Reason vs Faith - The False Dilemma

Ah, thank goodness! Not a year has passed since my last post! In this post, I want to focus my attention into the apparent issue of faith being irrational. How many things I missed since my death! How many intriguing and, indeed, strange events! One of such is the age of The Enlightenment, which I recently found out about. It is called the age of reasoning, where reason is the primary source of legitimacy and authority. While reason is important in  finding the truth, faith is not contradicted by reason, but  is beyond reason.

In fact, I will go as far as to say that reason depends on faith! Yes, faith is the base, or the foundation of, reason. How is that the case? The first thing we need to realize is that we have no reasons to trust that our rationale is not deceiving us. How are we to know that we can trust our power of reasoning? How can we be sure that what we think as rational, is not really something else that turns out to be irrational? If you try to defend reason, by the use of a demonstration, you have to use reasoning. Employ a syllogism where you try to prove reason, and you undoubtedly, through the use of formal logic, end up using reason. First principles by definition are propositions or assumptions that cannot be derived by another proposition or assumption. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that no system of axioms can prove its own validity.

What is the problem of using reason to prove reason? It is circular, and this commits the logical fallacy of "petitio principii" or, to use a modern term "begging the question". It is like trying prove to a judge that you are telling the truth about an event by saying that what you are saying is true! Good luck with that in your next court!

So we can't escape faith, even if we fancy ourselves so rational, that we think that we are beyond such nonsenses as faith. Oh, how our intellectual snobbery can turn the joke on us! It is not we, rational beings as we are, that are beyond faith, but it is faith that is beyond reason! Faith does not contradict reason, but as the supporter of reason, it is beyond reason. A building's foundation is not in war with the building, but it happily supports the building itself, and is the main thing that keeps it from collapsing. It is so with faith. Faith is the foundation which supports reason, and only through passing through this foundation we can make use of the building of reason, and so reach to the top of legitimacy and authority. In order to use reason, we must accept that our rationale is not deceiving us, and the only way we can do that is through  our good ol' pal faith. It is clear then, that the so called "age of Enlightenment" had it all wrong. It is not reason that is our source of legitimacy and authority, but it is, by necessity, faith and reason.- ChristoPhilos.

The Compatibility of the Theory of Evolution with Genesis.

One needs a break from Philosophy every once in a while. Ceaseless thinking in isolation is not only devastating to the sanity of one's mind, but it is a tragic combination for those concerned with socializing, as my peculiar situation requires of me. In any event, my one year break is inexcusable, but I haven't remained in complete idleness this whole time. I have spent some time reading about the supposed compatibility or incompatibility of modern science with faith. Given my rather primitive background, more tragically so in the field of science, my knowledge of it is rather abstract and extremely basic. You can't expect of me, after all, a scientific treatise of why faith is compatible with science. But I feel capable of dealing with the mere basics and arguing from there for its compatibility. It is my purpose, therefore, to focus on the issue of Evolution in regards to the creation story found in Genesis.

I will not lay out the Theory of Evolution in painful detail, but will rather give a vulgarized definition of it. So much in fact that I dare not call this definition basic, but my definition should suffice for the purposes of this argument. I define Evolution as the process in which life came to be, slowly over billions of years, from single celled organisms to the incredible complexity that all living organisms now share. Creation, it seems, was a proccess that took billions of years to reach its current form. The Bible, however, seems to claim that creation was a process that lasted a mere 7 days. This brings a clear incompatibility in Genesis with current scientific findings on how life came to be. For if God used Evolution as the method of creation, then why does His word tells us that He did so spontaneously in a short period of time? To deal with this apparent issue, many Christians choose to deny completely the Theory of Evolution. Some even claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old! I heard some maddening theories of the devil implanting millions years old fossils of dinosaurs in the earth for the specific purpose of deceiving humanity in disbelieving God's word. I will not take the Creationist route, not even argue for the more plausible theory of Intelligent design.I will not even argue for the validity of Theistic Evolution. I will merely argue that the supposed incompatibility between the theory of Evolution and Genesis comes from a literal misreading of the events described in Genesis.

