Yeah I know it's been awhile since I write anything. I'm suppose to keep this journal updated for my personal faith. Perhaps it's going downhill to the extent that I don't even bother convincing myself that I'll end up like Job anymore.
Having said that, I've promised myself to take up the challenge of refuting the proposition that there is objective morality and the ontology of it being God. So here it goes...
Just a little recap... The arguments for objective morality is simple. Since we all have some sort of uniformity in terms of our acceptance as to what is deemed "moral" or "immoral", there must be some guiding hands. For example, we do not act like mother nature, devouring each other, or go simply by the rules of survival of the fittest in a savage way like animals. If this premise is true, then there must be a "source" for the acceptance. The ontology, as explained in detail in my previous, must be from God if the first premise is true.
Hence, logically, in order to refute the latter proposition, the only way is to refute the first premise.
Is there any other way to explain the uniform norm of morality? Is there a better explanation as to why we do not act like animals when it comes to searching for necessities like food, shelter or mating partners?
The explanation to all these aren't new. In fact, I've borrowed the explanation from the title of today's post -- The Concept of Law by H.L.A. Hart
Hart explained that in a primitive society, if a group of people gather, sociologically there will be a leader where the rest follow. Rules and Customs will slowly be adopted from habits and behaviors. These will then turn into laws.
Why do humans adopt rules and customs instead of behaving savagely like animals? The reason is simple. Every living thing has a defence mechanism. Stronger animals have extraordinary strength, while some protect themselves using shells or by camouflage. If a lion has beastly strength, the only way to defend itself against nature's cruelty such as hunger and the need for reproduction is to use such strength.
Fortunately, humans have the most powerful defence mechanism among animals. We are intelligent. In many ways, if we were to rely on brute strength, we will lose out to intelligent people for wants of survival. An old lady can kill a young healthy man with a gun or by stabbing him while he's a sleep.
With such defence mechanism, it is only natural that we defend ourselves against each other creating rules and laws to abide to. In many ways, we ARE like savage animals. We just execute it in an intelligent manner. The intelligent will overwhelm and overpower the weak with knowledge.
Survival for food, shelter and mating partner is done using our intelligence. Capitalism IS our way of executing that animal-like-savage.
I don't have to expand and elaborate further as the Concept of Law has already done a good job on that. My final thoughts are rather reassuring that I'm not wrong in choosing the path I'm walking now. Even if I believe in the existence of God, I believe He has created a flawed world. If He does no mistakes, there will not be Noah's ark. He will not have to "reset" the world during that time.
There is no escaping of liability when He is in fact the ontology of every existence. If God is a prideful God that cannot accept His own flaw, I would rather not spend eternity with Him. In fact, I'm prepared to go to hell because unfortunately I'm merely a creation living in His flawed world.
At the very least, I am able to tell myself that I exist and I am true to myself.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
The Ontology of Morality
If there is a beginning, there is an origin, or rather, an ontology.
One of the arguments for the existence of God is the support for an objective morality to exist, not in a sociological sense, but in an ontological sense.
The ontology of morality must be distinguished from the epistemology of morality. The former referring to the origin of the yardstick or morality, while the latter refers to how we come to know of such a yardstick.
In other words, without such a yardstick, how can we safely say that killing is immoral? On what basis? Why is it immoral If we behave like mother nature and kill each other in the name of survival?
In the realm of mother nature, animals kill for mating partners, shelter, food etc. As such, natural selection takes its course and only the strong will survive. Consequently, only the best will be "naturally selected". Humans, however, have affirmative action to protect the minority.
Hence, as argued by Christian Apologists, there must be an ontology of morality as a basis to justify the unified norm of certain humans behavior. For example, it is universally an immoral act to kill another human being.
At this juncture, it is imperative to reiterate that there is a difference between ontology and epistemology. The former exists even if one does not acknowledge the existence of it. To put it simply, the argument applies to everyone regardless of his belief or religion. Hence, a somewhat universal norm of morality.
As an illustration, one may epistemologically learn all his morals from religion X or Culture Y, but on what basis would Religion X or Culture Y have in regards to what is moral and what isn't? It will be in an infinite loop until it acknowledges that the ontology of morality must come from something transcendental.
Hence, the ontology of morality is none other than God Himself... or so claimed many Christian Apologists, including renowned Christian Philosopher Dr William Lane Craig, as an argument for the existence of God.
There MAY be a huge flaw in acknowledging that there is an objective morality and the ontology of it is God. As mentioned many times in my previous posts, God is amorphous. The only way to identify God is to identify His characteristics. As such, stating that the ontology of morality is God will inextricably link the ontology of morality to the characteristics of God.
Malachi 3:6 "I the Lord do not change". God is eternal, so whatever morality that is ontologically Godly can never be changed.
Hence, morality is not sociological, but a subject that is anchored by every philosophical principles found in the bible.
