The Language of Faith

 The Language of Faith

Aquinas while writing in a time before religious language ever came into question none the less was aware that religious language was not quite the same as normal language. Aquinas knew that God was not a person, and so therefore couldn’t be communicated about in the same way that an object which is inside the universe can be communicated about. After all God is an infinite being who is also transcendent and necessary human language is used to describe things which are contingent and is something that we experience through sight, sound, touch, taste and smell and give in turn a sound which corresponds to its nature. Linking back to Ferdinand de Saussure’s Semiotics we would say that something we experience with give a sign  e.g. A device I experience which disperses ink in links a give the sign ‘pen’. Pen is made up of the signifier ‘P’ ‘E’ ‘N’ which in turns refers to the concept that the thing corresponds to which is as stated earlier something which disperses link in lines.

Bit off topic but anyway thus if we say ‘God is heaven’ it is grammatically similar to, but logically different from saying ‘Moses is on the Mountain’. If it were not then we would be accused of anthropomorphising God. It is also a form of literalism which is a mistake when things are taken literally instead of metaphorically for example creationists or biblical literalists.

Religious Use of Analogy

Aquinas proposed that to avoid committing logical error we use analogy. An analogy is a literary device by which one thing is compared to another. Aquinas held that this was possible because we are in some way related to God (i.e. made in his image and his likeness ) yet we must be aware that language about God is bound to be as limited and inadequate as our limited understanding of God’s nature (epistemic distance ).

For Aquinas there were two kinds of Analogy

1)      Analogy of Attribution

2)      Analogy of Proportion

When we say God is wise or God is love we are using the analogy of attribution. In other words we are giving God qualities that are highly esteemed by human beings

An analogy of proportion is when we realise that God is proportionately greater than human qualities for example God Is omnipotent or God is omnibenevolent.

To sum up

Aquinas concluded that there were three ways in which God is talked about.

1) Equivocal (WRONG) this is to speak of God in a different scene from how we speak if earthly things. This is wrong as we don’t know about none earthly things it is beyond our experience (link to Hume)

2) Univocal (WRONG) this is to speak of God is the same sense as we speak of earthly things – God is limited

3) Analogical (RIGHT) this is to speak of God cautiously by comparison with earthly things- There are two types Attribution and Proportion.

Ian Ramsy preferred to talk in terms of models and qualifiers. To say that God is wise is to employ model ‘wisdom’ from everyday experience. To say that God is ‘infinitely’ wise is to use the qualifier ‘infinitely’ to describe the uniqueness of God. According to Ramsey this ‘lights up’ the meaning of God and leads to a ‘religious disclosure’ which in turn leads to a religious commitment.

Ramsy wanted above all to show that religious language is above all not descriptive but more evocative, meaning that its purpose is not to arrive at an accurate description but evocative meaning. Religious languages purpose is not to arrive at an accurate description of God, but to instead to move the believer to make a religious response to a being who is ultimately beyond words and whose significance is ultimately beyond the grasp of human understanding.  

(And yes I will be linking Ramsy to religious art just as soon as I can dig myself out of the biology paper hole I am currently drowning in )

Location: Home

Music: The Front Bottoms- The Front Bottoms 

Start: ???

Finish: Too late

Basil Mitchell              

Michell states that Flew makes an error in his analysis of the religious believer because the Christian attitude is not that of the detached observer, but that of the believer.

Mitchell is different than Flew as he is saying essentially that there is a bigger picture. Just because of one aspect of God may be put into question such as ‘God is omnibenevolent ‘when there is the existence of evil it doesn’t mean that all other statements about God are meaningless.  

For example a stranger may see two friends fighting. To the stranger it may appear that the two friends are in fact mortal enemies however this is not the true. The stranger applying the falsification principle would say that the friends are not open to being wrong and so that there statement ‘we are friends’ is meaningless however this no correct. While the strangers reasoning according to the principle is correct he is still in fact wrong due to his inability to see the whole picture, it is not through any fault of his own but rather just lack of experience.

