Ancient 6th Century Road Discovered In Jerusalem

If I had a next life on this earth I would be an archaeologist in Israel who studied philosophy and theology on the side. Here's the latest discovery, from the Jerusalem Post.

"For the first time the main road of Jerusalem, dated 1,500 years ago, has been discovered. An Israel Antiquities Authority archeological excavation in the heart of Jerusalem’s old city confirms a description of the road on the Madaba Map – an ancient mosaic map from the sixth century CE, measuring eight by 16 meters, and located in a church in Madaba, Jordan.


The map, from the Byzantine period, is the oldest surviving original cartographic depiction of the Land of Israel. What is notable on the map is the illustration of the entrance to Jerusalem from the west via a very large gate that led to a single, central thoroughfare on that side of the city."

For the rest go here.

Healing the Eye of the Heart - Alister McGrath on Romans 12:2

The reasoning Alister McGrath is using in his wonderful A Fine-Tuned Universe concerns, among other things, "seeing." By this is meant how a controlling narrative (noetic framework; even perhaps "worldview") allows persons to see aspects of reality that would not be seen by another controlling narrative. McGrath believes that the narrative of Christian Trinitarian Theism sheds much light on nature, society, humanity, and individuality.

McGrath believes that the New Testament predicts such a thing; viz., that on embracing Jesus one will be given new "eyes to see." He writes: "The New Testament speaks of the impact of Jesus of Nazareth in terms of his potential transformation of humanity through faith." (38) This transformation extends to the human mind. The obvious example is what Paul says in Romans 12:2; viz., that we are urged not to "be conformed to this world" but rather to "be transformed by the renewing of our minds." What Paul says here affirms "the capacity of the Christian faith to bring about a radical change in the way in which we understand and inhabit the world." (38-39)

I love what McGrath says next, and as a Christian theist find it beautiful and encouraging:

"The human mind is not replaced or displaced; rather, it is illuminated and energized through faith. Paul is speaking of a transformed disposition of the knower, which leads to a new way of thinking that enables the discernment of deeper levels of reality than unaided human reason or sight permit. Faith is about the transformation of the human mind to see things in a certain manner, involving the acquisition of certain habits of thinking and perception." (39)

The Christian understanding of salvation is that of "a transformative process that has been inaugurated, yet whose final completion has yet to take place." It's a "process of renewal." The renewal has to do with "changed and interconnected patterns of thought and behavior. We come to see the world in a new way, and as a result behave in a new way." (39)

For example, one reads Jesus' parables of the kingdom in a new way. They are "seen" differently, and the result of what is seen leads to "a change in outlook and action." McGrath writes: "The call to love God "with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Mt. 22:34-37) clearly envisages a discipleship of the mind, since every aspect of human existence is affected by the gospel." (39)

Augustine, in the fifth century, described this new way of "seeing" as the "healing of the eye of the heart" by divine grace. (In Ib., 39) Augustine wrote: "Our whole business in this life is to heal the eye of the heart, so that God might be seen." (In Ib.) Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar spoke of the "light of grace" coming to our inability by "bestowing vision," "this enabling us to discern God's presence and activity within the natural realm." (39)

All this is used by McGrath in arguing that "there is an integral explanatory element to the Christian vision of reality." (39) He writes: "The Christian vision of reality claims both to tell the truth and to possess explanatory power, because it corresponds to the way things really are." (40)

It's important in all of this to remember that McGrath does not wish to argue for the point beginning from nature. That's what he calls "classic natural theology," which he's not about doing. McGrath's development of a "Trinitarian Natural Theology" uses (as we've previously said) reasoning by "inference to the best explanation," or "abductive reasoning" (which, by the way, he and others find superior to Bayesian explanations - ""Inference to the best explanation" appears to have a significant advantage over Bayesian approaches in being able to illuminate the context of scientific discovery." [57]).

All of this excites and intrigues me very much. McGrath is a excellent writer. And, I'll be changing Logic texts in the Fall and using Lewis Vaughn's The Power of Critical Thinking, which contains an entire chapter on "inference to the best explanation." And, BTW, Vaughn's logic text has nothing on Bayes' Theorem, which my current Logic text by Hurley does.

RMS II Meets Tomorrow

RMS II meets tomorrow (2/11) at Panera Bread - 11:30 AM.


I'll lead our discussion, which will have two parts:

1) Follow up re. getting the word out about RMS.

2) A report on recent things I am thinking about, reading, studying - on Scripture & theology.

We'll treat you to coffee!

