The word is “Therefore…” When you are making a deductive argument, this means that what you are about to say logically follows from (is implied by) what you have just said. That is, if the former part were to be true, what you’re about to say must also be true. A non sequitur (Latin for: “it doesn’t follow”) is an invalid argument, one in which the premises don’t imply… Read More »The Trinity Explained (with Reason)
I was interviewed a couple of times at the 2012 Atlanta Bible College Theological Conference.
Here’s the first, in which I ramble on about my own religious history and views about God, the Trinity, and Jesus.
Also: pacifism (I’m agin’ it. Perhaps the majority of conference goers, I think, were for it.) I wasn’t expecting that question – hence the rambling. 🙂
Thanks to Carlos Jimenez for filming, editing, and posting this. You can comment on the youtube page.
Better rambling below the fold…Read More »Ramble on
In a recent public presentation I tried to define two concepts of idolatry, but I wasn’t quite happy with either of them.
So here’s the 2.0 version, submitted to you for criticism and comment:
This is literal idolatry, which is the rule rather than the exception in the world’s religions – bowing, etc. to things like this Jain statue I photographed in Bombay. It was this sort of practice which was forbidden in the ten commandments:
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them… Exodus 20:4-5, ESV
“Serve” here, I think, clearly signifies religious worship specifically. It is not clear, I think, that it is against any sort of respect for images, e.g. saluting a flag. But it is against the sort of image honoring typical of ancient near eastern religions.
Apart from this command, it seems to me, it is by no means obvious that the one God shouldn’t be worshiped by means of some object, be it representational or abstract. After all, millions, probably billions of people do this, either for some god or for the one God.
But very often in the New Testament, it is not the above concept which is in view. Instead, they have in mindRead More »What is idolatry?
Sir Anthony Buzzard is the author of a number of books, including the 2007 Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian.
Interesting title, no?
Some Christians will think it true but trivial.
Others, against the evidence, assert it to be false.
Others will urge that he is implicitly but not explicitly a trinitarian, i.e. that his beliefs entailed it, though he did not believe it.
I agree with with Buzzard, though, that it is both true and important. According to the gospels, Jesus’ beliefs included the numerical identity of the one true God with his heavenly Father, and we should assume him to be self-consistent on this subject, so he did not also think that the one true God is numerically identical to this: Father+Son+Spirit. (Things identical to the same thing must also be identical to each other.)
But isn’t Jesus worshiped in the New Testament? And doesn’t that show that he is God himself?
No – I agree with the substance of this recent video by Buzzard:Read More »Anthony Buzzard: That Jesus Should be Worshiped Does not Imply that He is God
I recently stumbled upon a great post by Michael Patton that just about perfectly expresses how I’ve felt about Christian apologists since growing past teenagerhood.
In part:
This is the problem that I have with some apologists (those who defend the faith). Don’t get me wrong, I believe very much in apologetics and also love many apologists. But very rarely do I find a reasonable apologist. Most are very hardened because they are committed first to defending their particular position, not so much to learning.
Read the whole thing. He also has done a similar post recently.
I would add: apologists too often fall into mere rhetorical violence: hyperbole, attacking a straw man, verbal aggression, smug, acid condescension, simply repeating oneself more loudly, insults, poisoning the well, and so on. And this is leaving aside poorly constructed arguments. Sadly, debates between philosophers (one or both of whom may be atheists) are nearly always “cleaner” (more reasonably and respectfully conducted) than your average debate between a Christian apologist and anyone else.
I’m always reminded of what James says:Read More »Patton’s problem with Apologists
“Well, who created God, then?” Many an atheist has lobbed this one, supposing it to be a devastating objection in question form. In reply, Christian philosopher Paul Copan knocks this one out of the park. Well played, sir. I would add a few points: One of the perfections a perfect being is supposed to have is aseity – existing but not because of anything else.… Read More »Copan answers: Who created God?
