HUME

Hume says, “The most perfect philosophy of the natural kind only staves off our ignorance a little longer.” This caused me to pause and think. Although I do not agree with the entirety of Hume’s framework for interpreting life, this supposition struck me as quite true. In order to understand the ‘hidden mechanisms’ of our world, in this age we traditionally look to science. Mainly physics or chemistry. Within physics we have forces, and these forces act on atoms, and the atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Each successive layer reveals another layer that has yet to be understood. Hume proposes here that there is no end to the proverbial onion. I think he is correct. However, Hume never proposes what is at the core of these hidden forces. For example, what are atoms made of, what causes opposites charges to be attracted, and how does gravity work? Here, Hume and I diverge in our thoughts. Hume appears to believes there is no true core, because every natural “law” is derived from our experience. There is really no true cause and effect. I agree that empirical evidence is how we learn about the world, however I also see that behind gravity and other ‘natural laws’ lies God. Although we can learn things about gravity, magnetic forces, and other natural phenomena, it is not false to say that the reason an apple falls to the ground when it becomes dislodged from its branch is because God made it that way. We know that gravity is the law attributed to the falling of the apple, but the fact remains unchanged that God created the particles in the apple to behave according to these ‘laws.’

Hume’s thoughts on thoughts can be categorized into three general areas. He considers thoughts to be divided into mathematical reasoning, empirical observation, and tradition. Because Hume is a rather intelligent fellow, arguing with the reasoning he employs is no easy task. Supposing that he is correct, the Christian may wonder if there is still grounds for belief in God. Is there any empirical evidence that indicates the presence of God? Beyond empirical evidence, can there be any other ‘proof’ for God?

We can begin by ‘playing by Hume’s rules’ and examining only empirical evidence. Next, we can attempt to find some sort of philosophical truth that we know for certain to be true. I have not researched extensively on this subject, but I have read pieces here and there. From what I have read, there is significant evidence for a creator in biology. We can draw this conclusion from what we know empirically about creation versus chaos. A pile of sticks in the woods does not indicate a creator, whereas a log cabin located in the woods does. By the same reasoning, the vast complexity of life indicates a creator. Beyond the empirical evidence, we can also look for what Hume says is impossible: a truth that we implicitly know without tradition or empirical evidence. Although there are hundreds of possible proofs that I could give, ranging from empirical to emotional and from historical to philosophical, one that immediately comes to mind is a quote from C.S. Lewis. He says in his book, Mere Christianity, that “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark” (Lewis.) Here Lewis concisely states a contradiction in terms. It may be rather Cartesian of me to say, but there is no reason for people to think ‘on higher levels’ if there are no higher levels to think on.

Reflection

Who's Bo, and why are you telling him to eat this?: An Analysis of Boethius' "The Consolation of Philosophy"

In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius uses a dialogue between himself and the personification of Philosophy to assuage his sufferings. Philosophy describes the various ways people pursue happiness and how they are incapable of producing true happiness on their own. This opens the door for explaining that the ultimate good comes from God. Although this is not explicitly Christian, and makes no references to scripture, Boethius’ portrayal of Philosophy uses Christian themes. Boethius’ work, The Consolation of Philosophy, can be considered a Christian work because it uses human reason to point to God.

Boethius makes several references to God, which, because of his Christian background, can be interpreted as references to the God of Christianity. For example, he says that “There is one Father of all things; One alone provides for all” (Boethius 47) in Poem 6. This aligns with the Christian belief that, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Both indicate that God alone made the universe. He then goes on to reference Plato by saying, “He clothed with bodies the souls he brought from heaven” (Boethius 47). This emphasizes that the human mind also comes from God, as well as being reminiscent of Plato. In the Timaeus, Plato describes the souls as coming from stars and being “implanted” into bodies.  By following a “Biblical” idea by a philosophical idea, Boethius strengthens the connection between Christianity and philosophy.

Boethius also uses philosophy to arrive at Biblical conclusions. From the beginning of Book 3, he discusses how the various ways men attempt to purse happiness are incapable of producing true happiness. They all create needs instead of solving them. The idea that true contentment and happiness comes from God is a common theme among Christian writers. Recall when St. Augustine says, “Because God has made us for himself, our hearts are restless until they rest in him:” (Augustine). Furthermore, Boethius uses the pursuit of happiness as a philosophical avenue to arrive at morals given in the Bible. The grounds given are that the vices cannot produce happiness, or the ultimate good. He then says that for this reason, the pursuits of men often do more harm than good. One example he gives is the pursuit of bodily pleasures. They eventually can produce vices such as gluttony and sexual immorality. Rather than saying outright to avoid these sins because they are abhorred by God, Boethius explains that the overarching theme, pursuit of bodily pleasure, will not produce happiness. Since he sees happiness as stemming from God, it can be determined that obsessively pursuing bodily pleasures is not of God. In a rather roundabout way, he has arrived at conclusions that are similar to the Bible.

