IN THE IMAGE OF GOD- https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/10-31-15-in-the-image-of-god.zip
ON VIDEO-
.Officer ‘Slam’?
.Einstein
.Logos
.Just God
.Point of Singularity
.Just math?
.Kant n Hume
.Ptolemy
.Sense Perception
.Objective truth
.Natural Theology
NEW STUFF [Old posts and Verses below]
Georges Lemaitre-
I’ve mentioned him a lot over the years- and usually get his name wrong! [Lamarck-
etc.].
So- being I mentioned him again on the video, I figured I’d
get it right- now.
This priest/astronomer/physicist is responsible for what we
now call the Big Bang Theory [responsible- not that he ‘did it’ but was the
first to espouse the idea- often attributed to Hubbell- and Einstein].
I usually talk about Einstein’s Big Bang Theory- because he
indeed showed us much of the proof that we have for it, but it was this
Catholic Jesuit that first came up with the idea- and yes- Hubble too
contributed to more proofs for it.
At first- Einstein did not accept the idea of an expanding
universe.
Primeval Atom was the term Lemaitre used for what we now
call the Point of Singularity.
He applied Einstein’s Theory of general relativity to
cosmology- and Eisenstein of course would eventually accept- and praise
Lemaitre’s breakthrough idea.
‘Why was this a big breakthrough for Christian thinkers?’
Good question.
For years science believed that the universe was eternal- it
had no beginning point.
But in the 20th century- thru the men I mentioned
above- science showed us that there was indeed a ‘starting point’ to everything
[accept God].
So- this was scientific proof that the entire universe was
‘an effect’ [meaning- there had to be a cause behind it].
So- what could the cause be?
It had to be non-material- because all matter had a starting
point.
It had to be powerful- intelligent [because unintelligence
cannot beget intelligence].
And it had to have had no beginning itself- because if this
creator had a beginning- then who made him?
So- for the Christian apologist- he now had scientific proof
on his side- in a much bigger way than before-
See?
PAST POSTS THAT RELATE [verses below]-
Okay- I am skipping a bunch of stuff to jump into the
thinkers who represent the most popular forms of atheism- Marx, Nietzsche and
Freud. But first we need to take a look at Ludwig Feuerbach. L.F. [Ludwig
Feuerbach] laid the groundwork for these other more famous rejecters of God and
Christianity. During the enlightenment period it was rare for the critics of
religion to hold an outright atheistic view- men like Hume and Voltaire- though
true critics of the church- did not come out openly and deny the existence of
God. It was also difficult [impossible?] to hold professorships in the
universities if you were a doubter of God. Both Hume and Voltaire did not hold
positions. F.S. was Hegelian in a way [he followed Hegel’s idea that ‘God’
comes to self consciousness thru the development of humanity] but F.S. was a
Materialist- Hegel was an Idealist. Remember- idealism is the philosophical
system that sees reality existing in forms/ideas first- then later comes the
material thing. The great ancient philosopher Plato was an idealist. F.S.
espoused the idea that reality starts with the material existence of man first-
and thru religion man ‘projects’ the idea of God/spirit into society- and as
man and Christianity develop [all good things for F.S.] that the ultimate truth
that we learn on this journey is that man is really all there is- his ‘phase’
of God and religion were simply necessary stages for man to arrive at this self
conscious state in which he finally realizes that man is all there is- God was
a ‘crutch’- a needed one- but never the less simply a projection of mans mind
until he came to full maturity. For F.S. ‘theology [the study of God] is
anthropology’ [the study of man]. So in this sense he follows Hegel- the
development of man and society is the development of God- but…..[ didn’t mean
to paste this part- but left it on- can’t hurt- I’m not a great ‘cut and paste’
person!]
Okay- let’s try and transition a bit.
[parts]
ARISTOTLE
Born in Northern Greece- in 384 BC.
The most famous student of Plato-
attended Plato’s Academy for around 20 years.
His main disagreement with Plato was
on his theory of Forms.
Plato believed that the ‘idea’ world
contained the forms of all things we see in the physical realm.
Aristotle taught that substance
itself was the main thing- that the forms of what we see in the natural realm
come from matter itself.
He spoke about Potentiality and Actuality-
that is the material things have in ‘seed’ form the final product.
The acorn has the Potential of
becoming a tree- the fetus has the Potential of becoming a man- etc.
The form is already embedded in the
thing itself- it does not exist in the ‘idea’ world of Plato.
Aristotle loved and admired his
teacher- yet Plato had somewhat of a disdain for his most famous student.
Plato passed over Aristotle to head
up the Academy- twice.
As things go- Aristotle went and
started his own school- called the Lyceum.