Mitchell agrees with Flew in that religious language is an assertion however unlike Flew, Mitchell sees these assertions as explanations rather than pure assertions. Mitchell believes that these explanations when out together give a picture of God they are parts of a picture that makes up God rather than meaningless vague statements that a theist will fall back on when trying to justify a position

 ‘God loves humanity’ is not conclusively falsifiable but it can be treated in one of the three following ways.

11)      As provisional hypotheses to be discarded if the experience goes against them.

22)      As significant articles of faith, something of belief (but not of meaning?)

33)      As vacuous formulae (help what does that mean!?) to which experience makes no difference and makes no difference in real life.

Mitchell Summary

Religious language makes truth claims about the world

Individual religious statements need to be put in the border context of the whole belief system

Religious language is not open to falsification because it is a matter of faith  

Falsification Notes Right Up

The Falsification principle

‘In order to say something that is possibly true about the world we must say something that is possibly false’ -Anthony Flew

The falsification theory is that an assertion is meaningless if there is no way in which it could be falsified. The falsification principle is not concerned with what may make something true, but with what can in principle make it false.

For example it is meaningful to say that it will rain tomorrow as it is also possible that it won’t.   

Karl Popper linked the falsification principle to scientific theory after all after a scientific experiment is complete the results must be tested against a null hypothesis, in other words it must be proven that the data is not due to chance.

 ‘The scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, refutability or testability’ – Karl Popper

For example Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was a scientific theory as it was potentially falsifiable; however the claims of mystic astrologers are so vague that they cannot be possibly wrong and so in the eyes of Popper or Flew are meaningless.    

So how does this relate to religion?

Well if the principle is drawn to belief statements such as ‘Jesus is the incarnation of God’ then they are meaningless as (most) believers are unable to accept that they are wrong. If these claims are too be ever verified than they must be put through the scientific method of testing… which we know will never happen  as God is outside the universe and so it is impossible to empirically prove his existence anyway.

Antony Flew goes on to say that even if there is evidence of Gods non-existence that it is near impossible to show it to a theist. It seems to flew that there is no event or series of events that would ever convince the ‘sophisticated religious person’ that there wasn’t a God after all. (Which I don’t believe is true as it is not unheard of for people to lose their faith after events of suffering)

Flew uses the Parable of the gardener to illustrate his point it goes as follows:

There are two explores out in the depths of the jungle when they chance upon a clearing containing many flowers. One explorer believes that the clearing is the result of a gardener while the other believes that it is merely a naturally occurring phenomenon. They decide to test the theory and so they set up their tents by the clearing and wait. No gardener shows, one explore says that they haven’t seen the gardener because he is invisible, and so they set up a barbed wire fence and electrify it (mabe that’s why they never find the gardener, because he come back to his garden and two men have put barbed wire round it not sure how I would react but I certainly wouldn’t try and go back in……) The men bring blood hounds to try and smell the invisible gardener but still they find nothing. The believer is not convinced he still insists there is a gardener just that he is now invisible, intangible, insensible (to electric shocks ) and also makes no sound nor gives off no scent. The sceptic at last despairs and says ‘But what remains of our original assertion?’

‘Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?’

What Flew is trying to demonstrate is that religious people are like the believing explore. Flew suggests that God dies a ‘death by a thousand qualifications’

By this phrase Flew meant that when a religious believer is challenged about any statement to do with God his response is to always modify the way in which they talk about God in order to respond to the challenge. Believers change and alter their explanations by responding with an equally vague and unfalisifiable statement.

Flew argues that believers end up modifying their statements about God so much when challenged that the statements no longer resemble the original claim about God. (in other words what was said before God dies a death from a thousand qualifications )

Problems of the falsification principle coming soon

location : Library

Start: 2nd 

Finish 3rd

Music: Favorite Worst Nightmare -Arctic monkeys 

Can Conversations About God Have Meaning ? Notes

Ferdinand de Saussure Semiotics
A Sign = A label that we give to a thing in order to be able to communicate about them. For example a pen

A Signifier = The form the sign takes using the previous example 'P-E-N'

Signified = The concept or thing that the sign refers to.

