Eliminative Materialism with respect to mind is the idea that all psychology is explainable by neurology, and hence that psychology will be eliminated as a science and replaced by mere neurology. Thus, rather than speak of participation in the Eucharist as somehow following from some Christian belief, we speak entirely in terms of neuroscience. Some people, such as Paul and Patricia Churchland, are quite convinced that psychological descriptions will be replaced by neurological ones soon enough. To that I respond, keep dreaming...wait...never mind...or...drat...never have certain neural configurations...
Let's try again. I really respond, keep on having that neural activity that will help develop neuroscientific explanations to eliminate psychological ones. Only then will we abandon belief in such meaningless psychobabble...I mean...only then will our neural activity cease to produce psychological explanations for what is really just neural activity. That's what you desire, right? No...wait...that's what your neural activity induces you to explain, right?
Why should I believe this is true? Ah, but there I go again...why should my neural activity bring me to assert the truth of Eliminative Materialism?
24 October 2009
04 October 2009
General Revelation with a History of Ideas: or Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny
The following was a response to a question on general revelation, most of which probably has little or nothing to do with the question. Having completed it, I thought it would be quite at home here.
I like to begin where Chesterton does: with evil. An individual, looking around this world, cannot help but identify the pervasive evil around all around. If this individual is honest, so too will he or she identify the evil within the self. We are beings inflicting evil on a world which, as a result, is quite full of evil.
At the same time, no one can look around and miss the good that is everywhere. Trees are good. The natural world can be quite beautiful. Food can be delicious. Why is that? Not only that, but also I am capable of good and of seeing good, as are these others like me. We are beings who witness and reflect goodness in and from a world that is full of good.
Many people stop there. We call them Dualists, in the Manichean sense of the word. We see Dualism all over the landscape of human thought, from Platonism to Gnosticism to Zoroastrianism to Buddhism (in a nuanced way) to Paganism (think Celtic myths about the seasons) and beyond.
Others manage to see that evil is not an entity in the world, but rather a degradation of what is good. All God's creations are good, after all, and Creation is very good. Evil is not an entity in itself, but the result of Creation's not being what it was meant to be because man, the gardener, failed to be who he was supposed to be. That is an aside, though. All we have so far seen is that evil does not exist except as dependent on the good, where the good is not flourishing as it should.
There are many who reach this conclusion. They come in many varieties, but generally they are the sort of people who believe in the perfectibility of man and the world. It is a noble enterprise, except that it is futile and destructive. Progressives of the latter century fit this profile quite well. Positivists could be the exemplar of this way of thinking. The belief that we can progress in scientific knowledge to obtain a complete theoretical understanding of the universe, thereby solving all mankind's ills is rooted in this idea that the world is basically good (it is), it is tainted by evil (it is), and it can be restored (it can be). The fatal error is the idea that we can do it ourselves. It is, however, perfectly natural for us to believe that we can restore ourselves and our world. We were created to care for it, after all.
Many people eventually realize that they cannot fix themselves and be who they were meant to be, and similarly they determine that it is beyond the capacity of human beings to restore this world themselves. After all, as long as human beings cannot make themselves good, how can they make the world to be good? It is a true and logical conclusion, we cannot. It has certainly been a function of the Law to demonstrate completely and directly how this can never be. What is a person to do, having reached this conclusion with or without the specific revelation of the Law?
Many, I believe, become Legalists of various stripes. Supposing one has the Law, it would be natural to seek out salvation through adherence to it. We see this in Pharisaic and Rabbinic Judaism, for the latter, especially as messianism lost favor following the disastrous Bar Kokhba Revolt of the AD 130s. Similar behavior will even crop up within Christianity, as we know well. Without the Law, one might wind up with any number of philosophies that settle for this unstable state of affairs. These people invent act-oriented ethical theories, such as Kantianism and Act Utilitarianism. Kantian ethics are absolutist, deontological ethics, which demand specific duties from every individual, as a rational being, according to the categorical imperative. Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory that derives rightness from various hedonic calculations about the consequences of an act. In both cases, good and evil are given, and both theories inform one how to do good, but neither has anything to say about how to be good, or more accurately, how to become good. This is why virtue ethics, which dominated the pre-Enlightenment West, are far superior to these modernist ethical theories. Virtue ethics, rather than being deontological or teleological, are character-based. They are ethical in the true sense of the word "ethos," which has to do with lifestyle and character, not duties and consequences. When duties and consequences do factor into virtue ethics, it is always in the interest of developing character, that is, becoming good in the long term by doing good in the short term. Alone, virtue ethics fall in among the company of the Positivists. With Christianity, they take on a framework in which they make sense. This has been a tangent, so I will conclude with another statement of my point. Legalism is a natural response to the realization that human beings cannot perfect the world on their own. It is a way to live well in a world full of evil, without necessarily dealing with the problem of evil. Kantianism and Utilitarianism serve as prime examples of this way of thinking.
