Gabby DeMarre

Introduction
 In Galileo, Darwin and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Religion and Reason, Phil Dowe makes an argument in attempt to reconcile God with the chance worldview, which states that the world exists in a chaotic, unpredictable state. Here is a brief summary of strengths and weaknesses his argument holds.
Summary
Dowe basically concludes that either God causes chance or that He does not, and that neither result should pose a significant problem for theists. If an event has meaning, it is caused by God, if an event is inconsequential, then it is by chance. 
He begins by introducing the Calvinist belief, which is that God is the cause of all things. He then contrasts this view with deism, which says that God set the world in motion and walked away. He makes the argument that though the world could appear to be made in a deistic way, that this may only apply to the way the world works and chance occurs, and does not rule out the personal God.
He then delves into Bell's theory, which apparently says that determinism is false. However, this theory would not apply to God, because God exists without limitation of locality. He finally comes to the conclusion, as already stated, that God is responsible for chance, unless it is of no consequence.
Strengths
The strength of the argument lies in the fact that it is difficult to refute, or that there are ways to work around conclusions about chance which still provide for a provident and all-knowing God. If one argues that chance happens by nature, and God is not the cause of it, there is not an argument that God is not working in the world. "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28). There is also the fact that no one can say with certainty that chance actually exists, for it is not impossible that God is the cause of everything that is interpreted as chance, and people simply do not understand it. Also, even if the providential God could be disproven, the personal God could not.
The idea of chance seemingly rules out the possibility of God being all-knowing. However, this is not necessarily true. Now, this may stretch the mind a bit, but try to follow this train of thought. God is all-knowing, and the Bible says, "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:16). The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines chance as, "something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause." It says that chance is something that "happens;" a happening is an event, and an event implies time. God exists outside of time, so it is possible for God to have knowledge of a chance occurrence. It is not a concept easily grasped, and some might say it makes no sense at all. 
Weaknesses
There are weaknesses when combining the idea of God with the idea of chance. One already addressed above. Another is that chance implies that God is not in control of everything. This poses a problem for those who believe in absolute providence.
A weakness is that the Bible does say, "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:16). One could say that this passage says there is not chance. It does not say, "All the significant, consequential events that happen in my life were written in your book..." It says "All the days," which, one could argue, includes those inconsequential events which Dowe says are due to natural chance.
Dowe uses John Polkinghorne's theory that chance occurs in the universe and God "goes with the flow." God creatively responds to the chance occurrences. This almost makes it seem like a game--like the universe is some sort of cosmic pinball game--God sets the ball (the universe) into play, it is bounced around by the obstacles (chance), and He makes certain it stays in play. If this is the way things are, then Calvary makes no sense. The gift of Jesus Christ shows a God who loves the world, not a God who plays pinball with the world.
Conclusion
 This is just a brief overview of a very complex argument. It is obvious that this paper only scratches the surface of Dowe's argument, and much more could be said. Dowe's example in quantum physics can easily go over the head of many readers, hence this paper's general focus on the philosophical part of the argument, rather than the physical. Nevertheless, it is the hope of this writer that this paper provided some insight to Dowe's argument of reconciling God and the chance worldview.