Even if someone has the idea of the sign and the signifier,if they do not have a concept of the what the signified is then it still makes no scene. This is a massive problem for religious language. Hume would say that we cannot conclude on what is beyond our universe as it to is beyond our understanding and ability to verify. Even in religion there is an epistemic distance between us and God. There is a physical limit to how much we can come to know about God. No matter what we will never fully be able to comprehend fully what God is. As you can see if we cannot (fully) comprehend what God the Signified is then it makes no logical scene to meaningfully talk about the concept that is God.

Kant
In Kant's Conceptual Schemes he suggests that some signs are universal, and that some concepts are innate, meaning that there are somethings that no matter the experience that humans have a concept of.
This was taken by some theologians to argue that everybody innately has a concept of a divine being.
However
Kant believes that these things that we have innate ideas of aren't actually real and just how we perceive reality as a result it doesn't mean that God exists just we have a concept of what he is, which in turn however would be enough for people like Anselm to prove his existence.

Religious Language 
Religious language or 'God Talk' is being able to talk about God in a meaningful and coherent manner. The problem arises when we ask what can meaningfully be said about God ?
The debate over religious language is not concerned with whether God exists or what God is like or why there is evil in the world. The only thing the debate is interested in is working out whether said language actually means anything.

On one side there is the view that we use are reason and our language given to us by God to speak and write about God in a meaningful manner. For example theologian scholars such as Augustine, Aquinas or Anselm.

On the other side there are the logical positivists and those they influence who claim that statements about God have no meaning because they don't relate to anything that is meaningful.

What Can we Verify ?

What can we actually meaningfully verify about the world we live in ?

Well according to the philosophical idea of logical positivism the answer is very little .
Logical positivists emerged during the 1920s form a group known as the Vienna circle. Heavily influenced by the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russel and the work of Albert Einstein on general and special relativity. A.J Ayer set out the principles of logical positivism in his 1936 book language, truth and logic.
(which is currently on its way to may house off amazon )

The Vienna circle was made up of many forward thinking philosophers (most of whom who were also scientifically trained), mathematicians, social scientists and physicists. One of the key influences of the circle was the destruction wrought by world war one, having witnessed such events. These people were all committed to rebuilding society in way that they deemed proper. The circle focused on the question of how we know what we know.



Interestingly almost all the of the Vienna circle are said to have been socialist and live a area known as 'red Vienna'.

The Verification Principle and Religious Language 
'If a statement is neither analytically nor empirically true verifiable then it says nothing about reality and is therefore meaningless'
                                   A.J. Ayer
The verification principle stated that if we cannot ever prove a statement to be true then it is meaningless.
When applied to religious language and the question of if we can meaningfully talk about God the verification principle states that religious language is meaningless. This is a result of our inability to ever prove Gods existence empirically or analytically (although theists such as Anselm would argue otherwise )
The verification principle is NOT saying that God does/doesn't exist but rather it is saying that views on theism, atheism or being agnostic have no other meaning than personal importance. This is much like the view of Wittgenstein and language games, to him when people say that 'God does/doesn't exist' all they are saying is that they are playing different language games and debate on the subject is meaningless.

Types of Verification

Strong Verification

This is when a there is no doubt that a metaphysical statement is meaningful. For example a triangle has three sides

Weak Verification 

When there is no absolute proof but there is a strong likely hood of truth. ( Surely this is subjective ? who decides how likely something is to be true) 

Practical Variability

Refers to statements that can be tested in reality. The significance of this is that practical verification allows science to be meaningful. despite the subjectivity of our experience of reality.  

For example it is possible to test the effect of pH on enzyme activity note  however it is harder to test whether life exists on other planets.

The verification principle does not accept the existence of God proven through religious experience as it is impossible to test or recreate the experience as a result also this means that no historical, ethical or scientific laws can be absolutely verified although Ayer allowed that scientific laws have the potential to be one day verified and so are exempt .(Weak Verification )

So What Can We Know ?

According to the verification principle the only statements that we can hold to be meaningful are those which are analytically true or those that can be tested empirically . Statements which we know a-priori are meaningful as they are true by definition (tautologys) for example 'the circle is round'.

