I snicker every time I hear someone comment, "It's not rocket science." I shake my head and think, "I know it's not, because I wanted to be a rocket scientist." God possesses a marvelous sense of humor. During my junior and senior years in high school, I resolved that I would pursue a career as an astronautical engineer. After a series of decisions, I went from majoring in engineering to majoring in liberal arts. I earned an Associate's degree in liberal arts, a Bachelor's degree in Christian studies, and now I am pursuing a Master's degree in philosophy of religion. So, needless to say, I am currently bobbing around in an academic realm far from where I started.
I still love physical sciences. I am fascinated by the advancements in physics and chemistry, and puzzled by biology. This is not to say that I dislike biology because of its apparent contradictions to the beliefs that I hold. Rather, I am puzzled by biology in much the same way that I am puzzled by computer sciences. I am mesmerized by the intricacies of the cell and the functions that occur within the cell.
Even though I no longer study the physical sciences in a formal fashion, I still comprehend the importance of them. I like a man torn between two directions, as I enjoy the physical sciences as well as humanities. I think both are important and that both are needed. The physical sciences should not deem themselves capable to cover all knowledge nor should the humanities believe that they can solve all of the problems.
Since I am confessing (part of the point of this blog), I will say that I am Thomistic in my understanding of the sciences. I do not believe in a definite demarcation between what is general hailed as "science" and "non-science." Those who disagree with my previous statement will be hard-pressed to say otherwise (at this point, I would defer to Alex Rosenberg and Samir Okasha, with their respective books on philosophy of science), for the definitions will tend to be so broad that they would allow intuitive non-science items to be considered science, or they would be so narrow as to exclude genuine scientific endeavors. I think that theology, philosophy, and history are as much science as physics, astronomy, and biology. This belief rests upon the notion that truth touches all things. Therefore, truth (in the conformity sense) will be consistent with what is found in other areas, otherwise a reevaluation of the presuppositions, data, and hypothesis is required.
Christians that deem science unnecessary need to rethink what they are claiming about God. Those in the scientific community that would dismiss faith and religion need to rethink the faith that they already hold. Are you willing to deny the foundation upon which you already stand?
Alvin Plantinga, in his work Where the Conflict Really Lies, tackles the issue of faith and science. Ultimately, conflict between science and faith is possible because the two areas overlap, but faith and science will not conflict ultimately because both deal with the consistent whole of reality. Therefore, for you to be a better theologian, become more knowledgeable about scientific issues; to be a better scientist, become more knowledgeable in theology. Simply put, follow in the footsteps of William Lane Craig and John Lennox.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
The Second Man is First
I remember sitting in Greek class, working on translating passages from the Gospel of John, and reading John the Baptist's remarks about Jesus: This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ What caught my attention is that John is older than Jesus by at least six months. So, one might be puzzled when John states that Jesus is before John. Christianity stands or falls with understanding the person and work of Jesus (which seems like an obvious statement: no Christ, no Christianity). Therefore, I want to make a few comments on who this man is and why he is vital for Christianity.
Jesus is God the Son incarnate (which is a fancy word for "in the flesh"). He did not simply assume a body, but he took on human nature in such a way that he is both fully God and fully man. A denial of either of those points makes someone something other than Christian.
Jesus became incarnate in order to die in the place of man (as God stated that death is the penalty of sin). As God, Jesus could satisfy God for all people. If Jesus was not man, then he had no right to die in the place of man. If Jesus was not God, then, at best, he could only satisfy God for himself and no other.
The Christian faith is built upon Jesus being the Son of God, who died, was buried, and rose on the third day so that sinners might be reconciled to God.
Not to beat a dead horse, but a person cannot be a Christian by rejecting (1) Jesus as ever living, (2) Jesus as fully God (the same substance, not someone who became God), (3) Jesus died, and (4) Jesus rose bodily. That said, people may claim to be Christians, but they cannot be so if they deny any of the points laid out in the Nicene Creed. While Christianity is more than that, it is not less than that.
Jesus is God the Son incarnate (which is a fancy word for "in the flesh"). He did not simply assume a body, but he took on human nature in such a way that he is both fully God and fully man. A denial of either of those points makes someone something other than Christian.
Jesus became incarnate in order to die in the place of man (as God stated that death is the penalty of sin). As God, Jesus could satisfy God for all people. If Jesus was not man, then he had no right to die in the place of man. If Jesus was not God, then, at best, he could only satisfy God for himself and no other.
The Christian faith is built upon Jesus being the Son of God, who died, was buried, and rose on the third day so that sinners might be reconciled to God.
