24 December 2006
Merry Christmas
I wanted to take this opportunity to wish everybody a merry Christmas! I'm not sure how many people come and view this site, but for those who do, I hope that you have a very pleasant holiday.
Curse you, Blogger!
I had a great idea for a new post: I'd post the mp3s and Powerpoints from the sermons I preached back in June. But I discovered a horrible truth: you can't post non-image files to Blogger! Arrgh!
My sympathies to the many people who've said they'd like to hear my messages--you will have to wait for me to mail them to you... :(
My sympathies to the many people who've said they'd like to hear my messages--you will have to wait for me to mail them to you... :(
22 December 2006
This past semester I took a philosophy of religion course at Iowa State, and it has really spurred my thinking in a number of areas. I'm fortunate enough to have a mentor at another university with whom I can talk about philosophical issues, and the difficulties associated with being a Christian in the field of philosophy. We've been emailing back and forth recently on the problem of evil, and the following is a bunny trail that I've taken us down concerning the nature of the moral law. The following is an excerpt from my most recent email to him. I thought that some of you might be interested in this stuff.
"You said above regarding moral truths, 'If they are analytic then the moral truths hold in a sense independently of God (just like logical truths).' I'm not sure what exactly you intend by 'independently of God,' but if you intend the mundane definition of independent, i.e. not requiring or relying on something else, then I'm not sure I agree that they (or logical truths) are in that sense independent of God. Maybe it would be helpful to proceed from the case of the logical laws.
"As I understand the term necessary, what is necessarily true is true in all possible worlds. It seems, according to this account of necessity, that the law of contradiction is necessarily true. It is not possible that there is some world in which the law of contradiction does not hold. But in virtue of what is the law of contradiction necessarily true? If the law of contradiction is true in virtue of nothing but itself, what are we to make of the further fact that God is a necessary being? If God necessarily exists, and the law of contradiction is necessarily true, then there is no possible world in which God exists, but the law of contradiction does not hold, or vice versa. Is God then subject to the law? If so, it would seem that his power really is limited after all. It would seem that He can't do logical impossibilities [like make a round square] because he is subject to the law of contradiction. And this doesn't seem right. But suppose that the law of contradiction is true in virtue of God's character; it holds not of itself, but because God is eminently rational--perfectly rational, if I may be so bold. If this is the case, there's no problem with the fact that God is necessary and the further fact that the law of contradiction is necessarily true. And there is also no problem with the fact that he is omnipotent and the further fact that he can't do logical impossibilities (if logical laws are true in virtue of God's character, then of course he can't do logical impossibilities--that would mean he contradicts himself). Perhaps, then, logical laws are true in virtue of God's character (this would make other things make sense, after all).
"Perhaps in this same way, moral truths are necessary truths [that is, there is no possible world in which baby-torture is morally permissible, for example]. Perhaps they are necessarily true in virtue of God's character. The fact that one ought not murder, then, is true because murder is not in keeping with God's character. The moral law (expressed in the decalogue, for the sake of argument) is binding on man, then, not because it is what God commanded, but because the law is in keeping with God's nature--and as human beings, made in the image of God, we are to reflect that image [note that we ought to obey the law because it is God's command--but this is distinct from the reason why it is binding on man]. It would seem, then, that the question, "Is it good because God loves it, or does God love it because it is good?" is the wrong way to ask the question (if, in fact, it is a coherent question at all!). God loves non-maleficence (for example) not because it is good, but because it is in keeping with his nature; and non-maleficence is good not because God loves it, but because it is in keeping with God's nature. And this conception is useful in understanding why ethical objectivism seems to be much more secure, logically speaking, than relativism. It would also explain why every human culture has had a sense of the moral "ought" and why it seems to be the case that there is so much in common among the ethical codes of those various cultures. "Why are we to be good?" Because we are made in God's image. "What is good?" That which is in keeping with the nature of God. And if the foregoing is true, maybe it's the case that moral truths are analytic truths that, far from being independent of God, are exactly dependent on him. Perhaps this would also explain why it seems possible to be morally good (albeit not in an ultimate sense) without concomitant faith in God."
For those of you who are not up on all the philosophical jargon, see the following links--
"Analytic": http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a4.htm (scroll down in list)
"Law of Contradiction": something cannot both be and not-be the case. The statement, "It is 50 degrees outside" cannot be both true and not-true. Something cannot both exist and not exist.
