Philip Jahnke

Philip Jahnke

Honors Program

Directed Writing Six

God and Chance

In his chapter God and Chance, Phil Dowe discusses whether or not God and chance can coexist and "Bell's Theorem for the relation between divine and natural causation". First, Dowe writes about chance as a possible worldview and the history of chance as a worldview. Chance as a worldview has an essential element which is a metaphysical claim. This claim is "that our universe is intrinsically chaotic in the sense that its development from moment to moment is sometimes a matter of chance" (170). This means that the world does not have complete idea of what is going to happen to it next. Dowe goes on to say that a chance worldview is not new to the world, but that, "the chance worldview, in our intellectual history, stands in quite stark contrast to the 'rational worldview,' which has dominated Western thought since the seventeenth century" (171). This worldview is defended by seventeenth century philosopher Leibniz believed that God designed the world. Leibniz based his philosophy on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The Principle of Sufficient Reason says, "everything has a reason why it is the way it is rather than some other way" (171). In the nineteenth century, probability became part of science. Dowe writes that, "this is not necessarily a blow to determinism, because probability can be interpreted as a matter of ignorance -- meaning just that we don't know what the underlying reasons and causes are" (172).

                Next, Dowe discusses providence. He says, "Providence is a theological concept concerned with the continuing action whereby God preserves and protects the world" (173). Absolute providence is an idea presented by John Calvin which states that "'Single events are so regulated by God and all events so proceed from his determinate counsel, that nothing can happen fortuitously'" (173). Dowe goes on to say that in absolute deterministic providence there are three claims: God is the necessary cause of every event and every aspect, God is the sufficient cause of every aspect and every event, and God provides complete reason.

The next section of this chapter discusses Quantum Chance. Dowe writes that "'Chance' refers to single-case objective chance" (178). Dowe goes on to say that determinism, or providence, and chance exclude each other. This idea is supported by Bell's Theorem. In Bell's theorem there are no hidden variables and a complete description of the full story is possible. According to Bell's theorem, determinism is proven false, and there can now be genuine chance in the world.

                In the sections of the chapter, Dowe goes on to show a loophole in Bell's theorem. Dowe shows that Bell's Theorem only rules out a local cause of chance. The locality in Bell's Theorem is based on the fact "that two separate things cannot signal to each other faster than the speed of light" (185). The locality requirement of Bell's Theorem cannot be applied to God because "God is not located in space. Dowe concludes, "If chance exists then either it is caused by God (and that is allowed by Bell's Theorem) and this is no problem for providence and there's no conflict with science; or chance is not caused by God, in which case it's compatible with strong Calvinist providence providing it doesn't lead to meaningful consequences" (189-190).

                In this author's opinion, Dowe has some weaknesses and some strengths in this chapter. First, this author will reveal some of the weaknesses. A prominent weakness in this chapter is the fact that Dowe is writing for people of a high level of academic understanding. He is not writing for the common man. This fact makes it difficult for young college and high school students who are interested in theology and theological arguments to follow his discourse and understand what he is trying to reveal to his readers. A weakness of smaller import is that Dowe does not explain in depth what Bell's Theorem is. A weakness of a little more import than the last one is that this author finds Dowe's explanation of determinism lacking in definition. In this author's opinion, Dowe does not tell the reader what he means by determinism. Though what he means can be inferred by reading the entire chapter, most readers will become frustrated by the fact that Dowe does not give a clear definition of what he means by determinism.

                The strengths of Dowe's chapter, "God and Chance," are not numerous but are adequate if the reader is well educated and intelligent. A strength of Dowe's chapter is that the information is almost always sequential. Dowe does not jump around and make it difficult to follow if the reader understands the concepts. Dowe cuts straight to the heart of the argument following a straight path. A strength, that seems to contradict what this author said earlier, is that Dowe gives the reader a simplified version of Bell's Theorem. This seems like a contradiction, but this author feels that while Dowe could have given a more in depth explanation of Bell's Theorem he gave an adequate explanation that most readers could follow. Dowe's explanation for locality and how it does not apply to God is a strong point of this chapter. Dowe simply tells the reader what locality is and then why it does not apply to God. The real hidden strength of this chapter is the way that Dowe concludes it. Dowe simply says that Bell's Theorem does not disprove the existence of God and that God and chance can in fact coexist.