I won't be able to list down each and every philosophical principle, but here are a few to ponder upon.
Anti Feminism -- The bible has always established that there are different roles for male and female. The patriarchal spirit was also in the original King James version where "He" was used to refer to humans in general. It was only later "amended" in the New Living Translation to be in a "We" form. However, the original Hebrew version has always espoused the patriarchal spirit. Even the Earth was referred to as a "she" in Genesis, in the original Hebrew text.
Anti Democracy -- Democracy is a creature of law. There is no such thing as democracy in the bible. Ironically, democracy was "created" by John Austin's model of law to oppose the bible being the country's "constitution". In the past, the church has the ultimate say on whether a bill should be passed or not, with reference to the bible. Furthermore, leaders have always been selected by God. If God wants the people out of the control of a leader, He will select another to lead the people somewhere else, like what happened to the Pharaoh in Egypt and Moses.
Anti Capitalism -- The book of Acts says it all. Sometimes I wonder how a Christian can be adamant on perceiving a friendly gamble session between friends during festive seasons as a sin, but is absolutely fine to capitalise on the poor by justifying the act as a legal one. Corporate Laws are NOT creations of the bible. They are created for capitalism. It's funny how every now and then my boss is teaching me all kinds of different methods on how a person can swindle money from a company legally, leaving the poor to suffer.
Here's the conclusion.
1. If you insist that the ontology of morality is God, this means that you have to be, inter alia, anti feminism, anti democracy and anti capitalism. Saying you want to follow God while doing otherwise is paradoxical.
2. You can choose not to believe that the ontology of morality is God. In which case, you will still have to explain why there is somewhat a universal acceptance of normativity in the world.
Dr William Lane Craig has sent many challenges in debates for those who try to refute the former to prove or explain the latter. None succeeded. In fact it's quite hilarious that many atheists philosophers are confused between the ontology and epistemology of morality.
As for me, while I have always been a socialist, I am also a feminist and a democracy supporter. I have no choice but to go on the basis of the latter conclusion. Do not get me wrong, I think that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sufficient to prove the existence of God. There is no need for the theory of ontology of morality to serve such a purpose. In fact, doing so will lead to the above anomaly.
I will explain Conclusion 2 sometime later, but for now, I'll just say... "Challenge Accepted".
One of the arguments for the existence of God is the support for an objective morality to exist, not in a sociological sense, but in an ontological sense.
The ontology of morality must be distinguished from the epistemology of morality. The former referring to the origin of the yardstick or morality, while the latter refers to how we come to know of such a yardstick.
In other words, without such a yardstick, how can we safely say that killing is immoral? On what basis? Why is it immoral If we behave like mother nature and kill each other in the name of survival?
In the realm of mother nature, animals kill for mating partners, shelter, food etc. As such, natural selection takes its course and only the strong will survive. Consequently, only the best will be "naturally selected". Humans, however, have affirmative action to protect the minority.
Hence, as argued by Christian Apologists, there must be an ontology of morality as a basis to justify the unified norm of certain humans behavior. For example, it is universally an immoral act to kill another human being.
At this juncture, it is imperative to reiterate that there is a difference between ontology and epistemology. The former exists even if one does not acknowledge the existence of it. To put it simply, the argument applies to everyone regardless of his belief or religion. Hence, a somewhat universal norm of morality.
As an illustration, one may epistemologically learn all his morals from religion X or Culture Y, but on what basis would Religion X or Culture Y have in regards to what is moral and what isn't? It will be in an infinite loop until it acknowledges that the ontology of morality must come from something transcendental.
Hence, the ontology of morality is none other than God Himself... or so claimed many Christian Apologists, including renowned Christian Philosopher Dr William Lane Craig, as an argument for the existence of God.
There MAY be a huge flaw in acknowledging that there is an objective morality and the ontology of it is God. As mentioned many times in my previous posts, God is amorphous. The only way to identify God is to identify His characteristics. As such, stating that the ontology of morality is God will inextricably link the ontology of morality to the characteristics of God.
Malachi 3:6 "I the Lord do not change". God is eternal, so whatever morality that is ontologically Godly can never be changed.
Hence, morality is not sociological, but a subject that is anchored by every philosophical principles found in the bible.
I won't be able to list down each and every philosophical principle, but here are a few to ponder upon.
Anti Feminism -- The bible has always established that there are different roles for male and female. The patriarchal spirit was also in the original King James version where "He" was used to refer to humans in general. It was only later "amended" in the New Living Translation to be in a "We" form. However, the original Hebrew version has always espoused the patriarchal spirit. Even the Earth was referred to as a "she" in Genesis, in the original Hebrew text.
