Brad and St. Anselm

Brad has this to say about Anselm's ontological argument. While reading, keep in mind that he is a tender 17 years old.

Further Thoughts on an 'Historical Anecdote'

In his discussion of the debate between the Jesuits and Dominicans, Copelston hits on the starting points of each of the sides. The Jesuits, he claims, began with what is best known, namely human freedom. From that staring point we reason backwards, as it were, and explain God's foreknowledge and decree in light of the fact of human freedom. The Dominicans, on the other hand, began with God and his decree and explained human freedom in the light of the fact of God's all-encompassing sovereignty. Of course the Jesuits claimed that on the Dominican view, God is the author of evil and the Dominicans countered that the Jesuits were subjugating God's grace to human wills.

A couple of things jumped out at me while reading this. The first, is that there is nothing really new under the sun. This is the same debate, using the same language that has and continues to occur over these issues. The second is that your starting point determines your ending point. If you being with human freedom as the most fundamental fact about the world (perhaps, even more fundamental than God's freedom) you cannot help but arrive at a view of God that is somehow limited by that freedom. It is here that you begin arriving at notions like 'God's self-limitation' and making his knowledge dependent upon the creature. It seems to me, however, that this isn't Scripture's tact. It begins with God and works from there. He speaks and it comes to be . He commands and it happens. He decrees and nothing can stay His hand.

Historical Anecdote

I was reading Frederick Copleston's History of Philosophy yesterday and I came across an interesting story. There arose a debate in the late medieval Church between the Domincans and Jesuits. The former maintained that God knows the future because of an all encompassing decree and the latter (in part) because of what is called 'middle knowledge'. The debate arose to such a pitch that they were reduced to calling each other names. The Domicans accused the Jesuits of being Pelagian and the Jesuits accused the Domicans of being Calvinists. Finally the Pope stepped in and said that both views of God's knowledge and decree were within the pale of Catholicism and the two sides "could continue to propound their own ways of reconciling God's foreknowledge, predestination and saving activity with human freedom, provided they did not call each other heretics."

Aiden's Philosophical Journey

My son has had quite a first year and a half as he has made leaps in his philosophical reasoning. He began his life as a sort of Berkelean solipsist. Berkeley held that material objects cannot exist apart from their being percieved and a solipsist is one who believes that he is the only one who exists. Ergo, when mom and dad left the room, according to Aiden, mom and dad no longer existed and he was left in the world all alone. After all, we weren't in the room with him to be perceived, it must follow then, that mom and dad are not. This mix of beliefs lead Aiden to cry as we left the room. Fortunately, however, he has grown out of this and moved on to bigger and better things. He now grants that we exist when he doesn't percieve us, and evidences this by crying when we leave the room. What he now maintains is a Humean scepticism about induction. Hume argued that we were not justified in deriving conclusions about the future from premises about the past. Hence, we cannot conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow on the basis that it has risen every day in the past. Aiden is fully on board with this argument. No matter how many times we return to the same room as Aiden, he still refuses to conclude from this past tendency to return that we will return in the future. Thus, he continues to cry when we leave the room. Funny how the same conclusion and result are reached with very different premises.

Teacher's Training

I began teacher's training at church this past Sunday. It looks to be quite rigorous but I appreciate that. Having grown up in and served for two churches who gave a Sunday School class to any joe with a mouth, I am glad for something that will challenge and root out at the same time. We are to read through the Bible in less than a year and read a total of four books, the first of which is a survey of the Bible which I am really looking forward to reading. In order to get the readings done, I have decided to be more disciplined and awaken at 630 each morning. Today was day 1 and things went well. I fear, however, that tomorrow will be a little more difficult. Here's praying that it isn't.