SWEET SOCRATES... [a crash course in logic]

Here.

MATH and GOD

I was reading some stuff on Blaise Pascal and John Locke this morning. It shot me in quite a lovely trajectory. Here we go.

MATH IS EXTERNAL

Who came up with the idea that 2+2=4? Not you. Definitely not me. I'm going to roll the dice here. It probably wasn't Descartes. What about Euclid? Pythagoras? The ancient Egyptians? The point is that 2+2=4 is true outside of us. It is an external reality from you and me. There are branches of philosophy that would wrangle with what I mean, but the broad point is simple: Math is not of human manufacturing. It's existence was here before you and will be here after you. This, of course, leads to

MATH IS ETERNAL

In first grade you learn to count to 100. Maybe around third grade you learn to count to 1,000. This guy knows 22,000 decimal points of Pi [3.14]. You know, the unending number that can't be a real fraction. He said them on Pi Day a couple years ago. C'mon... For real... Pi Day? Yep. It's March 14. Get it? Anywho. Those 22,000 decimal points are not even getting him warmed up to the eternality of Pi. He hasn't even started to break a sweat. He's not even in the arithmetic on-deck circle. Numbers have no end. That is the nature, beauty, and confusion about math.

MATH IS RELATIONAL

Numbers call out to you for a relationship. Meaning, if you don't know numbers, how will you pay bills? How will you grocery shop? How will you sustain a job? You have to relate to math to make life happen. It even tells us the time of day, which in turn, organizes our whole schedule. And strangely enough, the more we give our self to precision in our dealings with numbers, the higher chance there is that we will be better a this thing called life.

Now that last sentence is almost ridiculous, but you get the point. The most important thing in all this is that math can't relate to you, but only you to it. It has no emotions, feelings, sentiments, or relational capacities.

But what if there was an external from us, eternally incomprehensible, and relational "thing" with which we could be involved? That would sure change how I went about life. It would even make all this numbers talk make more sense.

PiPER ON LEWiS

Here, our good buddy John Piper retells the story of God calling him to be a pastor. He begins in good ol Greenville, SC. He also discusses several of the biggest influences on his life. About CS Lewis' influence on him, he says

He has made me wary of chronological snobbery. That is, he has shown me that “newness” is no virtue and “oldness” is no fault.  Truth and beauty and goodness are not determined by when they exist.  Nothing is inferior for being old, and nothing is valuable for being modern. This has freed me from the tyranny of novelty.

EPiSTEMOLOGY, JEWiSH SEX, and ETERNAL LiFE

I know that 2 + 2 = 4.

I know that South Carolina actually had a good snow this past winter.

I know that my wife is pregnant.

I know that Dennis Rodman and I have the same birthday.

What if you could know every fact that has ever been?

What if you knew every sports stat from every team and every player that has ever existed. You knew every touchdown, homerun, tripple-double, hole-in-one, and championship in history. Let's say that you know every war that has ever been fought and the victor in each battle. Let's even say that you knew the names of all of those lost in each battle. Perhaps you could list the birthdays of each president, dictator, ruler, and czar the world has ever seen.

Obviously I could go on forever. Bear with me.

Let's say that you knew all of these things. You would be a human computer. Your friends call you Google Thompson. You can spit out every factual reality possible. Do you then have real "knowledge"? Have you exhausted "knowledge"? Does the epistemological buck stop with you?

Not a chance.

There are several reasons why. FIRST, you may know all possible facts, but what about the motives, intentions, emotions, and ideas behind them? Does knowing that Roberto Clemente died with exactly 3000 hits mean that you can know how he felt? Doubtful. Who cares if you know that the Berlin Wall fell if you don't know how people thought about it? My simple purpose is this... Part of the essence of knowledge is that it is inexhaustible. This means that the essence of knowledge cannot be fact-knowing. Then what is real knowledge? Hmmm?

