Theology 1.0: Did Jesus have a wife?

Oh no, were the Gnostics right?
Earlier thie year, a Bible scholar, Professor Karen King of Harvard University discovered an ancient manuscript that claimed that Jesus had a wife. This echos the view of the Gnostics (early Christian heretics) who also claimed the same thing.

But wait..
We have to give Professor King her due-- at no point did she say that the text proves that Jesus was married, or that the text was even geniune.

Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind the following.

1) The text could be a copy of the Gospel of Thomas, a Gnostic gospel.  Gnostic gospels are not considered to be accurate historical accounts of Jesus as (amongst other reasons) they were written about two hundred years after the events in the cannonical Gospels.

2) If the text is an original, dated to be about 4th century (since Coptic, the language on the manuscript emerged as a written language in the 3rd century). This means that this script is written many years from events of Jesus's lifetime. Of this writing, the mauscript has yet to be subjected to carbon dating.

3) This authenticity of the manuscript has been doubted.

Nevertheless..

We should give credit to Professor King for discovering and working on an accurate translation of the manuscript. However, the question on the reliablity of the document is still in question.

Additional references

Bethinking

Textual criticism

With Due Respect: John Calvin is a murderer!

Calvin's Institute of Christian Religion

John Calvin was one of the major participants of the Reformation. However, like Martin Luther, he was not free from controversy. One of the reasons why many biographies of Calvin tend to be biased is because of his involvement with the execution of Michael Servetus (Reeves, 2009).

Who is Servetus?
Michael Servetus was a Spanish doctor and theologian. Like the reformers Luther and Calvin, he started to have dissenting views from the Roman Catholic Church. Unlike them, he held anti-trinitarian views (he did not believe in the Holy Trinity).

In the 1540s, he began corresponding with Calvin via letters. He published his book, Christianismi Restitutio (The Restoration of Christianity), which expressed his anti-trinitarian views and criticised Calvin's views on predestination. In reply, Calvin sent his copy of Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institutes of Christian Religion)to Servetus. Servetus wrote corrections to Calvin's work and returned it to him.

As their exchange grew, things became more heated. Calvin eventually ended their conversations, and confided in his friend William Farel in 1546,

"Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word; for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive." (Durrant, 1957)

In 1553, Servetus was arrested by Roman Catholic authorities in Vienne, France for heresy. However he escaped. Despite being warned that he would not be guaranteed safe passage in Protestant Geneva. Servetus fled there. Geneva appointed Calvin as his prosecutor, and in 27th October 1553 he was sentenced to death by burning.

Was Calvin a murderer?

Yes Calvin was involved in Servetus's execution. However, to portray him as the mastermind behind the demise of Servetus is hardly fair. Let's put a few things in perespective:

1) Calvin was not in charge of Geneva
Calvin had been driven out of Geneva in 1538, and was asked to return in 1541. He had a frosty relationships with the Genevan city council (Reeves, 2011) till 1555. Due to a legal technicality, Calvin was chosen to be involved in the case against Servetus (he could identify Servetus due to their earlier interactions).

Furthermore, Calvin could not appear in court with Servetus due to poor health (Whitcomb, 1971).

2) Servetus broke the laws of Geneva (and Europe)
By having anti-trinitarian views, Servetus already broke the laws of both Protestant and Roman Catholic Europe. In fact, Protestant Geneva was already seen as heretical by Roman Catholic, and was been watched to see if the Protestants were simply rebelling against Rome for the sake of rebelling (instead of theology as they had always insisted).

After consulting several Protestant cities and leaders (including Phillip Melancthon, Martin Luther's successor), everyone (including Servetus himself!) agreed that the punishment for heresy was death.

Furthermore, Servetus tried to persuade anti-Calvin parties in the city to imprison Calvin and have him tried in court (Reeves, 2011).

3) Calvin pleaded on Servetus's behalf
Calvin tried to prevent the burning of Sevetus, and personally visited Servetus in prison to change his views. When Servetus refused to recant,  Calvin recommended the more lenient sentence of beheading (Reeves, 2009; 2011).

While beheading might sound barbaric now, it was considered to be less strict than burning. Calvin himself was reprimanded by his friend Farel for being too lenient (McNeil, 1961).

In summary....
It is unfair to portray Calvin as some sort of despot who took over Geneva and sentenced dissenters to death. Yes, the punishment for heresy at that time was death, and Protestants and Roman Catholics were executing dissenters in the sixteenth century. Why should Calvin be singled-out? Severtus's death should be seen as the fault of the age, rather than the fault of Calvin.

References

Durrant, W. (1957). The Story of Civilization: VI The Reformation.

McNeil, J.T. (1961). The History and Character of Calvinism.

Reeves, M. (2009). The Unquenchable Flame.

Reeves, M. (2011). On Giants' Shoulders.

Whitcomb, M. (1971). The Complaint of Nicholas de la Fontaine Against Servetus, 14 August, 1553. In:  Period of the later reformation (Translations and reprints from the original sources of European history).

Also watch
James White

Alternative Culture: Ah Boys to Men review

Recently, I caught the latest Jack Neo film, Ah Boys to Men. This film mainly covers the experiences of Ken Chow (Joshua Tan) as he is conscripted into the army as part of the National Service policy of Singapore. Having hating the idea of enlisting in the first place, Ken soon finds every day spent in the military is a waste of time.

Theology of Ken
In this post I want to focus on Ken's ultimate aim in life, as portrayed by the film. Without spoiling too much, Ken's aim was to reconcile with his girlfriend, even at the cost of his own health.

To Ken, his relationship with his girlfriend was the most important thing in his life. Thus, it is little wonder why he views army as a bane, as it keeps him away from his girlfriend. As part of his basic military training, he has to be kept on Pulau Tekong (the military training camp) for two weeks. However due to a mistake, he has to stay in the camp for a further one week, causing him to be hate the military even more.

As we can see in film, what we make as our most important thing in our lives can affect how we treat other things. Following what I mentioned above Ken's almost divine view of his girlfriend results in his self-destructive behaviour.

So forgive me if I twitch a little everytime someone suggests we leave religion at the backdoor. The question "Who is God?" is the most vital question that we can ever ask Because what we treat as the "god" or the most important thing in our lives affects how we treat everything else. If we get this question wrong, then we get everything in our lives wrong.

Ken's theology was lacking because his view of "god" was unrealistic (his girlfriend was unable to satisfy his need for identity) and unsatisfactory (his girlfriend was not as faithful as he expected). That should serve as a warning to all of us.

I guess that's why I'm thankful as a Christian. This God is not only loving, faithful, but also true. This God is more than an opinion. So why not explore this God, come and see?

Overall
I enjoyed the movie. The way the actors communicated sounded genuinely Singaporean and the 1970s flashbacks were accurate and enjoyable. I also loved the way the supporting cast argue over the relevance and contributions of National Service in the context of Singapore as it expresses the concerns of Singaporeans reliably.

Nevertheless, there were some flaws. I did not like the unrealistic combat scenes in the opening minutes (how can an armoured vehicle shoot down a helicopter so easily?). I also felt cheated as the context behind the opening action was revealed.

I give the film a 70/100.

Further reading
Bethinking on identity

Alternative Culture: The Third Jesus Review

One of the most intriguing things about Jesus is that he attracts so many people to him. One of the latest views about him was highlighted in this book, The Third Jesus.

