Skip to content

David Hume vs. Mysterians

(click for image credit)
(click for image credit)

Like most Christian philosophers, I think David Hume (1711-76) was brilliant, but mistaken about most of the important religious topics he wrote on. Though he says some silly things earlier in the chapter, I could not help but be impressed by this powerful blast of rhetoric from chapter 11 of Hume’s Natural History of Religion (1757). He speaks with all the bitterness and bile of an Enlightenment philosopher raised in a human-reason-hating form of Calvinist Christianity. In the end it is just rhetoric; I don’t see any interesting argument here against mysterians.

But I do agree with Hume that humans have an appetite for “mysteries” – be they apparent contradictions or simply very unclear but profound-sounding claims. I’ve commented on this, I think, as far back as 2003, before reading Hume on this. Philosophical faults aside, he is always an insightful observer of human nature and human history.

I’ve added some emphases and explanations in brackets and a link below. Full text is here.

But [in contrast to polytheistic traditions,] where theism forms the fundamental principle of any popular religion, that tenet is so conformable to sound reason, that philosophy is apt to incorporate itself with such a system of theology. And if the other dogmas of that system be contained in a sacred book, such as the Alcoran [the Qur’an], or be determined by any visible authority, like that of the Roman pontif, speculative reasoners naturally carry on their assent, and embrace a theory which has been instilled into them by their earliest education, and which also possesses some degree of consistence and uniformity. But as these appearances are sure, all of them, to prove deceitful, philosophy will soon find herself very unequally yoked Read More »David Hume vs. Mysterians

podcast 10 – Dr. Scott Williams on “Latin” Trinity Theories

This week, an interview with Dr. Scott Williams, an analytic theologian, trained by some of the best out there, who loves to tackle those hard to read medieval philosopher-theologians like John Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, and Henry of Ghent. Specifically, we discuss this recent paper of his, which I briefly discussed in a previous post. His main interest is in different versions of “LT” –… Read More »podcast 10 – Dr. Scott Williams on “Latin” Trinity Theories

proving that Bush = Sgt. Speedo

The year was 1986.  A young George W. Bush visited a psychic. “You have a great future ahead of you,” said the psychic, peering at the lines in Bush’s palm. “I know! My Daddy‘s vice president after all.” “Someday, you will be famous, for you will invade Iraq. Beware, oh ancient land, for Bush himself is coming to subdue you!” Bush was speechless. He couldn’t… Read More »proving that Bush = Sgt. Speedo

podcast 9 – post-debate interview with Pastor Steve Katsaras

In this episode I get post-debate reflections from the (biblical) unitarian Christian debater, Steve Katsaras. He’s the founding pastor of the Red Words Church in Melbourne, Australia . His sermons are regularly podcasted here. If he sounds a little sleepy, that’s my fault; I asked him to talk to me on the same night as the debate, and he graciously agreed. We discuss highlights of… Read More »podcast 9 – post-debate interview with Pastor Steve Katsaras

My diabolical “ruse” exposed – drat!

caveman lawyerMy “On Baukham’s Bargain” has drawn a response from my biggest fan, the Reformed brawler Steve Hays. I reply in the comments there.

Given how many evangelicals have jumped on the Bauckham Bandwagon, I hope that it’ll get some serious discussion in the journals or elsewhere.

Here’s my first reply to his post:

Steve, it’s odd to spend so many words sniping at my summary of what Bauckham holds forth as advantages of his theory. e.g. After the seventh point (of Bauckham’s!) you object, “That’s a diversionary tactic.” Is that an objection to Bauckham?

Read all the way through, then think, and then, finally start objecting.

About the “fatal concession”, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. The time-explicit version of the indiscernibility of identicals is all I need to make the point.Read More »My diabolical “ruse” exposed – drat!

podcast 8 – post-debate interview with Mr. Shahir Naga

This episode is a second post-debate interview, this time with Islamic apologist Shahir Naga. We had a good conversation, discussing, among other things, the worship of Jesus and where Mr. Naga is originally from. Thanks to Mr. Naga for a good interview. He is a seeker of truth, and is a pleasure to dialogue with. You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate,… Read More »podcast 8 – post-debate interview with Mr. Shahir Naga

podcast 7 – post-debate interview with Dr. Bernie Power

About a week after the debate, I interviewed Dr. Bernie Power for his post-debate thoughts. Among other things, he adds an argument from divine perfection to divine tri-unity, and comments on Christian-Muslim discussions and misunderstandings. Asked about Muslim apologists like Admed Deedat and Dr. Zakir Naik, he recommends work by Jay Smith and Sam Green. About Jesus, Dr. Power emphasizes that we need to allow… Read More »podcast 7 – post-debate interview with Dr. Bernie Power

podcast 6 – the “Jesus: Prophet, Messiah, God?” Debate in Melbourne, Australia

This episode features this 2013 discussion/informal debate about Jesus in Melbourne, Australia, featuring a trinitarian Christian (Dr. Bernie Power), a unitarian Christian (Pastor Steve Katsaras), and a Muslim (Mr. Shahir Naga). The audio is a little rough; I’ve cleaned it up a little for this episode. Here is the video from which this audio is taken. Many thanks to the City Bible Forum in Melbourne… Read More »podcast 6 – the “Jesus: Prophet, Messiah, God?” Debate in Melbourne, Australia

update to “Trinity” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This was updated last two Fridays ago. I put a lot of work into this revision. I’ll do a podcast some time discussing some of the changes and additions. Most changes were to the main entry, rather than to the Supplementary Documents. I hope that people find it useful. I owe a special thanks to Brian Leftow, who patiently helped me to avoid some serious… Read More »update to “Trinity” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Zarley on “worship” of Jesus in the New Testament

moon clip artTheology blogger / author / golf pro Kermit Zarley asks: Is Jesus Divine Because He Was Worshipped?