(responses to logical positivism coming soon)

(just cleaning up some bits )

would also like to share this link to a bbc podcast on logical positivism.

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lbsj3

Start time : 2:43 Tuesday the 11th of November 

Finish :

Record Playing: 'The 59 sound' The Gaslight Anthem 

Location: My room

Nature of Faith

The Nature Of Faith Wright-Up

So this isn't going to that interesting to read. This more for me to have summarise all the key ideas to do with the faith side of our syllabus in one place. (it's (really) really long). Also sorry about how its got all compressed I'll try and fix that.

Propositional Faith  

·         Propositional faith is the view that there is an objective reality to which we can ascribe the term God to.

·         Within this reality we can make claims about this God which can be objectively true. For example; Despite not having firsthand experience it would still be possible (within propositional faith ) to say 'I believe that God is an objective omnipotent being'

Non-Propositional Faith  

·         Non-propositional faith describes a trust in God that may be held even when evidence or experience seem to point against it.

·         This is often faith which must be based in some personal knowledge of God and not simply in the acceptance of the facts about him.

This would suggest knowledge of God that has come through a religious experience (revelation ? ) as opposed to simply following the religious doctrine.

·         Some would say that this is the most meaningful type of faith , since faith is not just believing things to be true but rather participating in a relationship with the object of faith i.e. God

·         Non-Propositional Faith means taking a risk, this is a risk characterised by subjective knowledge. Religious faith after all requires speculation about the matters beyond that of which science can prove.

Kierkegaard- Postponement Theory

·         Postponement theory maintains that religious faith depends on a commitment that requires religious believers not to abandon their faith even when it is seriously challenged. For example challenged by the problem of evil.

·         When rational arguments to support their belief fails the believer must take an intellectual leap of faith that enables them to hold onto their faith. This also applies when experience challenges the faith of the believer.

·         Kierkegaard used his idea of an intellectual leap of faith idea for belief in God in the first place. He believed  that we can only intellectualise God so far at the end of the day we have to take a intellectual leap of faith with our reason and come to believed in God. Kierkegaard believed that religious experiences are something that helps us take this 'leap of faith'

Kierkegaard is saying that we should not postpone our belief because of contradictory evidence or to not believe because of a lack of evidence but rather take this leap. The postponement theory could also be seen as a 'suspension of judgment, since in our contingent mortal life's the existence of God cannot be decisively proven we should not live sceptically as if God doesn't exist.

This leads us to

Fideism

·         Fideism is the view that religious  beliefs cannot be evaluated by reason, the believer must be take a risk on order to accept the paradoxical nature of faith.

·         This would be a counter point to the arguments of Anselm and Aquinas who try to prove and provided evidence for Gods existence. Indeed Anselm uses reason ( A- Priori ) alone to try to prove Gods existence . Anselm representing faith seeking understanding  uses reason to try to make belief in God more reasonable.

Kierkegaard -Passion Theory  

·         Passion theory of faith is meant to illustrate that reason is not an appropriate foundation for faith.

·         Kierkegaard argues that religious faith is not about having the required knowledge but instead having an intense passion. Kierkegaard said that the more risk and sacrifice involved, the greater the passion of faith.

For example

If Gods existence was strongly probably then the faith would be inevitably weakened, and in Kierkegaard's eyes less valuable.

Certainty is therefore not desirable for a life of true faith.

Again Anselm would disagree with this (I think ) I don't think him seeking reason would undermine his faith after all wouldn't reason give rise to more faith in scholars like Anselm.

Bliks

·         The term blik sounds like a south African saying black and was created by R.M. Hare a an English moral philosopher.

·         A blik is a way of looking at the world that is neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

·         Normally a blik would be meaningless but it influences the way in which we interpret the world and how we live our lives. For example I expect my TV to turn on when I push the power switch and I expect that my Mum is in fact who see claims to be.  

R.M. Hare uses the 'parable of the lunatic don' to illustrate this theory.