"Non-maleficence": http://www.jansen.com.au/Dictionary_MO.html (scroll down in list)
"Ethical objectivism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_objectivism
"Ethical relativism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_relativism
"You said above regarding moral truths, 'If they are analytic then the moral truths hold in a sense independently of God (just like logical truths).' I'm not sure what exactly you intend by 'independently of God,' but if you intend the mundane definition of independent, i.e. not requiring or relying on something else, then I'm not sure I agree that they (or logical truths) are in that sense independent of God. Maybe it would be helpful to proceed from the case of the logical laws.
"As I understand the term necessary, what is necessarily true is true in all possible worlds. It seems, according to this account of necessity, that the law of contradiction is necessarily true. It is not possible that there is some world in which the law of contradiction does not hold. But in virtue of what is the law of contradiction necessarily true? If the law of contradiction is true in virtue of nothing but itself, what are we to make of the further fact that God is a necessary being? If God necessarily exists, and the law of contradiction is necessarily true, then there is no possible world in which God exists, but the law of contradiction does not hold, or vice versa. Is God then subject to the law? If so, it would seem that his power really is limited after all. It would seem that He can't do logical impossibilities [like make a round square] because he is subject to the law of contradiction. And this doesn't seem right. But suppose that the law of contradiction is true in virtue of God's character; it holds not of itself, but because God is eminently rational--perfectly rational, if I may be so bold. If this is the case, there's no problem with the fact that God is necessary and the further fact that the law of contradiction is necessarily true. And there is also no problem with the fact that he is omnipotent and the further fact that he can't do logical impossibilities (if logical laws are true in virtue of God's character, then of course he can't do logical impossibilities--that would mean he contradicts himself). Perhaps, then, logical laws are true in virtue of God's character (this would make other things make sense, after all).
"Perhaps in this same way, moral truths are necessary truths [that is, there is no possible world in which baby-torture is morally permissible, for example]. Perhaps they are necessarily true in virtue of God's character. The fact that one ought not murder, then, is true because murder is not in keeping with God's character. The moral law (expressed in the decalogue, for the sake of argument) is binding on man, then, not because it is what God commanded, but because the law is in keeping with God's nature--and as human beings, made in the image of God, we are to reflect that image [note that we ought to obey the law because it is God's command--but this is distinct from the reason why it is binding on man]. It would seem, then, that the question, "Is it good because God loves it, or does God love it because it is good?" is the wrong way to ask the question (if, in fact, it is a coherent question at all!). God loves non-maleficence (for example) not because it is good, but because it is in keeping with his nature; and non-maleficence is good not because God loves it, but because it is in keeping with God's nature. And this conception is useful in understanding why ethical objectivism seems to be much more secure, logically speaking, than relativism. It would also explain why every human culture has had a sense of the moral "ought" and why it seems to be the case that there is so much in common among the ethical codes of those various cultures. "Why are we to be good?" Because we are made in God's image. "What is good?" That which is in keeping with the nature of God. And if the foregoing is true, maybe it's the case that moral truths are analytic truths that, far from being independent of God, are exactly dependent on him. Perhaps this would also explain why it seems possible to be morally good (albeit not in an ultimate sense) without concomitant faith in God."
For those of you who are not up on all the philosophical jargon, see the following links--
"Analytic": http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a4.htm (scroll down in list)
"Law of Contradiction": something cannot both be and not-be the case. The statement, "It is 50 degrees outside" cannot be both true and not-true. Something cannot both exist and not exist.
"Non-maleficence": http://www.jansen.com.au/Dictionary_MO.html (scroll down in list)
"Ethical objectivism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_objectivism
"Ethical relativism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_relativism
18 December 2006
Visit to the Ames Veterans Memorial
As most of my friends know, I'm a military veteran--ten years of service in the U.S. Navy, including deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. I've been out of the service for two years now, and I have not missed it, for the most part. But this past week I went to the bank to deposit a paycheck, and I decided the time had come to pay a visit to the Ames Veterans Memorial.
A word on that. I've been surprised at how few people know about the memorial. It's located on the northeast corner of 6th Street and Grand Avenue, and although people know that something is there, it's of interest to me that not many people know that it is a memorial to honor those who have served in the Armed Forces in the defense of this country. It saddens me, a little, that more people have not taken the time to visit it.