Aristotle did not just teach
Philosophy- but Biology- Logic- Ethics- Rhetoric.
Some refer to him as the first real
scientist.
His development of the laws of
Logic- Cause and Effect- play a key role in the Scientific Method till this
day.
Aristotle taught that the main way
we gain knowledge is thru sense perception and experiment.
As we study the natural order of
things themselves- we gain understanding from them.
What we refer to as the Empirical
method- knowledge gained thru the observation and experimentation of things.
He referred to God as the Final
Cause- not the First Cause.
Why?
He believed in God [some debate
this- Aristotle himself called him God in his work on Metaphysics] and called
him the Prime Mover.
As I said before- a big thing with
the early thinkers was the origin of Motion- who started the ball rolling- so
to speak.
Aristotle credited the source of all
motion to an ‘un- moved Mover’.
He gave the attributes of God to his
Mover- said he had no beginning- was not material- an eternal and imperishable
substance.
So- why the Final Cause?
He said God attracts all things to
himself- so in his mind- motion started by attraction- not by a ‘push’ so to
speak.
This is interesting indeed- in
modern physics we see that the universe is undergoing a continual expansion-
heading somewhere- of course we believe this somewhere is God himself- the
source of all things.
Isaac Newton agreed with Aristotle
on this point- he referred to it in his 3rd law of Physics.
The medieval Muslim thinkers called
him ‘The First Teacher’- and Kant [who we will get to later in this study]
credits him with the bulk of what we know today as the Laws of Logic.
Aristotle taught that the main
activity of God was thought.
The bible says that thru Wisdom and
Understanding God made things [‘Wisdom builds the house- Understanding
establishes it- and thru Knowledge it’s rooms are filled with all pleasant and
precious riches- Wisdom is profitable to direct- the words of the wise are like
nails fastened by the masters of assemblies- as a wise master builder I have
laid the foundation’- various bible verses found in Proverbs- Ecclesiastes and
Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth] - in a way Aristotle was right.
One of his key contributions was the
Syllogism- you start with a Logical argument- you engage in Deductive
reasoning- and come to a Conclusion.
A famous example would be ‘All men
are mortal- Plato is a man- Plato is mortal’.
Aristotle did not believe that
something comes from nothing- a phrase that will come up a lot as we progress
in this study is ‘ex nihilo nihil fit’- meaning Nothing comes from Nothing.
He was also what we refer to as a
Teleolologist- he believed that there was design and purpose in the created
order of things.
[parts]
Okay- we made it all the way to Plato and his famous school
that he founded at Athens [Greece]. Though Socrates was his teacher- yet
Socrates never founded an actual school.
Like I said earlier- Plato had a view of Reality that was a
bit strange. He was an Idealist- not in the way we use the term today [mostly]
but he believed that Ideas themselves were the real world- and what we
see/experience in the material world are not ‘as real’.
Plato believed that knowledge was A Priori- which means the
actual knowledge about a thing exists before the thing comes into being.
The famous example he used was a Chair. He would ask ‘what
is that’ pointing to a chair. The student would respond ‘a chair’ Plato would
say ‘and how do you know this- how did you obtain that knowledge’ and he argued
that in the Idea realm- there is a perfect form of Chairness that exists- and
that’s why we can identify ‘the chair’ in the material realm.
Now- Plato’s most famous student was a man named Aristotle.
He actually respected his teacher a lot- but there was some tension between the
2. Plato was more of a down to earth type guy- liked to wear plain clothes- did
lots of his teaching by walking around the classroom- interacting with people.
Aristotle was more of a ‘Fancy Pants’ type guy. He had a
little bit of the elitist thing going on. He was more of a book worm than
Plato- and he would eventually start his own school to compete with Plato’s
Academy.
Aristotle’s school was named the Lyceum. Aristotle was more
of a Realist than an Idealist. He believed that this material world was more
than just a copy of the Idea world. He taught that Substance and matter were
very real- and that contained within the thing is the actual form and future
potential of ‘that thing’.
For instance- the Acorn has within it the actual form of the
Oak Tree. This form did not come from an Idea world- it came from the thing
itself- the Acorn.
So matter has within it both the potential of its future
form- as well as eventually becoming that thing.
For Aristotle- knowledge is more A-Posteriori- that is we
obtain knowledge about a thing- from the very thing itself. We see/touch and
experience that thing- and by our senses interacting with the substance- we get
knowledge- after the fact.
Okay- to Aristotle all substance has both Form and Matter.
Then what he called substance- had 2 categories as well. The ‘substance’
[actual thing it is] and the Accidens [not accidents- not a typo].