See you tomorrow,

PJ

Unequal In Valuableness; Equally Loved By God

(Bambi Meets Godzilla)

C.S. Lewis writes: "It is idle to say that men are of equal value. If value is taken in a worldly sense - if we mean that all men are equally useful or beautiful or good or entertaining - then it is nonsense. If it means that all are of equal value as immortal souls, then I think it conceals a dangerous error. The infinite value of each human soul is not a Christian doctrine. God did not die for man because of some value He perceived in him. The value of each human soul considered simply in itself, out of relation to God, is zero. As St. Paul writes, to have died for valuable men would have been not divine but merely heroic; but God died for sinners. He loved us not because we were lovable, but because He is Love. It may be that He loves all equally - He certainly loved all to the death - and I am not certain what the expression means. If there is equality, it is in His love, not in us." (From "Membership," in The Weight of Glory)

God loves us all equally, but we are not, in our humanity, equal. Some are better at math than others. Some people can fix things, other people cannot. I am not equal in running ability to Usain Bolt. Usain Bolt is not equal to me in guitar-playing ability (I feel certain of this). I am not the basketball player LeBron James is and could never be no matter how much I practiced. I am simply unequal to him physically. I am Bambi, he is Godzilla.

This truth leads to the following conclusion: In the game of basketball, LeBron James is more valuable than I am. If LeBron and I were lined up in a pickup game, and you were choosing players, you would choose LeBron before me. Such is the reality of human inquality.

What does Lewis mean when he writes, "The value of each human soul considered simply in itself, out of relation to God, is zero." The following, I think:

• It is only in relation to God that our lives have value.
• Without being in relation to God, our tiny souls add nothing to the greatness of God. If our value is numerically '1' or '1 billion,' the result is still zero when placed against 'infinity.'

The equality lies in this: God loves me and you and Usain Bolt and LeBron James equally. God does not favor the more gifted over your own self. God did not only die for those who have the greater talent, but for all. Because in our shared sinfulness the infinite qualitative distinction between us and God is the same.

Philosophy of Religion Students - Exams

For my MCCC Philosophy of Religion Students:

MCCC is closed today.

The review for exam #1 will be held on Monday, Feb. 15. If you have been at all class sessions (one miss is allowed) you may attend the exam review. If you think you know the material you do not have to attend the exam review.

The Wed., Feb. 17, oral exams will be held as scheduled.

Those who signed up for oral exams Mon., Feb. 15, will take their oral exams on Mon., Feb. 22.

If you have any questions please call or e-mail me.

John Piippo

In Defense of Exclusivism

William Dembski writes: "Any act of speaking is at once exclusionary and irrevocable" to affirm one thing is to exclude or rule out others... Because a particular spoken word always excludes other spoken words, speech constitutes self-limitation. To say "I do" at your wedding means to say "I don't" to all others." (The End of Christianity, 96-97)

Demsbki's book is his answer to the problem of evil. He holds to old-earth theory (billions of years old) while attributing all evil, to include natural evil that existed prior to humanity, to human sin. Dembski's theodicy shows that "the effects of the Fall can be retroactive as well as proactive." (10)

But I'm going to use the statements quoted above for a different purpose. I think they are true, and have implications for a number of things.

The point I'm interested in is this: all speech, all language, necessarily marginalizes. If this is true, as I think it is, then for the non-Christian to protest that my religious speech-utterance "Jesus is the only way to God" is unfair, or cannot be true because it marginalizes non-Christian people, is itself a marginalizing speech-utterance (since all language necessarily marginalizes).

Say anything and you've excluded a lot of people. "Exclusion" cannot be avoided. Indeed, the person who says "An inclusive language is possible" thereby excludes all who think such a thing is not possible. Say "Jesus cannot be the only way to God" and  a few billion people get excluded. Say "There is no God," or "We cannot know if there is a God," or be Bertrand Russell-like and say "God, if there is a God, has not given us enough evidence," and those of us who feel God has given enough evidence get excluded. Not very nice of you to do that, Mr. Russell.

Dembski says "any act of speaking is exclusionary." How about confessional speech-acts, like: "I believe there is no God," or "I believe God exists?" If such utterances "affirm" something, then probably confessional utterances are also exclusionary.

Even statements like "This piece of chalk is white," uttered as I am holding a piece of white chalk, excludes any person who, for whatever reason, doubts it.