The premise
Deepak Chopra, as the title states presents us with his view of Jesus, the third Jesus. The first, historical Jesus is apparently unknowable and lost to history.

The second Jesus is the one the church presents. Deepak Chopra asserts that this Jesus had been hijacked by the church who wanted an "abstract, theological creation".

Here Deepak Chopra presents the third Jesus-- a Jesus who suits his worldview. This includes a Jesus who accepts the reality of karma, encourages a joining to the world-consciousness and attained enlightenment.

My gripes
Let me be fair to the author-- this book is not an apologetic. Deepak does not defend any of his views, and just states how his view of Jesus was useful to his life.

However, as a Christian who has a commitment to truth, I am not merely interested in what is useful; I am more interested in what is true. There are many issues I take issue with, but I real highlight a few.

1) We cannot know who the real, historical Jesus
I cringed as I read his assertion that we cannot know Jesus. There is an overwhelming evidence that attests to Jesus of the Bible. Even if he were to disregard the gospels, he has to consider extra-biblical sources such as Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger.

2) Pot calling kettle black
Even if Deepak Chopra is correct in claiming that the church manipulated Jesus to fit their views, the author fails to realise he is doing the exact the same thing. The author portrays Jesus to fit his own karmic and universal-consciousness worldview.

For instance, he claims that Jesus usage of the world "light" (based on John 14:6) refer to enlightenment-- if we are thinking about going to movie, this was a thought that "came from the light". Even a cursory read of John 14:6 reveals that Jesus was saying that he was the way to God, not some inner light.

Conclusion
It is a real pity-- Deepak Chopra is a fluent writer, and I enjoyed his writing style. However his nonchalant approach to something as important as the divinity of Christ was utterly disappointing. I wished he was more academic in his book.

References
Chopra, D. (2009). The Third Jesus

Alternative Culture: Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter Review

Some months ago, I caught the film Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, a movie based on the mashup novel of the same name. Having low expectation due to the ridiculousness of the title, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie-- it was a lot better than I had anticipated.

Synopsis
Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) witnesses his mother murdered by a vampire when he was young. Thus he swears revenge against the vampires, and gets mentored by a vampire hunter named Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper).

However Lincoln realises that even if he slayed his mother's killer, he would have only killed one vampire. The vampires run the slave trade in the United States in order to obtain an ample supply of food (i.e. slaves). Thus Lincoln runs for president and makes abolishing slavery his top priority. This brings him into conflict with the head vampire Adam (Rufus Sewell).

Theological thoughts
Although the film itself is probably not meant to be thought-provoking, there was one scene that made me think deeply. In one of the scenes, Lincoln finds himself pinned against the floor via a chair. Adam then goes into a long harangue, telling Lincoln that slavery was an inevitable consequence of human existence.

From the Jews in ancient Egypt to the Africans in the colonial times, Adam reminds Lincoln that some men are meant to be ruled. However, he goes further than that. He asserts that even if Lincoln was opposed to the slavery of the blacks, Lincoln was already a slave-- a slave to an ideal.

Does he have a point?
You might find it surprising that I think Adam is right. Slavery is inevitable, especially when it comes to ideals. Some of us are slaves to money, slaves to power and even slaves to celebrities.

The point is this, no matter what we do, we are a slave, or are chained to our desires. And the Bible accepts this metaphor to: Consider what Romans 6:16 says

Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

As we read on in Romans 6: 17-18:

But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

So the only way to be free to be follow God. However, if we read carefully, we would not stop being slaves -- we become slaves to righteousness. Even Jesus says in Matthew 11:28-30 that he offers a yoke:


“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Why is being a slave to Christ better than being a slave to our desires? Ironically Christ's death for us frees us from the death that results from sin, if we read on in Romans 6:19-23:

^"I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Christ is the only one that frees us from our sinful desires.


Back to the film

I surprisingly enjoyed the film and loved the action scenes. I give this movie a 70/100.

Theology 1.0: How does the principle of embarrassment support the historicity of the Gospels?

The central message of Christianity is that a man called Jesus claimed to be God incarnate, physically died for the sins of mankind and bodily rose from the dead. One of the factors of whether or not we should accept these assertions depends on the historical reliability of the New Testament. The aim of this post is to explore the the reliability and accuracy of the Gospels using one of the historical methods-- the principle of embarrassment.

What is the "Principle of Embarrassment"?

According to law professor Annette Gordon-Reed, this principle states that "Declarations against interest are regarded as having a high degree of credibility because of the presumption that people do not make up lies in order to hurt themselves; they lie to help themselves."

In other words, this principle surfaces itself when an author makes negative remarks against the cause he is supporting; this adds weight to the author's testimony as the author would not write against his intentions, unless the "negative" alleged events really did occur.

1) Women as the first witnesses of the resurrection
In all four of the gospels, women were reported to be the first witnesses of Jesus's resurrection. To the modern reader, nothing seems to be wrong or embarrassing about this. But in the ancient world, an woman's testimony is worth less than a man. If one wanted to advance the story of a risen Christ, one would certainly not want to include women as the chief witnesses to the resurrection (Habermas, 2003). The only plausible reason to include women is that it really happened; that the first eyewitnesses to the Jesus's rising were female.

2) The disciples' portrayal in the Gospels
The disciples were portrayed as cowardly. For instance, Peter denied Jesus three times under pressure (Mark 16:66-72) and the Jesus's followers fled when he was arrested (Mark 16:50). Even Jesus's own brother, James was described as unbelieveing (Mark 3:20-25; John 7:5). Why would the authors placed the people close to Jesus in such a negative light, to the extent that some of them doubted his divinity (eg: John 20: 24-29; Mark 16:14)?

This seems to suggest the events really did happen, and the authors were concerned about reporting as factually as possible.

The counter-argument
I suppose opponents (people who believed that the Gospels are fiction) might argue that the Gospel writers might have included such negative things make the Gospels more convincing to unbelievers. However, this would not have worked in the Roman Empire, especially to pull the people away from their strong array of gods.

Conclusion
Based on the principle of embarrassment, the Gospels show a strong likelihood to be first-hand, factual accounts on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. (I'll explore other historical methods and arguments in another post.) So why not come and see what makes Jesus so compelling?

References

Gordon-Reed, A. (1997). Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy

Habermas, G.R. (2003). The Risen Jesus and Future Hope.

For further reading

Bethinking

Alternative Culture: The Rules of Work Review

Ever wondered how people become so good at their job? Richard Templar (2003) (probably a pen name) explains how to be successful at your job and eventually get promoted. in this book The Rules of Work.

Summary of book
I'm going to break one of the rules of the book, by revealing that I have read the book. This book basically sets many guidelines to follow if one wants to get noticed for good performance at work.

The good
The best message from the book is this-- you do not need to be a backstabbing lunatic to be ahead in your job. While the book encourages you to be wary of your bosses, colleagues and surbordinates, it preaches against being paranoid. Just lead an honest and hardworking life, watch your mouth and emails, and things will be alright.

Furthermore, the book encourages good habits such as praising the good work of others and focusing on one's own strengths, and discourages bad habits such as gossiping, lying and flattery.

The bad
Despite it being a good book on work, there are things I take issue with. Firstly, it encourages a sort of passive showing-off. This seems to blackmail the boss (or put the boss in a pressurising position) to promote the worker.

Secondly, it uses certain British terms and references (despite having the copy of the International edition) without explaining some of them. This can be quite foreign to people who are unfamiliar with the culture of the United Kingdom.