Anti Democracy -- Democracy is a creature of law. There is no such thing as democracy in the bible. Ironically, democracy was "created" by John Austin's model of law to oppose the bible being the country's "constitution". In the past, the church has the ultimate say on whether a bill should be passed or not, with reference to the bible. Furthermore, leaders have always been selected by God. If God wants the people out of the control of a leader, He will select another to lead the people somewhere else, like what happened to the Pharaoh in Egypt and Moses.
Anti Capitalism -- The book of Acts says it all. Sometimes I wonder how a Christian can be adamant on perceiving a friendly gamble session between friends during festive seasons as a sin, but is absolutely fine to capitalise on the poor by justifying the act as a legal one. Corporate Laws are NOT creations of the bible. They are created for capitalism. It's funny how every now and then my boss is teaching me all kinds of different methods on how a person can swindle money from a company legally, leaving the poor to suffer.
Here's the conclusion.
1. If you insist that the ontology of morality is God, this means that you have to be, inter alia, anti feminism, anti democracy and anti capitalism. Saying you want to follow God while doing otherwise is paradoxical.
2. You can choose not to believe that the ontology of morality is God. In which case, you will still have to explain why there is somewhat a universal acceptance of normativity in the world.
Dr William Lane Craig has sent many challenges in debates for those who try to refute the former to prove or explain the latter. None succeeded. In fact it's quite hilarious that many atheists philosophers are confused between the ontology and epistemology of morality.
As for me, while I have always been a socialist, I am also a feminist and a democracy supporter. I have no choice but to go on the basis of the latter conclusion. Do not get me wrong, I think that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sufficient to prove the existence of God. There is no need for the theory of ontology of morality to serve such a purpose. In fact, doing so will lead to the above anomaly.
I will explain Conclusion 2 sometime later, but for now, I'll just say... "Challenge Accepted".
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Love
Yesterday was the first January 21st without her since 3 years ago. It would only be natural for me to dwell on the subject of love.
While convoluted in nature, we seem to somehow "know" yet not understand.
Many even claim to love God. The same bunch claim God loves them as well. But here's a conundrum to the optimistic bunch. Is it love if God loves Himself more than anyone else?
Did I just make up that statement? Certainly not. It can easily be deduced. Here's a follow up question to those who try to refute the abovesaid statement: "Are you claiming that your love for God is more than the love He places upon Himself?"
Now, if we were to contextualise it in humanity, it would translate to selfishness.
How can this be true? Am I just doing some wordplay? Let's take a look at some scriptures then.
The word "love" appears many times as "ahab" in its original hebrew. The word "ahab" is used for the love between husband and wife, servant and master. The same word was used for Deuteronomy 6:5 "and thou shall love (ahab) the Lord thy God".
Sweet isn't it? But who does God love in return? Let's take another look at Deuteronomy, particularly 7:2-3 "When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy."
If you think I'm just plucking scriptures out of context, read the whole bible and tell me there isn't favouritism. He would in fact go as far as to kill non related people, with reference to all the firstborn in Egypt who may or may not be involved in the suffering of the Hebrews, in favour of the joy and pleasure of the people He has set His eyes on.
If we are all God's creation and children, how does He choose between His children? Yet, if we contextualise this to a man with paternal responsibilities, favouritism is repulsed upon.
If we link these all up, with reference to my previous post, the conclusion is simple. God loves Himself more than anything else. He loves people who are able to fulfill the purpose of their existence.
However, here's the catch. You are only in the midst of fulfilling your purpose if you are suffering. You cannot claim to love God and yet live a comfortable life. The very purpose of our existence in God's context is to prove that because we are in His image and that we follow Him, we are able to do good despite the Devil's work.
If you are not suffering, you are not even worth the Devil's time to take note of. In other words, you're not following God and there's no need for the Devil to make a move on you.
The other conclusion is that, God's love cannot be a role model for us because of the mere fact that He is the creator and we are the creation. We must have our own understanding of "love". Unfortunately, my understanding of love includes many other features that are incongruous to God's. Anti favouritism being one. I will leave the long list for another day, when I deal with the ontology of morality.
There is, however, one thing that I concur. I believe that child like faith and love is the purest. I miss the days that we loved each other like little kids. She changed, and I grew up. Perhaps I will never love like a child again.
While convoluted in nature, we seem to somehow "know" yet not understand.
Many even claim to love God. The same bunch claim God loves them as well. But here's a conundrum to the optimistic bunch. Is it love if God loves Himself more than anyone else?
Did I just make up that statement? Certainly not. It can easily be deduced. Here's a follow up question to those who try to refute the abovesaid statement: "Are you claiming that your love for God is more than the love He places upon Himself?"
Now, if we were to contextualise it in humanity, it would translate to selfishness.
How can this be true? Am I just doing some wordplay? Let's take a look at some scriptures then.
The word "love" appears many times as "ahab" in its original hebrew. The word "ahab" is used for the love between husband and wife, servant and master. The same word was used for Deuteronomy 6:5 "and thou shall love (ahab) the Lord thy God".