The Accidens was simply the outward appearance- what we see
on the outside. It might not be what the substance really is- or it might.
This teaching would eventually become a major way that our
Catholic friends would come to define the doctrine of Transubstantiation-
during the 13the century the great thinker Thomas Aquinas would re-discover
[and introduce] Aristotle’s teaching back into the church.
In his theological works [Summa Theologica] he would use
Aristotelian thought to explain how the Bread and Wine become the actual Flesh
and Blood of Christ. Thomas explained that the actual substance of the thing
was Flesh and Blood- but the Accidens- what you’re seeing on the outside- looks
like Bread and Wine.
Catholic scholars have debated for centuries on whether or
not they should stick to the hard line teaching from Thomas on this. They are
not challenging the belief in the Real Presence [that Jesus is really there at
the Eucharist] they simply wonder whether or not explaining it this way is
right.
Finally- after many years of certain Catholic scholars
asking this question- in 1965 the Pope [I think it was Paul the 6th?]
put out a Papal Encyclical [an official Vatican teaching] and he stated clearly
that the way Aquinas taught it is the official doctrine of the church- so that
settled that.
Okay- Plato was an Idealist [Dualist] and Aristotle was a
Realist. That’s the major difference.
I will note that Aristotle’s most famous student was
Alexander the Great. And during the great conquests of Alexander he took with
him a whole team of scientists who brought back all types of specimens of
things and he gave them to his famous teacher Aristotle- to advance the cause
of learning at the Lyceum school.
It has been said that Alexander’s efforts at collecting and
bringing these things back after their victories- that this was probably the
most expensive scientific endeavor of all time- right up until the modern space Era.
Note- I try to avoid too many ‘big words’ in these posts.
Not because people don’t understand them- but because I forget how to spell
them! And in this post- there are around 10 words that my spell check has no
idea how to spell- so just a warning- there might be a few misspelled words in
this one.
[parts] (1312) THE INCARNATION-
The most influential philosopher on Western thought is probably the philosopher
Immanuel Kant. Kant wrote the influential work ‘In critique of pure reason’ at
the close of the 18th century in response to the pure rationalists
[David Hume] of the Enlightenment. Kant read Hume’s works and was said to have
been ‘aroused out of his dogmatic slumber’ and dispatched his response. Kant
espoused that you had the physical and metaphysical worlds, and the 2 are
completely separate. He refuted the argument for God made by the apologists and
said it was impossible for man to ‘know God’ thru rational/physical means. Kant
did not totally reject ‘the idea’ of God; he simply said the efforts of the
Christian philosophers to prove God were futile. Was Kant right? Yes and no. In
the 13th century you had another great Christian thinker by the name
of Thomas Aquinas, Thomas is considered one of the greatest [if not greatest]
thinkers of the Catholic tradition, Thomas wrote extensively and re-introduced
the Greek philosophers back into Christian theology. Sometimes referred to as
‘Aristotelianism’ [Aristotle]. Thomas taught that it was possible to obtain
true knowledge of the existence of God from the natural world, but that to have
particular revelation from God you needed the church and tradition
[revelation]. Some feel that Thomas was teaching a ‘secular/sacred’ division
that hurt the work of the church. But if you read Aquinas in the context of his
time he really was not doing this. Thomas ‘rescued’ apologetics [proof for God]
from the philosophers of Islam who were teaching that you could have 2 types of
truth- religious and scientific. They taught that religious truth could ‘be
true’ by faith, but that it could be false by science, and vice versa. Thomas
was refuting this idea and was showing us that real truth, whether from the
natural sciences or from ‘revelation’ never contradict, it’s just science can
only go so far in arguing for the existence of God. But the influence of
Immanuel Kant on western thinking has many believing that God and ‘religion’
are okay things for people to believe, but that ‘real truth’ is found in the natural
sciences and God is excluded from this ‘secular’ realm. This is a false view.
God can be ‘proved’ by studying the natural sciences, like Aquinas said. Now
this doesn’t get you all the way to the God of Christian theology, but it can
take you up to the point where God’s existence is proven to be reality. The
main point is it is wrong to think Christianity is relegated to the realm of
faith while ‘real truth’ is in the realm of science. The Incarnation was God’s
divine act of breaking into the physical world thru the birth of his Son. God
became man and dwelt among us, you can study all the history of the time and
find many historical proofs of the reality of Jesus and the fact that he died
and rose again, these ‘truths’ are not only religious in nature, they are
factual in history. So while I appreciate the work that Kant put into his book,
I will stick with the other ‘Emanuel’ the God who is with us.