Others who do not become Legalists, I suppose, become Existentialists. They do this because no one really wants to become a Nihilist. Of course, Existentialism can never escape the lurking shadow of Nihilism, and any honest Existentialist should eventually become a Nihilist, and any honest Nihilist should probably commit suicide or simply sigh, "Why even bother with killing myself?" Existentialism, after all, is supposed to answer why we should bother doing anything. A true Nihilist, I suspect, passively dies of thirst. For Nihilism, good and evil cease to be meaningful terms, and in Existentialism, the meaning is simply made up. It is a reaction of the opposite extreme of that presented by Legalism. Rather than live with good and evil, deny them any significance. In neither case is evil dealt with, and that is the point. It is tolerated, and that is unacceptable.
There is another conclusion that may be reached here, however. First, though, we must realize something about goodness, and this is where Romans 1.20-21 becomes so important. One can conclude that the world just exists, but that is counter-intuitive. Not only does its goodness bear as an imprint the nature of its creator, the sheer frivolousness of some goods (like taste and color) bear the imprint of a personality. It is natural to conclude that there is a creative source behind our world, and that is why the overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived have held belief in some kind of creator, or at least a source of this essential goodness. Having reached the point to conclude that the world is basically good, but it is degraded by evil, and it can be made good, but we humans, being affected by the degradation of evil cannot achieve this ourselves, but some creative power stands behind the goodness of the world, it is quite conceivable that the attributes revealed by Creation can lead to the belief that the same power will do something about the evil.
Christianity tells the story of how this happened. Jesus, God incarnate, came as a human to be what human beings failed to be, and in his death and resurrection, defeated evil and death itself, thereby making the restoration of Creation possible, by the power and grace of God. We could never do this ourselves, but now we are able to participate in this restoration, beginning now in the context of the Kingdom. This, too, is where virtue ethics fit in, as the means by which the restoration of an individual begins in the community of the church alongside the Holy Spirit. At the last, all of this fits with the idea that creation is a reflection of the goodness of God, and human beings as creations are supposed to reflect the goodness of creation back to God, and as image bearers of God are supposed to reflect the goodness of God onto creation.
Now, all of this ties into the issue of general revelation in some very clear ways. In the case described, we see how it is possible to grasp the general idea of Christianity in the absence of specific revelation of Christianity. At the same time, we should identify how difficult this is, for we see how many other directions may take hold of us, even when we are very much on the right track. This is why the spreading of the Gospel is so important, and at the same time this is why the answer it provides is so universal.
It is important to point out, though, that assuming God would find the faith of such a person who reaches a conclusion like the one described above acceptable, much like the case of Abraham (who did have the benefit specific revelation, though), neither that person nor Abraham has been saved except by what Jesus did. The resurrection of Jesus is the central moment of history, and nothing is restored except because of that event. Someone who might be saved without knowledge of Jesus is still saved by Jesus, and that is the point! One might also turn here to God's middle knowledge of all counterfactuals (as in, had this person heard the Gospel, how would he or she have responded) to make a more developed case, but for that, I had better just reference William Lane Craig.
I like to begin where Chesterton does: with evil. An individual, looking around this world, cannot help but identify the pervasive evil around all around. If this individual is honest, so too will he or she identify the evil within the self. We are beings inflicting evil on a world which, as a result, is quite full of evil.
At the same time, no one can look around and miss the good that is everywhere. Trees are good. The natural world can be quite beautiful. Food can be delicious. Why is that? Not only that, but also I am capable of good and of seeing good, as are these others like me. We are beings who witness and reflect goodness in and from a world that is full of good.
Many people stop there. We call them Dualists, in the Manichean sense of the word. We see Dualism all over the landscape of human thought, from Platonism to Gnosticism to Zoroastrianism to Buddhism (in a nuanced way) to Paganism (think Celtic myths about the seasons) and beyond.
Others manage to see that evil is not an entity in the world, but rather a degradation of what is good. All God's creations are good, after all, and Creation is very good. Evil is not an entity in itself, but the result of Creation's not being what it was meant to be because man, the gardener, failed to be who he was supposed to be. That is an aside, though. All we have so far seen is that evil does not exist except as dependent on the good, where the good is not flourishing as it should.
There are many who reach this conclusion. They come in many varieties, but generally they are the sort of people who believe in the perfectibility of man and the world. It is a noble enterprise, except that it is futile and destructive. Progressives of the latter century fit this profile quite well. Positivists could be the exemplar of this way of thinking. The belief that we can progress in scientific knowledge to obtain a complete theoretical understanding of the universe, thereby solving all mankind's ills is rooted in this idea that the world is basically good (it is), it is tainted by evil (it is), and it can be restored (it can be). The fatal error is the idea that we can do it ourselves. It is, however, perfectly natural for us to believe that we can restore ourselves and our world. We were created to care for it, after all.
