If you look at the Reformation it's understandable, but at the same time a mystery, that it happened when it did. The Renaissance encouraged new ideas, or new ways of looking at old ones, while new translations of the Bible from the original languages showed up mistakes in Jerome's 'Vulgate' and led to new ways of looking at religion. The Renaissance, however, was all about hominocentrism; man as the ultimate of God's creations and imbued with the capacity to reason and investigate God's universe. That's where the mystery comes in. The Reformation produced a view of humanity as fallen and unworthy of God's favour; the very antithesis of what the Renaissance was about.
Part of this new view of man's relationship with God was that nothing that man did could constitute merit in the eyes of God. Since man could not win salvation by merit he relied totally on God choosing to save him. In some respects this was a liberating concept; Justification by Faith meant there was no need for penance or to constantly struggle with guilt. All one needed was faith in Christ and all sins would be forgiven. On the other hand, however, was the rather frightening realisation that salvation was out of your own hands. You were totally reliant upon God choosing you to be saved and, not only that, but since God was perfect and could not change his mind, his choice was made right at the very beginning of time. This was why Erasmus, probably the most prominent figure of the Renaissance, refused to be inspired by Luther's ideas; he saw the whole notion of predestination as incompatible with human free will.
There was, in fact, not one Reformation, but many, as people, as they do, disagreed with notions put forward by Luther. The ideas of confession to clergy, transubstantiation of the Eucharist and the worship of Mary, all of which Luther's church still held to, were too much to stomach for others. There was no such thing as a 'Reformed' or 'Protestant' Church as an entity but, instead, Calvinists, Anabaptists etc. etc. All of these churches, however, held to the same ideas about soteriology. Justification by Faith and the predestined salvation of the Elect were core tenets.
Predestination was embedded in Calvinist Presbyterianism from the very start and John Calvin was extremely pessimistic about the number that were actually going to be saved; he put the figure at 144,000, a number he got from the Book of Revelation. It didn't exactly bode well for the majority of us, did it? No Calvinist church proclaims that number nowadays (most didn't at the time, either!) since, if it were true, there wouldn't be a lot of point to anything, would there? The idea of the predestined 'Elect', however, still held sway and, particularly in Scotland, Calvinists saw themselves as God's Chosen People, just like the Jews in the Old Testament. (I guess that's where the cry 'We are the People' came from.)
There is something about this doctrine that I've never been able to understand. If God decided, right at the beginning of time, who was to be saved and who was to be condemned, then what was the point of Christ? I asked this over on my other blog and WillieWontHe tried to give me an answer, but I suspect that he isn't a member of a mainstream Protestant church as his answer held out the promise of salvation to all; a distinctly non-Protestant concept. Either that or the doctrine of the Church of Scotland, and other churches, has changed dramatically. That might well be, since most CofS members I've spoken to have never even heard of predestination!
Anyway, I invited WWH to tell us his ideas about salvation and I await them with interest. Everybody else is, of course, welcome to chip in!
Thursday 11 February 2016
Wednesday 10 February 2016
IS HE THERE OR NOT?
It's a question that the likes of Richard Dawkins would sneer at but, to most of us, it's a reasonable one. If somebody were to prove to me, categorically, that there is no such thing as God, my first reaction would be to feel cheated. When I was growing up I was promised that God was there and, if I was good, I would be going to Heaven. As an adult I can have doubts, but there's still that feeling that there must be something there. That's what this post is about.
The first thing that anyone arguing against the existence of God says is, why does He allow so much starvation and suffering in the world. The simple answer to that is that He doesn't. If you look at it rationally, it doesn't matter whether God exists or not in this scenario; it's man himself that causes all the suffering. There is actually enough food to go round in this world but many are starving, while we in the developed world worry about our waistlines. It's the same with medicine, housing, clothing etc. There's enough for everybody but the greed of a few means that the many goes without. Stephen Fry stated that if he dies and finds himself face-to-face with God, he'll be having it out with Him for all the suffering in the world. There's a galaxy-worth of hypocrisy in that statement. If Fry doesn't believe in God, then surely he must accept that man himself is responsible. Fry is perfectly happy to dine at the obscenely luxurious table of our royalty, while others starve, which would tend to suggest that he doesn't care. So, rather than him having it out with God, I think it might turn out to be the other way round!
Anyway, back to the point. Most philosophers I read at university don't believe in God. This is explained by them as being due to the fact that God is a paradox. They use a logical proof for this:
The argument is that 1) and 2) cannot both be true since 2) places limits on God's power. Since both are held to be necessary attributes of God, then He is a paradox and cannot possibly exist. To me, though, this explanation all hinges on the definition of 'good'. For the argument to work you have to accept the existence of an absolute concept of 'goodness'. Most philosophers these days would refute the existence of such an absolute, explaining 'goodness' as a more subjective concept. This opens the door to an unintended consequence. Since 'goodness' is a subjective concept then it might well reasonably be argued that something is only good because God does it. This turns the above logical argument on its head since, if one measures 'goodness' as something that God does, then there is no paradox at all since this definition places no restrictions at all on God's power.
