Geoff's Miscellany

Miscellaneous Musings

Edward Feser

Christmas Reading

by Leave a Comment

Now, I don’t expect you to read these on the first day of Christmas, but there are 12 whole days of Christmas (that’s right Adam Sandler).

James Chastek, who is just a Thomist, reflects carefully on what it means to call Mary, the Mother of God:

Nestorius insisted on the seemingly innocent theological clarification of referring to Mary as mother of Christ and not as Mother of God since “Christ” was an awaited figure in history but to take this “Mother of God” talk literally would give us the sheer contradiction of generating the ingenerable. Nestorianism mirrored the earlier and more widespread Arian heresy, which also boiled down to the same seemingly innocent desire to clarify that, whatever this “son of god” talk amounted to, there wasn’t literally a generated God.

William Briggs (whose book Uncertainty was recently gifted me) writes about the mathematics of Santa’s feats of power. It’s a unique and helpful look at how a saint and theologian, embued with Elven toy-making prowess is able to deliver presents to Christians children in a world where over 1,000,000,000 people are professing Christians:

Santa’s sleigh ride is largely ceremonial at this point, though he does go out and personally deliver some presents. He does this in cases where the math indicates that certain children are unlikely to get exactly what they want. This is because the methods that we use are not perfect: Santa and his elves can only “flap their wings” in so many places and in so many ways.

As far as the darker corners of the web are concerned, the anonymous pro-Christian heathen at the Chateau asks an important question:

[W]hich Christmas song is most triggering to non-Christians?

I would wager God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen. Billy Idol has a great version (as one of the CH commenters noted):

But it must said the Christopher Lee (who played a James Bond Villain, an evil Jedi, Dracula, and a wicked Wizard) has a fairly metal version of the Little Drummer Boy:

Edward Feser reminds us (in a very Catholic way) that every day is a day to welcome our Lord:

That, as I told my friend, is why the doctrine of transubstantiation is so important.  Meditating on the meaning of the Eucharist can help make sin detestable and horrific to us, because God’s dwelling place ought to be spotless, and we know that every time we take Holy Communion God Himself dwells in us.  We can do so daily – God with us, not just at Christmas, but throughout the year.  And throughout the year, not merely at Christmas, we need to welcome Christ with the unreserved yes that His mother exemplified.

Then two silly political tweets. First, Rand Paul:

So everyone enjoy your feats of strength today. Air your grievances here or in your home. But remember, thanks to Donald Trump we are ALL saying Merry Christmas this year — so repeat after me: MERRY CHRISTMAS and HAPPY HOLIDAYS to everyone even the haters and losers.— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2018

But it doesn’t live up to the original:

Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 31, 2016

On the Importance of Philosophical Reasoning for Biblical Exegesis: Edward Feser and Romans 1:18-23

by 4 Comments

Introduction
In my mind, the ability to engage in philosophical reasoning in order to tease out the implications of particular interpretations of the Bible and other truths is indispensable for reading the Bible and teaching it to others.

Example

Edward Feser, in a post titled, “Repressed Knowledge of God?” comments that the common interpretation of Romans 1:18-23 is mistaken. Here is the passage in question from the ESV, I would translate it differently, but it reflects the most common interpretation:

Romans 1:18-23 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (19) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (20) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (21) For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

The common interpretation is that the atheist is the person to whom these verses refer. This can be seen in the writings of many schools of Christian apologetics. The idea is that atheism is always a matter of intellectual dishonesty because the Bible teaches that knowledge of the God of the Bible is so obvious that it can only be suppressed by sheer force of will. Personaly, I think that some people are atheists because they accept bad arguments just like some people believe in God for silly reasons.

Without thinking about Christian theology, the psychology of all atheists, and broader philosophical conclusions, the text of Romans 1:18-23 itself militates against seeing atheists in this passage. The passage is not about people who believe in no gods, but rather those who have good reason to worship the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, but choose to worship idols.(See the footnote of this post about the passage in question for an alternative interpretation). The passage gives good insight into the results of idolatry, which is related to atheism, but it is not directly about atheism at all.

Feser, without attempting to exegete the Bible passage in question, refutes the view that God’s existence is so obvious as to only be denied on purpose rather handily. Here is the relevant portion of his argument:

Do we have a natural tendency to believe in God? Yes, but in something like the way in which someone might have a natural aptitude for music or for art. You might be inclined to play some instrument or to draw pictures, but you’re not going to do either very well without education and sustained practice.  And without cultivating your interest in music or art, your output might remain at a very crude level, and your ability might even atrophy altogether.

Or consider moral virtue.  It is natural to us, but only in the sense that we have a natural capacity for it.  Actually to acquire the virtues still requires considerable effort.  As Aquinas writes: “[V]irtue is natural to man inchoatively…both intellectual and moral virtues are in us by way of a natural aptitude, inchoatively, but not perfectly…(Summa Theologiae I-II.63.1, emphasis added), and “man has a natural aptitude for virtue; but the perfection of virtue must be acquired by man by means of some kind of training” (Summa Theologiae I-II.95.1).

Now, knowledge of God is like this. We are indeed naturally inclined to infer from the natural order of things to the existence of some cause beyond it.  But the tendency is not a psychologically overwhelming one like our inclination to eat or to breathe is. It can be dulled.  Furthermore, the inclination is not by itself sufficient to generate a very clear conception of God.  As Aquinas writes:

To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man’s beatitude… This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching… (Summa Theologiae I.2.1, emphasis added)

In other words, from a philosophical point of view, to claim that God’s existence is only and ever obvious, is simply untrue. Now, that does not automatically mean that Paul doesn’t teach the falsified point of view. But for those with a conservative evangelical definition of the Bible, it means alternative interpretations should be sought.