In the world of Philosophy, God (or the Absolute if you prefer), is outside of time and space. Being eternal, the concept of time and space does not apply to God. He is not bound, like we are, by the restrictions of time. He simply "IS", as evidenced by His name "I AM" (Exodus 3: 14). For God, there is no time, but an eternal "present"; an eternal reality. When God acts, He is not necessarily restricted by a schedule. God has no use for calendars or appointments. I'm not making the absurd claim that God is hopelessly ignorant of these concepts, as He has acted and intervened through time, as it is the case with the birth of Jesus. What I'm claiming is that God does not necessarily work through time. As He is outside of time and space, and creation being an act of God, this act cannot be constrained by the limitations of time and space. And while it is true that this act was made manifest through time and space, the workings of His creations are not necessarily manifested, in a strict sense, through time and space. I will give an example to illustrate this point. Christians believe that Christ's death on the cross brought about the forgiveness of sins for humanity. But this event occurred more than 2,000 years ago. This does not mean, however, that His sacrifice is not longer valid, only because the sacrifice was manifested through time and space more than 2,000 years ago. God's salvation is eternal. His saving presence is eternal. His act of salvation is eternal, and not simply bound by the limitations of time and space. Jesus' sacrifice was enough to cover the sins of those that lived in the past, and those who will come to live in the future. This is only possible because God's "acts" or workings, while manifested through time and space, are not limited by time and space.

Having established that Acts of God can be outside of time and space, we can now move to the second premise of the argument. If God's Acts are not limited by time and space, then it is logical to conclude that one of God's greatest acts, creation itself, is not limited by time and space. By saying that God created the world and everything in it in 7 days, we are saying that God did not act outside of time and space. In saying this, we limit God to the boundaries of His creation. But time and space are part of this act of creation. It is a logical necessity that the act of creation preceded the created. But if time and space are part of that creation, then how is it logically possible for God to use time and space for that creation? This absurdity is compatible with the idiotic suggestion from a fellow telling you that in order to plant a garden you need a perennial spade that is buried, and the only way to dig it out is using that perennial spade. In other words, God cannot use time and space for creation, if by necessity, time and space are part of that creation.

Which moves us to our conclusion, God acted outside of time and space in His act of creation. We have established this by following the first and second premises. Let us now put this argument in a syllogism:

1. If God is outside of time and space, then His acts can be made outside of time and space.
2. If time and space are part of God's creation, then He couldn't use time and space for His creation.
3. Therefore, God did not use time and space for His act of creation.

The justification for the first premise is quite obvious. If God is outside of time and space, it is perfectly reasonable for Him to be able to act outside of time and space. The justification for the second premise is simple: one cannot create something through that same something, because if we did, then that something would already exist, which completely nullifies the effort of creating it.

What we are left with is the issue of Genesis claiming that God created the world in 7 days. But what does the Bible tells us in this? We have the option of taking the first chapter of Genesis in a literal sense, meaning that God really created the world in 7 days. The problem with this view has already been covered in this post. The second option is to take these days as metaphorical. We can find evidence of a non-literal interpretation of creation days. In Genesis 2:4, the bible tells us right after asserting that God created the earth in 7 days: "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" (NKJV emphasis added). In this passage, the 7 days of creation were summarized in a single day. We can also find evidence of a non-literal interpretation of creation days in Hebrews 4, where it talks of God's "rest" (the seventh day) still being an actuality, and how we can participate in His rest. Then why does the Bible bothers in telling us that they were 7 days of creations, if we are to take those days in a mere metaphorical sense? Perhaps we need to look at it in a symbolic way. In the Bible, the number 7 represents "perfection" or "completeness". From this we can infer what the Bible is trying to tell us: God actively brought His creation to completeness (7 days) and is still doing so (the actuality of His rest, that is, the seventh day). This completion will come when we join God in His rest, then we will be made complete in the presence of God. And this is all I have for now. Here is hoping my next post won't take me a whole year to write.- ChristoPhilos.


by Jgrdaniel.