Philip Jahnke

Honors Program

Directed Writing Five

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was influenced by the Enlightenment and by Deism. This author will try to discuss how Jefferson uses Enlightenment thought and Deism in the Declaration of Independence.

To understand Jefferson's usage of Enlightenment thought, people must understand the period called the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a period in which the thoughts of the Scientific Revolution were popularized and were applied to other areas besides science. The philosophers and thinkers of the Enlightenment "felt that people were ready to shrug off the shackles of tradition and custom and participate in the progress of civilization" (Harrison 469). The Enlightenment had three basic concepts that all philosophers and thinkers of the Enlightenment agreed upon. These concepts are reason, nature, and change and progress. Reason can be condensed as the following, "All assumptions should be subjected to critical and empirical reasoning. Traditional institutions or customs should not be accepted because they have been long-lasting but rather should be examined critically and held up to the standard of reason. True knowledge is gained empirically" (Harrison 469). Nature is capable of being summarized by, "Nature is ordered, functions reasonably, and constitutes a standard for judgment. Nature is governed by a few simple and unchangeable laws. A move to nature is a move toward wholesome vigor and freedom" (Harrison 469). Change and progress can be abridged as, "Change and progress work hand in hand as human beings work to perfect themselves and their society. Change should not be viewed with distrust as a deterioration from a previously superior, more perfect state of things. Change, when dictated by reason and when in line with nature, liberates individuals and should be pursued" (Harrison 469).

One other thing that people must understand to comprehend the influences on Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence is what Deism is. According to author Daniel Reid, "... deism is essentially a rationalistic religion, which assumes that all men naturally possess the ability to know the universe's Deity through reason, and that the creator of the universe was a rational architect. On the other hand, unlike Renaissance humanism it [Deism] assigned God to the outer reaches of the universe, seeing him as only a beneficent, impersonal, and artful creator" (Reid ).

In the very first sentence, Thomas Jefferson shows the influence of Enlightenment thought on him. He writes, "When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another..." (Jefferson 1). "Necessary" (Thomas Jefferson 1) meaning that the people are ready to "shrug off the shackles of tradition and custom" which is what many of the thinkers of the Enlightenment thought (Harrison 469). Jefferson shows the influence of the nature concept of the Enlightenment when he writes, "...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" (Jefferson 1). In Enlightenment thought, nature is directed by a small number of laws. The "unalienable Rights" that Jefferson writes about are a part of those laws.  Jefferson wrote about nature again when he said, "We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity..." (Jefferson 3). He does so again later on in the same paragraph when he writes, "They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of consanguinity" (Jefferson 3). These two quotes from the Declaration of Independence both show the influence of the concept of nature from the Enlightenment in that nature is supposed to be used as a standard for judgment (Harrison 469).

The next concept from the Enlightenment that Jefferson shows in the Declaration of Independence is change and progress. The first place that we see its influence is when Jefferson pens, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" (Jefferson 1). To some people it would seem that this sentence has nothing to do with the Enlightenment concept of change and progress, but if people were to look closely they will see that this sentence does connect to change and progress in that the "People" are getting rid of, changing, one government for another.

The last concept of the Enlightenment that Jefferson shows influenced his writing is reason.  He writes that, "...it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security" (Jefferson 1). This is a long excerpt but it shows that Jefferson was influenced by reason when he says "Duty" because thinkers of the Enlightenment believed that all traditional institutions should be thoroughly inspected by reason to see if they match up to the standard that reason has set (Harrison 469). He also shows the influence of reason by stating that, "A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People" (Jefferson 1). This segment is easily attributed to reason because the sentence seems logical.

The final influence on Jefferson was Deism. The Deist influence, in this author's opinion is faint and almost nonexistent, but it is there. This is somewhat seen when Jefferson writes, "...endowed by their Creator..." (Jefferson 1). This piece means that the Creator has created humans, endowed them with what they have, and then left them alone. It shows the deist idea that God is in the outer reaches of the universe and does not involve himself in worldly affairs very often (Reid).

Works Cited

Harrison, J., R. Sullivan, and D. Sherman. "The Enlightenment." A Short History of Western Civilizations. 6th ed. New York, NY, 1985. 469-70.