This roundabout method was human reason. Since many people happen to regularly employ their reason, it is beneficial if their religious beliefs do not contradict it in several key points. God gave humans brains when he created life; perhaps he intended for humans to use them. If God created reason, then it should follow that reason points back to God. Since Boethius uses reason to arrive at characteristics of God, then The Consolation of Philosophy has a place among other non-scriptural Christian texts.

The Summer Saint: Reflections on St. Augustine

St. Augustine of Hippo was a very intelligent man, and his Confessions offers insights into this intelligence. His book is a rather enjoyable read, for both diction and ideas. After reading chapters 2-3 of Confessions, there are a couple of points that stand out. Specifically, his explanation of the vices was very interesting. More generally, his view on education also give cause for reflection.

At the bottom of page 38, and the top of page 39, Augustine begins describing how, “Vice always fall short of its aim” (Augustine 38). Augustine makes a very viable claim here. He displays, through glorious diction, that every vice seeks to make man something that only God can truly embody. For example, he states that “Ambition seeks nothing but honours and glory, whereas you alone are worthy of honour above all things, and your glory endures for ever” (Augustine 38). Men with ambition want prestige, but they often forget that any “honors” they acquire are insignificant and meaningless compared to the infinite glory of God. This is a wonderful truth, and yet so easy to forget. So are the truths described by Augustine in this section. Although these truths are easy to forget, Augustine’s method of describing these truths causes them to become profound again. His diction calls attention to the glory of God, by first describing the “vice” and then contrasting it to the Godly equivalent.

              In Book 2 of his Confessions, St. Augustine describes his descent into immorality during his adolescence. He explains that his education focused on making him intelligent rather than encouraging his morals. He describes how he began to enjoy sin for the sake of sin, and recalls an instance of stealing pears for the pleasure of doing something wrong. The implications here are that a classical education alone does not provide morals. This is in contrast to Plato’s proposition that good philosopher-kings simply require education. Plato believes that education instills morals, while Augustine asserts that his education damaged his soul more than corrected it. How are these views to be reconciled?

              Perhaps Augustine’s education did not follow the format prescribed by Plato. It is possible that Augustine’s teachers were themselves immoral, and this influenced Augustine to take a bad turn. That is not to say that Augustine was unintelligent and incapable of deciding his own views, but the influence of teachers and peers should not be discounted. C.S. Lewis says something that may shed some light on this subject. He says that, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil” (Lewis, The Abolition of Man). Thus, education can be either good or bad depending on if values are instilled. So when Plato says that education makes a man good, the education process must teach good values as well as mathematics and astronomy. Therefore, Augustine’s education must have been education without virtue, for he certainly describes himself as simply a ‘more clever devil’ as a result of his education. According to Augustine, his teachers did not care what he was arguing for, so long as he argued well. To some extent, it is good for teachers to allow students to think what they want so long as they express it well. However, as Aristotle says, this must not go to the extreme. Education can be good if it teaches how to care for your fellow man, as well as how to debate him.

Serious Stuff

In The Holy Rule of St. Benedict, St. Benedict makes remarks on laughter. In Chapter IV, he says, “. . . not to speak useless words and such as provoke laughter” (Benedict 8). Words that “provoke laughter” are typically jokes. So, Benedict here appears to be banning humor. Any person that enjoys a good laugh likely disagrees with this rule. However, after pausing to think about it, there are several potential reasons for its existence.

The grounds for the establishment of this rule are hazy compared to the other rules in the book. Many maxims are supported with a corresponding scripture, while this order to not joke appears to be in opposition to scripture. It is written in Proverbs, “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine” (Proverbs 17:22 KJV), and humor tends to either produce or be a by-product of a cheerful heart. If a merry heart is good, then why does St. Benedict veto the jokes? It is unlikely that St. Benedict made this rule arbitrarily; there was most likely a reason.