But what about the Christian Rules of Work?
Well, if there was a Christian ethics of work, it would be largely similar to what Richard Templar has written, but with the addition of an underlying motivation.

"Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving." -- Colossians 3:23-24

While the Bible does not provide a list of do's and don'ts, it provides some overarching principles. The most important one is to work, as if working for God. In other words, we do our best in our work not because of the rewards we will receive, but as a response for what God has done for us.

Conclusion
This book is great for those who are about to work. But if think about WHY you want to do so. I give this book a 89/100.

For reading

 Templar. R. (2003). The Rules of Work.

My Confession: Why don't I read the Bible?

Stained glass of the Notre Dame. Paris, France 2011

In speaking to many of my Christian friends, I find that a lot of times we (myself included) struggle to read the Bible. Hence I decided to write the top reasons why I find it hard to read the Bible.

1. Not enough time
One of the biggest hinderance for myself is the lack of time. This is especially true for the fast-paced Singaporean life. However, where I spend my time reveals my priorities. So for this, I require a readjustment of  my schedule.

2. Bible as a book of instructions
The other demotivator is the purpose of the reading of the text. Too often I treat the Bible as a rulebook of dos and don'ts.However, the Bible contains a rich varitey of texts-- some of books are of history, some books are of ceremonial intruction for Old Testament priests and some books are of prophecy (and so on and so forth). No wonder I struggle to find intructions for me! As Chris (one of my friends from the United Kingdom) once told me,

"The Bible is written for me, but not to me."

Instead, I should open the Bible to find Jesus. The self-centred view (i.e. I should do this and that) of reading the Bible hinders me from appreciating the full beauty of Christ.

3. Moral duty
Another demotivator is that sometimes I see reading the Bible as a moral duty-- if I read more chapters per day, God will smile on me.

No wonder I struggle to be satisfied-- this type of debt-paying is tiring! Where does God's grace factor in then?

The Bible is given to me as a gift to understand God better, not as a burden to be worked off.

Conclusion
The Bible was God's gift for us to appreciate Him better. I need to change my priorities, intentions and motivations to read the Bible-- not to make God love me more, but because I love God.

For further reading
TheologyNetwork

With Due Respect: I don't need to prove my disbelief!

The metal Magnesium burning

I don't have to prove a negative statement!
Many of my atheist friends make the following claim--

1) To claim there is a God is a positive statement.

2) The default position is to claim there is nothing or no relation.

3) Hence due to insufficient proof (or convincing statements) there is a God, it is reasonable to claim there is no God.

And this reasoning has some similarities to the scientific method. Scientists who propose a hypothesis of a realtionship between Factors A and B, must first maintain the null (or default) hypothesis that there is no relation between A and B, and seek to prove the relationship (i.e. to show their null hypothesis wrong).

And this resonable, but I challenge is the  line of logic on two fronts.

I) There is insufficent proof of God
There has been many philosopherical attempts to prove the existance of God. They include the Kalam cosmological argument, St. Anselm's ontological argument and the teleological argument. However, I am not a philosopher, so I cannot expound these argument enough to do this justice.

Nevertheless, I want to focus on the life, death and reserrecution of Jesus Christ, the ultimate claim for God.

As pastor Timothy Keller (2008) said,
“In the Christian view, the ultimate evidence for the existence of God is Jesus Christ."

 I invite everyone and anyone to examine the existance of Jesus carefully. Here was someone who claimed He was God. Either He is and then everything about Him matters, or he isn't and nothing about him matters. There is no middle ground to wait upon.

II) You cannot prove a negative
Another line of logic atheist rely on is that they do not have to prove a negative, or a negative position is unproveable.

But of course we have to prove a negative claim-- imagine the government claims you owe them $100,000 in overdue taxes. You have to prove a negative-- the fact that you don't owe them money.

Even in science, we have to explain and provide evidence on why our null hypothesis makes more sense than the assertion of a relationship.

Furthermore, if one is to assert that disbelief is an unproveable position that does not require proof, then why believe in something with no evidence? After all, if atheists demand evidence, then it is a contradiction not to provide any for their view.

Conclusion
To disbelief in something is to provide a positive statement on a negative claim. In other words, even that claim needs to evidence.

References
 Keller, T.J. (2008). The Reason for God.


For further

Alternative culture: The City Harvest Case

St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna, July 2011

Recently, five members of the City Harvest Church (including the pastor) were arrested. City Harvest Church is one of the biggest churches in Singapore.

Now, if you came to this site for a legal analysis on what happened-- you will not find it in this blog. If you came over here for a theological discussion and expect me to criticise the theology of City Harvest Church, you will not find it here either. Personally, I have never heard any sermon from City Harvest, so I do not want to write about something I know nothing about.

Nevertheless, some of my friends have approached me to blog about the incident, and I shall obliged them. This my stand, short and simple. I will pray for them.

My temptation
I must confess that I am tempted to cut City Harvest  from the community of Christians, by making sweeping statements like the following:

"It's not my church!"

"They weren't really Christians in the first place!"

But the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthains 12:26:
If one part [of the church] suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

So as a Christian, I must not take joy or self-righteousness from the trials that City Harvest is going through now.

God of justice
Often we Christians just portray God as slow to anger, and abounding in love (Jonah 4:1-2). However, we often forget that God is just.

In his struggles, King David wrote in the Psalms 11:7:
For the Lord is righteous,
    he loves justice;
    the upright will see his face.


As Christians, we should be concerned with social justice (helping the needy and the poor) and legal justice (doing things according to the laws of the state).

Conclusion
So my prayer is this-- if the involved parties are guilty, let them be charged. If they are innocent, let them be free. Above all, God's will be done. That's all I'm willing to blog about the matter.

Theology 1.0: What is faith?

Napoleon's tomb, Paris 2011

A misused word?

Due to the huge misunderstandings concerning the word faith, I generally avoid using the term to describe my Christian journey. Some of my friends portray faith as belief without evidence, or even belief in spite of the evidence (Dawkins, 2006).

In this post I will attempt to examine the term "faith" in slightly greater detail.

I have faith in ....

Let's use a more down-to-earth example. Let's say a 19th Century French soldier says he has faith in the French Emperor Napoleon. What is he actually saying? Is he stating 

A) I propose a metaphysical entity named "Napoleon", whose property consist of being "French" and "Emperor"

B) I place my trust in Emperor Napoleon to get me through this age and crisis.

Naturally (I hope), we would incline to accept definition B.

Who do Christians place their hope in?

So let's extend this example. When Christians say they place their faith in Christ, what do they actually mean? In what do they trust Jesus for?

One of my favourite way to think about is the way the Gospel of John introduces Jesus.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." -- John 1: 1-5 (NIV)

What does this "Word" mean? Written in Greek for the non-Christians Greeks, the way the Greeks would have understood it is "logos". A brief search at wikipedia would reveal how the Greeks treated the use of the word "Word". To the Greek Stoics, the logos was the reason for existence and the universe. To followers of Aristotle, logos was what separated humans from nature. To ordinary Greeks it mean the divine objective root from which everything flows.

Immediately, the Gospel of John throws a challenge to the Greeks, and they would have understood. The claim is this: Jesus is the ultimate reason for humanity. He can be trusted to for our existence, and to be counted on for true joy and to get us through the hardest of times.

