Philosophy, Theology

Can Words Describe God? Part 2

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In the last post, we talked about how equivocal God-talk is self-defeating and how univocal God-talk lowers God to the level of a finite being.  The only solution seems to be analogous God-talk.  So how does analogous God-talk work?

Analogous God-talk ultimately tells us what God is like, but it does not describe him exactly as He is.

How does this work?  According to Geisler, “The definition of the attribute applicable to both God and creatures must be the same, but the application of it differs, for in the one case (God’s) it is applied without limits, while in the other (humankind’s) it is predicated with limitations.” (emphasis added)

Take the example of goodness.  The definition of good is “that which is desired for its own sake.”  Now, when we take that concept of good and use it to describe God and man, we retain the same definition.  But when we apply it (predicate it) to God, we apply it in an unlimited way.  God is unlimited good, whereas man is limited good.  God is good infinitely while man is good finitely.  God is to be desired for his own sake absolutely, while man is to be desired for his own sake relatively.

Another example would be the concept of being.  Geisler says, “Likewise, being may be defined univocally as “that which is,” but this univocal concept is predicated of God and creatures in an analogous way. God is “that which is” infinitely; a creature is “that which is” only finitely. Or, more properly, God is Existence and creatures merely have existence.”

Geisler further explains:

Generic concepts are univocal when abstracted, but analogical when asserted of different things, as man and dog are equally animal but are not equal animals. Animal is defined the same way (say, as “a sentient being”), but animality is predicated differently of Fido and of Socrates (c. 470–399 B.C.). (Socrates possesses animality in a higher sense than Fido does.) Likewise, both the flower and God are said to be beautiful, but God is beautiful in an infinitely higher sense than flowers are.

While this tells us nothing directly about the similarity between God and creation, it does inform us about the difference between an infinite being and a finite being. For if beauty means “that which, being seen, pleases,” then the pleasure of the beatific vision of God is infinitely greater than the pleasure of viewing a flower.

What about all the concepts of God that are applied negatively, such as eternal (non-temporal), uncaused (not caused), and immutable (not changing)?  The reason these concepts are negated is because their definitions contain limits or imperfections.  God, as an infinite (not limited) being, cannot be limited by any concept when it is applied to Him.  Time, causation, and change are all concepts which would make God dependent on something else – they all limit his being.  Therefore these terms must be negated.

Here is the bottom line.  We can never describe, with language, exactly who God is, but we can say what He is like.  We can take finite concepts and apply them to God in an infinite (unlimited) way.  That is the best we can do using human language.

An additional point needs to be made.  Some people find analogous God-talk to be difficult to understand (it can be more abstract that some people are comfortable with), and so they brush it aside and collapse their language back to univocal God-talk.  The danger, of course, is that when you start talking about God as a finite being, then you are lowering him to a creature.

Mormon theology is the poster child for univocal God-talk gone wild.  God is created, God is material, God is in time, and so forth and so on.  The Mormon God is not transcendent, is not infinite, is not uncaused –  he is just like the rest of us, a creature.  Is this the God that is presented in Scripture?  I think not.

Philosophy, Theology

Can Words Describe God? Part 1

3 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Recently some of my skeptical friends who frequently comment on the blog raised a very important issue: how do we use language when talking about God?  Is God so transcendent that our words communicate nothing about him?  Is the Christian God so “other” that words completely fail us?

There seem to be three options about God-talk.

First, that it is equivocal (totally different from the way God really is).  According to theologian Norman Geisler in his Systematic Theology. Vol. 1, “Equivocal God-talk leaves us in total ignorance about God. At best, one can only feel, intuit, or sense God in some experiential way, but no human expressions can describe what it is that is being experienced.”

This option has several problems.  Geisler clarifies, “First, it is self-defeating, since it affirms with human language about God that we cannot affirm anything about God. Religious mystics certainly write books about God. In brief, any attempt to express the equivocal view about God implies that some non-equivocal language about God is possible.”  Total agnosticism about God, in other words, is self-defeating, as soon as the agnostic says anything about God.

“Second, the Bible declares that God can be described in human language. Indeed, Scripture as a whole is an attempt to inform us about God and to evoke a response from us.”  Equivocal God-talk is totally contradicted by Scripture, where the writers clearly believed they were communicating truths about God.