(1307) CHRISTMAS- being I mentioned Christmas the other day,
let’s talk a little. First, does the bible give us [in the New Testament] any
special memorials to celebrate? Yes, the New Testament teaches us that when
believers celebrate the Lords supper that we ‘show the Lords death’ until he
comes back. This is the only explicit memorial given to New Testament
believers. Does this mean it’s wrong to celebrate other days? Not really. The
early church, contrary to popular opinion, did celebrate ‘Christmas’ before the
days of Constantine in the 4th century. They celebrated Christ’s
‘birthday’ on January 6th. But they also celebrated ‘Easter’ as
well, and Easter played a more significant role in the church. But in the 4th
century the church was grappling with different issues, one of the main ones
was the nature of Christ [Christology] some questioned his true humanity. So as
a result the celebration of the Incarnation [Jesus being born and taking on
real human flesh] took on special importance, the church wanted to stress the
‘birthday’ of Jesus as a theological event. Now the story of Constantine and
his conversion to
[parts]
The point being we need to tell people the truth about what
is in the bible- and what the church [predominantly] teaches- and then avoid
‘going to war’ with people.
As I’m continuing to read different works on philosophy and
modernity- I recently came across Daniel Dennet- a contemporary
atheist/thinker. Dennet questions the ‘morality’ of teaching morals [religion]
to kids. He espouses the question of the whole idea of religious
teaching/tradition. Is it ‘right’ to teach ‘what’s right’?
Okay- I’m sure he is a smart man [they tell me so] but he of
course is falling into the classic mistake of thinking he can argue from a
foundation of ‘oughtness’ while claiming we should not have these types of
foundations.
Basically you can’t argue a moral position [is something
right- wrong] if you reject the reality of morality itself. This mistake is
easily refuted in the field of apologetics. Sam Harris [another contemporary
atheist] makes these same arguments.
I found it interesting to hear Governor Cuomo and other
supporters of the law- they were oozing with moral language ‘we are proud to be
part of the struggle for the rights of all people’ and other language like
this. I’m sure these well meaning folk don’t realize they are contradicting
their core argument ‘who is society- the church- to say what’s right or wrong!’
And then they say ‘it’s wrong for them to think that way’.
Okay- I hope you see the point. Immanuel Kant saw this some
300 years ago when the ‘age of reason’ was just taking off. Many thinkers of
his day began questioning the wisdom of having religion/morality as part of the
fabric of society. Kant recognized the need for the basic idea of right and
wrong [What he called ‘oughtness’ you know what you ought to do] and even
though he disagreed with Descartes’- he did not believe you could ultimately
prove God through reason- yet he saw the need for ‘God’ to exist in the fabric
of human society- in his mind there had to be an ultimate judge who could carry
out justice- and there had to exist a basic idea of what you should and should
not do.
These debates are long and can go on forever.
In Matthew 13 Jesus gave us a story about Gods kingdom. He
said it’s like a field. A farmer goes out and plants good seed. Then when
everyone was sleeping- an enemy went out and planted ‘bad seed’.
When the plants came up- his workers asked if they should go
out and pull all the bad crop out. The boss said no- just leave them alone- in
the final harvest he will deal with them- but it wasn’t their job to go pull
them out prematurely.
Sometimes we [the church] are like the workers- we see ‘bad
seed’ things that we recognize are not healthy for the field- we think ‘let’s
go dig them out’. But God says ‘I’ll deal with the bad seed in my time- if you
think it’s your job to go around pulling up all the bad weeds- you might hurt
some good wheat too’.
I in no way ‘rejoice’ over the N.Y. vote- but I feel no urge
to go ‘pull the bad seed out’ some of what we think is bad- might turn out to
be good in the end.
[1672] IN DEFENSE OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY
I’ve been wanting to get back to some of our studies- but
the news cycle has been hot these last few weeks [not just Weiner!] and I have
been sidetracked somewhat. One of the other important news stories was the
going away speech by defense secy. Gates.
He tore into NATO and raked them over the coals for their
willingness to vote Yes on intervention- then letting the U.S. do the majority
of the work. There are 28 nations that make up the alliance [North Atlantic
Treaty Organization]. Yet in Afghanistan there are a total of around 140
thousand troops. The media constantly report ‘NATO troops were killed- or
accidently hit a civilian house’. We get desensitized- we think these are
actually troops from NATO- like these other 28 nations are doing this stuff.
Out of the 140,000 troops- 100 thousand are U.S. troops. I mean 28 other
nations?