SECOND, because we are products of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the Scientific Method we have come to think of "knowledge" as observable and tried actuality. This seems to operate under the assumption that objectivity and subjectivity can be divorced. Tis folly, my friends.

THIRD, Adam knew Eve; then came Cain. As is clear, this is far more than informed mindfulness. This is an experiential knowing. The Hebrew word for "know" is "yada." If you continue to trace this idea you will find that "knowing" has historically, theologically, and spiritually transcended awareness to experience, and transcended experience to relationship.

So, when Jesus says, "Depart from me. I never knew you" [Mt 7.23], He is not talking about being cognizant of a person's existence. He is talking about relationship. Or... "All those that God foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus" [Rom 8.29-30]. The point here is that real, right, and true "knowledge" is being intimately bound to someone. This is the source from which fact-knowing springs.

All of this makes Jesus' words in John 17 a little more poignant and fresh.

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

God giving Jesus shows how He desires to be known [Jn 14.6, 6.44]. For me, this ripens the old Christian adage, "Know Him and make known."

the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity

It is philosophically elementary of me to say that there is a clear divide between the two. Saying that something is absolutely objective or subjective is the same as saying that you can absolutely scientifically prove that God does or does not exist. Neither are possible.

Further, I do not believe the two are diametrically opposed. All of history, all of personal experience, all of math, all of science, all of life - everything is a sweet combination of this pair, regardless of how narrow or broad you define them.

As far as how the objective relates to the subjective, I have found the following quite intriguing. 

The deeper someone goes into any field of study, the more knowledge concerning that field they acquire. Obviously, this warehouse of knowledge is more objective than subjective. However, when those individuals begin to apply or use that knowledge, it seems as though the appropriation and application of it becomes more subjective. 

Example - If you asked a college freshman English major what a participle was, they could tell you in perhaps 12 words or less. However, if you ask that same person 8-10 years later when they are completing their doctoral work on the use of adjectival participles in Shakespeare, they might begin their answer in a similar fashion. But... How they grasp the idea and employ the reality of "participle" will be drastically nuanced, and likely - far more fluid.

In my personal experience, the more I study the Bible, the more I read, the more knowledge I gain, the more I realize that there's more to know and the tougher it becomes for me to apply the existing knowledge I have. The greater the mass of the "objective" I attain, the more significant and fragile its "subjective" outworking becomes. I don't think this is merely a spiritual tension though.

A geologist will always become a better geologist if he keeps studying. But his becoming will never be only theoretical [mere study] or only functional [mere practice]. The marriage of these two - the theoretical and practical, the objective and the subjective - causes deeper pursuit of both.

The reason for this is that we are hard-wired for full fellowship without any partiality. We were not made to be befuddled by this seeming dichotomy. One day though, we will know fully and be fully known. There is no apparent contrast between objectivity and subjectivity in the forever flawless presence of God. "As it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end" [Bob Marley] - redeemed man will be unhindered and be with God, like God, and for God... world without end.

presence [don't read this b/c it's really long]

Sometimes I'll be studying in our office/library room and my lovely Sara will call from the living room, "Come in here with me." So, of course, I proceed to move my procrastination down the hall to be with her.

She sits on the love seat and I might be on the couch. Perhaps she has the computer and I have a couple of books. Regardless of the precise circumstances, 25-30 minutes could pass without a word spoken between us.

What's the deal with this? Why did I get up from the ideal place to study [the study!] to move into the living room with Sara? The answer is clear, but complex. I love her. But doesn't love mean communication, words, information exchange, affection exchange, etc? Yes, but there is something more there.

Job's three friends [Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar] were good friends when they sat with him and didn't say a word. They began to show themselves morons when they opened their mouths.

Let's chase Derrida's dog for a second. Do words have meaning? For example, what is the meaning of "meaning"? You understood those questions. Therefore they must have some sort of meaning. Why does the certain arrangement of letters call you to action and then an arrangement of letters such as "pasygerzysod" have absolutely no significance to you?