 Deism and Enlightenment thought are said to have had a significant effect on the formation of the United States, as they are believed to be the key philosophies of the Founding Fathers. So, this paper will take a look at the Declaration of Independence to identify patterns of these two philosophies within this document written by Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson's ties to Enlightenment thought and Deism come out in the very beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Look at the first sentence:
When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinion of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
 There are a few things one should pick up on in this sentence. First, notice the capitalization. Throughout the entire document, Jefferson seems to be capitalizing any word which he finds to be particularly significant and important. He capitalizes words like "Events" when referring to human history, "People," and "Opinions of Mankind," among others. Harrison (et al) says, "Like Renaissance humanism, deism focused on the glories of nature, especially human nature with its rational capacity" (470). The capitalization of these words demonstrates a belief in their "glory;" it almost characterizes them, and places them in a place of honor. As the one continues to read the document, it is interesting to see which of these words he chooses to capitalize. It gives great insight into his beliefs, and reveals a subtle pattern of Deistic Enlightenment Thought. He seems to be capitalizing those words which he believes have innate value. Some more particularly interesting capitalized words will be pointed out later.
 The second thing one should notice from the first sentence ties in very nicely with the first. This is that he basically says the powers being taken by the Declaration of Independence are allotted by "the Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God." In reference to Enlightenment concepts, Harrison (et al) says, "Nature constitutes a standard for judgment" (469). According to Jefferson, the people are entitled to certain things because of the laws of nature and nature's God. Otherwise stated, he is using nature as a "standard for judgment." Now consider the capitalization of the words. He capitalizes law, nature, and god. Again, these seem to be words which Jefferson believes have innate value. Notice also that he says the "Laws of Nature" first, and calls God "Nature's God." This is definitely placing Nature in a high place of honor, just as Enlightenment thought does. 
 The next section which would be significant to the subject of Enlightenment thought and Deism would be this: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The key phrase here is "self-evident." This implies that this--rights, liberty, etc.--is the way things should be, the way they were intended to be--more specifically the way things were intended to be by nature. According to Harrison (et al), "A move to the nature is a move toward wholesome vigor and freedom" (469). This seems to be a belief shared by Jefferson when looking at this passage. And again, notice the capitalization. The capitalization of truth, men, creator, and rights is showing what Jefferson believes has value.
 Here is the next key passage from the Declaration of Independence: "...Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed." This statement has strong overtones of Enlightenment thought. In its full context it is almost an expression of happiness at a long-overdue return to the way things should be, or nature. The capitalization works basically the same as it has above, but one clarification must be made. The capitalization does not just apply to that which Jefferson believes has innate value, but also that which he believes has innate significance. As one can see, the word "evils" is capitalized, and evils are significant, but not necessarily valuable. 
 So, these have been some of the more notable references to Deism and Enlightenment thought in the Declaration of Independence. The passages covered are good examples of the strong value for people and nature that relate closely to Enlightenment thought and Deism. The look at the odd capitalization which Jefferson used are also reminiscent of these things. These things which Jefferson identifies through capitalization as significant or valuable often line up with the thing which these two similar philosophies find significant or valuable. Deism and Enlightenment thought are skillfully peppered throughout this document by Jefferson, who, when looking at this document, seems to share the ideals of both.  
 
Works Cited
Harrison, John Baugham, Dennis Sherman, and Richard E. Sullivan. A Short History of Western Civilization: Renaissance to the Present. New York: Mcgraw-hill Companies, 1994.
Reid, Daniel G. "Deism." Dictionary of Christianity in America. Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

In the Summa Contras Gentiles Thomas Aquinas uses these primary truths to show the link between revelation and reason:
1) The Principle of Non-Contradiction, and
2) The Ability of the Mind to Know the Truth
He discusses these assumed truths and how they prove that human reason is compatible with the Christian faith.
 It is important to note the Thomas also brings another assumed truth to the argument. This truth is that God is good. He repeats at least twice that God would not give us faulty reasoning, and that it is a ridiculous assertion even to consider that he would. When looking at the language with which he addresses the subject it is obvious that he is establishing God's goodness as an assumed truth.
 He begins by saying, "Now though the aforesaid truth of the Christian faith surpasses the ability of human reason, nevertheless those things which are naturally instilled in human reason cannot be opposed to this truth." He is simply establishing that, though many parts of the Christian faith and beliefs are above and beyond human reason, human reason cannot contradict them. Human reason has limits. When revelation breaches these limits, reason is incapable of neither contradicting nor confirming it. In other words, the issue lies with the reason, and not with the revelation.
 With this principle established, Thomas continues, "Seeing then that the false alone is opposed to the true...it is impossible for the...truth of faith to be contrary to those principles which reason knows naturally." This brings to mind the principle of mankind's ability to know the truth. The basic statement is that if something is true it is not incompatible with reason--which ties into the principle of non-contradiction. If truth and non-truth exist, then the truths are confirmed by the God-given nature of reason.
 His other great argument in the article is that reason is a gift from God; therefore it is compatible with revelation, as both come from the same Creator. God reveals Himself to mankind through revelation and through reason. If both are not compatible, then He could not use them for the same purpose. Thomas Aquinas says, "Now the knowledge of naturally known principles is instilled into us by God, since God Himself is the author of our nature." One must not forget Thomas' third assumed truth that God is good. If this is not assumed, then the argument ensues about God trying to "fool" people by authoring for them faulty reasoning. As Thomas also says, "Wherefore if conflicting knowledges were instilled into us by God, our intellect would thereby be hindered from knowing the truth." As already stated, God gave mankind reasoning for the purpose of understanding, not confusion.
 He goes as far as to say that if revelation does not connect with reason, then it is likely not from God. He says, "...those things which are received by faith from divine revelation cannot be contrary to our natural knowledge." Thomas believes that God gave mankind reason as a means of better understanding Himself. Therefore, if reason and revelation contradict each other, then the revelation is not from God, because He will not contradict Himself, in this case, the reasoning which He has created.
Thomas ties his assumed truths together quite nicely in this statement: "Our intellect is stayed by contrary arguments, so that it cannot advance to the knowledge of truth. Wherefore if conflicting knowledges were instilled into us by God, our intellect would thereby be hindered from knowing the truth. And this cannot be ascribed to God." Non-contradiction and the awareness of truth ties very closely together, to the point where this writer did not feel able to discuss them properly separate from each other. As Thomas shows in this statement, non-contradiction ties directly to the awareness of truth. If the truth can be contradicted, then what is truth, and how can people know it? The ability to know the truth cannot exist without the principle of non-contradiction.
In the aforementioned quote, Thomas also covers his assumed truth of God's goodness. He says that God would not instill conflicting knowledge in our nature, because this would obstruct His ability to reveal Himself to people, which is not in the nature of the God of goodness.
Thomas Aquinas' belief is that the Christian faith is compatible with human reason. The proofs he has demonstrated using the assumed truths of non-contradiction, awareness of truth, and the goodness of God have shown a case for this--that Christianity and reason compliment rather than contradict each other. 

