the singularity of being and nothingness
Posts tagged Linguistics
A Study Bible to End All Study Bibles
Jun 17th
This may have been out for a while, but I recently ran across it: "The New Defender's Study Bible: Understanding the Critical Issues of Faith from a Literal Creationist Viewpoint".
My initial reaction was laughter at such absurdity. After all, here is someone going to the trouble of writing an entire study Bible for the express purpose of promoting a 21st century conception of Creationism. However, as I thought about it, I quickly became quite disturbed. Consider the tagline that is included on the advertisements for this Study Bible:
Now the most complete and uncompromising study Bible defending the scientific accuracy of Scripture has been enlarged from 1,620 pages to 2,202 pages. With larger, easier to read type and 50% more commentary, this is the finest study Bible available.
I want to make sure anybody didn't miss that. First, this is "the finest study Bible available." Forget a study Bible that would train one in the historic orthodoxy of the Church; don't bother with a study Bible that would instruct one in the call to ethical formation. No, finally the finest study Bible available has arisen from the masses of others, and deals with the most important issue possible: Creationism.
Ridiculous.
But what is More >
Brief Discourse on the Philosophical Tenability of Miracles Commonly Conceived
Jun 17th
My church just concluded a sermon series on the subject of miracles. On the whole, it was an interesting series and some good points were made. However, there was one particular part of the series that especially intrigued me, that being the definition of "miracle." To explain the concept, the speaker appealed to a Grahamian definition which is (roughly) as follows:
"A miracle is an event which occurs in space/time which can not be explained on the basis of knowledge concerning the laws and processes of the natural universe"
Thumbing through my desktop Oxford, the technical definition is not meaningfully different:
"An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
At first glance, this definition of the miraculous seems quite sensical; after all, there is plenty of naturalistic phenomenon which cannot be explained on the basis of current knowledge of the physical universe. Is it not convenient, then, to be able to locate these phenomenon within a helpfully organizing philological (and perhaps metaphysical?) category? While such a linguistic grouping might be categorically helpful, I would suggest that such a definition of the miraculous is not only misleading, but More >
Miracles Considered, Conclusion
Jun 17th
In my previous post, I briefly discussed some problems which I believe to be inherent to popular conceptions of the miraculous. As outlined, this understanding is based upon the correlation of the miraculous to human ignorance, e.g., that which is miraculous is that which is beyond the [current] knowledge of human persons. The crux of my discussion, then, was that such an understanding of the miraculous is ultimately destructive, for as human knowledge increases, so will that which can be categorized as "miraculous" decrease proporitionally.
One of the examples which I used to illustrate this point was that of the controversy within many strands of religious thought concerning the seeming incongruence of evolutionary theory and biblical interpretation. Interestingly enough, as I was preparing for this follow-up post, I ran across an article describing the opening of a brand new "Creationism Museum" right here in Kentucky. The brainchild of the infamous Answers in Genesis Project, "Creationism Museum" exists purely to show that "science actually confirms biblical history."
Now of course, this post is not specifically made for the purpose of defining "biblical history," or of addressing the nature of modernistic conceptions of historicity and its self-justified equation of "truth" with the same. However, this More >
Sin as Privation – Brief Conclusion
Jun 17th
In my previous post, I briefly discussed reasons why Christian theology must necessarily affirm the ontological non-existence of sin. I concluded that if sin is assigned a substantival nature; and if God is to be spoken of as source and sustainer of all that has existence; then one must unavoidably conclude that God has not only willed–per the good pleasure and desire of the divine will–the existence of evil, but has moreover been disingenuous in either calling creation "good", or condemning sin as something damnable and other than good.
As part of this conclusion, I noted that one of the major benefits that can be seen to accrue is that one circumvents, in a philosophically honest manner, the quagmire of the relation of the divinity to sin. As was shown, if sin lacks ontological existence, it is no bit of philosophical gymnastics to affirm that God has not created sin, for how can it be said that God created that which lacks existence? Therefore, by speaking of sin not as a "thing," but rather as privation of good, it is possible to not only deny the primal origin of sin in the Godhead (which is ultimately necessitated if sin has a More >
A 1600 Year-Old Justification of an Assertion?
Jun 17th
In several of my posts, I have argued that human language is incapable of propositionally communicating truth about the divine nature of the Godhead. The qualification of propositionally is important, I think, because on the one hand it acknowledges the severe break that exists between the human and divine in terms of ontology (and the comprehensibility of the same) while concomitantly avoiding the equally deficient perspective that human language is incapable of speaking of God en toto.