Reid, Daniel G., ed. "Deism." Dictionary of Christianity. Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity P, 1990.

Philip Jahnke

Honors Program

Directed Writing Four

Thomas Aquinas, the First Principle, and the First Condition

Thomas Aquinas uses the first principle and the first condition together with his conviction of the harmony between faith and reason. To understand how Thomas Aquinas uses these things together in his writing a person must understand what he means when he says the harmony between faith and reason. Aquinas considers faith to be the supernatural order. The order consists of God, heaven, angels and other things. Most importantly this order is known through faith in God's revelation. The other order of which Thomas Aquinas speaks is the natural order. The natural order is the world in which humans live. Aquinas says that the natural order is known through reason. Thomas Aquinas also says that since God created both of these orders they must be in harmony with one another. Aquinas combines this conviction with the primary truths. The primary truths being that humans exist, the principle of non-contradiction known as the first principle, and the ability of the mind to know truth also known as the first condition.

Thomas Aquinas uses the first principle, the principle of non-contradiction, to say that since God created both orders, the natural and supernatural, they cannot be in conflict with one another. Aquinas starts out by saying that the "truth of the Christian faith" is beyond the ability of human reason to comprehend. This statement sounds contradictory, but is in fact true because the truth of the Christian faith is from the supernatural order and not the natural order, human reason. It is also true because of the first condition, the ability of the mind to know truth. Since a person's mind knows that it is true it must therefore be true. Thomas uses the first condition and his conviction of the harmony between faith and reason when he talks about a teacher teaching a disciple. He says that the "thing that the disciple's mind receives from its teacher is contained in the knowledge of the teacher." Thomas also says, "...the knowledge of naturally known principles [the primary truths] is instilled into us by God, since God himself is the author of our nature." The connection between these two statements and how Aquinas uses the first condition and the first principle together with his conviction of the harmony between faith and reason is obvious. The obvious connection is that the "knowledge of the naturally know principles" come from God. They come from God because God is both the author of human kind's nature and because God is the teacher of human kind. Since God is the teacher of humanity, he must teach sincerely or the natural knowledge that humans have would not be from him. This would be a contradiction because this author has already established that humanity's natural knowledge comes from God. Another point that can be made here is that anything that is opposed to the primary truths cannot be from God because the primary truths come from God and because of the first principle, the principle of non-contradiction. Since God is the one that made the primary truths part of a human being, Thomas Aquinas says that they, the primary truths, are also part of the "divine Wisdom." This statement again drives home the fact that if something is in conflict with the primary truths this thing cannot be from God. Another way that Thomas Aquinas proves reiterates the fact that humanity's core truths, the primary truths, come from God is when he writes, "Our intellect is stayed by contrary arguments, so that it cannot advance to the truth." He goes on to write that, "...if conflicting knowledges were instilled into us by God, our intellect would thereby be hindered from knowing the truth." This simply cannot be the case because God is the one who instilled in us the primary truths and because it would break, again, the first principle.

To talk more about the natural order, Thomas Aquinas writes that, "Things that are natural are unchangeable so long as nature remains. Therefore God does not instil into man any opinion or belief contrary to natural knowledge." Aquinas goes on to quote from the Bible Romans 10:8, which reads, "The word is nigh thee even in thy heart and in thy mouth. This is the word of faith which we preach." Many readers would conclude that because what he wrote passes reason it must not be true because it is a contradiction. This is not a contradiction because all Christians know that the Bible is the true and inspired word of God. With the belief that the Bible is the inspired word of, Thomas Aquinas concludes "that whatever arguments are alleged against the teachings of faith, they do not rightly proceed from the first self-evident principles instilled by nature." Since the arguments do not come from the primary truths, all people can conclude that these arguments have no power.

Philip Jahnke

Maya Angelou writes, "It is possible and imperative that we learn A brave and startling truth." So what is this "brave and startling truth?" I think that this truth that Angelou writes about, in her poem "A Brave and Startling Truth," is the truth that one day all people will have the same rights in the world. I think that she is saying that we can help bring that day into being sooner that it would happen if left alone. I believe that the truth is also that people will share more similar view points, not necessarily seeing eye to eye on all matters, and that people of differing viewpoints and ideas will, instead of fighting and arguing both with words and with arms, try to resolve the issue peacefully through discussion and consideration. I think that this "brave and starling truth" involves the marginalized. This truth, in my opinion, says that the marginalized will no longer be part of that category. The category of marginalized will no longer exists. Instead, the people of this category will be on the same level as the rest of the world. I believe that the most important truth that Angelou infers when she writes "A brave and startling truth" is that one day all people will be perfect. By perfect I mean that there will no longer be any death, sadness, pain, loss, hunger, or anything like those that I have just listed.