A don one day comes to believe that all the other dons are out to murder him. No matter what the other dons do to try to convince him otherwise fails, if they try to be nice to him and make him a cup of tea he instead sees it as they have poisoned his tea and are trying to kill him that way .No matter what the other dons do they are unable to convince the mad don that they are not plotting to kill him, the mad don always view what they do as part of the plan to kill him even if they are being kind to him.

What Hare is trying to show is that nothing will no matter how hard the dons try will count against the lunatics belief.

Hare argues that nothing will count against that of the religious believer. The believer will see any evidence no matter what in a religious way just the same as a non religious believer will see it in a non-religious way.

Ludwig Wittgenstein- Language Games

·         Wittgenstein understood faith as a process of 'seeing as' or 'experiencing as' (very similar to bliks )

·         Just as one human may see a piece of art as representing the primeval subconscious, trapped in a post-modern society another human may see the piece of art as a panting of a can of beans. This is similar to how humans perceive the world differently  .

·          A language game is the view that when we speak we play these language games, each games has its own set of rules and each word within in the context. For example the word 'weed' may have a very different meaning to a Gardner, scientist and teenager.

·         As a result of this neither the atheist nor the theist will be able to conceive each other that there evidence is more reasonable and as a result will promote the evidence quite differently

·         As a result it does not seem to matter which side has what facts, faith reason or evidence as in the end neither side is able to fully conceive what the other is saying. That feeling you have that tells you that the evidence definite is the same feeling someone of a completely polar view possesses. 

·         This links to the A02 questions of the quantum physics and Taoism on weather science and religion can ever be viewed the same. My answer remains the same ; while scientists can be religious and vice versa the actually intrinsic qualities of each discipline  only appear similar as a result of cosmetic similarities the way reasoning happens between the two are however far to different for either to have anything in common .    

Anti-Realism and Non-Foundationalsim

A Realist approach to faith is the assumption that a statement is true because it corresponds to the state of affairs that it attempts to describe in an objective reality. Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality and that every new observation brings us closer to understanding reality (I assume what it is trying to say is that the more we observer the closer we get to understanding what is actually there ).  Realism can be seen as the doctrine that believes the objects of scene of perception have existence an existence independent of our act of perception. I.e. The universe has, does and will exist independent of our obsevation of it. This appears to be yet another school of thought that quantum mechanics has put its middle finger up to....  since experiments such as the double slit experiment has shown that the act of observation has an effect of the state that the partial resides in.        

Anti-realism on the other hand does not attempt to make statements cohere with an objective reality but claims 'truth depends on what is agreed within the community- which in turn depends on the language game being played.

 I think this view is crap as we just have to look to scientist history to see that just because lots of people (i.e. the scientific community ) thought something to be true it didn't necessarily mean that it was objectively true. The most recent example being the 'neuroplasticity '  of the brain despite its almost complete rejection in the 50's and 60's by most neuroscientist. I guess though when you think about it in terms of a large group of people something. As far as that group is concerned in that time what they believe to be true (contingently) might as well be true objectively as they are not aware of what the objective truth actually is.

Religion belongs to its own language game. As a result to submit religious claims to scientific testing would represent a misunderstanding of how those claims are used and of their context

After all language games are self contained and with its own claims do not require justification

However to then apply religion to anything scientific in turn is also wrong for example teaching creationism as a scientific theory or religion having influence upon things such as law

When atheists say 'God does not exist' they are not contradicting the theists who say that God does exist but are instead saying that they are not playing the same language game. It is not the question of right verse wrong.  

While I think this whole language game thing is kinda cool and could be right (just as it could be wrong ). I don't believe that even if it is right that it is a way that we can think as a society. Beyond the arm-chairs life is not so simple (although Wittgenstein famously subjected students  to deck chairs in his office ) , language games are hard to distinguish with many multiple subdivisions within that game. Language games to me appear to be what sub-genres of metal tell us about music as a whole, music like society just doesn't work as a term if we segregate each specific genres. What I'm trying to say is that life may (or may not ) be made of language games but we shouldn't life our lives as if it is as it stops much needed dialog between the two and leaves us with a society unable to communicate on key issues independent of what is objectively right .