My conclusion to these discussions is that we must always be aware that in our speaking of the divine nature, our languagebeing defined and deployed through the paradigm of finitudeis entirely incapable of encapsulating the truth of the divine nature in a propositional way (that is, in such a way as to be able to definitively prove the truth or falsity of such proposition through some means of quantification). Rather, epistemological humility must not simply be given lip service, but a strategic place in the deployment of any human-speak about God.
With that said, let me begin again.
Last semester, I analyzed St. Athanasius defense of the Nicaean determinations concerning Christs relationship in divinity to the Father in his important work, De Decretis. For those More >
The Closing of the Evangelical Mind
Jun 17th
Let's just be completely perspicuous: evangelicalism is doomed.
It's leaders sense it. It's adherents feel it, uneasily. Everyone looking at it from the outside fully acknowledges it.
The most pitiable fact, however, is that evangelical's fatal wound is entirely self-inflicted. It's arsenic? Sola Scripura.
Why, the inquisitive reader may ask, is sola Scripture so deadly? The answer is quite simple, yet quite terrifying.
Sola Scriptura, in its simplest and most consistent form, is a presupposition that the Christian Scriptures are not only sufficient for determining divine truth, but moreover that they are exclusively privy to this role. Therefore, any other potential sources of authority–such as Christian tradition, historical theology, and even the creeds and councils of the ecumenical Church–while potentially useful in "expounding on the truth already present sufficiently in Scripture," are fundamentlly adiaphora–unessential to faith, right belief, and Christian praxis.
Obviously, one might question why this is a problem. After all, the Scriptures are obviously a crucial and irreplacable source of authority within the life of the Church. Should they not be given the primal and exclusive place of authority? The answer will depend upon how much one cares about the survival of the Christian Church.
Historically, the ecumenical church did not hold More >
Calvinism, a Syllogism and the Origin of Evil
Jun 17th
Those who affirm the canons of Calvinistic philosophy often laud the logical coherence of its systematic formulation. In this post, I would like to turn the tables on this methodological assumption, showing how Calvinistic philosophy, while perhaps logical, leads to a horribly perverse image of the divine nature and will of God. I shall do this through a syllogistic form and shall concentrate upon the origin of evil.
A: God has eternally decreed all that comes to pass. B: That which God decrees proceeds from the free and boundless will of God. C: The will of God is essential with Gods being. Proposition: Evil exists.
Therefore:
A: Because God has eternally decreed that evil should exist, or come to pass: B: Because the existence and perpetuity of evil proceeds from the free and boundless will of God. C: Because the will of God is essential with Gods being; D: It is logically concluded that evil is essential with the being of God.
In response, I suspect a couple different approaches may (and will) be taken. I assume many will argue with the relationship between will and being. Note that I have carefully qualified the language: essential with. I think this More >
A Brief Introduction to The Absolute Necessity of Speaking of Sin as "Privation"
Mar 14th
Think about the word "sin." What do you think of? A stain? Some black, ethereal substance? A "negative" field of energy? Throughout history, humans have struggled with defining this difficult concept to align with and elucidate religious and social notions of right and wrong, good and evil, morality and ethics.
In Christian theology, sin occupies a primal and primary importance. The Scriptures speak of sin as that which has given rise to the "fall" of humanity, it is that which brings death, and it is that which is responsible for severing the divine/human relationship.
But what, exactly, is sin? I propose that it is, in fact, "nothing." Let me explain.
Christians believe that the creative act of God is exhaustively characterized as "good." That is, there is nothing that exists which was not created out of the good pleasure and will of God. (Now philosophers can, of course, argue about whether this designation of "goodness" can be applied to that which is created, but that is another post). However, Christians also believe that God's will is opposed to that which is sinful: in fact, one could describe sin as that which is antithetical to the will (and, necessarily, to the being) More >
Human Language and the Divine
Aug 10th
Over the last several monthsand especially within the last few daysI have been involved in numerous conversations about the nature and function of human language in describing God. What follows is not meant to be a fully-developed essay, but is rather intended to be somewhat of a summary of the lines of thinking I have pursued and the very tentative conclusions which I have reached.
Obviously, one of the most prescient issues is to what extent one can affirm that human language is capable of literally expressing and/or encapsulating truth about the nature of God. The initial, and I believe correct, answer is that human language is insufficient to do this. After all, we are speaking about a finite medium (human language) through which we attempt to speak about that which is infinite. To use a material example, such would be like the proverbial two-dimensional Flatlander attempting to shake the hand of the three-dimensional invader of the two-dimensional plane. While the Flatlander may be able to intersect a two-dimensional cross-section of the three-dimensional visitor, the Flatlander will be, by virtue of his difference, incapable of fully engaging or encapsulating the reality of his new higher-dimensional friend. In a similar and More >