Not to beat a dead horse, but a person cannot be a Christian by rejecting (1) Jesus as ever living, (2) Jesus as fully God (the same substance, not someone who became God), (3) Jesus died, and (4) Jesus rose bodily. That said, people may claim to be Christians, but they cannot be so if they deny any of the points laid out in the Nicene Creed. While Christianity is more than that, it is not less than that.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Beauty in the eye of the beholder? I think not.
I would like to spend a few posts in pondering upon values. Contemporary culture finds its motivation in value everyday, most evidently in monetary fashion. While money makes the most obvious display of value, I want to direct your eyes to art. I had the privilege of getting to know a local artist, Keith Martin Johns (http://www.keithmartinjohns.net/), while I finished my Bachelor's Degree. During our conversations, we would discuss the importance of values in painting. The values affect the lighting of the colors. Values of colors are not the only values displayed in art, for art more often than not also displays moral values and truth values.
The arts form a powerful medium for communicating values. This is a close personal topic for me. If I received news that the Louvre was destroyed, I would be heartbroken, mourning the loss of so many masterpieces. On the other hand, if the Museum of Modern Art burned to the ground tomorrow, I would not shed a tear. Something is lacking, or rather, the values held by the artists whose works reside in the Museum of Modern Art differ drastically from mine.
Contemporary thought holds that beauty is purely subjective and relative. I do not see how this could be. Or perhaps I am slightly biased. As a Christian, I hold to the existence of objective beauty, and I deny the truthfulness of the statement, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I believe in objective beauty because my God is beautiful, and he forms the basis from which all else comes forth. Beauty is grounded in God, and ugliness is the privation of beauty.
In my affirmation of real beauty, I also hold that ugliness is not a substance but a lack of beauty. While ugliness does not exist substantially, I do believe that some things are genuinely ugly. Thus, some things we should enjoy and other things we should abhor.
In this remarking of values, my mind is drawn to something that is often forgotten until tax time: an appraiser. Everyone has an appraiser, or some means whereby values are weighed and prioritized. For the Christian, that appraiser should be God and his priorities. This means that what God deems most important, Christians should deem most important. I am pestered to no end with two mantras from my contemporaries: Whatever makes you happy, and it's your choice. These are the appraisers for today, but these are not the appraisers that should be embraced by Christians. The appraiser set forth in the Bible is the call to be holy. This is the overriding statement that should govern the Christian: will this make me holy? Will this help make someone else holy? Is this a holy thing to do or participate in?
If we strive for holiness, all else should fall into place. So, enjoy true beauty where you see it, especially that which is around you.
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
--Psalm 19:1 (ESV)
The arts form a powerful medium for communicating values. This is a close personal topic for me. If I received news that the Louvre was destroyed, I would be heartbroken, mourning the loss of so many masterpieces. On the other hand, if the Museum of Modern Art burned to the ground tomorrow, I would not shed a tear. Something is lacking, or rather, the values held by the artists whose works reside in the Museum of Modern Art differ drastically from mine.
Contemporary thought holds that beauty is purely subjective and relative. I do not see how this could be. Or perhaps I am slightly biased. As a Christian, I hold to the existence of objective beauty, and I deny the truthfulness of the statement, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I believe in objective beauty because my God is beautiful, and he forms the basis from which all else comes forth. Beauty is grounded in God, and ugliness is the privation of beauty.
In my affirmation of real beauty, I also hold that ugliness is not a substance but a lack of beauty. While ugliness does not exist substantially, I do believe that some things are genuinely ugly. Thus, some things we should enjoy and other things we should abhor.
In this remarking of values, my mind is drawn to something that is often forgotten until tax time: an appraiser. Everyone has an appraiser, or some means whereby values are weighed and prioritized. For the Christian, that appraiser should be God and his priorities. This means that what God deems most important, Christians should deem most important. I am pestered to no end with two mantras from my contemporaries: Whatever makes you happy, and it's your choice. These are the appraisers for today, but these are not the appraisers that should be embraced by Christians. The appraiser set forth in the Bible is the call to be holy. This is the overriding statement that should govern the Christian: will this make me holy? Will this help make someone else holy? Is this a holy thing to do or participate in?
If we strive for holiness, all else should fall into place. So, enjoy true beauty where you see it, especially that which is around you.
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
--Psalm 19:1 (ESV)
Monday, November 3, 2014
Defending Philosophy
On days when I am not masquerading as a theologian, I spend time encouraging people to tackle philosophical issues. Contrary to popular opinion, philosophy does not deal entirely with the existence of nothing or "can God make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?" or even "what is a chair?" Philosophy, similar to other disciplines, finds its definition to be very muddy, while at the same time, philosophy is a vital discipline that would cause the demise of most all other disciplines should it collapse.