If religious faith is a blik or language game, it cannot therefore be verified or falsified, it is not dependent upon philosophical justification, This is the principle of non-foundationalsim.

(yes there is more still, actually I wonder if anybody reads this far if at all I doubt it...) hears a picture of a catbeard

http://www.catster.com/files/20130523-cat-beards-7.jpg

Also has anybody ever noticed at the beginning of NWA's video to 'Straight outta Compton ' there's a guy walking with his shoes on fire ? It's really strange they never explain it....

It's also interesting to see how over a decade how rap went from peaceful hippies protest 'we love each other lets all get along' to really violent angry ' things are bad and need to change. also fuck the police' kinda like the hippy movement into puck I guess.

Anyway

Foundationalsim

Foundationalsim is the fascinating view that religious beliefs must be justified by reference to other beliefs.

This could mean that our belief must be backed up with evidence for example St Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument. His belief that could existed was reference to his belief that :  God was the first cause, Infinite regress is absurd and so .

Form the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy  

A little reflection suggests that the vast majority of the propositions we know or justifiably believe have that status only because we know or justifiably believe other different propositions. So, for example, I know or justifiably believe that Caesar was an assassinated Roman leader, but only because I know or justifiably believe (among other things) that various historical texts describe the event. Arguably, my knowledge (justified belief) about Caesar's death also depends on my knowing (justifiably believing) that the texts in question are reliable guides to the past. Foundationalists want to contrast my inferential knowledge (justified belief) about Caesar with a kind of knowledge (justified belief) that doesn't involve the having of other knowledge (justified belief). There is no standard terminology for what we shall henceforth refer to as noninferential knowledge or justification.

Non-Foundationalsim

Non-foundationalsim is the view that foundationalsim itself cannot itself be justified because by reference to other beliefs. Religion is as a result a basic belief which itself provides the foundation for which other beliefs rest upon . Religion to non-foundationalists does not need to be proven or demonstrated.

William James

James understood faith as 'the will to believe'. We do not apply scientific methodology to every aspect of our lives and James argued that this is particular true of religion.

Religious beliefs to James where unavoidable whether we believe or don't believe and significant to our life's (Momentous).

Pascal

Choice	If Correct	If Incorrect
1) Believer that God exists	Eternal Bliss	Extinction No Gain No loss
2)Believe that God does not exist	Extinction No gain No loss	Eternal loss Punishment

 The problems with this are obvious

1.      Eternal punishment linked to the problems of the Augustine theodicy suggest that evil has a place that is built in the very matter of the universe.

2.      It would be wrong to live our life's in a moral way simply because of a reward at the end of it. Our worship of God is not through any real passion or desire to come to know God but to rather avoid  eternal punishment (then again is it possible to make a truly selfish act ?).   

Its over !!!

Dr Manhattan and Process Theology

Dr Manhattan

So i've noticed how there are similarities between Dr Manhattan from the graphic novel 'The Watchmen' by Alan Moore and the the God presented by process theology developed by Alfred North Whitehead and later developed by Charles Hartshorne . I could not recommend the Watchmen more if you are remotely into anything around comic books, super heros you should pick it up it really is in my opinion like nothing else out there. I also recommend the movie to anyone who is feeling lazy and has the free time the opening credits may possibly be my favorite scene from a movie ever. (see below link) 
http://vimeo.com/38649608

The Watchmen was written as a means to reflect contemporary anxieties and to critique the superhero concept. Watchmen is set in an alternate history where superheroes emerged in the 1940s and 1960s, helping the United States to win the Vietnam War. With America heading towards a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, freelance costumed vigilantes have been outlawed and most former superheroes are in retirement or working for the government. The story focuses on the personal development and struggles of the protagonists as an investigation into the murder of a government sponsored superhero pulls them out of retirement.

Dr Manhattan

Due to being accidently locked in a room during a nuclear physics experiment Dr Osterman was taken outside of the physical realm and returned with God like powers. These include Superhuman strength , telekinesis, the ability to teleport himself and others over vast distances aswell as controlling matter at a subatomic level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGbUcqCXe14

 So how is this like the God of process theology?