                I agree with Angelou that there will be a day when that "brave and startling truth" comes into being.  I agree that the marginalized will no longer be marginalized and that all the evil things that plague this world will be destroyed. I also believe that the human race will be perfected. I know this because of what is written in the bible. The bible says that one day Jesus will return and on that day our bodies will be perfected, and those that do not believe will be cast into hell and those that do believe will return to live with him in heaven. This is how I know that Angelou's "brave and startling truth" is a truth. She may not have the same reasons that I have for believing that this truth will come about. She may be a postmodern thinker, and this thought process may lead her to believe that humanity can perfect itself but that is simply just not the case and postmodernism. Though good for some things, such as questioning truth in some cases but not others, this line of postmodern thinking could be deadly in a spiritual sense and could result in eternal damnation.

Philip Jahnke

Directed Writing Assignment Two

"This sentence serves no logical purpose."

Postmodernism is part of the world we live in. The statement "This sentence serves no logical purpose" is a postmodern thought. The sentence illustrates postmodernism because the statement is illogical, and logical thought has no place in postmodernism. Logical thought is based in modernism and leads to reasoning and therefore science. Not only is this an illogical statement, it questions its own existence and therefore its own truth. The questioning of truth is another characteristic of postmodern thought. In postmodern thought the thinker has the ability to decide what truth is for them. This author thinks that "This sentence serves no purpose" is postmodern because it is only true on an individual basis which goes back to the fact that postmodern truth is based on what an individual thinks is true. Another reason that the sentence fits into postmodern thought is that in modernism, language must be rational. Since this statement has no purpose and is therefore irrational it cannot be part of modernism. The conclusion that the statement is irrational then leads a person to say that the statement must be part of postmodernism.

Jacques Derrida was one of the most well known postmodern thinkers. According to Derrida, postmodernism is about deconstruction. If this is true, which in postmodern thought depends on the individual, then the statement is part of postmodernism because it deconstructs itself. In addition to the reason just presented as well as others, this statement says that it has no reason for being. That is a postmodern thought because reasoning is part of modernism not of postmodernism. An additional reason for "This sentence serves no logical purpose" being an illustration for postmodernism is that it seems to be a random statement, and postmodernism puts an emphasis on the random seeming. Since modernism is based on the ability of science to prove that a statement is true, a person must assume that postmodernism says that a statement does not have to be proved true by science. So a person must eventually come to the conclusion that since science cannot prove this statement true then the statement must be a postmodern statement.

Postmodernism puts emphasis on subjectivity. Subjectivity is when truth applies to each individual person. With this being the case more and more people are questioning the truth of modernism which is based in science. This is a sign of a dying modernistic society. Part of the reason that this modernistic society is dying is its failure to provide a sufficient basis for acting morally in a civilized society.  A more purposeful reason for the statement to be part of postmodernism is that the statement is not functional. Functionality, or purposefulness, is a part of modernism. So since the statement itself denies its own "purposefulness" then the sentence must be a part of postmodern thought and philosophy.

Since the question is whether or not the statement, "This sentence serves no logical purpose," is postmodern or not, this author can simply, because of what postmodernism is, say that the statement is postmodern. Postmodernism puts an emphasis on skepticism of truth, especially of the meta-narrative of a society. Postmodernism also emphasizes attention to the other. This means that postmodernism stresses looking out for other people around the world, especially those people who are the marginalized.

