions of finite creatures for the ultimate good. This is obviously not understood exhaustively by human beings, but can be accepted theologically and reasonably.
What about old Lucifer (aka 666) does he not figure in the Problem of Evil explanation or is that the more mainstream version!
Satanic beings fit in, see the book of Job in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, for example.
As for "Christian myth" I don't mean to be dismissive or offend, but rather frame Christianity (along with any of the other great religions) within its natural atheistic context. I am always open to consider alternative philosophical views (hence my interest in the Problem of Evil) but, I suppose not open to take the crucial and massive tiny leap into faith.
As noted, within philosophy, all have faith, this is not just within the realm of religious philosophy. If views are reasoned by deduction and evidence, they can be considered knowledge provided they are not countered by superior arguments. This does not require 100% certainty of anything, but rather an accurate understanding of conditions that would lead to the formation of propositions and arguments. We can have reason through Scripture and theology that God does certain things, and faith for what we do not understand concerning those things. I have no interest in blind faith. Peter D. Klein describes the Cartesian account of certainty as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it. Klein (1996: 113). Legitimate grounds would be debated on each issue, but the philosophical idea of certainty stands.
Having been a Christian, I know it would only take an imperceptible flick of an imperceptible switch in my head to rejoin the "lambs" but, interestingly, it is the enormous weight of freewill which holds me back. It does come down to a question of freethinking or entrapment.
Compatibilism would not hold to entrapment. P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1). Louis P. Pojman, defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596). J.S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637). W.T. Stace explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30).
Concerning incompatibilism, Hugh McCann explains that there can be no independent determining conditions of human deeds and that human actions are committed voluntarily. McCann (2001: 115). Incompatibilism states that it is incompatible for human beings to be significantly free in committing actions while, at the same time, God or any other being forces, coerces, or simultaneously determines those same actions. Feinberg (1994: 64).
Cheers, and I wish you a safe New Year's Eve.
FEINBERG. J.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
FEINBERG, J.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FEINBERG, J.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.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
McCANN, HUGH J. (2001) ‘Sovereignty and Freedom: A Reply to Rowe’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 18, Number 1, January, pp. 110-116. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.
interesting commentsville here russ. lol. you might want to consider starting another topic haha. it's ann btw.
ReplyDeleteYes, you are right, Ann...it is time to move on. I have some later articles on the right side of blog.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)