I bet if your 16-month old girl said "pasygerzysod" to you that it would mean something. Why though? I don't exactly know what Derrida would say about this, but it's safe to say that words only have meaning when they are nestled in a context. That context only has meaning [denotation or connotation] because of relationships - human relationships.

Some have said that 93% of communication is non-verbal. That seems obscenely high to me. Others say 70% and few even say that 55% is a safer estimate. Still! - that means that over half of what you're saying you're not really saying!

Now let me feebly attempt to sift all of this gibberish into a point. Why does my wife want me to sit in the room with her? Why were Job's friends only good friends when they kept their fat mouths shut? Why do we question whether or not words have meaning? Why do I say so much without saying anything? Here's the skinny:

There is a design in the human psyche, soul, and spirit that necessitates relationship. But this is not "relationship" in a vague sense. This relationship must include presence. My wife knows that we are married from the other room. She's got some shiny rocks on her left hand to remind her. But she wants my being to be there. Job knew his friends were his friends when they were far away. But he had to sense their nearness [Job 2.11-13]. We want to communicate and we want to be communicated to. Presence does this. I'm not saying it does it fully. But presence means relationship and presence is communication.

Perhaps this is why He is Emmanuel. This is why YHWH led them by cloud and fire. This is why He gave the Tabernacle. This is why He came. This is why He has given us His Spirit. And this is why He will be with us until the end of the age.

blessed

My wife had game night with the ladies tonight. So, I went to the Silver Chair, thinking I was going to be able to hit the books and study some. Fat chance. But it's ok. I was radically blessed. I got to sit and chat with some brothers for a while. The following is a non-exhaustive list of what our conversation included:

• how most modern music is dumb
  
• how music serves as one one of the greatest proofs for the existence of God [read more here]
  
• rabbinical and traditional Jewish interpretations of the OT and how unique they often are
  
• Paul's hermeneutic of creation
  
• how to diminish and augment chords
  
• how Jesus was known for drinking in Matthew 11 and why people are so afraid of that
  
• why old hymns are so dang good and pregnant with glorious truths
  
• men's and women's roles in the church and Deborah as a judge in the OT
• how cool it was to wear nasty hair and paint your finger-nails black and try to be punk rock when you were in college [this probably subconsciously made us think that we are really punk rock b/c we talked about the old days when we tried to be punk rock]
  
• how Mark Driscoll is often tact-less and right
  
• how the Gamecocks are the greatest
  
• about the false dichotomy between love and truth [1 Cor 13 says they're a happily married couple, ya know]
  
• about the stench that comes from theoretically upright, yet lifeless orthodoxy [and how we crave to be snapshots of love AND truth like Jesus was]
  
• about how youth ministers and worship leaders are not biblical/NT church offices
  
• and a bunch more

There are several great things about all that we discussed. First, cigars were present. It made it a bit sweeter. Second, the soft crispness of October's first Friday was light years past satisfying. Third, and most import, there was a near-tangible feeling of the Holy Spirit's presence when I got up to leave. He is there and He is not silent.

Listening to Him, learning from Him, and walking with Him are not easy, but indescribably fulfilling when they are experienced. He is faithful and good.

evil and pleasure

The problem of evil is primarily termed what it is termed because the people who promulgate it as problematic have pleasure as their subconscious and deliberate aim. Yes - there are theological, metaphysical, and ontological questions about existence and God that must dealt with in relation to the problem of evil. But what if we started from [or at least attempted to] a neutral frame of reference?

What's on the other side of the equation? Is there a "problem" of pleasure? Why does food have to taste good? Why does freshly cut grass have to smell good? Why does sex have to feel good? Why does music sound so good?!

Many of the needs of life are experientially and sensually satisfying. Why is that so? Does it have to be so? Surely not. Perhaps the rationale behind the over-obsession with the problem of evil and the minimal focus on the "problem" of pleasure is that WE have a problem. Negative focuses often come from negative sources.