Science is often used as a reason for saying that God doesn't exist, since it explains things that, previously, could only be explained as the work of God. Science and God, however, are not the mutually exclusive concepts you might think. In his book 'A Brief History of Time', Stephen Hawking explains that the whole universe should be more chaotic than it is. Either something is holding it all together or it is a remarkable coincidence that everything has just fitted into place the way it has. Hawking offers two possible explanations: there is a God or there have been, and will be, many, many universes endlessly expanding and collapsing. By the sheer law of averages one of these universes would be as it is now. It's not that we're lucky to be in this one; we could exist in no other. So we have come about just by chance, and might well do so again if a universe such as ours comes into being a second time. Neither explanation is provable; you need to have faith for either one!
And then there's evolution. There's no denying that evolution is a fact but the theory of Natural Selection has not been proven. Even if it's true it doesn't preclude the existence of God. As I always said to the kids in my class, God could easily be working through natural processes. A couple of centuries ago scientists used to view discoveries as seeing into the mind of God. If you believe in God it doesn't mean you have to eschew science and vice-versa.
My belief in God tends to come and go. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't but I wouldn't count myself as a atheist and always find myself sticking up for belief in God. But what do you think? Let's hear your views on this or any other facet of religion or philosophy you want to bring up. And WillieWontHe can tell us more about his beliefs without having to read through a slagging- off of his team!
I look forward to reading some comments. And since I plan this to be a respectful discussion area, any comments that are abusive or the like will be removed; not that I expect any comments of that ilk!
The first thing that anyone arguing against the existence of God says is, why does He allow so much starvation and suffering in the world. The simple answer to that is that He doesn't. If you look at it rationally, it doesn't matter whether God exists or not in this scenario; it's man himself that causes all the suffering. There is actually enough food to go round in this world but many are starving, while we in the developed world worry about our waistlines. It's the same with medicine, housing, clothing etc. There's enough for everybody but the greed of a few means that the many goes without. Stephen Fry stated that if he dies and finds himself face-to-face with God, he'll be having it out with Him for all the suffering in the world. There's a galaxy-worth of hypocrisy in that statement. If Fry doesn't believe in God, then surely he must accept that man himself is responsible. Fry is perfectly happy to dine at the obscenely luxurious table of our royalty, while others starve, which would tend to suggest that he doesn't care. So, rather than him having it out with God, I think it might turn out to be the other way round!
Anyway, back to the point. Most philosophers I read at university don't believe in God. This is explained by them as being due to the fact that God is a paradox. They use a logical proof for this:
1) God is all-powerful.
2) God can only do good.
The argument is that 1) and 2) cannot both be true since 2) places limits on God's power. Since both are held to be necessary attributes of God, then He is a paradox and cannot possibly exist. To me, though, this explanation all hinges on the definition of 'good'. For the argument to work you have to accept the existence of an absolute concept of 'goodness'. Most philosophers these days would refute the existence of such an absolute, explaining 'goodness' as a more subjective concept. This opens the door to an unintended consequence. Since 'goodness' is a subjective concept then it might well reasonably be argued that something is only good because God does it. This turns the above logical argument on its head since, if one measures 'goodness' as something that God does, then there is no paradox at all since this definition places no restrictions at all on God's power.
Science is often used as a reason for saying that God doesn't exist, since it explains things that, previously, could only be explained as the work of God. Science and God, however, are not the mutually exclusive concepts you might think. In his book 'A Brief History of Time', Stephen Hawking explains that the whole universe should be more chaotic than it is. Either something is holding it all together or it is a remarkable coincidence that everything has just fitted into place the way it has. Hawking offers two possible explanations: there is a God or there have been, and will be, many, many universes endlessly expanding and collapsing. By the sheer law of averages one of these universes would be as it is now. It's not that we're lucky to be in this one; we could exist in no other. So we have come about just by chance, and might well do so again if a universe such as ours comes into being a second time. Neither explanation is provable; you need to have faith for either one!
And then there's evolution. There's no denying that evolution is a fact but the theory of Natural Selection has not been proven. Even if it's true it doesn't preclude the existence of God. As I always said to the kids in my class, God could easily be working through natural processes. A couple of centuries ago scientists used to view discoveries as seeing into the mind of God. If you believe in God it doesn't mean you have to eschew science and vice-versa.
My belief in God tends to come and go. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't but I wouldn't count myself as a atheist and always find myself sticking up for belief in God. But what do you think? Let's hear your views on this or any other facet of religion or philosophy you want to bring up. And WillieWontHe can tell us more about his beliefs without having to read through a slagging- off of his team!
I look forward to reading some comments. And since I plan this to be a respectful discussion area, any comments that are abusive or the like will be removed; not that I expect any comments of that ilk!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)