“Third, there is a continual and consistent tradition in orthodox theology from the earliest centuries to the present that assumes human language can express truth about the transcendent God. This is manifest in the great confessions, creeds, and councils of the Christian church, to say nothing of all the theological treatises of the great Fathers of the church from the second century to the present.”  The history of the church demonstrates that even the earliest believers thought they could use language to talk about God.

For these reasons, equivocal God-talk must be rejected.

The second option for God-talk is that it is univocal (totally the same as God really is).  This view claims that the words we use can be applied directly to God, in the same exact way we would apply those words to finite creatures, such as human beings.

This option also has problems.  Geisler explains, “First, how can our understanding of God be entirely the same as God’s (i.e., univocal)? Our understanding and expressions are finite, and God’s are infinite, and there is an infinite gulf between finite and infinite. As transcendent, God is not only beyond our limited understanding, but He is also beyond our finite expressions.”  Because God’s nature is understood to be infinite in being, we cannot use finite language to capture exactly who God is.

“Second, the Bible makes it clear that God is far above our thoughts and words. As the prophet Isaiah aptly put it, “’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ ” declares the LORD. “’As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’ ” (Isa. 55:8–9). For a mortal human being to know as God knows, he would have to be God, since only God knows infinitely.”

For these reasons, univocal God-talk must be rejected.

That brings us to the third option, that God-talk is analogous (similar to the way God really is).  This seems to be the only alternative if we are to avoid self-defeating skepticism (equivocal God-talk) on the one hand, and avoid lowering God to the level of finite beings (univocal God-talk) on the other hand.

In the next post, we will discuss in more detail what analogous God-talk is and how Christians use this kind of language to speak about God.

Morality

Why Don’t Kids Pay Attention?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Researchers report that there is a correlation between how much time kids spend in front of video games and television, and their ability to focus in school.  Here is an excerpt from the article:

Elementary school-age and college-age participants who exceed two hours per day of screen time are as much as twice as likely to be above average in attention problems.

In addition, the researchers “conclude that TV and video game viewing may be one contributing factor for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.”

Why does playing video games and watching TV cause attention problems?  The report explains:

If we train the brain to require constant stimulation and constant flickering lights, changes in sound and camera angle, or immediate feedback, such as video games can provide, then when the child lands in the classroom where the teacher doesn’t have a million-dollar-per-episode budget, it may be hard to get children to sustain their attention.

Some food for thought.  Our 12-year old son plays video games, but we are now requiring that for each hour over one hour daily that he wants to play, he must read for the same amount of time.  Anybody else have ideas about how to limit screen time for kids?

Existence of God

What Explains the Changing of the Universe?

81 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Everything around us is changing, moving from one state to another in time.  My son was less than 5 feet tall two years ago, and now he is greater than 5 feet tall.  The grass in my yard is growing every week so that I have to cut it.  The paint on my house is fading.

Now, all of these things that are changing are moving from one state to another.  What could move a thing from one state to another?  It doesn’t seem like the thing itself could do that, all by itself.

Food, air, and water contribute to my son’s changing height.  The sun and water grow the grass.  The environment acts on the paint to cause it to fade.  My son cannot be the sole explanation for his change, nor can the grass or paint change themselves.  These things all have the potential for change, but there is always something external that acts on that potential to make the change occur.

It doesn’t stop there, though, because food, air, water, the sun, and the environment also need an explanation for why they change.  They cannot actualize their own change either.

So, what we have is a universe full of changing things that each need an explanation for that change.  Said another way, we have a universe full of potentialities, all of which need things to actualize them.

The universe, though, is the sum total of all these changing things.  It is the sum total of all time, space, and matter.  If everything in the universe is changing, then logically the universe is also changing.  What, then, is the explanation for the universe changing?  It cannot change itself, as we’ve seen.  There must be something outside of it, and that something cannot be in time, in space, or material.  The theist responds that God is outside time, space, and matter, and is therefore a great candidate for the explanation of the changing of the universe.

One last thing, if the explanation for the changing of the universe is also changing, then it also needs an explanation.  But Christians have always held that God is unchanging.  Therefore, God is the immaterial, nonspatial, eternal, and unchanging Source of all change.