This rule was presumably enforced in some monasteries, if only the monastery of which St. Benedict was abbot. This is purely guesswork, but perhaps in St. Benedict’s monastery there were problems related to joking. Therefore, St. Benedict found it best to abstain from joking altogether. However, this is only guesswork.

Even if there was not a specific issue with joking in the monastery, there are certain types of joking that are not necessarily beneficial. For example, the Bible warns against coarse joking. (Ephesians 5:4). Furthermore, laughter can easily become slanderous. An illustration of this occurs in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. In the book, after Mr. Darcy comments on the beauty of Elizabeth’s eyes, a jealous Miss Bingley responds with “. . . witticisms on fine eyes” (Austen, Chapter 9). This is an example of humor being used the wrong way. In this example, Miss Bingley attempts to use her wit to conceal her jealousy. Obviously, humor of this sort has no place in a society dedicated to God.

Humor can be used to disguise many things, not just the jealousy of a certain Miss Bingley. The Proverbs say that, “Even in laughter the heart may ache, and rejoicing may end in grief.” (Proverbs 14:13, NIV). Laughter cannot fix a broken heart, but can perhaps disguise it. Humor can then be used to distract the mind from serious problems. This may not be a bad thing, but in excess can pose some issues. Using laughter to artificially prop up mood, rather than having a cheerful heart stemming from God, is not good. A person can become accustomed to being fed humorous anecdotes like a morphine drip.

One of the main points of being in a monastery is to reflect. So it is understandable that something distracting- even a good joke- is eliminated. Later in the text Benedict says that “a monk (should not be) easily moved and quick for laughter” (Benedict 14). He then quotes something called the Sirach, which says that, “The fool exalteth his voice in laughter” (Sirach 21:23). This may be a bit on the extreme end. There is nothing wrong with a good joke. However, it is wise to remember that not all humor is good, and as it is written in Lamentations, there is a time for everything, even a time to laugh (Ecclesiastes 3:4).

Much of what St. Benedict says is good stuff. However, it is boring to listen to a list of things I agree with, so I will now turn to a passage that I did not agree with. In Chapter LXIX, there is a short rule that says “that on no occasion (should) one monk try to defend another in the monastery, or to take his part,” (Benedict 77). This raises the question: why? Obviously, as mentioned earlier, there was presumable a reason for this rule. It is possible that monks could band together and cause various sorts of strife between brethren. However, if person A is giving false testimony against person B, and person C is a witness, why can person C not give a defense of person B? Did not Moses plead before God for the Israelites? Why, then, can a monk not plead for his fellow monk before the abbot? Hopefully there were not murder mysteries happening in the monastery, but regardless this rule is still bothersome. It would be helpful if Benedict had penned more than just a paragraph on the subject. More explanation would have been helpful for understanding this rule.

THE QUR'AN!

In the 57^th surah of the Qu’ran, many of the moral teachings present are comparable to the teachings of the Bible. For example, the first six verses describe the sovereignty and all-knowingness of God.  Although the exact wording may be different from that of the Bible, the idea is the same. God is all-knowing, God is sovereign. Another instance of similarity is when it says, “. . . but then it withers, and thou canst see it turn yellow; and in the end it crumbles into dust” (Surah 57). This is very similar to the verse in Genesis, when God says, “To dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19). Again, the metaphor is similar. Man is mortal, and eventually decomposes. However, not every piece of the Qur’an directly relates to the Bible, and many portions are in direct contrast.

In the 58^th surah, there is a portion that warns against befriending those “people whom God has condemned” (Surah 58). The text explains that those who reject God are the condemned ones. Let us now examine how this compares to the Bible. The second main assertion, that rejecting God in life leads to condemnation is certainly present in the Bible. The first point is more difficult to find. Something similar is said in the Old Testament, where God commands the Israelite not to “. . . intermarry with them (other nations) because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods” (1 Kings 11:2). This is similar to what is described in the Qur’an; though marriage and friendship are slightly different relationships. The main reason for the Israelites to avoid non-Israelites is to avoid temptation. This may not be the reasoning the Qur’an uses, so an examination of the context shall be required. Although only a relatively small sample of the book is available to provide said context, there is likely enough for accurate conclusions to be drawn.