It seems to me that the "startling truth" Maya Angelou writes about here is actually two-fold. The first truth is that of death, shown by such phrases as, "When the curtain falls on the minstrel show of hate." The second truth is that mankind is the "true wonder of this world" and that we do not realize our power.
Let us look first at the truth of death. In this poem, Angelou seems to be focused, not on death itself, but specifically on violent death. I believe that when she says "the minstrel show of hate," she means "life." Calling it a show of "hate" is a sign that she is referring to human violence. She mentions war, "battlefields," and "the bruised and bloody grass," and "the landmines of death." She also refers to child abuse, "And childhood dreams are not kicked awake / By nightmares of abuse." And finally she refers, interestingly, to violence caused by religious zealotry, "...the screaming racket in the temples," and "...the religious ritual...perfumed / By incense of burning flesh."
Angelou seems to have a low esteem for the religious. We had a short discussion last year about violence and religion last year, with a visiting journalist. What I took away from that is that there is a distinct difference between our God, and what we make of Him--which is religion. That aside, I believe that if it was not for religion, men would find a different reason to hate each other. (very likely)
Let us now look to the other side of Angelou's two-fold revelation. Mankind is the "true wonder of this world." She seems to believe that men are able to "fashion for this earth / A climate where every man and every woman / Can live freely without sanctimonious piety / Without crippling fear." I believe she is saying that mankind is capable of turning the world from one of violence to one of peace, and that we simply choose not to do so, due to an ignorance of the fact itself.
My thoughts on this are a bit different than Angelou's. I do not believe that mankind is capable of making the world a non-violent place. I believe that man is, by nature, sinful, and though there are the good in this world that are capable of changing things for the better, there will always be evil men. There is also the paradox of the good man who does nothing. Let us say that Hitler was allowed to continue his atrocities because good men did not want to start a war (Forgive the overused example of Hitler). Would there have been less violence? No, not likely. As Angelou recognizes in the first half of this poem, sometimes we are given the choice between the violent or the violent, if this makes sense.
So, looking at Angelou's "startling truth," I agree with the first truth of death and violence, but not with the second, that men are capable of preventing violence.

Post-Modernism

Consider the statement, "This sentence serves no logical purpose." What does it mean? Is it true or untrue? Is it static or dynamic? And what would the post-modern thinker say about it?

This statement is one that logic says cannot possibly be true. It is quite obvious that the sentence does serve a logical purpose when looking at the facts. Fact: There are 18 students at Concordia University writing a paper on it. This is a logical purpose. Therefore the sentence lies when it says that it serves no logical purpose. But there are many ways to look at this particular statement as it pertains to post-modernism, some of which do not end in this seemingly logical conclusion.