Here is the argument in a syllogism:

  1. Everything that changes needs an explanation for that change outside of itself.
  2. The universe is changing.
  3. The universe needs an explanation of its change outside of itself.

Note: Credit for this form of the argument goes to Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their book, Handbook of Christian Apologetics.

Evolution, Intelligent Design

California Science Center Settles Lawsuit with Pro-Intelligent Design Group

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

You may recall that in January of this year, we posted about the California Science Center, a public institution, reneging on the screening of a pro-intelligent design (ID) movie.  The Discovery Institute, a pro-ID organization, filed a lawsuit when the Science Center refused to turn over all documents related to the cancellation of the screening.

On June 14, the Discovery Institute reported that the Science Center has settled the case, agreeing to pay all attorneys’ fees, and releasing all of the documents that should have been released in the first place.

All I can say is that the California taxpayers should be furious at the leadership of the Science Center for wasting their money over something so silly.  If they had just gone ahead with the screening, all of this could have been avoided, but the pro-Darwin side is so angry with anyone who disagrees with the Darwinian story that all kinds of pressure was placed on the Science Center to shut down the screening.

As I asked before, what are they afraid of?  Let everyone make their case and stop censoring those who disagree with you.

Archaeology, Church History

Oldest Known Images of the Apostles Andrew and John Found

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Archaeologists reported on June 22, 2010 that they found images of the apostles Andrew and John that date to the 4th century.  Here is an excerpt from the article at CNN.com.

The oldest known image of the apostles Andrew and John have been discovered in catacombs under the city of Rome, dating back to the 4th century AD, archaeologists announced Tuesday.

The paintings were found in the same location where the oldest known painting of St. Paul was discovered last year, the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archeology said Tuesday.

They are part of a group of paintings around an image of Jesus as the Good Shepherd on the ceiling of what is thought to have been a Roman noblewoman’s tomb, experts said.

A painting of St. Peter makes up the fourth member of the group, but older images of him are thought to exist, Vatican experts said.

Be sure you read the brief article to see the images themselves.  They are remarkably well preserved.

Atheism, Evolution, Existence of God, Intelligent Design, Miracles, Skeptics

Can Science Test for the Supernatural?

15 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Christians believe that a supernatural being can be reasoned to by working backward from effect to cause.  We observe ourselves and we observe the world around us (those are the effects) and we reason that a supernatural cause is the best explanation for the things we observe.  This is how almost all arguments for God’s existence work.

Science can shed additional light on what we observe in the world around us, so in that sense science can be employed in arguments for God’s existence.  For example, science seems to have shown that the universe had a beginning and that the physical laws and constants that govern the universe are fine tuned for advanced life.  Both of these scientific finds are often used in arguments for God’s existence.

Those who hold a naturalistic worldview (the natural world is all that exists) seem to be divided on this subject.  Some naturalists deny that science can ever be used to test the existence of God and others affirm that science can test for the supernatural and that those tests have all turned out negative.  Still others, like evolutionary scientist Donald Prothero, appear to hold both views at the same time.  Consider the quotes below from Prothero’s book Evolution.

Prothero first suggests that scientists “cannot consider supernatural events in their hypotheses.”  Why? Because “once you introduce the supernatural to a scientific hypothesis, there is no way to falsify or test it.”  He adds that scientists are not allowed to consider God or miracles (i.e., the supernatural) because they are “completely untestable and outside the realm of science.”  All right, it seems that Prothero is firmly in the camp of those who say that science cannot say anything about the supernatural.

But in the very next paragraph in his book, he completely reverses course.  Prothero explains, “In fact, there have been many scientific tests of supernatural and paranormal explanations of things, including parapsychology, ESP, divination, prophecy, and astrology.  All of these non-scientific ideas have been falsified when subjected to the scrutiny of scientific investigation. . . . Every time the supernatural has been investigated by scientific methods, it has failed the test.”

Huh??  Is your head spinning like mine?  Prothero first claims that science cannot test the supernatural and then he says that science has tested the supernatural.  Which is it?  It can’t be both.