In the passage in question (Surah 58:14-22), it is important to note that the main idea is a description of God’s coming wrath to those condemned. The last paragraph describes he coming glory for God’s followers, but otherwise the passage centers on wrath. There is no mention of the temptation that comes with befriending such people, it is instead implied (as far as I can tell) that because a person rejects God, it is a defilement to associate with them. This implication is strongly disputed by the Bible, which teaches to love neighbors and enemies (Mark 12:31, Matthew 5:44). There are no conditions given for this love, while the Qur’an indicates conditional love. Therefore, there is only a slight convergence here between the Qur’an and the Bible. For different reasons, and at different times, the followers of either texts are to avoid familiar relationships for those who reject God.

There are many elements of the Qur’an that display Bible-esque qualities. However not every aspect is comparable to the Bible. One instance of this occurs in the 60^th surah, which says that it is not forbidden to show kindness to unbelievers that do not persecute members of Islam, because God loves people that behave fairly (Surah 60). This instance implies several points that are contrary to biblical tradition. One of the large differences is that kindness to unbelievers is only ‘not forbidden’ when the unbeliever is not an enemy to the believer. This is contrary to the aforementioned biblical teaching of loving enemies (Matthew 5:44). The other main difference is that there is an implied limit to God’s love. God appears to love believers and those that behave nicely towards them. This indicates that God is out of patience with evil people, and that God’s love can be earned. This is in contrast to the classic go-to of John 3:16 as well as Romans 5:8. Both indicate that God loved the entirety of fallen humanity (no decency required) and therefore made salvation an option for anyone so desiring it. This portion of the surah is in clear contrast to biblical principles.

NOTE: I wasn’t sure how to cite the Qur’an, so for specific verses I used the Surah number, colon, and then the number given in the squiggly parentheses things.

Herbal Essences: A Response to St. Basil

In his work, “Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature,” St. Basil explains that the reader should study Greek works that extol virtue. One of the reasons for this is that we “. . . first accustom ourselves to the sun’s reflection in the water, and then become able to turn our eyes upon the very sun itself” (Basil.) Basil believes that people can learn virtue and how to think deeply through Pagan literature. This then enhances the spiritual life of the Christian. I find that the reasons for this are twofold. First, there is the practical reason extolled by standardized tests: reading works of literature improves general reading comprehension. This enables the educated Christian to read scripture and understand what it says. Obviously, it is difficult to get around to doing what the scriptures say if a person is unable to tackle figurative language, paragraph-long sentences, and large words.

The next reason Pagan literature is beneficial to the Christian is that it oftentimes displays Christian virtue. If a myth displays instances of courage, honor, and other noble causes, then it is beneficial to read. Furthermore, while teaching virtue, Greek literature naturally reflects Christianity. C.S. Lewis explains that Christianity is in many ways a “true myth” and that, “. . . the pagan stories are God expressing himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He formed there, while Christianity is God expressing himself through what we call ‘real things’” (Lewis). When the pagan writers wish to write something truly beautiful, they perhaps unavoidably instill virtue. Lewis indicates that not only do pagan writers instill virtue, but they also echo Christian themes. It makes sense that anything beautiful humankind creates is a reflection of the beauty of humankind’s Creator. In in his letter to the Colossians, Paul writes that religious festivals and rituals were, “. . . a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:17.) Although Paul is here speaking of Jewish traditions, is it not possible that certain Greek writings can also be reminiscent of Christian themes? If pagan writings remind the reader of Christianity, then they may naturally also aid in better understanding Christianity. Therefore, Pagan literature that reminds of Christianity is beneficial.

Later in the text, St. Basil makes some comments on health. He says that, “. . . I have even heard physicians say that over-healthiness is dangerous” (Basil.) This is to emphasize his point that being overly healthy can be just as bad as being over-indulgent. Though his exact phrasing is questionable, (over-healthiness is dangerous to health?) he is quite right in insinuating that obsession with physical health can harm spiritual health and the ability to think deeply. By becoming especially fit, a person is in danger of idolizing their body. (Recall the myth of Narcissus.) The person obsessed with fitness begins to place more value in the physical world, and has another reason to be prideful. Next, the person becomes so mired in the physical world that they can begin to forget that they are mortal. They can become so obsessed that their entire life revolves around training, and they spend excessive amounts of time and energy devoted to the perfect diet. That’s not to say that washboard abs are the root of all evil. In general, though, it is not beneficial to spend every waking thought devoted to health, just as it is frowned upon to spend hours a day eating twinkies. Six-pack obsessions, whether of the consumable or abdominal variety, are not the best way to spend the majority of time.

Sources:

The Bible (NIV)

C.S. Lewis “Letter to Arthur Greeves on the myth of Christianity”