Thanks to reader Mike Gant for his question about my last post. As of now I think I’ve got a solid definition of the concept unitarian: someone who believes that the one God just is (i.e. is numerically identical to) a certain self and not to any other self. But I then tried to define the more specific concept of a Christian unitarian: someone who believes that… Read More »Defining the concept of a Christian unitarian
Last time I offered a definition of the concept of a trinitarian.
This time, I will try to define the concept of a unitarian.
Many definitions of this concept are unacceptably polemical. It is unacceptable to define a unitarian as an anti-trinitarian. This violates requirements 3 and 5 – it doesn’t tell us what a unitarian is, but only what a unitarian is against. And this is part of a common slashing rhetorical strategy which I have recently mentioned. For the same reasons we must reject defining the concept unitarian as one who “denies the Trinity” or “has heretical beliefs about the Trinity,” etc. Equally, it is unacceptable to define a unitarian as one who holds the correct or biblical view about Jesus and God. Whether or not that’s so, it’s trying to sneak an argument for a thesis into a pseudo-definition of that thesis.
One common definition is,
Definition 1: someone who believes in exactly one unipersonal God.
I think this is on the right track, but the term “unipersonal” is obscure, and so this definition violates requirement 6 (and possibly also 3).
I have been working with this definition of the concept:
Definition 2: someone who believes that the one God just is (is numerically identical to) the Father.
I now think that this isn’t quite right.
First the definition is arguably too narrow. Read More »Defining the concept of a unitarian
I woke up this morning, and realized that there is a problem with how I’ve been defining the concept of a unitarian. In this post, I will attempt a definition of the concept of a trinitarian, after reviewing what is required of a good definition. Next time, I’ll try to define the concept of a unitarian.
According to the textbook I have used for years in my critical thinking class, a good definition should:
What is a trinitarian?
Definition 1: someone who believes in a triune god.
In this last post in this series, I want to put out a few critical reactions to Baber’s “Neo-Sabellian” Trinity theory.
My thanks to Harriet for this piece and for her interaction with us here.
No doubt, she’ll argue back; and she will probably say something about how her views have changed since she wrote this piece.
So, in no particular order:
Here’s an interesting but tightly wound passage from John Biddle (1615-62) in a book from 1648: Again, though he [Jesus] be a God, subordinate to the most high God, as having received his godhead, and whatsover he hath, from the Father; yet may not anyone thence rightly infer, that by this account there will be another God, or two Gods? For though we may, with… Read More »Biddle: many “Gods” but one God
Time for the old Spanish Inquisition. Will she survive The (self-administered) Rack?
In the final part of her article “Sabellianism Reconsidered”, Baber turns to theological objections. To wit:
Her answers? Jesus, like his contemporaries, was not a trinitarian. That is, he didn’t realize that the God to whom he prayed had temporal parts which were gods. Or even if he did, he didn’t intend to teach any trinitarian doctrine. Thus, he addressed not the Father, but God, as “Father”. (p. 10) Thus the term “Father”, in Jesus’ context, referred to God, while nowadays (post 380 CE?) it refers to the Father, the (temporally) first Person of the Trinity.
In response to the second objection, she notes that “a notion of timeless, metaphysically necessary causationRead More »“Sabellianism Reconsidered” Considered – Part 7 (Dale)
Switchfoot “are one”. But they are really just five dudes, not one.
Baber observes,
Typically, aggregates of Fs are not themselves Fs. A collection of cats is not itself a cat… an aggregation of persons is not a person. (p. 7, emphasis added)
Still, she thinks this needn’t preclude three gods from themselves being a god. Some sorts of things, it seems, can have other things of that same sort for parts, such as a Sierpinski Triangle. (p. 10) Maybe, then, gods are more like triangles like cats, in that groups of god can be (temporal) parts of a god. At least, we can’t rule out that this is possible.