With a claim this big, it must be examined carefully. So my readers, if you have not experienced the joy of knowing Jesus, why not come and see?

"He is so happy! I can almost believe that he has found God.” -- Atheist novelist Franz Kafka, after reading a book written by the Christian poet GK Chesterton.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, don't be so quick to dismiss faith as anti-intellectual or dangerous. Who people of faith place their trust in? As a Christian, I invite you to come and see.

References

Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

For futher reading

What is this Word?

With Due Respect: Isn't Christianity for comfort purposes only?

WELLS (Dairy Nature Farm), Singapore, 2012

A just a way to get through the night?

Often religion is portrayed only as a form of comfort. The philosopher Karl Marx described religion as the "opium for the masses"-- it was only meant to give the peasants some comfort from hardships of their daily routine.

The father of psychology, Sigmund Freud (1927) best summs up this position by this:
"They (religious beliefs) are illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind... As we already know; the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father.... Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our fear of the dangers of life."

 His stand is clear-- religious beliefs (in Freud's case, Christianity) are due to a deep-seated desire for protection from a father. Hence such beliefs are merely a psychological crutch-- stronger people do not need them.

But this argument cuts both ways
One thing Freud and Marx fail to realise is that whether a belief is comforting has no bearing on whether it is true. In other words, just because some belief gives us comfort does not mean it is false.

If Freud's argument held water, then it is also true for what he believes or not believes. If Freud's disbelief in Christianity gives him comfort, then his disbelief cannot be true either.

A deep-seated desire?
Even if Freud's argument from desire (that Christians desire a heavenly father to match their earthly fathers) is true, it can also also cut the other way. Freud had a terrible relationship with his biological father, and I guessed it can be argued that he rejected Christianity because of that. Personally, it is not an argument I would used for or against Christianity.

Works for you, but not for me!
If Christianity provides purely just comfort, then the old argument that "Christianity works for some but not others" is valid. Truth become secondary.

However we all know the dangers of such reasons. In the field of medicine, this is known as the "placebo effect". A false remedy might make you feel better, but does nothing to cure the illness.

For instance, a cancer patient might take morphine to relieve his agony, but will not stop his cancer from being worse. A placebo could be fatal in the end, but I submit to you Christianity is the cure for our human condition.

Conclusion
I invite you readers to see that Chrisitainity is not a placebo or a mere comfort tool, but something is intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. It is not something that is a mere crutch for weak people, but a cross for everyone to bear.


References
Freud, S. (1927) The Future of An Illusion.


For further reading
Bethinking

Alternative Culture: The Mission (1986 film) review

In June 2011, my French classmate lent me a 1986 film, "The Mission". he claimed it to be very inspiring, so I decided to watch it too.

Synopsis
The film kicks off with Cardinal Altamirano (played by Ray McAnally) narrating to his scribe (to report to the Pope) on the tragic conclusion of the Jesuits' fates in South America. (Jesuits are a Roman Catholic order of monks dedicated to education and missionary works.) He tells the story of Father Gabriel's (Jeremy Irons) work among the native Guarani people, and his attempts to protect them from slavery.

Robert De Niro plays a slaver named Mendoza who regularly captures Guarani in the forest. This brings him into conflict with Father Gabriel, who attempts to start a mission with the Guarani. (It is illegal to enslave tribes on Spanish mission land.) Upon finding out his brother's affair with his fiancee, Medoza engaged him in a duel and slew him. This filled him with remorse, and he spiralled into a state of depression. Medoza asked Father Gabriel for redemption, so Father Gabriel set him up with a penance.

Medoza then tied a stash of weapons and armour to himself and accompanied Father Gabriel and other Jesuits to a return journey to the Guarani. This journey was particularly hard for Medoza, as he had to dragged him stash up the Igazu Falls. The Guarani forgave Medoza despite his past atrocities against them, and this brings him to tears.

Medoza asked to join the Jesuit order, and Father Gabriel and Father Fielding (Liam Nesson) accepted him.Yet all is not perfect-- in the 1750 Treaty of Madrid, the Spanish agrees to exchange some lands (including the Guarani mission lands) with the Portuguese. The secular Portuguese state did not recognise the Spanish mission lands and protected, and would thus sought to enslave the Guarani. Highlighting this problem, the Jesuits asked the Pope to mediate this treaty. Cardinal Altamirano, an ex-Jesuit himself, is dispatched by the Pope.

Brought to the Guarani mission lands by Father Gabriel, Cardinal Altamirano is impressed by the work. The Guarani have accepted Christianity, and have a small workshop which produced musical instruments. The Guarani children were not only able to play European music, but also to sing in a choir. Yet Cardinal Altmirano knew what he must do. If he ruled in favour of Portugal, the Guarani mission would be destroyed, and its people enslaved. However, if he ruled in favour of the Jesuits, the Jesuit order would be expelled from Portugal, and the ties of the Church with Europe could be strained. The Roman Catholic Church no longer had the same power and influence as it did during the Medieval Ages. Despite his advice, the Jesuits and the Guarani refused to leave the mission lands. With deep regret, the cardinal wrote to the Pope,

"Your Holiness, a surgeon to save the body must often hack off a limb. But in truth nothing could prepare me for the beauty and the power of the limb that I had come here to sever."

As the combined force of the Spanish and Portuguese approached the the mission lands, Medoza and Father Gabriel had a falling out. Medoza believed in taking up arms and convinced many of the Jesuits and Guarani to follow suit. Father Gabriel believed in non-violence and expelled Medoza from the order, believing that even if Medoza won, he would lose in principle as he used violence to attain his aims.

Although they fought bravely, Medoza, Father Fielding (does Neeson die in every movie I watch him in?) and his followers are cut down. As Medoza laid dying and the Spanish and Portuguese soldiers enter the mission village, they are met with Father Gabriel and several Guarani holding a Roman Catholic ritual. Despite their initial reluctance, the troops opened fire, killing Father Gabriel and most of the Guarani.

As Cardinal Altamirano rued over the huge loss of lives, the Portuguese Governor of the region assured the cardinal that that compromise was the way the world worked. The cardinal remorsefully replied,

"No, thus have we made the world. Thus have I made it."

Despite it's tragic end, a few Guarani children approached the site of the massacre and retrieved a few belongings. The film ends with a statement that Jesuits continue to this day to fight for the rights of the natives and concludes with John 1:15.

"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."


A Theological Review
[Editor's note: please understand while this movie is based on the actual Jesuits' missions to South America, I will not be comparing the film with history. This is because I do not know much about the historical issue. Instead, I will be solely looking at the messages given by the film.]

The film raises many questions, and I will write about a few of them.

Penance and Forgiveness
As a result of slaying his brother, Medoza began a road of redemption. He showed how sorry and guilty he was by dragging his stash of weapons and armour up a waterfall.

Being Protestant, this external form of penance is unnecessary. As Reformer John Calvin (based on his exposition of Romans 7: 7-25) puts in his work Of Justification By Faith, "without forgiveness no man is pleasing to God." In other words, divine forgiveness comes before repentance. Hence repentance just involved the inner change of attitude of the heart.

This contrasted with Medoza who felt he needed to punish himself to be forgiven.