What if we have a problem with evil because we are the present problem of evil?! This makes the "problem" of pleasure not only something to be considered, but pursued.

"In your presence is fullness of joy and at your right hand there are pleasures forevermore" [Ps 16.11].

good sources to read on determinism, the problem of evil, etc

This is classic Al Mohler, always providing some sort of culturally nuanced analysis of whatever topic. Excellent read.

This entry has a great PDF that should be downloaded. It's section entitled "What does a biblical approach to the problem of evil include?" is really good.

Here, John Frame gives good insights in an interview. Here are some questions he is asked:

• People often think that the logical problem of evil is a problem primarily for theists. Would you say that it is at least equally problematic for atheists? Why?
• It is not uncommon for people to assert, "God does not cause evil; he only permits it." Why do you disagree with that? What verbs do you prefer to use to explain God’s relationship to evil?
• What advice would you give to Christians who are wrestling with the emotional problem of evil?

the ontological reasons i want JESUS to come back

Being and doing are a package deal. You can't have one without the other. However, one necessarily precedes the other. The pure existence of a thing is the most logical starting point to that thing fulfilling its role.

Examples:

Jesus is not the Savior of the world because He died on the cross. He is the Savior of the world; SO He died on the cross.

You don't breathe, eat, poop, sleep in order to be a human. Because you are human, you breathe, eat, poop, sleep. This is also what would qualify us as human beings.

In Exodus 3, this is why God reveals Himself to Moses as the "I AM" and not the "I DO" or the "I WILL" [more here].

I just feel that our 742 TV channels, 26 drive-thru restaurants down the road, 9 remote controls per living room, damning materialism, and iThis and iThat are all uniting to subtly betray the purity of this paradigm: being always births doing. I feel like the culture I live in daily whispers to me, "Do A, B, and C and then you can be X, Y, and Z." I guess these feelings come from the fact that I'm not home yet.

Maranatha.

balance doesn't eliminate passion

I often see the following paradigm applied all over the place. When it was first said, I believe it was strictly a spiritual analysis, but I think it can be pressed further.

Empty souls tend toward extreme opinion

You know, like guys flying planes into the sides of buildings and saying that they did it for God. Or people who will bet their whole soul that Jesus will come back on this or that date.

I might be stupid, but I feel like I also see this in the way people eat, vote, treat their family, and spend their money. I know it's not the case for everyone, but I promise you that I see it everywhere.

I guess I just really want to be balanced and not culturally knuckle-headed. I only want to see rigid allegiance and integrity in the way I live. This will have to be by grace. Holy Spirit, please help.

beauty

What is it that makes morality moral? And what is it about truth that makes it so truthful? Why is beauty beautiful? Is it really in the eye of the beholder? It has to be somehow, right?

Morality is reality that corresponds with how we relate to each other. Truth is reality that interacts with our minds and intellects. But I think beauty is that bit of reality that satisfies the senses.

Plato's theory of beauty [in "Symposium"], Aquinas' stress on knowing as a part of beauty, Alberti, Shaftesbury, and all others who have contributed to thinking about beauty... all of their thoughts point to a design behind beauty that necessitates both pleasure and relationship for the one who calls beauty beautiful. But what if there was a singular Source that caused beauty to happen? What if that source was not only the means, but the end of beauty?

MUSiC [trinity, harmony, infinity]

Thomas a Kempis said that

If your heart were right, then every created thing would be a mirror of life for you and a book of holy teaching, for there is no creature so small and worthless that it does not show forth t he goodness of God.

In music, there are only 12 notes. And within these 12, there are technically only 7 notes that help to define the remainder of the 12 [the notes A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are what we use to label the notes A#, G#, Eb, Bb, etc]. So, I really don’t know the huge significance of the 12 and 7, but let's just say that they indicate wholeness. For example, you can spell every word in Webster with 26 letters. In the same way, every song ever written is really just 12 notes intentionally rearranged. But here’s where it gets good.