Sweet isn't it? But who does God love in return? Let's take another look at Deuteronomy, particularly 7:2-3 "When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy."
If you think I'm just plucking scriptures out of context, read the whole bible and tell me there isn't favouritism. He would in fact go as far as to kill non related people, with reference to all the firstborn in Egypt who may or may not be involved in the suffering of the Hebrews, in favour of the joy and pleasure of the people He has set His eyes on.
If we are all God's creation and children, how does He choose between His children? Yet, if we contextualise this to a man with paternal responsibilities, favouritism is repulsed upon.
If we link these all up, with reference to my previous post, the conclusion is simple. God loves Himself more than anything else. He loves people who are able to fulfill the purpose of their existence.
However, here's the catch. You are only in the midst of fulfilling your purpose if you are suffering. You cannot claim to love God and yet live a comfortable life. The very purpose of our existence in God's context is to prove that because we are in His image and that we follow Him, we are able to do good despite the Devil's work.
If you are not suffering, you are not even worth the Devil's time to take note of. In other words, you're not following God and there's no need for the Devil to make a move on you.
The other conclusion is that, God's love cannot be a role model for us because of the mere fact that He is the creator and we are the creation. We must have our own understanding of "love". Unfortunately, my understanding of love includes many other features that are incongruous to God's. Anti favouritism being one. I will leave the long list for another day, when I deal with the ontology of morality.
There is, however, one thing that I concur. I believe that child like faith and love is the purest. I miss the days that we loved each other like little kids. She changed, and I grew up. Perhaps I will never love like a child again.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Inception
There is a beginning for everything. This month marks the beginning of life for 2 important friends some 2 decades ago. It is also the month that blossomed what used to be my everything 3 years ago. There is a beginning for everything......except one thing.
God.
Yes, there is no inception for God. In order for us and every other physical things to have a beginning, there must be a being that is transcendental in nature, for the creation of that beginning.
A simple run down of the Kalam Cosmological Argument would be sufficient to convince anyone that God indeed does exist:-
1) nothing leads to nothing.
2) for something to exist, it must therefore come from something else.
3) If something comes from something, it must have a beginning as well. Yet, in the beginning, it is necessarily true that it must still come from something, and not via thin air, as nothing comes from nothing.
4) Hence, there must be something that is timeless, or our existence will be in an illogical infinite loop with no beginning.
5) That timeless being is what we call God. You can call it whatever you want, it's the attributes of the being that matters.
With such attributes, why are we created then? To answer this, we will have to start from the beginning of many other things.
Let's start with the beginning of evil. Who created evil? If the only timeless being is God, the answer is simple-- God.
It's ludicrous that many Christians believe that it is the devil who created evil. If God is the creator for everything, how can His creation create something He has never created? Or are we suggesting that the devil has become more powerful and created something that God Himself did not?
Why did He create evil then? Many atheist fail to understand this, and try to refute the existence of God by pointing out all the evils in the world. Actually, the existence of evil is proof of God's existence.
He created evil because it is necessary as an ingredient for freedom of will. His creations will not be perfect without the freedom of will. Evil and freedom of will are 2 sides of the same coin, they cannot exist independently and separately from each other.
When Jesus was sent to earth, and was deemed perfect, he was created to be able to sin, and yet choose not to sin.
To put it simply, if one has not the capacity to sin, one has not the capacity to choose.
The only being who has not the capacity to sin yet being able to choose is God Himself. To put it in context, "whatever He does is good", not "He does what is good".
Even if he kills a horde of people, that will be a good thing.
If one challenges the above proposition, and say that He does what is good, he must also provide then, that who determines what is good? God Himself IS the yardstick of goodness. He can simply do whatever He wants. To say otherwise will be subjecting God to a standard of morality.
Before we go back to the main conundrum, we need to also understand the battle between God and Satan.
One of the favourite arguments by Atheists is that, if God is so powerful, why is He allowing the devil to live? Is He taking joy in watching the devil's work upon us?
The answer is simple. The battle between God and Satan isn't about guns and fire and lightning. If it is, God would've struck Satan dead long ago.
Preachers love to say it's a spiritual battle. But to put it in an objective context, it is actually a battle of reasons.
The book of Job clearly depicts that God and Satan is calmly having a conversation. Satan wants to show that God is bad via humans.
God created us to mirror His power of reasoning. The word "image" used in Genesis "created in His image" in Hebrew is "teslem", which means likeliness. Since God is amorphous, due to His timeless attribute, surely the sentence refers to the mind.
As such, all that Satan has to do, is to show the downfall of humans for him to win the argument with God. It would thus be counter productive for Satan to kill humans directly. Likewise, God must allow Satan to tempt and deceive us in order to prove that He is right.
THIS, is the purpose of our existence.