Knowledge and Power

Well firstly Dr Manhattan can see the past, present and future all at once, however he still exists within time and space so feels that he is unable to change any of the events which happen, in other words Dr Manhattan is omniscient (all knowing ) but not omnipresence (all present) . While the God of process theology cannot see the future he to is omniscient and so therefore knows that events will happen in the future but like Dr Manhattan, God still exists within in time and space and so is unable to stop coming events, the process God does not act as it would interfere with human free will
 ( if god is knowledgeable on the events of the future does that mean that events are predetermined ?)

One key scene from the novel  which relates to the problem of evil is when the Comedian (another super hero, I could write pages on him if I had the time ) shots a Vietnamese women that he has impregnated during the course if the Vietnam war after a drunken fight . Dr Manhattan present at the time does nothing, when he confronts the Comedian the response he gets is striking
'you watched me. You could have changed the gun into steam or the bullets into mercury or the bottle in snowflakes! you could have teleported either of us to goddamn Australia....
But you didn't lift a finger. You don't really give a damn about human beings'
As said before Dr Manhattan cannot interfere with these events as he believes that it is predetermined but surly he could have stopped the shooting ? does he view of time take into account his own existence and power ?
The scene could also be interpreted as the view point of a protest atheist angry and questioning Gods allowance of evil to be present in the world . Although interestingly it is presented from the view point of the person causing the suffering (the comedian) who is essentially asking why haven't you stopped me being evil ? Maybe it is a look towards us letting go of divine intervention and looking more at the motives of why humans are evil rather than why evil itself is allowed to exist.



Change
The God of process theology is unlike the God of classical theism as the God is subject to change thus giving up the concept of divine immutability (un-changing). The process God is dynamic and ever changing taking in the new experiences as the universe grows and changes, it is said God develops in creative transformation.
Consequent Nature = Changing aspect of God
Primordial Nature = unchanging aspect of God
So how do you view Dr Manhattan is he God itself or is he the carnation of God ? indeed he has his physical body of which is his primordial nature while his mind is his consequent nature. Over the course of the novel Manhattan's mental health become progressively worse (for example a scene from the novel he ceases to us stairs and just starts walking up the walls and through walls ).
 SPOILERS At the end Manhattan effectively gives up on humanity - i'm leaving this galaxy for a less complicated one '. Could this be seen as a weakness of the process God ? What real interest or care should God have over humanity if he did not create them further more why should we worship this God if he does little but influence our world ? Whats there to say that even if this God does exist,  that he is still interested in earth. The only viability process has as a theology is that it answers the problem if evil, but then again so does the idea of Gods none existence and so it seems to have no effect than an interesting theory which is impossible to prove .

Process related kinda relevant thoughts
It seems strange to think of having a personal relationship with this God who it follows that we can indirectly influence God changes as a result of experience and so therefore his experience of humans changes him, it is interesting to think in what way  Gods experience of us changes him does it make him more human or does it make him less human like, like Manhattan. If the process theology accepts the carnation of God in jesus (which quantum mechanics could possibly allow ) what effect did that have upon the process God ? Couldn't the God of process theology be seen as yet another projection of human nature onto the universe ( Durkheim or Freud ? ),the process God is not created with any purpose, he is not created creatio ex nihilo, God has influence humans but ultimately has no power over them and he is aware of the future but is unable to shape it.



So thats it I'm going to look and re-edit it later and maybe clean up some of the points I don't feel as if I wrote them as they should have been anyway enjoy (just remembered a bit about their power i'll add that later )

Malcolm's Ontological Argument

Background 

  ·         Norman Malcolm (1911-1990)

  ·         Close Friend of Ludwig Wittgenstein

  ·         Severed In the American Navy 1942-1945

  ·          Known for propagating the view that common sense philosophy and ordinary language philosophy are the same.