Though logic says it cannot be true, it is not quite self-defeating. It is possible that a sentence stating, "This sentence serves no logical purpose" could, in fact, serve no logical purpose. It depends on what the sentence is used for. The statement could or could not be true. The sentence in point is serving a purpose: the topic of a paper. This is a logical purpose, making the statement untrue--in this instance.

If the sentence is written on a chalkboard, it appears to serve no logical purpose. If one looks at it, seeing no context, no instructions, and no explanation, he might conclude that the sentence serves no logical purpose. But how can he really know? He does not know what the writer of the sentence had in mind when he wrote it. The sentence may serve a very logical purpose that is completely unknowable to him. So, one can never truly say if the sentence serves no logical purpose.

Now, the question grows even more perplexing, as we return to the sentence "This sentence serves no logical purpose." Is the sentence unchanging, always either true or untrue, or does it change if the sentence is used in a different context?

Some might say that this sentence and another stating the same thing are, more simply, the same thing. Therefore this sentence can never be true because it has already served a logical purpose. Even if there are cases in which it does not serve a logical purpose, it is still not true, because it has served a logical purpose at some time, or in some other area.

The post-modern thinker would likely not agree with this particular interpretation. He might say that it is impossible to attach a truth to the statement, much less one that is true in every instance that the statement is used. He might argue that this particular sentence serves a logical purpose, but another sentence stating the same thing does not serve that same purpose. Therefore another sentence which states the exact same thing could be a true statement, even though this one is not.

The post-modernist might also say that putting the sentence to work for a logical purpose forces it to lie. Therefore using it for a logical purpose almost perverts the statement itself--making it into something that it should not be, and was never intended to be. By this reasoning, writing a 750-1000 word paper on it would be wrong, a refusal to allow the sentence to simply exist as it should.

Conversation with Beth Louwagie, a philosophical and semi-post-modern thinker, revealed a parahllel example. Turn to the last page of this paper. It should say "Blank Page." This represents a similar principle. Obviously, the page is not blank, because it says "Blank Page." But it might be there to label the blank page, in which case, it has defeated its purpose. If one labels the blank page, to mark its contents, it is no longer blank. So is the label "Blank Page" a lie, or simply a label? Post-modernism might argue that this changes from person to person. One might see the page and say, "It is a blank page, with a label on it." Another might look at it and say, "That page is not blank, because it has a label on it." Could both be right? Could both be wrong? Is it possible that neither person is right or wrong? The post-modern thinker might say that there is no right answer. If one sees the page as blank, then that is true to him. If one sees the page as tainted, then that is true to him.

The discussion of this statement represents well the perplexing and complicated entity that is "post-modernism." It is multi-dimensional and not always entirely clear--to put it gently. But, does any of this actually make sense? The post-modernist would say, that is up to the reader to decide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blank

Page

 A child is alone in the rain, she's lost, and it's getting darker. She takes shelter under a tree, and begins to cry as the rain turns into a storm. Her mother does the same as she paces around the room wondering where her daughter is; her father has just set out on foot looking for her. The storm lets up for a few minutes, and the girl wanders off to find better shelter. She takes refuge in a cave she found nearby. Her father will soon pass the tree she once was at, missing her by only a few minutes. The storm thickens, a tornado begins ripping through the small town. Terrified, the girl runs deeper and deeper into the dark cave I which she is hiding, soon she can see nothing. At home, her mother screams, the tornado strikes and levels the house. But the scream came sooner, before the tornado hit, as if she knew the events that were happening outside in the storm. When her father hears the tornado siren, it is too late, and too afraid for his daughter, he refuses to find refuge. He moves faster and faster as he screams her name louder. He sees the funnel cloud for only a moment before he is swept up with it. The girl runs faster and faster into the deep cave as she feels the storm getting closer, she turns a corner in the hopelessly black cave; but there is no footing where her next step lands. She falls. A deafening scream echoes throughout the cave as the child falls to her certain death at the bottom of the dark, dank cave.