Medoza (Robert De Niro) drags his stash up the waterfall as part of his penance

Politics and Compromise
As the film proposes, there is a conflict between the secular world (especially with regards to politics), and the Kingdom of God. This is a particularly difficult and tricky issue for Christians as the Bible does not provide specific instructions for government and societal conduct, but rather for individual salvation and principles (Wyatt, 2009). In fact, both Jesus and the Apostle Paul advocated obedience to the ruling governing authorities. The early Christians too followed Roman laws and customs (with the exception of worshipping the Emperor).

In the film, several clashes were highlighted. The main one was of course the clash between the interests of the Jesuits and the papal authorities. To Father Gabriel, God's Word was at stake. To Cardinal Altamirano, it was the respectability of the Roman Catholic Church. Following the example of Daniel 3,the Cardinal should have stood up to his superiors (and the Spanish and Portuguese) and should have chosen to serve God, rather than men.

Next, Cardinal Altamirano was in discussion with a Guarani Jesuit on the profits of the mission, the Jesuit stated that the profits are shared by the community. The Cardinal pointed out that "a French radical group" practised that idea. However, the Jesuit explained that it was a early Christian practice also (probably in reference to Acts 4: 32-35). Cardinal  Altamirano looked surprised-- did years of human tradition influenced the running of the Church?

Personally, I recognise that there is always going to be a clash between Christians and secular authorities. The Reformer Martin Luther ascribed this conflict with his Two Kingdoms theology. He maintained that the civil government should not enforce religious belief, while the church should obey the government's rules as far as possible. This however, should not prevent Christians for running for government positions or for Christians to rebel against the government especially in areas of moral disagreements.

This was attributed to Christians being in, but not of the world, while they await the Kingdom of Heaven (which is here, but not yet).

Violence and Non-violence
The final, most obvious conflict revealed towards the plot's end was the use of violence to repel the slavers. Father Gabriel was opposed to any form of violent resistance, while Medoza felt the great need to take up arms. Christian theologians have generally argued over whether it was right or not to wage war.

On one hand, Jesus forbade Peter from using violence to protect him (see Matthew 26: 47-56). However, the followers of Jesus did not ask tell soldiers to give up their jobs. For instance, John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to lay down their arms, but only to be fair in their treatment of others (Luke 3: 1-20).

For instance, the 3rd century theologian Origen was a firm pacifist. In his work Contra Celsum, he states that "Christians could never slay their enemies. For the more that kings, rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more Christians have increased in number and grown in strength."

However, the famed Thomas Aquinas argued in Summa Theologica that violence can be justified according to his Just War theory. He list three conditions--
1) Authority of sovereign
2) A just cause
3) A rightful intention

As I mentioned, the difficultly in resolving this issue is that many well-intentioned Christian thinkers differ on this. Personally, I lean towards the Just War Theory as I recognise the need to defend one's country (or in the Jesuits' case, the people) in this imperfect world.

Conclusion
The film raises many other issues, and I wished I was knowledgeable enough to engage them. The film was great and well-acted. If I had one criticism, it is that the final battle was underwhelming. (However, it is not an action film, and it was filmed in 1986.) Personally I wished I have known about it earlier. I give the film a 95/100.

References

Wyatt, J. (2009) Matters of Life and Death

For further readings

Of Justification By Faith

Christianity and Politics

Two Kingdoms

Contra Celsus

Thomas Aquinas's Just War

Theology 1.0: Tips on reading the Bible

Something that should be habitual in the Christian should be reading the Bible. However many Christians (including myself) struggle to read it daily, and the times we do, we risk interpreting the Bible to suit our needs and desires (Chan, 2011), instead of taking the text as it is (a process called exegesis).

Here's a few tips I have learnt over the years to avoid misinterpreting the Bible (a process called eisegesis). [I'm no theologian, nor church elder, but these are the tips I use to read the Bible.)

1) Never just read a Bible verse
The great temptation for lazy Bible readers is to take a single or a few verses and assume that is the summary of the whole passage. One thing to note is the demarcation of chapters and verses were not in the original text, and added later for easy referencing (Jones, 2007).

For instance, if one were to only read Ecclesiastes 1, one might think the Bible advocates nihilism, and everything is meaningless. However, upon reading the whole Ecclesiastes, one will realise that summary of the book is that if God did not exist, that life is meaningless.

As my friend remarked, "a text out of context is a con."

2) Reason it out
It is often argued that Christians accept things by blind faith. In fact, I heard some people argue that the Bible promoted cannibalism based on a passage in John 6:25-59. However, let's be reasonable-- (A) none of the Apostles practised the eating of human flesh and (B) none of the first-century Christians ate human flesh. Furthermore, other references to the eating of flesh and drinking of blood referred to the Last Supper (eg: Matthew 26: 17-30).

So yes, do not be afraid to apply reason to Scripture, and Scripture to reason.

3) Compare notes
Sometimes it's good to find out how our friends, church elders and pastors interpret the passages. There's also a wealth of resources online, such as Theology Network and Gospel Coalition. The library also might have some good books to check out. (I usually reference my posts, so there are recommended texts to check out).

4) Pray
Above all, pray. The temptation (as I mentioned) is to misuse the Bible as a tool and symbol of authority to for our own ends, We need the Holy Spirit to guide us, convict us on our next step and always remember to look to Christ.

References
Chan, F. (2011) Erasing Hell

Jones, T.P. (2007) Misquoting Truth


For further reading (recommended)
Never read a Bible verse

Theology 1.0: The meeting of Luther and Zwingli

Martin Luther, German Reformer

The first official meeting of Protestants
As mentioned in my Reformation post, both Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli led the Protestants movements in Germany and Switzerland respectively. As the enemies of Protestantism gathered, the political supporters of the Reformation found it practical to attempt to unite the differing Protestant camps. Thus from 1st October to 4th October 1529, the two leading Reformers Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli met at Philipp I of Hessen's castle in Marburg. This event was known as the Marburg Colloquy.

Were Luther and Zwingli agreeable?
While Zwingli had read Luther's works before, he often claimed to have come to the doctrine of justification by faith alone independently (Reeves, 2009). This claim seemed to be supported by how Luther and Zwingli presented their doctrines. For instance, while Luther argued that humanity inherited guilt when Adam sinned, and thus needs Christ to be clothed in His righteousness. Zwingli on the other hand believed that each time we sin we are more guilty but Christ makes us righteous in ourselves. In fact a generalisation between Luther's and Zwingli's theology would be the statement "agreeable, but in a different way".

So it was not a big surprise at the Marburg Colloquy that the two Reformers found themselves in agreement with 14 out of 15 articles of faith. The one they could not agree on is the Lord's Supper.

Luther's view
Although Luther rejected the Roman Catholic's view of 'transubstantiation' (that Jesus Christ Himself was physically present at the Lord's Supper), he upheld instead a view of sacramental union (that bread and wine are both sacramentally in union with the body and blood of Jesus). In other words, God both reveals and hides Himself at the same time. While sounding only superficially different from the Roman Catholics, Luther seemed to be happy to alter the understanding behind the practices without changing the rituals.

Zwingli's view
For Zwingli, God's presence at the Lord's Supper was largely symbolic. In other words, the Lord's Supper is a public testimony to affirm the grace of God. Due this view, Zwingli's supporters tended to have simple ceremonies during the Lord's Supper, as compared to Luther's and the Roman Catholics'.

Why so serious?
To the most readers, this one difference seemed rather trivial and the Reformers looked unnecessarily pedantic. However, this disregards the point that both Luther and Zwingli were willingly to tolerate their differences in theology in their 14 articles of faith they agreed upon. Despite the political pressure, both Luther and Zwingli were unwilling to compromise on an issue they felt was essential to the understanding of the Christian faith.