It seems that some statements are less exclusionary than others. Like "It is now snowing," spoken as I look out the window. Actually, that's exclusionary, since it is not now snowing in many places. So: "It is now snowing, in my front yard, on Feb. 9, 2010, 3:37 PM." It seems that most people would not be excluded by such a statement. But, if that is true, the statement is so insignificant that maybe the more trivial a statement is the less exclusionary it will be, because who would want to debate the truth of such a thing? But utter "The chalk is white" and try to defend its truth in the presence of a group of philosophy of science scholars and you'll enter into a world of epistemic problems and fundamental disagreements.

To conclude: no theory, no act of speaking, can in principle be all-inclusive. If this is so we surely can give up trying to please or include everyone as regards our deeply-held beliefs. And we need not feel threatened by the argument that accuses us of being "exclusivists," since exclusivism is inevitable anyway. As Alvin Plantinga has written, in his essay on "A Defense of Religious Exclusivism": Religious exclusivism is not necessarily a moral or intellectual failure and, given the human condition, some exclusivism is inevitable in our lives. (pp. 187 ff.) 

Perhaps the "problem"of religious exclusivism is that, unlike the piece of white chalk, the stakes are so high. That is, what one is being "excluded" from is, precisely, eternal existence worshiping the God who made us. Here are some resources I find helpful.

• "How Could God Create Hell?," by Jerry Walls. In William Lane Craig, God Is Great, God Is Good: Why Believing in God Is Reasonable & Responsible.
• "Hell: Getting What's Good My Own Way," by Stewart Goetz. In Copan and Craig, Contending with Christianity's Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors.
• "A Defense of Religious Exclusivism," by Alvin Plantinga. In Plantinga, The Analytic Theist.
•  See William Lane Craig's articles on "Christian Particularism" here.

A Trinitarian vs. A Classic Natural Theology

(From Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations)

Alister McGrath's wonderful A Fine-Tuned Universe depends on a critical distinction between a "Trinitarian natural theology" and a "classic natural theology."

A "classic natural theology" is: "the way of understanding the natural world, based on a religiously uninformed or neutral stance, which leads to the conclusion that some transcendent entity exists." (35)

A "Trinitarian natural theology" is: "the way of understanding both the natural world and the human engagement with that world which results from the Trinitarian vision of reality that is articulated by Christian orthodoxy."

The difference between the two is that McGrath presents us with a way of looking at things that is a consequence of the Christian revelation, and not something that is entailed by nature itself. To understand McGrath (and, I think, N.T. Wright) one must understand this distinction.

I think this is, in general, a more European way of looking at things, rooted in the Kantian heritage that finds its way through Gadamer and what used to be called "the new hermeneutic" (see here). It's also going to utilize the logic of inference to the best explanation. (See p. 37 - "What is proposed appears to represent a very different form of reasoning, which might be termed "abduction," "inference to the best explanation," or perhaps "inference to the best theory."")

There's even some Wittgensteinian influence working here, in the sense of Wittgenstein's "seeing-as."  McGrath stresses the importance of "seeing": one must "see" nature through or within the context of a natural theology. He writes: "A "theology of nature" refers to how humanity interprets nature; a "natural theology" designates both the hermeneutical process and its outcome. The terms "natural theology" and "theology of nature" designate distinct though clearly related notions." (36) One always "sees" as a being-situated-in-context. There's no a-contextual seeing. (I don't think the recognition of this truth condemns one to a hopeless epistemological relativism. But perhaps more of that elsewhere. And, McGrath only mentions Wittgenstein twice and D.Z. Phillips once in his FTU. Surely McGrath wants to avoid the cognitive abyss of "Wittgensteinian fideism.")

McGrath's approach moves away from "Paleyesque accounts of natural theology (referencing William Paley's famous "watchmaker" argument for the existence of God). McGrath correctly and helpfully notes and explains that Paley's reasoning was itself deeply embedded in its specific cultural environment. So his reasoning intellectually resonated with his readers. But today things, culturally (to include intellectual culture) have changed. McGrath states that "subsequent shifts in this network of prevailing scientific, cultural, aesthetic, and theological judgments inevitably point to the need for a different style of natural theology." (36-37)

So what's McGrath up to? Apologists for Christian theism will note that he is leaving the arena of "traditional deductive arguments of the philosophy of religion." (37) What he proposes "is an understanding of explanation as "a making intelligible" or a "disclosing of the instrinsic rationality of things." McGrath will argue that "Christianity makes better sense of the empirical evidence than any of its alternatives or rivals." (37) With this last sentence he's similiar to N.T Wright who, in his The Last Word, argues for the greater explanatory power of the Christian-theistic narrative.