Christians are tested not so that they can have more faith in God, but so that God is able to win the battle of reasons, and show that despite temptations and deceptions, they will still do good.
Doing good isn't about intention. I have already established that in my previous post with reference to the book of Job. Christians who are self indulging in apathetic conscience have no where to stand because they do NOT serve the abovesaid purpose. (Christian philosophers try to reconcile this with the ontology of morality, but more on that some other day.) In the book of Revelations, only 144000 will be saved. Go figure.
Last but not least, my personal input. I cannot accept that we are nothing but pieces for God's battle for pride. God is a proud God. A jealous God.
I respect those who understand this, and still follow God. After all, this is in line with Aristotle's philosophy of life. According to Aristotle, in order to live a fulfilling and happy life, we must live according to our function. A pencil is only useful if it serves as a pencil.
However, I cannot accept God's way of reasoning. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on the side of Satan. I'm on a lonely path to destruction. I strive (struggling) to prove to the devil that I can still do good no matter what shit he throws at me, and at the same time strive to prove to God that I can still do good without following Him.
God.
Yes, there is no inception for God. In order for us and every other physical things to have a beginning, there must be a being that is transcendental in nature, for the creation of that beginning.
A simple run down of the Kalam Cosmological Argument would be sufficient to convince anyone that God indeed does exist:-
1) nothing leads to nothing.
2) for something to exist, it must therefore come from something else.
3) If something comes from something, it must have a beginning as well. Yet, in the beginning, it is necessarily true that it must still come from something, and not via thin air, as nothing comes from nothing.
4) Hence, there must be something that is timeless, or our existence will be in an illogical infinite loop with no beginning.
5) That timeless being is what we call God. You can call it whatever you want, it's the attributes of the being that matters.
With such attributes, why are we created then? To answer this, we will have to start from the beginning of many other things.
Let's start with the beginning of evil. Who created evil? If the only timeless being is God, the answer is simple-- God.
It's ludicrous that many Christians believe that it is the devil who created evil. If God is the creator for everything, how can His creation create something He has never created? Or are we suggesting that the devil has become more powerful and created something that God Himself did not?
Why did He create evil then? Many atheist fail to understand this, and try to refute the existence of God by pointing out all the evils in the world. Actually, the existence of evil is proof of God's existence.
He created evil because it is necessary as an ingredient for freedom of will. His creations will not be perfect without the freedom of will. Evil and freedom of will are 2 sides of the same coin, they cannot exist independently and separately from each other.
When Jesus was sent to earth, and was deemed perfect, he was created to be able to sin, and yet choose not to sin.
To put it simply, if one has not the capacity to sin, one has not the capacity to choose.
The only being who has not the capacity to sin yet being able to choose is God Himself. To put it in context, "whatever He does is good", not "He does what is good".
Even if he kills a horde of people, that will be a good thing.
If one challenges the above proposition, and say that He does what is good, he must also provide then, that who determines what is good? God Himself IS the yardstick of goodness. He can simply do whatever He wants. To say otherwise will be subjecting God to a standard of morality.
Before we go back to the main conundrum, we need to also understand the battle between God and Satan.
One of the favourite arguments by Atheists is that, if God is so powerful, why is He allowing the devil to live? Is He taking joy in watching the devil's work upon us?
The answer is simple. The battle between God and Satan isn't about guns and fire and lightning. If it is, God would've struck Satan dead long ago.
Preachers love to say it's a spiritual battle. But to put it in an objective context, it is actually a battle of reasons.
The book of Job clearly depicts that God and Satan is calmly having a conversation. Satan wants to show that God is bad via humans.
God created us to mirror His power of reasoning. The word "image" used in Genesis "created in His image" in Hebrew is "teslem", which means likeliness. Since God is amorphous, due to His timeless attribute, surely the sentence refers to the mind.
As such, all that Satan has to do, is to show the downfall of humans for him to win the argument with God. It would thus be counter productive for Satan to kill humans directly. Likewise, God must allow Satan to tempt and deceive us in order to prove that He is right.
THIS, is the purpose of our existence.
Christians are tested not so that they can have more faith in God, but so that God is able to win the battle of reasons, and show that despite temptations and deceptions, they will still do good.
Doing good isn't about intention. I have already established that in my previous post with reference to the book of Job. Christians who are self indulging in apathetic conscience have no where to stand because they do NOT serve the abovesaid purpose. (Christian philosophers try to reconcile this with the ontology of morality, but more on that some other day.) In the book of Revelations, only 144000 will be saved. Go figure.
Last but not least, my personal input. I cannot accept that we are nothing but pieces for God's battle for pride. God is a proud God. A jealous God.
I respect those who understand this, and still follow God. After all, this is in line with Aristotle's philosophy of life. According to Aristotle, in order to live a fulfilling and happy life, we must live according to our function. A pencil is only useful if it serves as a pencil.