Many people eventually realize that they cannot fix themselves and be who they were meant to be, and similarly they determine that it is beyond the capacity of human beings to restore this world themselves. After all, as long as human beings cannot make themselves good, how can they make the world to be good? It is a true and logical conclusion, we cannot. It has certainly been a function of the Law to demonstrate completely and directly how this can never be. What is a person to do, having reached this conclusion with or without the specific revelation of the Law?
Many, I believe, become Legalists of various stripes. Supposing one has the Law, it would be natural to seek out salvation through adherence to it. We see this in Pharisaic and Rabbinic Judaism, for the latter, especially as messianism lost favor following the disastrous Bar Kokhba Revolt of the AD 130s. Similar behavior will even crop up within Christianity, as we know well. Without the Law, one might wind up with any number of philosophies that settle for this unstable state of affairs. These people invent act-oriented ethical theories, such as Kantianism and Act Utilitarianism. Kantian ethics are absolutist, deontological ethics, which demand specific duties from every individual, as a rational being, according to the categorical imperative. Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory that derives rightness from various hedonic calculations about the consequences of an act. In both cases, good and evil are given, and both theories inform one how to do good, but neither has anything to say about how to be good, or more accurately, how to become good. This is why virtue ethics, which dominated the pre-Enlightenment West, are far superior to these modernist ethical theories. Virtue ethics, rather than being deontological or teleological, are character-based. They are ethical in the true sense of the word "ethos," which has to do with lifestyle and character, not duties and consequences. When duties and consequences do factor into virtue ethics, it is always in the interest of developing character, that is, becoming good in the long term by doing good in the short term. Alone, virtue ethics fall in among the company of the Positivists. With Christianity, they take on a framework in which they make sense. This has been a tangent, so I will conclude with another statement of my point. Legalism is a natural response to the realization that human beings cannot perfect the world on their own. It is a way to live well in a world full of evil, without necessarily dealing with the problem of evil. Kantianism and Utilitarianism serve as prime examples of this way of thinking.
Others who do not become Legalists, I suppose, become Existentialists. They do this because no one really wants to become a Nihilist. Of course, Existentialism can never escape the lurking shadow of Nihilism, and any honest Existentialist should eventually become a Nihilist, and any honest Nihilist should probably commit suicide or simply sigh, "Why even bother with killing myself?" Existentialism, after all, is supposed to answer why we should bother doing anything. A true Nihilist, I suspect, passively dies of thirst. For Nihilism, good and evil cease to be meaningful terms, and in Existentialism, the meaning is simply made up. It is a reaction of the opposite extreme of that presented by Legalism. Rather than live with good and evil, deny them any significance. In neither case is evil dealt with, and that is the point. It is tolerated, and that is unacceptable.
There is another conclusion that may be reached here, however. First, though, we must realize something about goodness, and this is where Romans 1.20-21 becomes so important. One can conclude that the world just exists, but that is counter-intuitive. Not only does its goodness bear as an imprint the nature of its creator, the sheer frivolousness of some goods (like taste and color) bear the imprint of a personality. It is natural to conclude that there is a creative source behind our world, and that is why the overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived have held belief in some kind of creator, or at least a source of this essential goodness. Having reached the point to conclude that the world is basically good, but it is degraded by evil, and it can be made good, but we humans, being affected by the degradation of evil cannot achieve this ourselves, but some creative power stands behind the goodness of the world, it is quite conceivable that the attributes revealed by Creation can lead to the belief that the same power will do something about the evil.
Christianity tells the story of how this happened. Jesus, God incarnate, came as a human to be what human beings failed to be, and in his death and resurrection, defeated evil and death itself, thereby making the restoration of Creation possible, by the power and grace of God. We could never do this ourselves, but now we are able to participate in this restoration, beginning now in the context of the Kingdom. This, too, is where virtue ethics fit in, as the means by which the restoration of an individual begins in the community of the church alongside the Holy Spirit. At the last, all of this fits with the idea that creation is a reflection of the goodness of God, and human beings as creations are supposed to reflect the goodness of creation back to God, and as image bearers of God are supposed to reflect the goodness of God onto creation.
Now, all of this ties into the issue of general revelation in some very clear ways. In the case described, we see how it is possible to grasp the general idea of Christianity in the absence of specific revelation of Christianity. At the same time, we should identify how difficult this is, for we see how many other directions may take hold of us, even when we are very much on the right track. This is why the spreading of the Gospel is so important, and at the same time this is why the answer it provides is so universal.
It is important to point out, though, that assuming God would find the faith of such a person who reaches a conclusion like the one described above acceptable, much like the case of Abraham (who did have the benefit specific revelation, though), neither that person nor Abraham has been saved except by what Jesus did. The resurrection of Jesus is the central moment of history, and nothing is restored except because of that event. Someone who might be saved without knowledge of Jesus is still saved by Jesus, and that is the point! One might also turn here to God's middle knowledge of all counterfactuals (as in, had this person heard the Gospel, how would he or she have responded) to make a more developed case, but for that, I had better just reference William Lane Craig.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)