Probabilites

In reading C.S. Lewis’s Miracles, he brings up the point that those who believe in the laws of Nature generally disbelieve God could be incarnate in the man of Christ, because it breaks the laws of Nature. It is a miracle. The laws of Nature are such because they are observed as commonplace, or probable. If those who believe in the laws of Nature believe only in the probable, then one reason for disbelief in the Incarnation is it happened only once. This poses one problem to their line of thinking since history happens only once.

In another essay, “Reason and Belief in God,” by Alvin Platinga, he brings up the argument of some that if God's existence is not proven, then a person should believe that God does not exist. In fact, we should start from the position of atheism, and demand that anyone who believes in God's existence should prove it. But why should atheism be the default? The ‘Evidentialists,’ as Platinga calls them, state that the existence of evil disproves the good God that Christianity describes. Is their disbelief in God based, then, on probability? The destructive nature of the universe disqualifies a caring God; evil disqualifies a good God. Is atheism the starting point because it is more probable that evil things will happen, or bad results will happen, rather than a miracle. As Lewis says, "A miracle by definition is an exception." So the atheist can say he is more of a 'realist' because his pessimism better predicts the negative outcome. He can say it is more probable that the Christian God does not exist because of events. The sea is more likely to drowned people in a shipwreck than part so they can walk to shore.

But if it is a question of probability, there may be a flaw in their acceptance of the natural law that acts contrary to God. The theory of Occham's Razor states the simplest explanation of something is most likely the true one. For instance, I could theorize that the woman at the counter smiled and said hello because she would like me to ask for her phone number so as to ask her on a date so as to develop a relationship so as to eventually marry me and have children. Or I could theorize she’s a polite person. The latter is more likely to be true because it is the simplest theory. In regards to natural law vs. God, and specifically the Big Bang theory vs. Creation, the former, promoted by the atheist, accepts a more complex theory, starting with the pre-existence of gasses that collide to cause an explosion, which causes the movement of matter, which then aggregates to become bodies which then arrange themselves by gravity, and so on for many more steps to come to human life on earth. The rarity of human life on earth has now come to illustrate the theory of Divine Intelligence, which states the universe is the design of a Creator, but does not mean describing its history as a literal biblical interpretation would, making the earth four thousand years old. Life on earth -- flora and fauna – is improbable, especially considering the destructive nature of the universe. The proof is in the lack of such life on other planets that we know of. When it comes down to it, the theory of a Divine Intelligence creating life becomes the simpler and more probable theory. If I were a betting man, I would bet on Divine Intelligence.

The Material and the Metaphysical

I.A. Richards, in Poetries and Sciences, differentiates between truths and “pseudo-statements,” what is more commonly called facts and opinions. Truths are proven by empirical evidence, pseudo-statements cannot be proven by this method. The pseudo-statement may be true, but it cannot be proven. Science presents statements of truth; math presents pure truth. Myth, religion, metaphysics, poetry, all make pseudo-statements. Science is informed, and therefore good for humankind. The others mentioned are ignorant, and a frame of thinking, of believing in “magic,” that was outmoded centuries ago. Richards doesn’t hide his judgment. Strange thing is his statements are pseudo-statements. Just by his word usage – calling all things metaphysical to be magic – he berates anyone who thinks there is something other than the material. I will refer to his scientific perspective as materialistic, and his magical perspective as metaphysical.

I do not intend to try to prove God with empirical evidence. I am not an apologist. I write from the point of one who has already embraced and espoused Christianity. My contention with Richards, at this point, is his pseudo-statement that those who believe the metaphysical perspective are more limited than those who have the materialistic perspective.

The restriction of the metaphysical perspective isn’t ignorance, but it may very well be moral. As a Christian I have abstained from promiscuity, drunkenness, recreational drug use. Many, unfortunately, would describe my life, and my knowledge, as very limited. The fact that I don’t know what a “tea-bag” is when it comes to homo-eroticism proves that. (Incidentally, I have no intention to investigate this further, but I have heard references in pop culture, like the TV show Family Guy.) I would not classify it as ignorance. I may just as well turn the argument on them: they don’t know what it is to be committed, or to have a religious vision, or what baptism in the Holy Spirit is. It seems to me that to classify knowledge as only attainable of what is material is quite restricted.
(This was a journal entry from January, 2009)

The Question of Absolute Moral Law

A Review of Peter Kreeft's C.S. Lewis for the Third Millennium

This is a collection of six essays by Peter Kreeft that center especially on C. S. Lewis’s book Abolition of Man. Kreeft considers the book as prophetic in portraying mankind as lacking souls when they deny “natural moral law,” what Lewis called the “Tao.” The Tao is made of absolute morals understood by members of humanity, whatever culture they live in. Kreeft puts this assertion against that of Thomas Aquinas, who said that natural law can never be abolished from the heart of man. The author tends to agree with Lewis, and offers contemporary issues, like abortion, to this point, though he finds he cannot completely refute Aquinas. He also includes Walker Percy’s Lost in the Cosmos as a humorous treatment of Lewis’s point. But Lewis could also be optimistic, as demonstrated in the cosmic dance portrayed in his science fiction novel, Perelandra, in which joyful cosmology replaces the joyless. The proof of which argument is right can only be provided by mankind in the future. Kreeft wants to be optimistic, and so ends “Please be a saint.”

There is some repetition between this book and Kreeft’s Culture War. This book is more of the academic work; the other is more conversational in tone, but also the tone of political rhetoric. This book is stronger on philosophy, lesser on contemporary applications.