"Human reason inevitably finds itself confronted with questions it cannot answer empirically. One cannot prove that these broader questions are answerable, of course. But nor can one prove that they are meaningless or inherently unanswerable, since trying to do so entails resorting to the very kind of arguments one is trying to place off limits." (pg. 27)
Like my last one this post is a part of a blog tour through Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp's the Predicament of Belief, which I am taking part of with the guys at Homebrewed Christianity who on March 15th will be hosting a "Theo-nerd book party" with Philip Clayton, giving readers and listeners a chance to throw some tough questions about the book and the Emergent village podcast (which can be found at the Homebrewed website) to Philip.
In this chapter the authors take upon themselves the task of establishing a minimalist understanding for what they call an ultimate reality or "UR". They do so in a way that tries to maintain a position of respect for the scientific advances of the modern era. They go about establishing there arguments in a sequence of building blocks, so far not unlike a more postmodern version of C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity".
In this chapter the authors take upon themselves the task of establishing a minimalist understanding for what they call an ultimate reality or "UR". They do so in a way that tries to maintain a position of respect for the scientific advances of the modern era. They go about establishing there arguments in a sequence of building blocks, so far not unlike a more postmodern version of C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity".
They make it very clear that they are not trying to establish a sort of empirical apologetic set of evidence that proves the existence of some sort of divine or ultimate reality. Instead they are using philosophical questions to argue that the existence of the before mentioned is minimally more likely to be true than false. This approach leaves room for doubt as well as committed faith (at it's best, of course.)
The authors pose the question of "Why even ask about the ultimate?", and then go about saying that these kinds of questions are worth asking and worth trying to find the answer to. Science, while having made vast progress of late, cannot answer every single question and is not infallible. "It doesn't take much reflection, however, to realize that precise empirical results are achievable only if the investigator makes certain assumptions about the nature of the reality being studied." (pg. 26)
They first propose a "mind-like" UR that could be coherent with a singular universe theory or the multiverse theory.
If this is the only universe then the largely improbable odds of the universe being governed by fundamental laws that allow for the expansion of life as we experience it. This approach (I'm assuming) is still arguing for a minimalist approach that says that theories about a mind-like UR are slightly more likely to be true than false, as opposed to an argument like intelligent design which says (according to an end-note from the authors) that the evidence supports that idea that a mind-like UR must exist.
Their response to the multiverse theory is similar in that it relies on some fundamental governing laws in the universes that could best be described by a mind-like UR.
From there the authors propose that the mind-like UR is probably an agent of action, in that (if my understanding is correct) it acts intentionally. This argument of intent is not hard to see from the singular universe theory, and they make the argument for the multiverse theory as well.
And this is where it gets interesting...
So if (the authors propose) this UR is mind-like and agent like and created this universe with some intention then wouldn't the creation of finite persons from an infinite being require a limiting of the infinite self or reality? They point to the Christian concept of kenosis, which is a Greek term for "an emptying" and is employed in Paul's description of Jesus in Philippians 2:7.
And what reason would an infinite (therefore lacking nothing) reality have of emptying or restricting one's self to create something finite? The authors argue that it must be something similar to the Christian concept of agape love.
Finally they close the chapter with a discussion of what they call the "divine lure" and what sociologist Peter Berger called "signals of transcendence" that, while providing no empirical evidence, seem to at least point in the direction of an ultimate and benevolent reality.
From this philosophical ground they have created the framework for a not less than personal and benevolent ultimate agent, which they admit still has a long way to go before being truly consistent with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and further still to the strictly Christian God that acted, in some way, through the person of Jesus. But that's saved for the next chapter.
They first propose a "mind-like" UR that could be coherent with a singular universe theory or the multiverse theory.
If this is the only universe then the largely improbable odds of the universe being governed by fundamental laws that allow for the expansion of life as we experience it. This approach (I'm assuming) is still arguing for a minimalist approach that says that theories about a mind-like UR are slightly more likely to be true than false, as opposed to an argument like intelligent design which says (according to an end-note from the authors) that the evidence supports that idea that a mind-like UR must exist.
Their response to the multiverse theory is similar in that it relies on some fundamental governing laws in the universes that could best be described by a mind-like UR.
From there the authors propose that the mind-like UR is probably an agent of action, in that (if my understanding is correct) it acts intentionally. This argument of intent is not hard to see from the singular universe theory, and they make the argument for the multiverse theory as well.
And this is where it gets interesting...
So if (the authors propose) this UR is mind-like and agent like and created this universe with some intention then wouldn't the creation of finite persons from an infinite being require a limiting of the infinite self or reality? They point to the Christian concept of kenosis, which is a Greek term for "an emptying" and is employed in Paul's description of Jesus in Philippians 2:7.
And what reason would an infinite (therefore lacking nothing) reality have of emptying or restricting one's self to create something finite? The authors argue that it must be something similar to the Christian concept of agape love.
Finally they close the chapter with a discussion of what they call the "divine lure" and what sociologist Peter Berger called "signals of transcendence" that, while providing no empirical evidence, seem to at least point in the direction of an ultimate and benevolent reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment