Month: June 2012

Self-Focused Sexuality

Why are we having a debate over the marriage question? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I was in a debate on Facebook on same-sex marriage when someone wanting to respond to my view told me that if my view is correct, then divorce should be illegal.

It was at that moment that I got a further realization of how depraved our culture is.

“If marriage is a lifelong sexual commitment between a man and a woman, then divorce should be illegal.”

“But divorce should not be illegal because divorce is a good.”

“Therefore, marriage should not have to be a lifelong sexual commitment between a man and a woman.”

Was this said explicitly of course? No. The argument does seem to assume that divorce is some kind of good and we ought to have it. See how ridiculous my position would be then? I take this thing that is a good and say that if my view on marriage is correct, this should not be.

In fact, my reply was to congratulate the person on agreeing with Jesus. Jesus, if you remember, when asked about divorce, said that Moses granted divorce because of the hardness of hearts, but it was not always this way. God did not design marriage to be separated by divorce. Now Jesus did grant it in the case of unfaithfulness to the covenant, and there are such sad cases, but those cases are for when the good thing has already gone incredibly bad.

It would be a mistake to start with divorce as the good. We must start with marriage as the good. We should not be seeking to protect the state of divorce. We should instead be seeking to protect the state of marriage.

Could this be part of the reason why we even have the debate on SSM to begin with? Every argument is built on premises and there are times that those premises themselves have to be questioned. If marriage is just simply about the happiness of the people involved, then I agree, there would not really be an argument against SSM. Now marriage can and does bring happiness to the two, but is that what the institution is all about? Does marriage exist simply to make us happy?

As Christians, we are to believe that our happiness is found ultimately in God. There are things here that can make us happy, but they cannot be the source of our happiness. Our spouses can make us happy, but they should not be our happiness. Sexual union can also bring about happiness, but it should not be the source of happiness. If we make either of those the source, we make a huge mistake as we end up creating an idol.

For our culture, sex is the big one. We live in a society that says you are not living a complete life if you have not had sex. I happen to have friends who are single and still virgins and I am convinced they are living lives of much higher quality than those people I know of who are shacking up or who are having one-night stands regularly.

It is my hope that they will marry, because I do think marriage provides a great joy and I want them to have it, but at the same time, if for some reason they decide to not marry, then that is alright. They are not living incomplete lives. It is possible to go through life without ever having sex and still to have led a rich and full life.

Yes. You heard that right.

Now as a married man, supposing, and God forbid, my wife suddenly died. I would be without sex in my life then. It would be something very hard, no doubt, and something I would miss assuming I never remarried, but it would be entirely possible still. My life is enriched by sex, but my life does not depend on it. You will not find a medical report anywhere that says “Cause of death: Lack of sex.”

Our society just finds this incredible to think about. We have films like the 40 year-old Virgin. After all, who could reach the age of 40 and still be a virgin? How bizarre would that be?

Yet I wonder if anyone would really describe our society overall as happy with this. We might have some temporary pleasures every now and then, but could we not be more like addicts seeking more and more pleasure from various places and needing more and more to get us the necessary high each time?

A married couple should not have this problem. It is the constant growing with the other person physically, emotionally, intellectually, socially, and sexually that shapes things. The intimacy is regularly built that you become one with the person and rather than wading in many shallow pools of sexual flings, we end up diving in a sexual ocean with one person becoming more and more aware of them every time.

The great danger is to come seeking solely your pleasure. Now you need to be aware of your own pleasure so your spouse can know what does and doesn’t bring you pleasure, but if you are just seeking your own pleasure entirely, you are not loving the other person. You are treating them as an object.

For this reason men, we should sometimes be thankful our wives tell us “no.” Men tend to be the ones that want to enjoy sex the most and women don’t. Why is it that a man should be thankful for something like this? Mark Gungor, a Christian pastor with the “Laugh Your Way To A Better Marriage” says in his DVD presentation that there are some men who marry a woman with a strong sexual appetite and that he thinks he speaks on behalf of all men when he says to those guys “We hate you.”

Without some limitations, we could tend to dominate our wives. We could think they exist solely for our pleasure. They do not. Keep in mind we also exist to bring them happiness. In fact, in Deuteronomy, if a man got married, he was not to go to war for a year so he could bring cheer to his wife. That’s right. The man was supposed to avoid defending his country so he could make his wife happy.

It does not say so she can bring cheer to the man. (And this is supposedly a sexist culture remember)

I’ve recently been reading “And the Band Played On” by Randy Shilts on the spread of AIDS. Shilts was in fact a homosexual who died of AIDS, and regularly one hears about the homosexual experience in the book where men who just always want more pleasure would find more and more partners, and more would be needed, as well as more experiences. The number of sexual partners a man could have in his life would be astronomical.

Why does that matter? Because with no limitations placed on appetite, one can allow it to dominate, and when an appetite for that which is less than the greatest good dominates, then it will quickly lead to idolatry. Could this be some of what Paul has in mind in Romans 1?

What has this been all about? It’s been all about seeking our happiness. Marriage is not about that. It is hard work. Why? You are a fallen individual and the person you marries is fallen and when our fallenness collides with that of another, you can be sure that there will be conflict. My Mrs. and I can get upset sometimes over the craziest things. We can know it’s crazy, but hey, we’re fallen.

That being said, we both want the other person to shine in the future. My wife wants to see my ministry flourish and is excited about where she thinks I am going. Meanwhile, I see that my wife has a lot of good to her that she has a hard time realizing and I am looking forward to seeing that beautiful flower bloom more and more.

We have this idea that everything in life is supposed to be easy. It’s not. Most things in fact are hard. I’ve said on a recent blog I think that I try to read at least 100 pages a day, often more. That can be difficult with balancing time between being with my wife, helping around the house, doing any work, just some quiet pleasure time, and all the other demands of the day. It’s good to be able to answer questions, but the wrong approach to getting the ability to answer questions is not to sit down and pray “God. Give me the knowledge I need,” and then do nothing. There is nothing wrong with praying that, but be sure to follow it with actions. Be sure to be going to a library, listening to podcasts, attending conferences, studying, dialoguing with others, and taking classes at colleges and Seminaries.

The reality is that you actually have to be seeking knowledge in order to get knowledge. What would it mean to say “I want knowledge” but then say “But I don’t want to do all the things that will bring about knowledge?” If that is your attitude, then you do not really want knowledge. You might think it’d be nice to have, but it just isn’t worth the effort.

If you want a good and happy marriage, you will have to work. It does not matter who you marry. Work will be an essential. That person will change over time and you will have to love them through all the changes. This will help you to become a more holy person. When you are tempted to complain about your spouse’s attitude, it will show you much in your own attitude you need to work on.

We often hear about how hard the Bible is on women with the term “submit.” Most don’t take the time to look at what else is in Ephesians 5. I was recently talking with a friend on the phone whose wife is going through a hard time and reminding him of what it says.

What does it say? How are husbands to love their wives? “As Christ loved the church.” As I told him, that better terrify you. That is a huge calling. What man is going to look and say “Yeah. I can love a woman the way Christ loves the church?” It is supreme arrogance to think that we apart from the Holy Spirit could do that, but yet, this is what we are called to do. We are called to the most sacrificial love of all. (And keep in mind, this is in that sexist book again.)

The first step is to stop looking at other people, including our spouses, to fulfill our desires. The second step is to stop looking at ourselves as having our purpose be to fulfill the desires of our spouses. What? “But Nick, I thought you were saying we need to have that self-sacrificial love.”

Correct. We are. There is nothing wrong with seeking some of your desires to be filled and some of your spouses. The person we should desire the most to please is God. When we are loving our spouse, we should be asking if we are loving in a way that is pleasing the heart of God. If we are pleasing God, we will benefit our spouse. We can be thinking we are loving our spouse, but if we are not pleasing God, then we are not really loving our spouse as we ought.

For those who are single, live in such a way to please God as well and count on Him for your happiness. If you want to marry, that’s just fine. Go ahead and seek a spouse. Just don’t make your spouse an idol. If you don’t want to marry, then be aware of what that comes with, such as a life without sexual intercourse. You can still lead a rich and fulfilling life. You will have to ask if that is a worthwhile sacrifice. Christianity only teaches two options. You either have no sex, or you get married and have sex with only that person.

Perhaps when we realize that everything is about the joy of God instead of our joy, we can recover the hope of the world and restore marriage for a watching world. Our view of everything should be different because we are Christians and yet it seems for marriage, our thinking is usually the same as the world’s. Christ has changed everything. He changed the view of the first century peoples on sex and marriage. Let us not forsake that new view to return to the old.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Hawking’s Grand Design

Does the Grand Design do away with God. Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

“Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”

So begins page 1 of the Grand Design and it is downhill from there. When the book speaks about science, it can be interested. Readers are presented with a fairly short read and several illustrations to facilitate learning. There is sporadic humor throughout the book. Since this is by two authors and it’s hard to tell who wrote what, I will just refer to this work as GD.

The opening claim about philosophy being dead makes me think of the idea I have that too often, science today can seem like a teenager who thinks he is the big man in the universe because he can drive the family car, forgetting that it is his parents who own the car, pay the insurance, put gas in the car, and do maintenance.

In saying this, I mean no disrespect to science. After all, it is not science that has this attitude, but certain scientists. These are scientists who believe they alone have the keys to knowledge and everyone else just better get in the back seat if they’re even allowed to ride in the journey at all. Too many new atheists and others are ready to throw out the philosophers and theologians. A warning to my fellow philosophers and theologians. Let us not make the same mistake.

A statement like this assumes philosophy and science works in the same way. Science works by increments with each new discovery being dependent on the latest discovery. Philosophy works with schools of thought. We still have Platonists vs. Aristotleans going on today. No one has really changed the ultimate beliefs of the schools of thought. They’ve just been working out what they said. Christians are not going to jettison belief in the Trinity any time soon nor are Muslims going to get rid of the Koran. Both will be working out the ramifications of their foundational beliefs.

In fact, a look through this book will suggest that perhaps GD should have studied some of that philosophy to avoid making mistakes. All that they say depends on a philosophical worldview. Are they idealists or realists? That’s philosophy. Are they epistemological relativists or not? That’s also philosophy.

On page 29, we are asked to consider three questions when we realize the universe is governed by laws.

What is the origin of the laws?
Are there any exceptions to the laws, i.e., miracles?
Is there only one set of possible laws?

GD admits that Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton all answered that God was the explanation for the Laws. For GD, this does not count as an explanation because we have a hard time understanding God. This is not an invalid answer. Why should it be? Scientists regularly posit unknown entities that they do not understand, such as sub-atomic particles, in order to explain data. Figuring out the nature of those particles is a mystery indeed, but the explanation makes sense.

Besides, if one does have a well thought-out theology, one can explain the mystery further. One could even take the general theistic concept found in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and have that be an explanation for the origin of the universe. You could say “I know that there has to be some deity and he has to have some attributes such as X, Y, and Z, but how He has specifically revealed Himself I am still working out.”

As expected, GD is opposed to design and on page 34 we are told the book is rooted in scientific determinism. At this point, I wonder if I am reading the thoughts of the authors or just what it is they have to write because they are determined to do so. Can scientific determinism even verify itself? Can it determine that everything will work out scientifically in the future? If the universe is necessary and determined, then what does GD do with the problem of evil? Is it just that this has to happen and that’s tough, but you’d better suck it up and deal with it? Remember, the problem of evil is not just a problem for theists. Every worldview has to account for it.

Alas, that is a philosophical question and the authors think philosophy is dead, so it seems they will be without an answer to that question. If evil cannot be explained or is even a non-reality, could it be possible the same will apply to goodness? While they speak of an M-theory to explain everything, most of us would want an explanation of good and evil as well, including atheists!

On page 44, Gd says that realism is tempting but then bypasses it stating it is difficult to defend. In the very next sentence, they then say that “according to quantam physics, which is an accurate description of nature, a particle has neither a definitive position or a definitive velocity unless and until these quantities are measured by an observer.”

Question. If realism is not true, then how can it be that there can be an accurate description of nature? This assumes nature is a certain way and can be accurately described, but this is what realism teaches. Ah, the perils of saying philosophy is dead.

If realism is not true, then what is it that is being talked about in the whole book? This is part of the problem. Science alone can never determine that there is an external world. Even Berkeley’s view of reality in that it was all an idea in the mind of God could account for science. If all we have is science, we cannot even establish that matter, the object of its study, even exists.

Once again, it is not science that is the problem but science divorced from its foundations, which quickly becomes bad science.

Our next stop will be page 164, which interestingly happens in a chapter discussing the Goldilocks zone. I am not defending ID here, but simply stating that these findings are compatible easily with ID. GD says ID has the implicit understanding that the designer of the universe is God.

This would not explain agnostics like Berlinski and others, but suppose that IDists do have that belief. If they are entering in scientific data to show that, what is the problem? If God is real, then believing in some sort of design can help science as we can look at why things are the way they are as well. If the God explanation is true, and we keep looking for a contrary explanation, we are not only giving a false explanation, but we are missing the real one, and all of this just to avoid God? Why on Earth? Why think God would be the death knell of science since God was actually the origin of much scientific progress today?

On page 172, we have the usual “Who created God?” question. GD does say that some realize there must be some entity that needs no creator and this is usually taken to mean God. Unfortunately, they do not state why theists hold this position. They do not state we believe that a being who is incapable of change but the cause of all other change must be for all other change to be possible. Beings that change are part of existence and moving from one mode of existence to another. God does not do that since existence is His nature.

Finally, on page 180, we read this toward the end.

“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in chapter 6.”

Yes. You read that right.

If gravity exists, then something exists, so there is not nothing.

Gravity also acts on something else so something else must exist, hence there must be at least one thing.

Further, if gravity is a relation between two things at least, there must be at least two things.

Not only that, we have the same mistake of treating nothing as if it was something.

Finally, how is it that something can create itself. Only entities that exist can do actions like create and if something does not exist, it cannot create.

Perhaps some knowledge from a dead subject would have helped?

Also, we are regularly told about M-theory, but we are not told anything about what exactly it is and in fact are told it could be several theories. Keep in mind, it’s not allowed to posit a God who we do not understand, but it is perfectly allowable to posit a theory we do not understand. I am not against theories, but the sword should cut both ways.

In conclusion, those interested in science could enjoy the book, but do not come here expecting sound philosophy and/or theology or an understanding of either one. Once again, we have a case of the new priesthood wanting to vaunt its authority without being aware of the foundations it relies on.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

More on Krauss’s Nothing

Will we have much ado about nothing? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Last time, we noted how Krauss begins his book with early on asking “Who created God?” I had stated that I did not expect to find much more of substance in theology and philosophy beyond that. I was not disappointed.

This does not mean that the history of astronomy and the scientific information is uninteresting. Indeed, it is and this is to Krauss’s credit. When he talks in his field, he pays great attention to detail and wishes to make sure the information is presented accurately.

He’s not so charitable with other fields.

Myself, not knowing his field, will not really comment on it. This is sadly a lesson the new atheists haven’t learned thinking that their field of knowledge is often the only field and all others are just mere servants of their one field. If something is scientific, it is not worth talking about.

I find such an attitude not only wrong, but an insult to science. It is as if a true scientist will not trust his wife when she says she loves him but will need to do experiments. It is as if someone cannot know anything apart from what they learn in science. When science seeks to become a methodology and becomes a worldview instead, it quickly becomes as much holy writ as the very Scriptures atheistic scientists seek to denigrate.

Krauss does make mistakes that show a lack of study of those he critiques. For instance, he writes about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin on page 65 and how Aquinas answered this, except Aquinas did not answer it! No medieval asked it. They instead asked about the relation of angels to place. One can read question 52 of the Prima Pars of the Summa Theologica for his look at this at newadvent.org. There will be a link at the end.

Starting on page 141, Krauss talks about miracles. Krauss states that miracles no longer occur though they apparently did in the past. Yet had he accepted the same testimony, he would hear they occur in the present. People today in the modern world believe they have been the recipient of a miracle or seen someone be.

Now of course, Krauss will not believe this, but what we are saying is that the testimony is there just as it was in the past. All Krauss believes is that they have not happened and the time period would not make a difference as we find claims in both periods. Why does he make a case then as if such claimants have ceased?

On page 143, Krauss says when we ask a Why question, we really mean a How. Perhaps sometimes we do, but upon what basis can he say that all why questions like this are how questions? Could it be some people are actually interested in asking why something does this even after they know how it does it? It’s more likely that Krauss is trying to avoid teleology, which is a strong indicator of purpose.

On page 144, Krauss argues that science makes new discoveries while theology does not. Most likely, Krauss could simply go to a library and get a theological journal first off and see what is being debated. Even if he could not find something new, his point is still invalid.

Philosophy and theology work differently. For those, we have had the foundations to work with for thousands of years. Most of us do not expect new data, but rather a deeper understanding of the data that we have and a newness in application. Perhaps we are not coming up with new moral principles, which is ridiculous, but that does not mean we dispatch with the ethicists and say they contribute nothing to knowledge.

You can be a good physicist today and never read Newton. You can be a good biologist today and never read Darwin. This is because those fields start from matter and go to other principles from there and rely on the latest material. A knowledge of how one got there could be fun and beneficial, but it is not essential.

On the contrary, with philosophy, you will need to know older material. You will need to know Plato, Augustine, Aristotle, and Aquinas, as well as numerous others. You will want to know what Descartes, Hume, Kant, and others have said. Later philosophers would most likely respond to the old systems without presenting much that is new, although some do of course. The same could be said of theology.

But the underlying idea is that theology and philosophy are not science, therefore they are not sources of knowledge.

On page 149, Krauss says his definition of nothing is empty space and that when he considers Aquinas and others, that this is what they had in mind. It is remarkable that in the same paragraph he talks about those who redefine the word when this is exactly what he has done right here. Aquinas meant “non-being.” He was a metaphysician and not a cosmologist. For an example of how Aquinas used it, see Question 45, article 1. I will show some of it here. I recommend reading the whole of his work on creation.

“I answer that, As said above (Question 44, Article 2), we must consider not only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all being from the universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name of creation. Now what proceeds by particular emanation, is not presupposed to that emanation; as when a man is generated, he was not before, but man is made from “not-man,” and white from “not-white.” Hence if the emanation of the whole universal being from the first principle be considered, it is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation. For nothing is the same as no being. Therefore as the generation of a man is from the “not-being” which is “not-man,” so creation, which is the emanation of all being, is from the “not-being” which is “nothing.” ”

Please note this. Of all the times Krauss talks about what Aquinas thought, not once does he give a reference or directly quote. It is most likely that Krauss has never read a word of Aquinas. If he has read anything, it is likely a Wikipedia article on him. Krauss redefines what Aquinas means by nothing and then complains that too many people redefine what the word “nothing” means.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

Chapter 11 is the greatest train wreck in the whole book.

Krauss starts with a question about morality and refers to Steven Pinker with the Euthyphro dilemma, as if this is something new for theologians. We’ve only had it since the time of Plato. Krauss is either unaware of the replies or doesn’t care, or a sad combination of both. No voluntarist would be convinced by his words as they know this objection. I would state how we know what is good differently by seeing what goodness itself is and realizing God is the perfection of goodness, but alas, such ideas never enter Krauss’s mind. One can be sure that there are simplistic disagreements with the Big Bang that Krauss would not want anyone putting forward, but he does the same with theology.

Krauss says in this chapter that the first cause or unmoved mover does not bear a relation to the God of the great religions of the world, but this is to say the argument is to prove a great religion. One could prove the Five Ways of Aquinas entirely and it could still be the case that Christianity is not true. Maybe Judaism or Islam or some other belief system is.

However, the deity shown through reason alone is not incompatible with the Christian God. It is just a small piece of the theistic pie of course, but it is still a piece and the existence of that piece is all that is needed to refute atheism.

On page 174, Krauss says that the idea of “Out of nothing, nothing comes” has no foundation in science. Perhaps it doesn’t when using the scientific meaning of nothing, but not the metaphysical meaning. Krauss has just changed the definition.

Krauss also speaks of how we say God created out of nothing. This is a misconception, as if nothing was something that God had to work with and with that nothing He pulled out something. What it means is God needed no pre-existing material to form anything. He merely created something more by His own will.

The sad reality is that in all of this, I see no clear explanation of how something comes from nothing. The book fails to deliver on its main promise.

Finally, in an Afterword by Richard Dawkins, Dawkins says that David Hume would not have to get out of his armchair to answer the objection that God did something because Hume would just say “Who created God?” It is amazing that Dawkins has been corrected on this ad infinitum, but he still plows on in the exact same direction.

Dawkins thinks that as one reads Krauss’s book, the question of “Why is there something rather than nothing at all?” shrivels up. It is more likely instead that Dawkins has such an inferior grasp of the issues that he doesn’t realize that what he considers a knockout blow, in his own words, is nothing more than a tickle that brings some laughter. That atheists are convinced by this goes to show how little the atheists understand of what they speak.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Question 52 – http://newadvent.org/summa/1052.htm

Question 45 – http://newadvent.org/summa/1045.htm

Opening Thoughts On A Universe From Nothing

Does Krauss have a case? Let’s discuss it today on Deeper Waters.

Recently, an atheist told me I should read Lawrence Krauss’s book “A Universe from Nothing.” Naturally, I was at the library as soon as I could ordering it. I have just recently started it and true to what I have heard, I have thus far been disappointed.

At the outset, I have yet to finish the book and hope to soon. For the positive, I will say that when Krauss talks about the actual data itself, it is an interesting read. There is fascinating material on the history of the Big Bang Theory and learning how our universe works. Note that if someone finds a problem with Big Bang Cosmology, they should not object to it because it is scientific, but they should if they think it is bad science. For the person who does that, of course, they have to bring forward their case scientifically and show why the other is wrong.

The book is also written for the style of the layman in science. Krauss does explain his terms so those of us who do not understand science will be able to follow along somewhat. There are numerous illustrations throughout the book to facilitate knowledge.

So then, why am I, a non-scientist, critiquing a book on science?

Insofar as the book is scientific, I am not going to critique it. I am not going to argue why some scientific data is wrong and some is right. That is not my area and I believe people should comment on their areas. I will not dare challenge Krauss on cosmology. There are some Christians who might want to do that. I’m not one of them.

Yet while saying that, it would be good if Krauss had stayed in his area for when he does step out of it into theology and philosophy, he blunders greatly. Let’s look at the start as there was enough in the Preface to even tell me what was coming.

Krauss points out that people will ask “Where do the laws of physics come from?” and “Who created those laws?” Krauss says we can think we have the need to go to a first cause like in Plato, Aquinas, or the modern RCC. He then says the question comes to “Who created the creator?” In his words “After all, what is the difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one?”

Yes. Krauss thinks study for thousands of years in theology has never once thought of the question of “Who created God?” I’m reminded of how one atheist on TheologyWeb hearing the arguments from Aquinas said that Hume refuted Aquinas by asking “Who created God?” Aquinas would have just laughed at Hume.

Let’s start with Aristotle. Aristotle did believe in an eternal universe and yet, at the same time he was a monotheist who believed in one eternal God. He got there from reason. “Yeah,” the atheist says. “But he didn’t believe in the Christian God.” Correct. So what? He believed in a deity that is compatible with the Christian God in its nature but does not necessitate the Christian God. In fact, when Aquinas saw views in Aristotle he thought were incorrect, he was willing to refute Aristotle.

It would be difficult to say that Aristotle just wanted to believe in a god and so he made one up. Aristotle saw God as necessary to the system, though not in the way Aquinas did, and yet this did not go against his belief in an eternal universe. In fact, it was needed for the eternal universe. The two do not contradict. It’s not an either/or game.

As to why it could not be the universe that is the ultimate, Aquinas would have answered based on his doctrine of existence. The universe is material and thus undergoes change in its existing. It moves from one mode of existence to another. That shows that for the universe, existence is not primary. That for which existence is primary is that which does not change at all but simply exists.

In fact, its very nature is existence. This is why it makes no sense to ask “Who created God?” It’s like asking “What brought existence into existence?” Whatever it would have been would have had to exist and if it already existed, it could not bring existence into existence.

It is usually told that special pleading is going on. Aquinas does not explain change in God. That is because Aquinas sees no change in God. It’s not because he’s begging the question, but because he knows the chain must be explained by something that is pure actuality. That is something that is incapable of receiving change but can cause change in other beings. That something is God.

For someone who wants to say Aquinas’s argument does not prove the Christian God we answer “So what?” It’s not supposed to. It proves a small piece of theism. That is all. It proves enough that atheism is refuted. You will not be able to reason your way to Christianity. Christianity has philosophical ramifications, but is itself not a philosophy. It is a revealed truth.

Krauss also says that theologians and philosophers tell him he is speaking of nothing in an incorrect sense. Nothing is non-being in an ill-defined sense. The claim is quite ridiculous. If we are speaking of non-being, what can be said about it positively? That assumes that there is something that exists that has claims that can be said about it. There is not. Krauss also says:

“Similarly, some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe.”

It is hard to keep a straight face reading a sentence like this. We have had the concept of nothing and talked about it for thousands of years. Then, scientists come and define it according to their fields and yet, we are the ones who are supposedly changing the definition.

Now I’m not against physicists using the word “nothing” in a way that is relevant to their field. I am against them coming and saying “This is the only way it works and you have to use the word the way we use it.” I have the same problem in looking at the first way in Aquinas when the modern comes and says “Aquinas says motion! Let’s see what Newton says!” This assumes that while Aquinas and Newton could have used the same word, that the meaning was the same for a metaphysician as it was for a physicist hundreds of years apart.

Krauss also says that if no potential existed for creation, God couldn’t have created. Because of this, to use God is intellectual laziness.

I do not doubt punting to God with a God-of-the-gaps is intellectually lazy. This assumes however, that positing God any time must be a God-of-the-Gaps. Could it not be that there could be positive evidence for God and people honestly think God is the best explanation?

As for the potential of creation, the creation did not exist in non-being. That assumes non-being is something. The potential was an active potential God had. God has the capacity to create and to not create. This is not a change in Him as God is not receiving change but is rather causing change.

Overall, looking at just the preface of the book, I believe I am going to be disappointed. It will all hinge on what Krauss thinks nothing is. We’ll see as we go on.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Most Spoiled Generation

Do we want what we wants when we wants it? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I just got done reading Thomas Sowell’s book “The Vision of the Anointed” and was thinking about the way our country is going, especially in light of a dialogue I’ve had going on on the web site of the local newspaper based on a letter to the editor I wrote on same-sex marriages.

Many people fear that our country could be in great danger due to economic troubles, and I agree we have great economic troubles. The idea for many Americans is that we want to get someone into the White House who we believe can fix the economy and get our nation running right.

There’s nothing wrong with fixing the economy, but really the purpose of the president has not been to lead the economy but to lead the nation. In what way is the nation to be led? Certainly in the case of war, but not just war. The nation is to be guided into being a nation of good citizens, of people who do the right and to preserve law and order.

When focusing on the economy, what if we saw the economy not as a cause of our problems but a symptom, and that first cause is instead a moral decline that has taken place in our nation and part of the symptoms of it in fact is our focus on the material things of the world rather than the building up of character.

Many of our economic problems could stem from our country spending beyond what we have. It is the crisis of “I want it!” There is also emergency thinking that says we have to fix this right away and focusing on short-term solutions rather than looking at the long-term picture.

That “I want it” is coming directly from our morality. Too often we are simply saying that someone has a right to something without giving a reason why or discussing what the ramifications of it would be. Someone wants to have an abortion. Are we going to really discuss it or just assume that it should be given because someone wants it.

Today, it’s same-sex marriage that is the issue. To say that we should have it because some people want it is not to give sufficient reason. There are many things I want but that does not mean I am entitled to have them. There are many things that we can all agree are good but that does not mean we are entitled to have them.

Let’s consider food. It would be good if we could feed everyone in the country. Does that mean that we should give them all a steak dinner every night? For many people, that would be good, but it just isn’t feasible to do.

If we were to do that, the funding would have to come from somewhere. Some people would be taxed. Those people would respond a certain way. Just because our idea is good and we thank that it should be done, that does not mean it can be pulled off. I would think it would be great if we could all teleport everywhere rather than have to spend time driving or flying. That would be great, but at this point, we cannot do it.

The same has often happened with our demand for justice. We know what needs to be done and if the law does not see things our way, we will react until they do. This is the case with rioting and vigilantes. It is the case of people thinking the world centers around them.

An excellent example of our wanting something right now is in our sexuality. Isn’t it interesting how many issues today are revolving around sex? What about abortion? What about homosexuality? What about sex education? What about birth control? Could it be that maybe we need to get in our heads that we should not have sex always just because we want it?

In apologetics, we often see that so many people don’t want to really study the Bible. They want knowledge, but they don’t want to have to work for it. For my readers, I can tell you I nearly always have a book with me and I like to get in at least 100 pages a day and that includes walking to the library often. (And by the way, I read when I walk as well.)

If we want to deal with problems in America, the first place to start is not our wallets. It is our hearts. If we can deal with the heart problem, we will also deal with the wallet problem. Of course, this will not happen immediately, and part of the problem is in thinking that there is a quick solution, but it can happen when we seek to build a people of character again.

In Christ,
Nick Peters