Philosophy seeks to understand the underlying structures that compose both itself and other disciplines. How one answers certain philosophical questions will determine how one will answer other questions in a discipline (at least, if one desires to be consistent in thinking, which is a thought built upon the law of non-contradiction). For example, in answering the question, "What is ultimate reality composed of?" if one should choose to answer "merely material," then one precludes any immaterial concepts into the discussion. Thus, things like God, angels, and ideas cannot even be considered as real things.
Some people follow Kant's conclusion, that faith and reason (and by extension, philosophy) are in separate, non-overlapping spheres. Thus, some advocate that the Bible alone is sufficient. These individuals would refer to the admonition not to fall into vain philosophy. Others take the opposite position that faith bears no relevance in the search for truth. The robust Christian worldview sees faith and reason as extensions of a unified whole.
Yes, philosophy does examine questions about knowledge, ethics, identity, but these are not superfluous endeavors. Understanding identity helps people to understand how a person remains the same thing over time (whatever that means). To elaborate a touch further, suppose that materialism is true, so that all that is real is and only is material. On this premise, one should be lead to the conclusion that a thing is the composition of its parts. Therefore, any loss of a part means the thing is no longer the same thing. It is not identical with what it once was (in a non-technical manner of speaking). If you lose a cell, you have ceased to be and something else stands where you once stood. To continue the thought, most all of your cells are replaced over the years. Thus, whoever stole the cookie from the jar, that could not be you, because you are not composed of the exact identical parts that composed the six-year-old boy (unless you are just now a six-year-old boy with his hand in the cookie jar, which could still be argued that you are not the same person as the thief). Accountability becomes a mushy concept to enforce. Not that that in and of itself disqualifies physicalism from being true, but the experiment helps to show that clarification is needed on the matters, especially when the entailment of our beliefs run contrary to our intuitions (at which point here, I will defer to my good friend, Randy Everist, who is fascinated with intuition and has several good articles on the matter http://www.randyeverist.com/2011/04/argument-for-intuition.html ).
As frustrating as it can be, I enjoy philosophy because it forces one to focus on the vital points. That said, I still scratch my head over the Ship of Theseus. The only comfort I have after thinking on Theseus's ship is that I find it disanalogous to people in that people are not merely physical and that the immaterial aspect preserves their identities.
Philosophy seeks to understand the underlying structures that compose both itself and other disciplines. How one answers certain philosophical questions will determine how one will answer other questions in a discipline (at least, if one desires to be consistent in thinking, which is a thought built upon the law of non-contradiction). For example, in answering the question, "What is ultimate reality composed of?" if one should choose to answer "merely material," then one precludes any immaterial concepts into the discussion. Thus, things like God, angels, and ideas cannot even be considered as real things.
Some people follow Kant's conclusion, that faith and reason (and by extension, philosophy) are in separate, non-overlapping spheres. Thus, some advocate that the Bible alone is sufficient. These individuals would refer to the admonition not to fall into vain philosophy. Others take the opposite position that faith bears no relevance in the search for truth. The robust Christian worldview sees faith and reason as extensions of a unified whole.
Yes, philosophy does examine questions about knowledge, ethics, identity, but these are not superfluous endeavors. Understanding identity helps people to understand how a person remains the same thing over time (whatever that means). To elaborate a touch further, suppose that materialism is true, so that all that is real is and only is material. On this premise, one should be lead to the conclusion that a thing is the composition of its parts. Therefore, any loss of a part means the thing is no longer the same thing. It is not identical with what it once was (in a non-technical manner of speaking). If you lose a cell, you have ceased to be and something else stands where you once stood. To continue the thought, most all of your cells are replaced over the years. Thus, whoever stole the cookie from the jar, that could not be you, because you are not composed of the exact identical parts that composed the six-year-old boy (unless you are just now a six-year-old boy with his hand in the cookie jar, which could still be argued that you are not the same person as the thief). Accountability becomes a mushy concept to enforce. Not that that in and of itself disqualifies physicalism from being true, but the experiment helps to show that clarification is needed on the matters, especially when the entailment of our beliefs run contrary to our intuitions (at which point here, I will defer to my good friend, Randy Everist, who is fascinated with intuition and has several good articles on the matter http://www.randyeverist.com/2011/04/argument-for-intuition.html ).
As frustrating as it can be, I enjoy philosophy because it forces one to focus on the vital points. That said, I still scratch my head over the Ship of Theseus. The only comfort I have after thinking on Theseus's ship is that I find it disanalogous to people in that people are not merely physical and that the immaterial aspect preserves their identities.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Shadows in a Cave
I recently discussed the use of shadows as a means to express the desire and longing of Christians for the fulfillment of all things. Christians find themselves in a tense position, with a foot in two worlds and an inclination to exclude one or the other.