This author believes that the sentence, "This sentence serves no purpose," must be a postmodern thought. He believes this because using modern thought to figure out why the author would write a 750- 1000 word assignment leads to the conclusion that there is no reasoning behind the assignment. A person can and must come to this conclusion because in modern thought reason is the basis for all knowledge. Since this sentence seems to have no reasoning it cannot be part of the modern thought process and must therefore be classified as a postmodern thought. Since this author is writing about a postmodern sentence, it would be illogical to use modern thought to try and rationalize his or her actions. After just saying this one must realize that the author just used postmodern thought, which uses the irrational, to explain why he or she would not try to use a modern thought process. One final reason for not trying to use modern thought, which therefore lends to the fact that the sentence must be postmodern, is the fact that modernism uses science to produce knowledge and truth. Since the author has already discussed the fact that there is no possible way for science to prove the validity of the statement, "This sentence serves no logical purpose," must be considered postmodern. With that final conclusion, one must ultimately conclude that this paper then serves no purpose. So we are back to the ultimate of why did the author write this paper?

                Philip Jahnke

Honors Directed Writing One

"Staring at the Sun"

"Staring at the sun" is a metaphor. It can mean many different things to many different people. When it is referred to a description of doing theology one can say that staring at the sun is like looking for God. When someone is "staring at the sun," that person cannot see the sun but he or she knows that it is there. The same thing applies to God. No person can see God, but all that believe in him know that he is there. There are even those who do not but still feel and know that there is something, some higher being if you will, out there. Concerning God's location, Christians believe that he "lives" in heaven. This is true according to Ecclesiastes 5:2, which says, "God is in heaven..." Since God is in heaven how does a person see glimpses of life after life after death as N.T. Wright puts in his book SIMPLY CHRISTIAN Why Christianity Makes Sense? People see glimpses of this life through the intersection and overlapping of Heaven and Earth because Heaven and Earth are not far apart as some people would have the world believe but are very near each other. Heaven and Earth have not intersected or overlapped just once but have done so on a number of different occasions. For example N.T Wright says that Mount Sinai is one of those places (64). He also says that the Temple in Jerusalem is another of those sites (64). From what N.T. Wright wrote about these sites and what they were used for one can conclude that Jesus Christ and his death on the cross was and is the most important intersection or overlap in Christian theology. Wright writes that, "His death would do what the Temple, with its sacrificial system, had pointed toward but had never actually accomplished. In meeting the fate which was rushing toward him, he would be the place where heaven and earth met, as he hung suspended between the two" (110). From this a person can conclude that God had or still has a plan for bringing his creation back to perfection.

                With that conclusion a person must wonder, what God's plan is and who it involves. N.T. Wright writes, in his section on Israel and their hope for salvation, "There will come a new king, anointed with oil and with God's own Spirit (the Hebrew for "anointed one" is "Messiah"; the Greek is "Christ"), and he will put the world back into proper order. Based on Wright's words one can conclude that God has sent a rescuer and his name is Jesus (110). Wright also states that, "The time had now come when, at last, God would rescue his people, not from mere political enemies, but from evil itself, from the sin which had enslaved them. These evidences help to prove the value of this metaphor.

                This metaphor is valuable for a number of reasons; the primary of which is that it takes something that almost any reader will be familiar with and relates it to something that he or she may or may not understand. That which he or she understands being staring at the sun and that which he or she may not understand being Christianity itself. Another reason that this metaphor is beneficial is that it easily leads into the telling what Christianity is about without making the reader feel like it is being forced on him or her. This being that God sent his son to die on the cross to redeem all people from their sins (86-87). In telling this basic truth of Christianity Wright helps lay the ground work of what could eventually become a firm believer in Christ.

                This metaphor is problematic for a few reasons. The most important reason is that Wright assumes is several places that the reader is familiar with the Bible and in particular the Old Testament. A specific example is when Wright mentions the Passover and Jesus Last Supper without explaining very well what the Passover is and why it is significant to Jesus. Another odd reason that "staring at the sun" is a poor metaphor is that some people may assume that to be a Christian you must go through pain and suffering. This is simply not true though some Christians are made to suffer physically, emotionally, spiritually, and socially because of persecution. Though this author believes that if a reader makes this assumption then that reader should probably not be reading books of this type of depth.

                Wright does invite a person to consider Christian theology more deeply. He causes the reader to think more about what happen during the times that the Bible was written about. He also causes his readers to consider that the words in the Bible may have more meaning that just what the reader takes them for. Wright causes his readers to consider Christian theology more deeply so that they do not just accept his words. Wright wants his readers to question what he has written and then go back to the source, the Bible, and try to find out what God says.