To Luther, making the Lord's Supper symbolic was a compromise to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. To make this sacrament commemorative for Christians to be reminded to do something, would give a doctrine of works. Furthermore, Zwingli took away the true meaning of celebrating the Lord's Supper.

To Zwingli, Luther was being irrational. Zwingli affirmed God's omnipresence and omnipotence by stating that God is not simply present only at the Lord's Supper. Zwingli also felt that Luther was too afraid to cut ties with Rome and leave the old ways.

Conclusion of Marburg
After harsh words were exchanged over the days, Luther and Zwingli wept together and forgave each other for their bitter tones. Both agreed that the Reformations in Luther's Wittenburg and Zwingli's Zurich would go their separate ways.

One thing learnt from studying the event is that the leaders of the Reformation were willingly to tolerate varying beliefs, but were unwillingly to compromise on whatever they felt were vital to Christianity.

Let's pray that the Lord's Supper would proclaim the body of Christ broken for us, and let's not slip into the temptation that makes it purely ritualistic.

References
Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame

For further reading
Luther VS Zwingli

With Due Respect: Miracles are unscientific!

One of evidences for God?
One of the most frequently touted evidences for God is the occurance of miracles. Scottish philosopher David Hume states in his 1748 book An Enquiry on Human Understanding, that "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience as can be imagined".

In other words, a miracle is an event that violates scientific laws. David Hume further asserts that since these scientific laws are "established", the occurance of miracles are an impossiblilty. Therefore, it is not scientific (or even rational) to accept the existance of miracles.


With great respect to David Hume, I disagree with him. It is entirely possible to be a scientist, and believe in miracles.


On scientific law
Firstly in the realm of science, the word "law" has an entirely different meaning from what it is common understood. In everyday use, it is a legal set of rules that everyone has to follow. Unlike the legal term, a scientific "law" merely states what is generally observed.


For example, let's talk about Mendel's laws of genetic inhertience. His second law (aka the Law of Independent Assortment) states that each parent transmits a random copy of an allele. However, it is noted that while this oberservation is generally true (as it is a law), it does not always happen (due to the presence of epigenetics and self-genetic elements). Violating the scientific law just means an anomaly in the observations. It does not mean the laws no longer hold.

I suppose one could ask miracles do not occur more often. If they did, they would not be rare, and therefore would be called miracles.



A circular argument
Furthermore, the English poet Chesteron (1908) rightly points out the David Hume's argument is circular-- he defines miracles as impoosible to happen. Consider this:

1) Only scientific laws happen

2) Miracles cannot happen because they are by nature, unscientific.


3) Therefore, miracles cannot happen.


In other words, Chesterton points out that the assertion that miracles cannot happen because they simply cannot happen is an argument from dogma, rather than rationality.


Miracles aren't unscientific?
Yes miracles are one-time or rare events. So they aren't scientific as science investigates the repeatible and the general. However, they can be investigated-- through history (i.e. the historical method). So come and investigate Jesus Christ, the God who stepped into time and space, and who knows-- it could be heavenly.

References

Chesterton, G.K. (1908) Orthodoxy



For further reading
Bethinking

Alternative Culture: God's Philosophers review

I have to confess-- I'm a fan of history, philosophy, theology and science. When this book was published, I had to have it. So my friend bought it for me for my birthday in 2011. After all, it combined my interests together.

Basic premise
[God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science has another title. It was released as The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution in the United States]

This book challenges the paradigm that the medieval ages of Europe as the "Dark Ages" were a period of ignorance and regress when nothing of technological and philosophical importance happen. Listing over 100 medieval scholars, the author James Hannam protrays the medieval ages as some sort of Golden Age, where Christian Europe was supreme in both science and thought.

Furthermore, he brings into contention whether the Roman Catholic Church stifled free enterprise and research. According to the author James Hannam, the Roman Catholic Church did not ban zero, forbid human autopsy or even persecuted Galileo for his scientific views (they persecuted him for other reasons). However these modern myths continue to persist.

In this post I want to bring up some things I found enlightening in God's Philosophers.

European Languages
One of the practices of Christianity is the sending of missionaries. As Christian beliefs are rooted in the Bible, there was need to invent languages and translations of the Bible to make Christianity accessible to much of Europe.

Having a common root, most European languages contain about 25 letters and have similar grammar. The ease of learning such languages allowed the facillitation of ideas across Europe. Hannman constrasted this with Asian languages (such as Mandarin). Despite a unified written language across China, the pictorial Chinese language had more than 500 symbols that made the communication of ideas more tedious across Asia. Furthermore, China had little motivation to increase its literacy rate (unlike Europe, which had a religious basis).

Spectacles
Another key invention in the medieval period was the eye-glasses, or rather spectacles. With the development of glass and the studies of light in Europe, corrective lenses were inevitably invented. Spectacles allowed ageing scholars and workers to continue reading and working, allowing the retention of knowledge within the European populations.

Logic
Another aspect that was further developed was logic. Formal logic was first introduced by the ancient philosopher Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC), and medieval philosophers had little qualms about incoporating Aristolian logic to Christianity. Hannam records St. Anselm of Cantebury (1033-1109)'s ontological argument as one of the earliest attempts to rationalise Christianity. The famed St. Thomas Aquinas (1225- 1274) also features as a champion of Aristotle.

However, the medieval scholars also showed that they weren't just blindly following to Aristotle and the other classical Greek philosophers. The Reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546) often challenged Aquinas's (and hence Aristotle's) view on morality and the Roman Catholic Church had once declared Aristotle's works heretical in the Condemnation of 1277.

These challenges to the Greek's idea of the world eventually led to experimentation and the development of science. Hannam advocates the idea that the philosophy of science emerged from the rationality of Christianity. [While other civilisations came up with great scientific discoveries like gunpower, they failed to come up with a philosophy of science which pushed for improvements.]

Overall
While I'm no historian, theologian or philosopher, I really enjoyed God's Philosophers. I highly recommend it to anyone with at least an interest in church history. Hannam's style of writing is simple and engaging, and supported with diagrams for better understanding. I give it a 92/100.

Theology 1.0: What is the ontological argument for God?

[Author's note: The author attempts to present the ontological argument as he best understands it. The author is not in anyway, a philosopher or a theologian. He has a Masters in Biology. He is simply a Christian trying to make sense of the world. This post is also dedicated to his two philosopher friends, Guojun and Mitchel, who helped him immensely through this thought process.]

The Ontological Argument often leaves my brain scrambled like my laptop screen

An argument for the existance of God
One of the arguments for the existance of God is called the ontological argument for God. One unique thing about this philosophical arguement is that we are able to trace its origin to St Anselm of Cantebury. Around 1077-1078, St Anselm wrote Proslogion. This work is where the ontological argument first appeared (Hannam, 2011).

 St Anselm wrote that there is a "conception of God in our minds that is greater than any other thing we can conceive. However, in order for God to be the truly greatest thing He must also exists. A real greatest thing is certainty greater than an imaginary one. If God did not exist he would not be the greatest thing we can conceive and hence he must exist" (Anselm, 1973).

From the wording (and historical research), this argument was not intented to prove God's existance, but rather to show believers why God's existance was necessary. Nevertheless, it has been modified by many philosophers such as Rene Decartes, Gottfried Leibniz and Mulla Sadra as a proof for God's existance (Hannam, 2011).