I was giving a guy guitar lessons the other day and was trying to explain to him how every major chord has only 3 notes. I kept reminding him though, that each note in that chord can be played by itself. See, each note is one and each chord is one, but the chord is also three.

Best of all, music exists totally apart from what you think about it. Music is. It doesn’t have to have your stamp of approval. You can’t say that an E major chord is not an E major chord. It just is. However, your experience, involvement, and dedication to the external reality known as music can help other people cherish its beauty even if they can’t explain how they delight in it.

How much more does it have to be spelled out for us? He is there. He is here. He is near. And we are in need of a participation with something that can unplug our deaf ears to hear Music.

YHWH and PARMENiDES OF ELEA

Aristotle's Unmoved Mover concept likely had its roots in some of the thought of Parmenides of Elea [c. 515-450 BC]. Parmenides always spoke about the One, the unity that is hidden behind the diversity of our world of experience. He never ascribed to it relatability, but frequently spoke of it in terms of Being.

Jonathan Edwards thought deeply here as well. He said that we cannot think of God as a being because that would subliminally suggest that we or other things that have being are made of the same stuff. Edwards posited that God is "Being in general." In truth, to use the word "is" in the previous sentence is to begin to undefine the fact.

But back to Parminedes. He sought to delineate between what is, what truly is, and what seems to be. He thought that knowing this distinction was only available through reason. Leszek Kolakowski has commented on these ontologically gnostic ideas in Parmenides. Kolakowski says that for Parmenides,

what truly is cannot have been created, or that would mean that something comes from nothing, and that is impossible. Nor can it change, decay, or die: it is perfectly fulfilled and unchanging, with no beginning or end. Nor can it be said to "have been" or to be "going to be"; it simply is, beyond time, without time.... He means that Being is full and sufficient unto itself.

I'd like to point out a couple of things here. I would almost completely agree. However, it really is impossible for something to come from nothing, unless the Unity or Being causing the something is Divine, Wise, and wholly Good. Additionally, all his talk of Being and the essence of the One behind all we comprehend.... this is precisely how the God of the Bible defines and reveals Himself. That is the definition of YHWH in Exodus 3 - "I AM WHO I AM." This name comes directly from the Hebrew "to be" verb, hayah.

Lastly, there is more beauty in untainted Being than can be found anywhere. This is why the Michelangelo's statue of David is naked. David purely is. He just is. This is why trying to define affectionate relationships is so hard. They just are. And they're beautiful. So then, how much more excellent, radiant, right, and lovely is the Being that has never not been. "He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature and He upholds all things by the word of His power" [Heb 1.3].

eye saw JESUS in philosophy

Harry Frankfurt taught philosophy at Princeton University. In 2005, he wrote what I would consider a classic – On Bullshit. Then in 2006, he wrote a sequel entitled On Truth. I remember reading these a year or so ago and my mind and spirit being caught up to see the beauty and goodness of Jesus. If all the world is bull and there is something in the nature of truth that makes it sweet, sure, and able to be experienced [as he asserts], then Harry Frankfurt has unconsciously made Jesus look good. You might think I’m just being stupid or that I just wanted to have the word “bullshit” on here, but see for yourself....

It is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial – notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.

The NIV of all this is that humans are dependent, unstable, and needy [St Paul might say we are blind needing sight or dead needing life]. We get to respond to a sovereign! Too bad ol Harry calls this “other things.” Just go read both of them and you too shall find yourself blessed.

Here and here are other takes on Frankfurt's bull. And here is a must-view, political slant with Harry’s same thesis.

EPiSTEMOLOGY 101

Esther Meek is genius in this book. Its flow and tangible illustrations provide her argument with substance. She asks Can we know God?, Can we know anything for sure?, and How can we know if we can know anything at all? She discusses how any kind of knowing is not static, but a process. Our subjective involvement in knowing does not necessarily determine the truths we know, but molds how we know, live, and think about them.