I made my visit on an appropriately gray day. It was chilly, but just enough to quicken the senses; it definitely set the right tone. The memorial consists (in part) of a tall gilded face with the following quote from George Washington etched into the face: "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace." There is a star laid into the concrete before the face; each of the five points represents a branch of the Armed Forces, and there are six sandstone blocks positioned on the perimeter of the star, one block for each of the services, and one for the Merchant Marine. Each block has the name of a service branch etched into it. Bricks on the sidewalks leading up to the memorial are engraved with the names and services of servicement. When I visited, I walked slowly up the brick walkways, reading the names of the men and women who had served before me, in every conflict from World War II to the first Gulf War. I took in the quote, walked slowly around the perimeter of the star, and finally settled myself on the block representing the Navy, and sat in contemplation for a while.
On my visit, I was struck by how profoundly I miss the Navy. Don't misunderstand--I don't have any plans to re-enlist, not even in the reserve. But I'm proud of my service. I felt that I was doing honorable work, contributing to my country, and preserving the freedoms of her citizens. It gave me a great deal of pride to put on the uniform of my country every day. Until that moment I don't think I really understood how very much I missed that sense of satisfaction.
I was struck, as I sat there, by my need to reconcile myself with two facts: 1) that I served my country honorably, and 2) that that service has come to an end. I don't think that I have learned how to be content with those two facts. I think that is why I habitually wear Navy apparel, why I refuse to scrape my (expired) base stickers off of my car windshield, why I identify myself as a former sailor whenever I meet someone new. Part of me thinks that if I let go of those things I will lose my connection to a part of my life that I value very much. But I'm not a sailor anymore. I need to learn to bear the title "veteran" with the same kind of pride that I associated with the title "sailor." I need to be content that I did my duty, when my country asked, and that I have passed the responsibility to a new generation of servicemen. I need to become proud of what I am: a veteran.
A word on that. I've been surprised at how few people know about the memorial. It's located on the northeast corner of 6th Street and Grand Avenue, and although people know that something is there, it's of interest to me that not many people know that it is a memorial to honor those who have served in the Armed Forces in the defense of this country. It saddens me, a little, that more people have not taken the time to visit it.
I made my visit on an appropriately gray day. It was chilly, but just enough to quicken the senses; it definitely set the right tone. The memorial consists (in part) of a tall gilded face with the following quote from George Washington etched into the face: "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace." There is a star laid into the concrete before the face; each of the five points represents a branch of the Armed Forces, and there are six sandstone blocks positioned on the perimeter of the star, one block for each of the services, and one for the Merchant Marine. Each block has the name of a service branch etched into it. Bricks on the sidewalks leading up to the memorial are engraved with the names and services of servicement. When I visited, I walked slowly up the brick walkways, reading the names of the men and women who had served before me, in every conflict from World War II to the first Gulf War. I took in the quote, walked slowly around the perimeter of the star, and finally settled myself on the block representing the Navy, and sat in contemplation for a while.
On my visit, I was struck by how profoundly I miss the Navy. Don't misunderstand--I don't have any plans to re-enlist, not even in the reserve. But I'm proud of my service. I felt that I was doing honorable work, contributing to my country, and preserving the freedoms of her citizens. It gave me a great deal of pride to put on the uniform of my country every day. Until that moment I don't think I really understood how very much I missed that sense of satisfaction.
I was struck, as I sat there, by my need to reconcile myself with two facts: 1) that I served my country honorably, and 2) that that service has come to an end. I don't think that I have learned how to be content with those two facts. I think that is why I habitually wear Navy apparel, why I refuse to scrape my (expired) base stickers off of my car windshield, why I identify myself as a former sailor whenever I meet someone new. Part of me thinks that if I let go of those things I will lose my connection to a part of my life that I value very much. But I'm not a sailor anymore. I need to learn to bear the title "veteran" with the same kind of pride that I associated with the title "sailor." I need to be content that I did my duty, when my country asked, and that I have passed the responsibility to a new generation of servicemen. I need to become proud of what I am: a veteran.
17 August 2006
Post One
Well, hello. My apologies for the lack of entries and the abysmal title ("Caleb's Blog"? Dreadful.). Don't yet quite know what'll go in the blog; just needed a virtual space for some self-expression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)