As with many philsophical agruments, this argument has been refined over time. In this post, I will be exploring the Alvin Platinga's version.

Platinga (1998) argues

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being (i.e. God) exists.

If you're like me, you'll confess that it does not make any sense the first time you heard it.. This is why I chosen to write this post-- to explain it clearer, and hopefully, it'll make sense to you and me.

The difficulties
What does "possible worlds" mean?
One of the difficulties of the argument is to understand what the word "possible worlds" mean. It does not mean alternate universes or alien worlds. They simply mean hypotheses of how the world might have been (Craig, 2008).

Using this idea of possible worlds, any entity can either be impossible (exists in no possible worlds), contingent (exists in some possible worlds) or necessary (existance in all possible worlds).

Examples of impossible entities include the proposition of squared circles, or that the prime minister of Singapore is a prime number.

Examples of contingent entites include extant elephants (there are possible hypothetical situations where elephants became extinct) or that the prime minister of Singapore is related to me (not true in the actual world, but is possible in other worlds).

Examples of necessary entities include the concept of mathematics, or the proposition that square contain four sides.

What does maximally great mean?
A maximally great being is one that possesses all qualities (such as necessity) which are considered better to have. Furthermore it not only possess such qualities, it possesses them to the maximum extent. This means it possesses maximum power (omnipotent), maximum knowledge (omniscience) and maximum good (omnibenevolence).

Having these qualities, one would call this maximally great being "God". Since this "God" would be omnipresent (as part of its maximal powers), if He existed in even one possible world, he exists in all.

Strengths of the argument
The summary of the argument is simple this--  if it is even possible that God exists, then God exists. In other words it shifts the onus of proof of God's nonexistance to the atheist. This is because if the atheist even concedes a slight possiblility of God's existance, then God exists.

To debunk the ontological argument, one must show that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God (or rather, a maximally great being) to exist.

A maximally great rubber duckie?

Objections to the argument
As with any argument, there are always people who disagree with it. I shall go through more famous ones.

The unicorn alternative
A common objection to the ontological argument is that it can be applied to anything. For instance, in this youtube video, an atheist ridcules the argument, stating it can be applied to unicorns. He uses the argument to show unicorns exists, thinking that the argument states "if you can define it, it exists."

Nevertheless, let's look at this objection in the best possible light. Let's say we use the argument for a maximally great unicorn. Even if we had a perfect unicorn in everyway, clear of any defect, it still would not be omnipotent, omniscience or omnibenevolent. (If it did, then it would be "God"; we are then just replacing the word "God" with the word "unicorn".) At best, it would be contingent (only exists in some possible worlds).

In fact, this kind of objection is not new, and handled by St Anselm himself 900 years ago. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, St Anselm's rival used a Lost Island as an example (rather than a unicorn). St Anselm pointed out that even the most perfect island is lesser than the greatest thing can be thought of (i.e. it is not "God"; or it does not have the qualities of "God") (Cornman et al., 1992).

Kant's objection
That said, there are forminable arguments against the ontological argument. Almost all serious objections focus on premise 1 ("It is possible that a maximally great being exists"). This is mainly because premise 2 onwards logically follows (Craig, 2008).

One of the greatest philosophers of the Western World, Immanuel Kant also had reservations with the ontological argument (even though Kant himself was a Christian). He questioned the existance as a "necessary proposition". In other words, he argue that a triangle must have three sides if it existed in the first place. Being necessary does not mean an object exist. Furthermore, he argues that a judgement of the non-existance entity is impossible (Kant, 1787).

However, Platinga's (1988) version of the argument does not take issue with this (i.e. it leaves the question of whether existing is a perfection open).

 Can a maximally great being exist?
Another challenge to the ontological argument is whether the concept of a maximally great being is coherent. The notion of God seen as classical theism (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is omniscience, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But these attributes have been often portrayed as contradictionary. For instance, Smith (1980) argues that God is either not good enough or powerful enough to stop all evil.

Limits of the argument
As with any argument, there are limitations. In the Christian context even if this argument is convincing, it does not lead to the conclusion that this god is the Christian God (since the God of Islam and Judaism is also omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent). Granted, this argument is not intented to lead people straight away to the Christian God, but a step in a series of arguments to get there. So this argument is only at best useful against atheists.

In my personal opinion..
I find this argument logically coherent, but yet in the same way unconvincing. I sincerely doubt if I would use this argument as an argument for God's existance. For one, not everyone would agree to call a maximally great being "God". One of the most famous Christian theologians, Thomas Aquinas pointed this out in his landmark Summa Theologica.

Next, it would require people of some level of technical knowledge of philosophy to understand it, blunting its effiency.


References
Anselm, St. (trans. Benedicta Ward) (1973) Prayers and Mediations of St Anselm with Prologion

Cornman, J.W., Lehrer, K., Sotiros Pappas, G. (1992) Philosophical problems and arguments: an introduction
Craig, W.L. (2008) Reasonable Faith (3rd Edition)

Hannam, J. (2011) God's Philosophers

Kant, I. (1787) A Critique of Pure Reason

Kukkone, T. (2000) Possible Worlds in the Tahâfut al-Falâsifa: Al-Ghazâlî on Creation and Contingency. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 38, 479-502.

Platinga, A. (1998) God, arguments for the existence of. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Smith, G.H. (1980) Atheism: The Case Against God

For Further Thinking/Reading
InspiringPhilosophy
GospelCoalition
ReasonableFaith

Alternative Culture: Wicked (musical)

During this year's Chinese New Year, my family and I decided to watch Wicked, the musical. It tells the familiar story of The Wizard of Oz, but in an unconventional way.

Synopsis
Without ruining anything, I shall summarise the story. The story is told from the perspective of Glinda the Good and Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West. The story takes place before, during and after the events of the Wizard of Oz. Let me warn you-- be prepared for a shock twist in the plot.

While high on entertainment and comic value, Wicked subtly challenges our preconceived notion of good and evil by asking us to reexamine our values. In fact, the key question asked at the beginning of the musical was if wicked people were born bad, or did events caused them to choose a path of evil. This will be the issue I will examine in this post.

Born evil, or made evil?
While the musical does not address this question directly, the events of the story seem to imply that events that happened in evil characters' life made them evil. For instance, Boq starts out good and eager to please Glinda, but a series of events twist him to be full of hate. Elphaba's sister Nessarose begins as good-natured, but through a series of betrayals and bad decisions, becomes more tyrannical than her father.

However, a little perspective is needed. Some of the characters such as Fiyero remained good although he suffered a hideous transformation. So maybe things aren't as simple as chance and individual choice as it seems.

 Why do people do wicked things?
I believe that what lies within the human heart is a natural inclination to sin (i.e. disobey God, His laws and not do good). I would even go further to argue that as sin entered the world via one man (Romans 5:12-14), people are born with an innate desire to rebel against God. In fact, the Reformer Martin Luther  knew this well. Examining his own life, he noted that a man is sinful "solely by impiety and incredulity of heart that he becomes guilty and a slave of sin, deserving condemnation, not by any outward sin or work" (Luther, 1520), based on his analysis of Romans 3:9-20.

In the Lutheran Ausburg Confession it notes that "all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit" (Tappert, 1959).