The Argument

1.       If God does Not exist then his existence is impossible .

(God is immutable (unchanging ). If God doesn't exist then he couldn't or wouldn't change from none-existence to existence

2.       If God Does exist the his existence is necessary .

It is in the very definition of God that he exists necessary

3.       As a result of these statements it follows that Gods existence is impossible or necessary .

God can either exist necessarily (This does not mean that existence is a predicate of God but rather necessary existence is a predicate of God ) or his existence can be impossible

4.       God's existence is not impossible.

It is possible to imagine a world in which God exists only 'nothing exists' is impossible (which I shall explain in a later post)

5.       Therefore God must exist necessarily.

Therefore God existence is necessary

From his argument Malcolm suggests 2 possibility's. God cannot contingently exist. Gods existence must be either
necessarily false
or
necessarily true.
 Malcolm believes that the statement 'God's existence is necessarily false' is a logically contradictory proposition . For example 'a triangle has four side, and so therefore God exists necessarily must be the correct statement. This part hear to me seems like Malcolm's safe guard against Gaunilo's response to Anselm's first argument. Only God could exist necessarily while other objects within the universe exist necessarily for example Gaunilo's island could exist either or it could not but its existence is still contingent, thus Malcolm's  

Descartes Ontological Argument

Similarity's and Differences 

Written in the 16th century Descartes shares some similarity's with Anselm in his ontological argument, both are a-priori  and both view existence to be greater than none existence.
The arguments however differ on a few key ideas. Descartes avoids a logic leap made by Anselm by describing God as the greatest possible being  , this is opposed to describing God as an idea of which Anselm does and as a result runs into the problem of jumping from concept to reality in his conclusion.
The arguments also differ in how they relate god and existence. Anselm sees existing (verb) as something that God does while Descartes sees existing (predicate ) as a quality that God possess.

The Argument 

1. God is the supremely perfect being.
2. The supremely perfect being has all perfections
3. Existence is a perfection 
4. Therefore God exits necessarily 

Language Problems 

When we say the adjective 'young' we use it to say that x object possesses the quality of youth.

An adjective derives from a quality possessed. 

When we write 

                           God exists 

It is undisputed that God is an (abstract ? ) noun and the subject of the sentence 

However is 'exists' a verb or a predicate ?

Descartes writes from the perspective that existing is a quality that God has rather than something that he does. The problem with this is that just because God possesses existence, it does not mean that is is performing the actual act of existing. 

The Ontological Argument (Attempt 2) + reading plans

1st part 
God is a being than than which nothing greater can be conceived
The fool says 'there is no God'
It is greater to exist in reality and concept as opposed to concept alone
Therefore the fool is a fool as you cannot except the concept of God without excepting his existence.
2nd part
There is something that exists that we cannot conceive to not exist (the idea that this thing doesn't exist is inconceivable i.e it exists necessarily).
This is greater than something that can be conceived to not exist (the idea that this thing doesn't exist is perfectly viable i.e it exists contingently).
As a result, if God contingently then what you are thinking about is not God.
God is that which cannot be conceived to not exist, God is necessarily.
And so therefore he exists.


Plans 

So while I have not been blogging about it I have been doing my reading. I'm currently reading 'A thinkers guide to evil' as-well as 'The brothers karamazov ' I shall write what I think of them as soon as I find time between ukcat revision.
Having been doing  St Augustines theodicy and realized the massive influence that It has on the lore of the fictional universes greater by games workshop I think it would be fun to analyse the parallels and the influences in what may come to be the nerdiest thing I have ever done (as-well as something that Mr G can appreciate) 

The Ontological Argument

1st part 

God is a being than than which nothing greater can be conceived 

The fool says 'there is no God'

It is greater to exist in reality and concept as opposed to concept alone

Therefore the fool is a fool as you cannot except the concept of God without excepting his existence.

2nd part

There is something that exists that we cannot conceive to not exist (the idea that this thing doesn't exist is inconceivable i.e it exists necessarily).

This is greater than something that can be conceived to not exist (the idea that this thing doesn't exist is perfectly viable i.e it exists contingently).

Therefore If god exists purely in the mind then what you are thinking about is not God (and so therefore he exists ).

So my head hurts a lot now it kinda feels like a turtle on its back trying to right itself...

I'm also no longer sure that I have the right arguments in the right bit so that something i'm going to have to go over yay.