However, I cannot accept God's way of reasoning. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on the side of Satan. I'm on a lonely path to destruction. I strive (struggling) to prove to the devil that I can still do good no matter what shit he throws at me, and at the same time strive to prove to God that I can still do good without following Him.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Enigma of the Mystical
Alright, gotta confess I plagiarise HIMYM idea again for my journal, but there's a reason to that. It's cause I literally cried twice watching the episode.
Maybe I felt upset because I really wanted to see God as my heavenly Father. When Lily doubted her own father, she demanded proof for miracles to happen...and it did.
Yes, evidence. It's something that is necessary for belief. If you think otherwise, and dare to quote me 2 Corinthians 5:7, you might as well throw the bible away, because that is the very purpose of the bible anyway.
With that in mind, it is nonetheless only half true when someone tries to rebut a conflicting proposition by saying "because the bible says so".
While often being ridiculed for utilising statements of such as an apologetic tool, the statement is not entirely wrong.
Objectively, one does not need to consider the inherent religious values the bible carries. The bible is in fact a bundle of historical documents containing testimonies. Its veracity has been tested with the same "acid test" used for any other historical document.
Furthermore, there are other empirical evidences to corroborate occurrences in the bible, such as the finding of Noah's ark and the remnants of the Egyptian's army in the Red Sea.
Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has adopted such arguments in theological debates. Apart from empirical corroborative evidences, he has also formulated epistemological theories such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument to support occurrences in the book of Genesis.
These are all very comforting for a believer, since it explains why the bible is not just a mere collection of enigmas of the mystical, and convincingly rebuts all the parodical analogies to Twilight and Harry Potter.
I am of the same view with Dr William Lane Craig, with one MAJOR difference.
If the bible is placed in a logical context like any other historical document, it is then subjected to a logical realm of knowledge. To put it simply, the bible then becomes nothing but an empirical evidence of its content, thus rejecting the notion that it is absolutely flawless due to its Godly origin.
To input some personal sentiments into all these thoughts, I find that many Christians, especially smart ones, have the proclivity to espouse double standards in favour of their beliefs.
I do not believe that Dr. William Lane Craig oversaw such a huge flaw when he used such an argument to rebut the probings on the veracity of the bible as an "independent source of evidence without extrinsic support" in one of his debates.
Many, like said philosopher, refuse to acknowledge testimonies in the bible that are incongruous to orthodox beliefs. For example, many refuse to consider the existence of reincarnation though there were people who believe Jesus was the reincarnation of John the Baptist.
Conversely, if a testimony is in favour of the orthodox belief, it is seldom questioned, and be swept under the blanket carpet of apathy.
There are just way too many testimonies in the bible that I wish to contest, way too many thoughts that I wish to go through and pen down now, but they are also way too contentious and valuable to be rushed through in one day (I'm way too tired anyway to even refer to the online Hebrew concordance for today's journal).
As for now, I'm just gonna be like Lily who demanded proof and got a knock on her door with a fluffy human sized teddy bear or Job who cried in agony and received blessings beyond and above an audible reply from God. I want proof. Proof that it's not just a silly enigma of the mystical, but a compassionate Father who is looking after me from a distance.
Maybe I felt upset because I really wanted to see God as my heavenly Father. When Lily doubted her own father, she demanded proof for miracles to happen...and it did.
Yes, evidence. It's something that is necessary for belief. If you think otherwise, and dare to quote me 2 Corinthians 5:7, you might as well throw the bible away, because that is the very purpose of the bible anyway.
With that in mind, it is nonetheless only half true when someone tries to rebut a conflicting proposition by saying "because the bible says so".
While often being ridiculed for utilising statements of such as an apologetic tool, the statement is not entirely wrong.
Objectively, one does not need to consider the inherent religious values the bible carries. The bible is in fact a bundle of historical documents containing testimonies. Its veracity has been tested with the same "acid test" used for any other historical document.
Furthermore, there are other empirical evidences to corroborate occurrences in the bible, such as the finding of Noah's ark and the remnants of the Egyptian's army in the Red Sea.
Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has adopted such arguments in theological debates. Apart from empirical corroborative evidences, he has also formulated epistemological theories such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument to support occurrences in the book of Genesis.
These are all very comforting for a believer, since it explains why the bible is not just a mere collection of enigmas of the mystical, and convincingly rebuts all the parodical analogies to Twilight and Harry Potter.
I am of the same view with Dr William Lane Craig, with one MAJOR difference.
If the bible is placed in a logical context like any other historical document, it is then subjected to a logical realm of knowledge. To put it simply, the bible then becomes nothing but an empirical evidence of its content, thus rejecting the notion that it is absolutely flawless due to its Godly origin.
To input some personal sentiments into all these thoughts, I find that many Christians, especially smart ones, have the proclivity to espouse double standards in favour of their beliefs.