Solution
But as a Christian, I know it is not enough to let people realise their sinful nature. There is a solution. We just need to put our trust in Jesus (Romans 3:21-31) whose sacrifice on the cross and resurrection paid for all our sins-- past, present and future. God help us if we attempt to overcome evil by our own efforts.

I guess this is why Marxist and literary critic Terry Eagleton (2009) commented that Christianity is "more hopeful than liberal rationalism, with its unhinged belief that not only is the salvation of the human species possible but that, contrary to all we read in the newspapers, it has in principle already taken place. Not even the rose-tinted Trotskyist believes that."

Conclusion
Wicked is a good show and I recommend it to all. I give it 85/100. While I did not find any of the songs memorable, I did enjoy it. I also wished some parts of the story (such as Nessarose's tyranny) were elaborated.

References
Eagleton, T. (2009) Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (2009)

Luther, M. (1520) The Freedom of A Christian

Tappert, T.G. (1959) The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church

With Due Respect: The Church persecuted Galileo for his scientific views!

Tower of Pisa, Italy 2009

Galileo, the man, the myth
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) is often portrayed as a man ahead of his time. After all, he was a brilliant astronomer and mathematician. Appointed to the chair of the University of Pisa in 1589, he was spent the next twenty years making groundbreaking scientific discoveries.

The story of the man himself is often used as an example of how Christianity inhibits scientific discoveries. Galileo is shown as a man who was the first to show that objects of differing weights fall at the same speed, disgraced Aristotle's theories, proved Copernicus's ideas (of heliocentrism; the idea that the earth moved around the stationary sun) right, and ultimate irked the Roman Catholic Church with his findings so much that they finally persecuted him. A fascinating tale-- too bad none of it is true (Hannam, 2011).

Wait, what?
First of all, the idea of falling bodies moving at the same speed was already being championed by the scientific community at that time, as part of the project to show that the Greek philosopher Aristotle was wrong among many things. Secondly, Copernicus's ideas had already been proven by Johannes Kepler. And lastly, the Roman Catholic Church placed Galileo under house arrest for political reasons, rather than scientific or theological reasons. For the purpose of this post, I will be focusing on the apparent conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church. (Hannam, 2011)

Welcome to the 17th century
During the early 1600s, the prevailing view of astronomy were that of Aristotle's. The heavens (which could neither be generated nor decayed) were moving in concentric circles, with earth at the centre.

In 1609, Galileo was making astronomical observations using a brand new scientific equipment-- the telescope. After noticing more stars in the universe than previously thought, he observed sunspots and lunar craters. This suggested that the heavens were not unchangeable and perfect circles as Aristotle thought. More importantly, he noted that the planet Venus had different shapes at different times-- sometimes a complete disk, sometimes a semi-circle, and sometimes even barely visible. This made him conclude that Venus did not revolve around Earth; it revolved around the Sun.

The die-hard Aristotelian professors were eager to reject Galileo findings in advance. His colleague, Giulio Libri (c.1550-1610), Professor of Aristotelian Philosophy at the University of Pisa had trouble seeing through the telescope, and when he died, Galileo remarked that he could probably see the moons of Jupiter "on the way to heaven". This statement suggested how Galileo treated his opponents publicly, and it was no surprise that Galileo had few friends later in his life.

Ironically, it was the Jesuits (the Roman Catholic order of monks dedicated to education) who first warmly received Galileo's findings. The Jesuit Christopher Clavius (1538-1612), the most respected astronomer at that time confirmed his discoveries, and planned to set about ideas to reform astronomy (Lattis, 1994). The problem for Galileo now was that even though his observations contradicted the Aristotelian model of astronomy, he could not prove Copernicus's.

You mean there is another model?
Years earlier, another astronomer named Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) proposed his system of astronomy-- the earth was stationary, the Sun went around the earth, and everything else moved around the sun. After Galileo presented his work in 1611, Tycho's model became the preferred one over Aristotle's, and Copernicus's.

Furthermore, Copernicus's model was already in a bad light--Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino (1542-1621), the 'Consultor of the Holy Office and Master of Controversial Questions', was unconvinced that the Copernicus model was true (as it had yet to be demonstrated) and an Italian theologian Paolo Foscarini (1565-1616) had been aggressively advocating the Copernicus model. Thus in 1616, Copernicus's Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres was suspended from public till it's correction (Hannam, 2011).

Vatican City, 2009

Friends in high places
In 1623, Galileo's good friend, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini (1568-1644) ascended the papacy to become Pope Urban VIII. Earlier that, Galileo published Il Saggiatore ('The Assayer'), mocking Jesuit Orazio Grassi(1583-1664)'s theories about comets. Grassi had argued that comets were further from the earth than the moon, while Galileo insisted that comets were an atmospheric illusion. (Incidentally, modern science concurs with Grassi.) Pope Urban VIII enjoyed the Il Saggiatore, and composed a poem in Galileo's honour.

Taking advantage of his new-found favour with the Catholic Church, Galileo travelled to Rome in 1624 to meet with the pope to explain his advocacy of the Copernicus model. Despite meeting Galileo no less than six times, Pope Urban VIII remained unconvinced. While he did not consider the Copernicus model heretical, he was unsure if it was correct either. He encouraged Galileo to treat the Copernicus's ideas as a hypothesis, rather than a fact, and asked Galileo to publish a book comparing the three models of astronomy (Aristotelian, Tycho and Copernicus). Pope Urban VIII was actually asking Galileo to be more open-minded in this case (Hannam, 2011)

But Galileo took the pope's kindness for granted
So in 1632, Galileo wrote Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems. In it, he portrays the astronomical debates as a discussion between an academic named Salviati (who represented Galileo), a Aristotelian simpleton named Simplicio and a biased chairman named Sagredo (who always agrees with Galileo's views).

When Pope Urban VIII read the book, he was furious. Some of the pope's doubts and arguments against Copernicus's models were placed in the mouth of Simplicio. Furthermore, Galileo's book omitted Tycho's model entirely, even though Galileo's "evidences" for Copernicus's model could also be applied to Tycho's (Finocchiaro, 1989)*.

And Galileo's punishment? He was NOT burnt, tortured or even flogged. Despite his soured relations with the pope, Jesuits and academia, he was placed under house arrest, and lived in comfort till his death in 1642.

Conclusion
So in the life of Galileo we learnt that
a) Despite Galileo being right about Copernicus's models, he did not prove it scientifically or observationally, although he showed it to be superior to Aristotle's (but not Tycho's).

b) The Roman Catholic Church did not go after Galileo because his findings were a threat to Christianity, but because he was extremely rude to his colleagues and superiors. He was persecuted for personal (and perhaps political reasons).

c) Although this example often crops up a science vs Christianity case study, it is a misrepresentation of issue.

Let me be clear-- Galileo was a great scientist and presenter. He was able to write fluently and present his scientific ideas as a coherent whole. However, his attitude got the better of him.

References
Finocchiaro, M.A. (1989) The Galileo Affair

Lattis, J.M. (1994) Between Copernicus and Galileo

Hannam, J. (2011) God's Philosophers

Further reading
Bethinking

*Galileo's evidences for a rotating earth mainly included the existence of tides in the waters. He argued that tides exist because of the inertia experienced by the waters as the earth moved. However, it was not convincing at that era because if he was right, we would been experiencing great winds all the time. Now we know tides are caused by the moon's gravitational effect on the waters (Hannam, 2011).