       The metaphor "staring at the sun" is interesting to use to describe theology. When one stares at the sun, he cannot really see it; he can squint his eyes and try to see it, but the light is too intense for him to really see what it looks like. The same principle can be applied to theology. One can attempt to understand the inner workings of the Christian faith, but he can only attempt, he cannot know. This is proven by the simple fact that there are so many denominations of the church, and even theological arguments between different sects of the same denomination.

Another way which the metaphor applies is how staring at the sun makes you look at the rest of the world. When one stares at the sun, then looks away, back to his surroundings, he may see colored dots, or it might seem darker, or his sight might be a bit blurry. The effects of staring at the sun last longer than simply the duration during which one stares, so are the effects of studying theology. When one delves deeper and learns more about theology, there are after-effects. These effects might be like seeing spots--colorful and interesting; they might be like the darkness--disappointing and negative; they may be like the blurred sight--confusing and unclear. True study of theology will always affect the way one looks at things, though these effects may manifest themselves in different ways.

Wright gives examples of each of these manifestations. Look first to the colorful, interesting theological revelations. One example in Simply Christian is this: "Those in whom the Spirit comes to dwell are to be people who live at the intersection between heaven and earth" (133). When one stares into the sun, he realizes that the Christian's home is with God. Knowledge of this significantly changes his outlook on his life--the after-effects are there, just as they are there after staring at the sun.

Wright describes the confusion that can be brought by studying theology, saying people may confuse themselves with convoluted questions. He says "Many of the questions we ask God can't be answered directly, not because God doesn't know the answers but because our questions don't make sense. As C. S. Lewis once pointed out, many of our questions are, from God's point of view, rather like someone asking, 'Is yellow square or round?'" (122). It is easy to see where one could get confused. Staring too closely at "the sun" sometimes causes one to see things spots that aren't really there and to see blurrily--in theology this would yield ridiculous questions like, "Is yellow square or round?" But in theology one cannot always tell when his questions are that ridiculous, which leads him further into the fog that staring into the sun can create.

Staring at the sun may also give an appearance of darkness to your surroundings; the same applies to theology. There are all too many examples of this in the Christian tradition. There is the existence of Hell, the Crucifixion, the promise of persecution, etc. Just as staring at the sun hurts your eyes, studying these things hurts and can cause the after-effect of darkness and discouragement.

Studying theology

This writer was intrigued by a certain statement from Wright. He says, "Look hard at Jesus, especially as he goes to his death, and you will discover more about God than you could ever have guessed form studying the infinite shining heavens or the moral law within your own conscience" (138). This is the reason why the study of theology is so important to the Christian. It says that, though we can learn about God from Creation and from the voice whispering inside of us, we cannot begin to understand God without detailed study of Jesus Christ. The closer one looks at Christ, the closer he looks at God--obviously, because Christ is one with God. Herein lies the importance of, and the drive for the study of theology.

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known" (I Corinthians 13:12). Theology is all about improving that poor reflection, learning as much about God as possible before He is finally revealed, and "known fully."

The main points I got from Dr. Wentzel's lecture were faith and reason, as well as change due to face-to-face encounters. He stressed that when learning we should be asking ourselves these three questions: 1) What does it say? 2) What does it mean? And 3) What does it mean to me?
These are remarkably important questions to ask, and develop that habits of thought that higher education should be developing.
He said that the point of liberal arts education is to develop these "habits of thought". These habits can be picked up by face-to-face encounter with what we are studying or learning, and by activity--not just doing, but undergoing, truly experiencing (in reference to John Dewey).
He also discussed these principles of liberal education within the context of Christian education. He called it liberating education, meaning that it is meant to lead to personal freedom--but this personal freedom cannot be accomplished without Christ. There is a Selah song that says, "Bound to Him [Christ] I'm truly free." This is the point here--we seek "liberating education" but cannot truly be liberated without a bondage to Christ.
With this faith, and developed reason, we can get the most out of the Christian liberal arts education here at CSP.
There is really so much more that I would like to say about this lecture, but I believe I will stop here.

This week I really realized that I need to buckle down and actually finish up my hours on this project. Somehow, I let myself get farther behind than I had realized. I did some budgeting research. I also worked on my Chapter 7, and some of my appendices, and my abstract. Overall I think it was a good week, and I am confident I will be able to pull this project back together in the next month.

This week was the week of our final, so I was studying for that, and didn't make tons of progress on the project this week.