How many temporal parts does God, on this theory have? There’s no reason to think it is exactly three. Read More »“Sabellianism Reconsidered” Considered – Part 6 (Dale)
LaBreeska Hemphill is right. Jesus isn’t God; he’s the Son of God. God is a certain perfect self, the one both we and Jesus call “our Father” and “our God”. Jesus is a man – but by no means a mere man, to wildly understate the case. God is not a man, not, as C.S. Lewis would say, a Son of Adam. She’s not a theologian.… Read More »LaBreeska’s right
To be omnipotent, Baber says, “is to be able to do [directly, by fiat] any action… including actions at times other than” the time at which one is omnipotent. (p.6) But consider, say, the action of miraculously inflicting some person with a headache on 1/1/2015. It seems that the Father, on this theory, couldn’t do that, as he wouldn’t exist then (having been superseded by… Read More »“Sabellianism Reconsidered” Considered – Part 5 (Dale)
I love philosophy majors. The best of them almost always develop a nerdy and warped sense of humor – and I mean that in the best way. 🙂
These two young ladies, recent alumnas of our department, decided to get complementary tattoos. (Sober, they swear!)
In each case, the tattoo artist left off the two initial universal quantifiers: AxAy (I can’t find the symbol codes for the upside down A representing the universal quantifier – so please imagine those A’s upside down.) They would read: For any x whatsoever and for any y whatsoever…
Now to the tattoos. “F” is supposed to be, either a predicate or a property. On the right tattoo (wrist) the right, closing parentheses is just out of view.
One of the tattoos says something nearly all philosophers agree is true (a rarity!) while the other is held to be false by many. Here’s your homework, dear reader:Read More »A Tale of Two Tattoos (Dale)
The theory, then, is that God is an everlasting, temporally extended thing with three temporal parts, each of which is a god. But, they’re the same god as God. Yet as we saw last time, how can the Three be gods at all, as each exists at some times but not others?Without going into the arguments for this controversial thesis, Baber appeals to the claim made by Derek Parfit and others, that “identity is not ‘what matters’ for survival”. (p.6) Thus, a future thing can count as my surviving, though it is not (numerically) identical to me.
Suppose (I’m stealing this thought experiment from Richard Swinburne) some mad scientists, such as Pinkie and the Brain, are going to cut my brain in half, and put the left half in one body, and the right in another. The body which gets the left half will be tortured to death, while the body getting the right half will be given lifetime passes to all NFL games and a lifetime supply of good beer. If I’m to undergo this experiment, I want to know which of these resulting people will be (numerically identical to) me: the unlucky one, the lucky one, or neither.
Baber (following Parfit) wants to say that depending on how exactly the resulting people are related to me, both may count as the continuation of or survival of me. Specifically, she suggests that psychological continuity is enough – it is enough that the later people have the same or nearly the same beliefs, desires, and so on that I have.
I don’t think this is right, but back to the Trinity: In her view, the god which is a God-stage (temporal part of God) called the Father would, just before the Incarnation, be mistaken to think Read More »“Sabellianism Reconsidered” Considered – Part 4
To continue Baber’s attempt to retool Sabellianism:
Suppose your car, named KITT, has temporal parts. KITT, then is the sum of, the whole composed of these parts. (KITT at t1, KITT at t2, KITT at t3, KITT at t4…etc.) Further, Baber urges each of these car-stages (temporal parts of a car) is itself a car. So, e.g., KITT at t3 is just as much a car as the whole KITT. But now, suppose David Hasselhoff is driving KITT on, say, Easter. He’s actually, on this metaphysics, driving two cars, for KITT on Easter is a different car than KITT (the sum of KITT-stages).
Not to worry, argues Baber. We simply need a concept of “tensed identity”. This is not numerical identity as normally understood, but is rather the relation between KITT and KITT at Easter, such that they “count as one”. (p.5) Thus, Baber suggests that if we believe in temporal parts, the thesis of “tensed identity” is a “plausible way to avoid over-population.” (p. 5)
Back to God. She’s exploring the idea that God is a whole composed of three temporal parts Read More »“Sabellianism Reconsidered” Considered – Part 3
“I believe in the divinity of Christ.” Perfect. Like a Rorschach test, people can read it however they want.
“And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world. But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died. So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has… Read More »He is risen! (Dale)