I do not believe that Dr. William Lane Craig oversaw such a huge flaw when he used such an argument to rebut the probings on the veracity of the bible as an "independent source of evidence without extrinsic support" in one of his debates.
Many, like said philosopher, refuse to acknowledge testimonies in the bible that are incongruous to orthodox beliefs. For example, many refuse to consider the existence of reincarnation though there were people who believe Jesus was the reincarnation of John the Baptist.
Conversely, if a testimony is in favour of the orthodox belief, it is seldom questioned, and be swept under the blanket carpet of apathy.
There are just way too many testimonies in the bible that I wish to contest, way too many thoughts that I wish to go through and pen down now, but they are also way too contentious and valuable to be rushed through in one day (I'm way too tired anyway to even refer to the online Hebrew concordance for today's journal).
As for now, I'm just gonna be like Lily who demanded proof and got a knock on her door with a fluffy human sized teddy bear or Job who cried in agony and received blessings beyond and above an audible reply from God. I want proof. Proof that it's not just a silly enigma of the mystical, but a compassionate Father who is looking after me from a distance.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Faith and Doubt
2011 has come and gone. Being one of the worst years in my life, I find my faith in God has declined. Hence, as a solution, I'm writing a journal to keep track of my faith or the lack of it thereof. Perhaps it's a misnomer to say that it's a solution, since there is a possibility that in the end I might choose to forgo said faith.
Why do I call it the journal of doubt then? Well...because this is the very first thing that has to be established.
As Descartes once said, to know anything for certain, you must first doubt everything.
No I'm not being a douche, repeating some tautological cliches I learn from a TV series (HIMYM). This is what I really think ought to be the foundation of faith.
Here are my thoughts:
1) How do you have faith in a being you cannot imagine? The only way to know an amorphous being is to know his characteristics.
AND, no, God is not some bearded old man. He is not even in a shape of a human. I hate idiots who quote Genesis 1:27 and say since we are created in his image, He should look like a man. The original Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:27 to translate "image" is Tselem, which refers to the likeliness of God's power to reason, in contrast to animals.
The word "image" is used many times in the bible, but the original Hebrew words used differ according to the context. For example, Exodus 20:4 "Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image". The Hebrew word used was "pecel" which means idol. The Hebrew word that actually refers to physical likeliness is "temuwnah".
Before I start diverting my thoughts for today's journal, the point I'm trying to prove (or maybe it's just vain self justification), is that you cannot claim to believe in a being that is shapeless without knowing the characteristics of said being. Without knowledge of His characteristics, saying you believe in God is nothing more than a statement since "God" is not the original word used and is merely a made up English word to describe said being with such characteristics anyway.
2) "Faith" has lost its original meaning (among thousands of others). The original Hebrew words for faith are "Amun" and "Emuwnah".
They mean faithfulness and loyalty, in a context of acting on something with certainty. In other words, there must be a degree of knowledge in conjunction with an action for faith to be put in context.
Apathy is a canker that disguises itself in a form of faith. It is not uncommon to hear colloquial statements such as "I don't care about (fill in the blanks), I just believe in God". Nowhere in the bible can you find the act of faith not related to another act, in its original Hebrew meaning.
While faith has also been used to translate scriptures originally written in Greek, such as in the context of "hope", there's really no room to adopt apathy unless u misinterpret faith.
3) Perhaps the biggest challenge to justify writing such a journal, is to explain away the claim by many that there are myriads of scriptures that go against the act of doubt.
I shall focus mainly on the book of Job. Job was stripped off everything, family, wealth, health, you name it. No matter how righteous he was, doubts filled his mind.
Throughout his questioning for his suffering, he seeks for wisdom. Not wisdom for wisdom's sake, but one to understand God, particularly the suffering that fell upon him and the injustice of the world. It is through doubt that he seeks to understand, whereas friends not in his shoes can only make apathetic statements in response to his cries.
Here's the catch, the three friends who tried to defend God made inaccurate statements about the higher being. In the end, Job got his reply from God through all his cries of doubts, while the 3 friends who supposedly defended God got somewhat reprimanded for their inaccuracies.
The most ironic part is that whatever the three friends have uttered are so similar to many who hide behind the veil of apathy disguised as faith.
Just to wrap up on the book of Job, in Job 28:20-21 “But do people know where to find wisdom? Where can they find understanding. It is hidden from the eyes of all humanity."
That's right, true wisdom is found on humanity, on empathetic endeavours for the betterment of mankind. Whether or not I will end up like Job, or I fall to become a strong atheist at the end of the journal, I will not regret the pursuit for wisdom through doubts, because ultimately it is the most humane thing to do.
Apart from the book of Job, the other books that actually talk about the conflict between faith and doubts are all in the New Testament where Jesus is physically present. So it's in a totally different context when Jesus is physically there to tell you "Ye of little faith".