What do I think?

• I have invested a lot of study in classic natural theological reasoning, to include keeping up with present arguments, such as J.P. Moreland's argument from consciousness for the existence of God which is an evidentialist argument.
• I am personally much-taken by the fine-tuning argument for God's existence, but note that it rests on logical reasoning called "the prime principle of confirmation" which is, to me, similar to abductive reasoning.
• I am greatly interested in McGrath and N.T. Wright as they present what I will call a more European philosophical approach to reasoning and truth.

A Snowblower & A Man's Existential Priorities

(Thanks J.C. for this photo.)

I just got inside from firing up my snowblower. I had not used it since last winter. It was slow starting. It's a manual, not electric, start-thing, so I have to pull the cord. I pulled and I pulled and pulled... until I began to remember stories of old and young shapeless men who go out on that first snowy day and clear their sidewalks and driveways even if they are not going anywhere (just because men, being what they are, must do this) and have heart attacks.

How many times did I pull the cord? I didn't count, but can tell you that my right bicep is now twice as large as my left one. My heart is still beating, but asking me, "Just what the heck was that all about anyway?!"

What's it about? Power, that's what it's about. Men must have power, exhibit power, exert power. Men must move things, lift things, and those things must be heavy. For me this is the snowblower-as-an-extension-of-my-being. I am the snowblower. I and the snowblower are one. Men made such machines to do two things: 1) to help them with their labors; and 2) to adrenaline-rush their souls. I am not sure which comes first in terms of existential priority.

So here I now am at my computer, with the sense of having accomplished something I could not have done in my own strength but did with my power-filled snowblower. I got a big, sudden cardio-workout, and blew a lot of snow, a significant portion of which got on me. In the aftermath of my great accomplishment a sense of personal well-being settles in, and all is well with this world once again.

What To Do On a Snow Day in Michigan

(Relaxing in my back yard)

Redeemer Ministry School Students: Tonight's Prophecy class and tomorrow morning's Preaching class have been cancelled. I've talked with Jim Collins - he and I are looking at when he can come to our Prophecy class and share on a future date.

The weather report we are looking at has up to 10 inches of snow + strong winds starting some time tonight and blowing and drifting tomorrow.

So today...

• abide in Jesus
• enjoy God's creation
• listen to beautiful worship music
• re-read ch. 9 of Mike Bickle's book
• eat fruits and vegetables
• take a snow-walk
• write in your journal
• pray (prayer is talking with God about what you and he are doing together)
• feed the birds
• fire up the snowblower
• meditate on John 17:6-12 (I'm preaching on those verses this coming Sunday)
• invite a friend to see "Furious Love" at Redeemer this Sunday night (6 PM)
• get some alone-time with God (solitude)
• count your blessings
• relax outside in a chair in your backyard
• and be renewed in your spirit.

Why the Who?

(Peter Townshend of "The Who," driving his guitar through a fake amplifier.)

Linda and I just watched "The Who" on the Super Bowl Halftime show. Way, way, way back in the 1960s I saw The Who in concert. The rumor was they destroyed their instruments during their concerts. I went anticipating this to happen and was, frankly, disappointed when, under the cover of fog machinery, fake drum sets and amps were brought on stage and, subsequently, "destroyed." Beware of any band that destroys fake instruments.

Why was "The Who" playing at the Super Bowl? Why not, instead, Meat Loaf, who played before a near-total black audience at an NBA All-Star game some years ago. Actually, that was the only halftime show I remember in all my life precisely because it was so supremely anachronistic and unglorious. Analagously, bringing The Who on America's biggest stage is an equally amazing feat of out-of-touchness. We're talking about an archaeological moment as these ancient songs were uncovered before a billion people who, if they were listening, cried out for interpretation. When The Who stepped onto the stage America's youth looked to their grandparents and asked, "Who?"

Their playing was bad. And, BTW, every guitar player knows that Peter Townshend's windmill strumming only requires an uninjured rotator cuff. As Townshend's shirt elevated during every windmill to reveal his belly I found myself blushing, for his 60-something belly was seen as everyman's 60-something belly, to include my own. Had they begun to destroy the stage I would have felt vindicated, and proudly announced to the kids of today "See what we had way back when?"

Yes, back when TVs were black-and-white, phones had cords, and we wore madras shirts, I listened to "Tommy," the pinball wizard. But I haven't listened to a Who song in 40 years. Today, in a galaxy far from that one, with all the musical choices our world has to offer, Why the Who?