I am not pointing this out to poke fun at Prothero, but because I see some skeptics making this mistake over and over again.  They want to desperately cling to the claim that science can say nothing about the existence of God (so that they can remove science as a tool in the Christian’s evidential toolbox), but they also desperately want to tell people how science has shown that God doesn’t exist (they retain science as a tool for skeptics to nullify the supernatural).  Unfortunately, holding both of these positions at the same time is flatly contradictory.  The skeptic must choose one or the other. Either science can test for the supernatural or it cannot.

I have seen this same mistake made in the intelligent design/evolution debate.  Evolutionists will claim that Michael Behe’s idea of irreducible complexity is non-scientific or scientifically untestable, but these same evolutionists will then produce scientific research they claim scientifically disproves irreducible complexity!  If it’s not scientifically testable, then how are they producing research which scientifically disproves it?

If you’re a Christian talking to a scientific skeptic, watch out for this skeptical two-step.  If you’re a scientific skeptic or naturalist, make up your mind which it is, because you are really confusing me.

Enhanced by Zemanta
About the blog, Polls

2010 Reader Survey

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

We want to make the blog more relevant to your needs and interests.  To do that, we need to know more about you.   As a result, we have created the 2010 Reader Survey.

Would you please take a few minutes to fill out the survey?  By doing so, you will ultimately be helping yourself because you will be helping us make our posts more interesting and relevant to you.

The survey is easy to fill out and it only consists of 10 questions.   Thanks in advance for your participation!

Click here to take the 2010 Reader Survey.

Resurrection

What Historical Evidence Exists for the Resurrection?

39 Comments
The Resurrection—Tischbein, 1778.
Image via Wikipedia

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Quite a bit of historical evidence exists for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  In this post, I will follow the lead of historians Gary Habermas and Mike Licona and give you five key facts that the majority of modern historians agree upon (see their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus).

How can I say what the majority of historians agree upon?  According to Licona, “Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English from 1975 to the present.  He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical  by the large majority of scholars, including skeptics.”  Skeptics are defined as people who deny that Jesus rose from the dead in any way.

The first fact is that Jesus was killed by crucifixion.  What ancient sources attest to Jesus’ crucifixion?  The four Gospels, the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, the Greek writer Lucian of Samosata, the pagan Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud.  The extremely skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan said, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical ever can be.”

The second fact is that Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.  Several sources attest to this fact.  The apostle Paul reports his interactions with the disciples (Peter, James, and John) on this topic, and Paul also records early oral traditions from the church (see 1 Cor. 15:3-7).  The Book of Acts records early Christian sermons that spoke about the resurrection.  All four Gospels record the fact that the disciples thought they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion.  The apostolic fathers Clement and Polycarp both report the resurrection appearances as well.  The atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann said, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”

The third fact is that the church persecutor Paul converted.  The fact that Paul converted after being hostile to Christianity is confirmed by Paul himself, but also by Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen.  These other sources also report that not only did Paul convert, but that he was willing to die for his beliefs.

The fourth fact is the conversion of the skeptic James, Jesus’ half brother.   The Gospels of Mark and John both report that James was not a believer in Jesus while Jesus was alive.  Paul records the fact that James saw the risen Jesus.  Luke records in Acts that James became a leader in the Jerusalem church, as does Paul in Galatians.  We know that James was even martyred for his beliefs from Josephus, Hegesippus (as reported by Eusebius), and Clement of Alexandria (as reported by Eusebius).

The fifth fact is that Jesus’ tomb was empty.  This fact does not garner the near universal assent of critical historians, although Habermas estimates that about 75% of the scholars he studied do grant this fact.  All four Gospels allude to the empty tomb and Paul certainly implies the empty tomb in 1 Cor. 15.  Several persuasive arguments have been made to support the historicity of the empty tomb (see Is There Evidence for the Empty Tomb?)  According to Oxford University church historian William Wand, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

Now, given these five facts, what historical hypothesis best explains these facts?  Licona and Habermas argue that the bodily resurrection of Jesus best explains the five facts and outdistances all other theories in its explanatory power.  Remember, alternative theories must explain these five facts better than the resurrection does in order to command a higher historical probability than the resurrection.  In my experience, the alternative theories all suffer from major deficiencies, leaving the resurrection hypothesis on solid historical ground.

A Christian Apologetics Blog