Shadows and symbols are real things, but they both point to something greater. Plato used the concept of shadows in his story of the cave. For those unfamiliar with the story, Plato tells of a situation where men were raised without ever seeing something itself. Rather, they faced a wall in a cave, and they could only see the shadows cast upon the wall be objects. Thus, they came to believe that the shadows themselves were the objects. One of the prisoners escapes, and he sees the things themselves, realizing that this is reality and that the shadows only pointed to the things. I am not sorry for my disagreement with Kant, for I believe that things themselves can be known (not necessarily comprehensively, but known nonetheless).
This world is real, and Christians must not fail to engage with it. At the same time, this world is a shadow of the world to come.Therefore, the Chrstian should live her life here as if she is already in the world to come.
Monday, October 13, 2014
I think, therefore I am.
One of my intentions for producing this blog is to share my
beliefs. Beliefs are a funny thing, especially in light of today’s emphasis on
relativity and pluralism. What we believe, we hold to be true. Moreover, what
is contrary to our beliefs, we hold to be false. No one meaningfully says, “I
believe today is Monday, but I don’t think this is true.”
Of my beliefs, here is one of the most important to me: I
believe in God. This little statement could be unpacked to fill up a book
(which many have done without exhausting the subject). One piece of evidence to
support my belief in God’s existence is that I don’t need to existence. That I
exist, I cannot deny, but it is possible that I could go out of existence at
any moment. Furthermore, there was a time when I did not exist. Because I exist
contingently, there must be something that I depend upon at this very instance
for my existence. This thing that I depend upon cannot itself be contingent,
rather, it must be a necessary thing.
This necessary thing must be God. God is the greatest
possible being, which means that there can be only one (and no, God is not a
Highlander). There has never been a time, nor will there ever be a time when
God does not exist.
This God possesses the omni-attributes: omnipotence,
omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc. This means that there is nothing greater
than God.
Lastly, the God I believe in is the triune God that has
revealed himself in the Old and New Testament and in the incarnation of the
Second Person of the trinity starting 2,000 years ago in Israel as Jesus of
Nazareth. This God is a holy and loving God who despises sin, yet who loves
humanity, his creation so much, that he himself has provided the means for
humans to be reconciled to himself. The means of justification consists in the
sacrifice of Jesus specifically to atone for humans in the place of humans.
Rejection of this sacrifice leaves one condemn, facing eternal separation from
the presence of this holy God.
This belief of God’s existence governs my actions and serves
as the standard whereby I examine the values I hold. Moreover, because I
believe in this God, my life is focused on serving him and seeking to have my
passions match his. This includes seeking for those whom he seeks for, namely
those people who do not acknowledge him.
I look forward to the next post, when I might be able to
share some more of my beliefs and thoughts (thankfully, I have thoughts. This
means I don’t have to worry and wonder as to whether or not I exist).
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
In the Beginning...
As I put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keys and color pixels on screens), let me briefly introduce myself. My name is Ethan Tittle, and I am an evangelical Christian residing within the Southern Baptist denomination. I am a staunch defender of truth, wherever it may be found, and I have a voracious appetite for learning. I am a husband, married just over seven years at the time of this posting, married to the wonderful woman in my life, Amy. I am greatly concerned for the world wherein I live, and I wish to make a difference.
I seem to hold beliefs that popular culture deems to be outdated, but I hold these beliefs to be true (otherwise, I would not believe them). I believe in the importance of ideas, and that what one believes affects what a person does.
I love philosophy, theology, history, math, chemistry, physics, etc.... I basically enjoy far more than I should, especially in light of how little time I am allotted. I believe that one's worldview should be comprehensive, touching all aspects of one's life and making sense out of the diversity in the world.
Lastly, I seek to be a faithful witness of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. My hope is that this blog with its postings may serve as an opportunity for myself to articulate my beliefs in a clear, concise, and cogent manner, and that you, the reader, may provide a means of dialogue within this marketplace of ideas. The issues and topics that I touch will be handled in a respectful manner, and any questions or comments that you have, I ask that you write in kind.
I am looking forward to the time and postings to come. Until next time.
I seem to hold beliefs that popular culture deems to be outdated, but I hold these beliefs to be true (otherwise, I would not believe them). I believe in the importance of ideas, and that what one believes affects what a person does.
I love philosophy, theology, history, math, chemistry, physics, etc.... I basically enjoy far more than I should, especially in light of how little time I am allotted. I believe that one's worldview should be comprehensive, touching all aspects of one's life and making sense out of the diversity in the world.
Lastly, I seek to be a faithful witness of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. My hope is that this blog with its postings may serve as an opportunity for myself to articulate my beliefs in a clear, concise, and cogent manner, and that you, the reader, may provide a means of dialogue within this marketplace of ideas. The issues and topics that I touch will be handled in a respectful manner, and any questions or comments that you have, I ask that you write in kind.
I am looking forward to the time and postings to come. Until next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)