He answers in the negative. As usual, he highlights some important scholarship. In part,

When the gospel Evangelists report that someone performed proskuneo toward Jesus, Bible translators invariably reveal their Christological bias by rendering it “worship,” suggesting that that person thought Jesus was “divine” or “God.” But when the Evangelists relate that a person performed proskuneo toward someone other than Jesus, they translate it “bowed down,” “bend the knee,” or “prostrate.” So, they translate it “worship” when done to Jesus, but a physical act when done to someone else.

I agree that it is important that Christians should worship Jesus too, and not only God. The New Testament, in my view, clearly teaches this; it is a consequence of his being raised to God’s right hand. I also agree that this is not at all the sin of idolatry.

Keep in mind that the passages he’s discussing above concern Jesus before his resurrection and exaltation. He is  clearly worshiped in the fullest religious sense after. e.g. Philippians 2, Revelation 5, as well as prayed to.

Contrary to Mr. Zarley, I do think it is technically a violation of the command, now made out of date by the one who issued it, to worship only Yahweh (i.e. the Father). I would add that it’s simply not correct to define the sin of idolatry as worshiping anyone other than God.

I don’t think we can make much progress distinguishing kinds of (religious) worship. To say there are kinds of worship is one thing, but to display the differences is another. But we can distinguish indirect from direct worship, as the New Testament does in several places. We worship God (indirect object) by worshiping his Son (direct object).

Here’s another angle. In the NT, the justification given for worshiping Jesus is that this is our obeying the God who vindicated, raised, and exalted Jesus. Now, if we should worship Jesus because he’s fully divine, or because he’s God himself, or because he shares a divine nature with the Father… wouldn’t that be their main reason?

Below the fold, much better music than we usually feature on this blog. Read More »Zarley on “worship” of Jesus in the New Testament

podcast 5 – Anglicans Defending “Athanasius”

This time, an answer to Nye by Anglican minister and writer William Sherlock (c. 1641 – 1707 – pictured to the left). He offers a unique, but to us surprisingly contemporary rational reconstruction of the claims in the “Athanasian Creed.” Did he convince his fellow Anglicans that the “Athanasian Creed” is, after all, self-consistent? We’ll also look briefly at a sort of defense of the “Athanasian… Read More »podcast 5 – Anglicans Defending “Athanasius”

trying to prepare a sermon on the Trinity

H/T Oliver Crisp on Facebook. From the fun theologygrams. Seems there is no rest for the weary. Only one way out: a big, comfortable, ground-hugging, smokescreen of mystery. Make it really big, wait till it spreads, and then make your getaway, before it dissipates. Quickly!  

Don’t believe everything you hear in BBC documentaries

In a recent BBC documentary, Story of the Jews, we are told: Born a Jew, like his saviour, was Paul who, within a few years of Jesus’ death began the process of liberating Christianity from the claims of Jewish ritual.  Christianity was either universal or it was nothing.  So Paul aggressively de-Judaizes the Christian message and there was no surer way of doing that than… Read More »Don’t believe everything you hear in BBC documentaries

podcast 4 – Anglicans vs. “Athanasius”

As we’ve seen, the “Athanasian Creed” appears to be incoherent, that is, inconsistent with itself. One response is to creatively interpret it in a way which does seem coherent. We will explore this approach in many future episodes. Another response is to stick with the other catholic creeds, such as the “Apostles’” and Nicene creeds, rejecting the “Athanasian” Creed as unnecessary and unhelpful. That’s what’s… Read More »podcast 4 – Anglicans vs. “Athanasius”

The Maverick Philosopher: Are the divine persons parts of the triune God?

I missed an excellent post by our friend the Maverick Philosopher back in January: …if the proper parts of a cat can be feline in the very same sense in which the cat is feline, without themselves being cats, then we have an analogy that renders intelligible the claim that the Persons of the Trinity are divine without being Gods.  The picture is this:  God or the… Read More »The Maverick Philosopher: Are the divine persons parts of the triune God?

podcast 3 – making Abelard cry

In this episode: an interesting historical episode relating to the “Athanasian Creed.” It makes a grown man cry. This creed really “starts up” Christian philosophers; surely, a distinction here, a distinction there, and the appearance of contradiction can be chased away. But, our efforts are not always appreciated, as Abelard learns in the year 1121. This episode incorporates part of Abelard’s famous History of My… Read More »podcast 3 – making Abelard cry

No can eat: a Pawlian parable

Dr. Timothy Pawl has argued that the idea of Incarnation is consistent since we should think the councils understood what one may think are contrary predicates in a way such that a two natured thing may rightly be called both. So if “impassible” means “has a nature that is impassible” and “passible” means “has a nature that is passible,” then Christ will be both “impassible”… Read More »No can eat: a Pawlian parable