The Oneness- A dialogue on the trinity.

Awaken from my deep rest into this strange world, I started to see that Christian unity is only a realization of my past. Certainly they were divisions where I came from*, but hardly was this division as prevalent as in this distant future. As I started to explore the different versions of Christianity, my heart ached as Christians of this time seem so stubbornly fixed on maintaining division, all the while proclaiming unity as their ideal. In this instance, I was in the outside of what they call a Oneness pentecostal church, and seeing one attendant denying the trinity after I started to ask him about his beliefs, this conversation ensured.

ChristoPhilos: So, Dan, according to you, God is no trinity.
Dan: Certainly not, that's just tradition of man!
ChristoPhilos: I need to ask you some questions as to clarify for myself what you believe. Maybe you are right in this, as I see there is some reasons supporting these beliefs. Certainly you do not believe them without reason.
Dan: Of course not... You sure talk strangely.
ChristoPhilos: I see, please do not be bothered by the way I speak, you see, I'm just getting used to this language. But let us not sidetrack the issue at hand, but instead let us direct our focus on the Trinity. Tell me Dan, do you believe in love?
Dan: Of course I do!
ChristoPhilos: Very well. And are we humans capable of loving?
Dan: Yes, it is a gift from God.
ChristoPhilos: Certainly it is, Dan. Do you believe there are certain levels of love? What I mean with this is that, do you believe if some people are less capable of loving than others, or do we love equally?
Dan: Obviously, ChristoPhilos, some are more capable of loving than others.
ChristoPhilos: Would you call the love of those less capable less perfect than the ones more capable of loving? Or is it the opposite, the less capable more perfect?
Dan: What?! oh my... obviously, ChristoPhilos, those more capable of love are more perfect in love.
ChristoPhilos:Let us examine this then. What makes some more capable of loving than the ones less capable of loving?
Dan: I believe, as the Bible says "there's no greater love than this. That a man would give his life for a friend".
ChristoPhilos: Ahh, what you say is beautiful. So, according to this, can we say that love for others makes one more perfect at love?
Dan: Certainly.
ChristoPhilos: What about loving yourself? Is that good?
Dan: Well, I guess. Some say you can't love others without loving yourself, but I dunno if I believe that.
ChristoPhilos: Why not?
Dan: I just seen people who seem to despise themselves and love others in a way I can only hope.
ChristoPhilos: I see what you mean, I have seen that. They seem to struggle in loving themselves and yet love others even more than themselves. Are we to say that loving yourself is not important?
Dan: I believe it is, but apparently not necessary for loving others.
ChristoPhilos: So if loving others is an essential part of loving more perfectly, can we say that loving others is more important than loving yourself?
Dan: I believe it is.
ChristoPhilos: If more important better?
Dan: Certainly. Loving yourself too much can lead to selfishness, while loving others to the extreme seems more godly.
ChristoPhilos: So we agree on this, That loving others, as the Bible says, is the greatest love there is and that loving others is more important and better than loving yourself?
Dan: ChristoPhilos, I agree with everything you've just said.
ChristoPhilos: Now, did we say that Love is a gift from God?
Dan: It certainly is.
ChristoPhilos: If it is a gift from God, then we get it from God?
Dan: Of course!... hehe, sometimes you ask the most obvious questions Christophilos.
ChristoPhilos: My dear friend, you find me funny, though I see it important to clarify our discussion, and so avoid confusion as the worst of my enemies. But getting back to God and Love, if God gave us love, does that mean that He has love?
Dan: He not only has love, He is love! as the Bible says, God is love.
ChristoPhilos: So there's no one better at loving than God?
Dan: Jeez! of course not! lest we commit blasphemy.
ChristoPhilos: Agreed. Now, if we try to find perfect love, do we find it in God?
Dan: Yes, there's is no other.
ChristoPhilos: If we receive Love from God, then does it follow that the love we have and practice has to be the same Love we receive from God, and that some are better at managing that love than others, and that some use of it is less perfectly because they mix this pure love to a point that it is not pure anymore, but filled with human ideas and interests, and therefore less perfect?
Dan: Sounds good to me.
ChristoPhilos: Very well, I see we are in agreement on this, that God is the most perfect love, that we receive Love from God but sometimes misuse it, but the purest form is found in God alone.
Dan: uh-huh.
I look at him concerned, not knowing exactly what he mean.
ChristoPhilos: You agree with me?
Dan: uh-huh.
ChristoPhilos: yes?
Dan: uh-huh!
ChristoPhilos: Do you mean that you are in agreement with me?
Dan: For crying out loud buddy! What in the world is wrong with you?
ChristoPhilos: Please, it is not my purpose to make you cry, even though you look mad at the moment. I apologize if our discussion had greatly upset you, as it is evident that it has now.