In Libya- once again the entire alliance voted to go in [or
abstain- though ‘going in’ meant different things to different nations] and
after a few weeks of ‘going in’ once again we are
[parts of posts] [1586] FREUD-NIETZSCHE AND MARX- Today I
need to do a little more on our study of Modernity [the thinkers who have
influenced Western culture/thought from the 1700’s- 2000’s]. At this time I
have 3 separate studies I have started on-line; Classics of literature, Great
Christian thinkers of history, and Modernity. As time rolls on- I will
gradually post all new studies once a year in a monthly post [most of the time
it will be February] and as I update them you can read the most recent ones
from the most recent years.
Okay- I am skipping a bunch of stuff to jump into the
thinkers who represent the most popular forms of atheism- Marx, Nietzsche and
Freud. But first we need to take a look at Ludwig Feuerbach. L.F. [Ludwig
Feuerbach] laid the groundwork for these other more famous rejecters of God and
Christianity. During the enlightenment period it was rare for the critics of
religion to hold an outright atheistic view- men like Hume and Voltaire- though
true critics of the church- did not come out openly and deny the existence of
God. It was also difficult [impossible?] to hold professorships in the
universities if you were a doubter of God. Both Hume and Voltaire did not hold
positions. F.S. was Hegelian in a way [he followed Hegel’s idea that ‘God’
comes to self consciousness thru the development of humanity] but F.S. was a
Materialist- Hegel was an Idealist. Remember- idealism is the philosophical
system that sees reality existing in forms/ideas first- then later comes the
material thing. The great ancient philosophers- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
were all Idealists. F.S. espoused the idea that reality starts with the
material existence of man first- and thru religion man ‘projects’ the idea of
God/spirit into society- and as man and Christianity develop [all good things
for F.S.] that the ultimate truth that we learn on this journey is that man is
really all there is- his ‘phase’ of God and religion were simply necessary
stages for man to arrive at this self conscious state in which he finally realizes
that man is all there is- God was a ‘crutch’- a needed one- but never the less
simply a projection of mans mind until he came to full maturity. For F.S.
‘theology [the study of God] is anthropology’ [the study of man]. So in this
sense he follows Hegel- the development of man and society is the development
of God- but Hegel starts with spirit projecting ‘himself’ into creation- and
F.S. starts with man/matter first- and man projects this idea of God/spirit as
a secondary reality. The philosopher Paul Ricoeur describes F.S. and his
disciples as holding to a system of belief called ‘the hermeneutics of
suspicion’. This meaning that religion and God are not just things that seem to
be irrational [according to certain enlightenment critics] but that religion
itself is a mask that adds to the suffering of man- that man is under the
dominion of false ideas- ideas that have been developed by those who want power
over others- and these taskmasters use religion as a tool to oppress the
ignorant masses. This idea will come to full bloom in the mind of Marx. Marx
referred to religion as a ‘false consciousness’ that kept man in servitude to
others who ruled over them- and religion itself was the tool that kept these
ignorant masses in check. Nietzsche thought religion had its roots in weakness
and sickness- and that the most decadent used it to control those who were
actually more moral than the leaders. Freud saw religion as an effect of
repression and the actual cause of mental conflict and guilt- he blamed religion
for all the psychosis that man is afflicted with in life. The next few posts in
this study [whenever I get to them?] I will try and develop all 3 of these
famous thinkers ideas- show the errors in their own thinking- and the aftermath
of generations who have tried/fleshed out their philosophies- and have found
them dreadfully lacking in the end.
[1623] CHRIST CHURCH? A few weeks back I was going to write
a post from the words of St. Peter found in the New Testament ‘The time has
come that judgment must begin at the house of God [Christ’s church= house of
God] and if it starts there- what will the outcome be for the rest of the
world?’ [paraphrased it]. Right after the ‘thought’ the major events off the
coast of Japan hit and we have this trilogy of disasters to deal with
[Earthquake, Tsunami, Nuclear meltdown]. I did find it ‘strange’ that the
recent events started with Christ Church New Zealand- and seemed to spread from
there. I heard a Geologist the other night- he had previously predicted the
earthquake that hit Ca. during the World Series a few years ago. He said the
sign of the dead fish recently washing up in Ca. was not a coincidence- he said
the fish can sense a change in the earth’s magnetic field [prior to an
earthquake] and that in Japan these fish kills are actually called ‘earthquake
fish’. Wow. You do hear lots of talking heads during these types of events- yet
it would be nice to know the truth on these types of things. The last year or 2
we had earthquakes along the Pacific Rim; Chile, New Zealand and of course
Japan. If you look on a map you see the Pacific Ocean and you can draw a circle
around the perimeter- the part that
[parts]
VERSES-
. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth.
.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them.
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; Rev. 3:14
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John
1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
No comments:
Post a Comment