In our modern context, we can only relate to Job. In fact, it is worth reiterating that God was pleased with Job despite all his doubts, but was angry at the three friends who were seemingly pious but was in fact apathetic.
Well... I'm done justifying myself. The reason I make this journal public is that I remotely hope that there will be an Elihu to speak to me, though I'm surrounded by all the Bildads and Zophars as Eliphazs.
......and thus begins my journal of doubt.
P.S. (Seriously, I can never understand why many can have the audacity to claim that the bible is a love letter from God and there is nothing more important than Him, yet refuse to try and understand said letter in its original language. When you fall in love with someone, you would at least try to understand their mother tongue and culture too would you?)
Why do I call it the journal of doubt then? Well...because this is the very first thing that has to be established.
As Descartes once said, to know anything for certain, you must first doubt everything.
No I'm not being a douche, repeating some tautological cliches I learn from a TV series (HIMYM). This is what I really think ought to be the foundation of faith.
Here are my thoughts:
1) How do you have faith in a being you cannot imagine? The only way to know an amorphous being is to know his characteristics.
AND, no, God is not some bearded old man. He is not even in a shape of a human. I hate idiots who quote Genesis 1:27 and say since we are created in his image, He should look like a man. The original Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:27 to translate "image" is Tselem, which refers to the likeliness of God's power to reason, in contrast to animals.
The word "image" is used many times in the bible, but the original Hebrew words used differ according to the context. For example, Exodus 20:4 "Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image". The Hebrew word used was "pecel" which means idol. The Hebrew word that actually refers to physical likeliness is "temuwnah".
Before I start diverting my thoughts for today's journal, the point I'm trying to prove (or maybe it's just vain self justification), is that you cannot claim to believe in a being that is shapeless without knowing the characteristics of said being. Without knowledge of His characteristics, saying you believe in God is nothing more than a statement since "God" is not the original word used and is merely a made up English word to describe said being with such characteristics anyway.
2) "Faith" has lost its original meaning (among thousands of others). The original Hebrew words for faith are "Amun" and "Emuwnah".
They mean faithfulness and loyalty, in a context of acting on something with certainty. In other words, there must be a degree of knowledge in conjunction with an action for faith to be put in context.
Apathy is a canker that disguises itself in a form of faith. It is not uncommon to hear colloquial statements such as "I don't care about (fill in the blanks), I just believe in God". Nowhere in the bible can you find the act of faith not related to another act, in its original Hebrew meaning.
While faith has also been used to translate scriptures originally written in Greek, such as in the context of "hope", there's really no room to adopt apathy unless u misinterpret faith.
3) Perhaps the biggest challenge to justify writing such a journal, is to explain away the claim by many that there are myriads of scriptures that go against the act of doubt.
I shall focus mainly on the book of Job. Job was stripped off everything, family, wealth, health, you name it. No matter how righteous he was, doubts filled his mind.
Throughout his questioning for his suffering, he seeks for wisdom. Not wisdom for wisdom's sake, but one to understand God, particularly the suffering that fell upon him and the injustice of the world. It is through doubt that he seeks to understand, whereas friends not in his shoes can only make apathetic statements in response to his cries.
Here's the catch, the three friends who tried to defend God made inaccurate statements about the higher being. In the end, Job got his reply from God through all his cries of doubts, while the 3 friends who supposedly defended God got somewhat reprimanded for their inaccuracies.
The most ironic part is that whatever the three friends have uttered are so similar to many who hide behind the veil of apathy disguised as faith.
Just to wrap up on the book of Job, in Job 28:20-21 “But do people know where to find wisdom? Where can they find understanding. It is hidden from the eyes of all humanity."
That's right, true wisdom is found on humanity, on empathetic endeavours for the betterment of mankind. Whether or not I will end up like Job, or I fall to become a strong atheist at the end of the journal, I will not regret the pursuit for wisdom through doubts, because ultimately it is the most humane thing to do.
Apart from the book of Job, the other books that actually talk about the conflict between faith and doubts are all in the New Testament where Jesus is physically present. So it's in a totally different context when Jesus is physically there to tell you "Ye of little faith".
In our modern context, we can only relate to Job. In fact, it is worth reiterating that God was pleased with Job despite all his doubts, but was angry at the three friends who were seemingly pious but was in fact apathetic.
Well... I'm done justifying myself. The reason I make this journal public is that I remotely hope that there will be an Elihu to speak to me, though I'm surrounded by all the Bildads and Zophars as Eliphazs.
......and thus begins my journal of doubt.
P.S. (Seriously, I can never understand why many can have the audacity to claim that the bible is a love letter from God and there is nothing more important than Him, yet refuse to try and understand said letter in its original language. When you fall in love with someone, you would at least try to understand their mother tongue and culture too would you?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)