He seem calmer, and then said.
Dan: Ok, sorry, what I'm mean is that, I'm in agreement with you, but I don't understand where are we going with this.
ChristoPhilos: Let us just follow where our conclusions lead us, so we can better discover our beliefs, and better express them to others. Tell me, do you believe, as I do, that God created everything?
Dan: Of course, I am a Christian you know...
ChristoPhilos: Good. So if God created everything, then everything had a beginning?
Dan: Yes.
ChristoPhilos: If everything had a beginning, then it could not be the case that everything existed eternally?
Dan: No, everything is created and it must have a beginning.
ChristoPhilos: Since it had a beginning, then there was a time there was nothing besides God?
Dan: Obviously, but God, the creator of all, is outside of time and space, and not bound by this world.
ChristoPhilos: So before the instant in eternity, better said, outside the beginning, since God is not bound by time and space when God created us, we were not there, nor the angels in heaven, which are also created?
Dan: It appears so.
ChristoPhilos: And did we agree that God is love?
Hesitantly, Dan said slowly while nodding: Yes.
ChristoPhilos: And God has been Love regardless of us?
Dan: Yes.
ChristoPhilos: And that the love we have now is from God?
Dan: Yes...
ChristoPhilos: And that the most perfect love is loving others?
Dan: uh-huh...I mean yes.
ChristoPhilos: And that we didn't exist with God eternally?
Dan: No we didn't.
ChristoPhilos: Then you are playing me, Dan, when you say that God is not a Trinity, but only One, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not different persons in one God, but simply the same.
Dan: And why is that?!
ChristoPhilos: Let me explain. You told me that Love is a gift from God. That it is better to love others than it is to love yourself, and that those who love others are more perfectly in love than those who love only themselves. That this love we receive from God is in its purest form when we do so, and that there is no other who has perfect love than God. But then you also said that we were not eternally with God, and therefore God could only love Himself, but this is impossible, since we agree that Love of oneself is imperfect. But if God is a trinity, then we could see that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are different persons in One God. We can also say that the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son, and this sharing of Love is what makes their love perfect. His perfect love does not depend on us or in our creation, since God is self-sufficient, and He can love perfectly without us. God cannot need our help in making His love perfect. We cannot add to God's perfection. It seems more reasonable to me that God is a Trinity, and the love relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, better explain the love we receive from Him, which, for it to be perfect, must be shared with others.

As I finish saying this, Dan is quiet for a few seconds, he starts to get a little annoyed and said: Whatever!, you just don't understand how it works and simply want to win me as a Trinitarian!
ChristoPhilos: Perhaps you can help me understand?
Dan: I have stuff to do instead of wasting my time with you, bye.

And then he left.

Jgrdaniel.

*ChristoPhilos is an obscure (not popularly known) Christian philosopher of the 4th Century who was mysteriously awakened by God in order to experience life in the present time. He is a lover of Plato and the Socratic dialogues, and uses his method in discussing topics of his interest.