PDA

View Full Version : Descartes Go Cart



Jack777
January 15th 2005, 01:42 PM
AND IN TRUTH, AS I HAVE NO GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT DEITY IS DECEITFUL, AND AS INDEED, I HAVE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED THE REASONS BY WHICH THE EXISTENCE OF DEITY OF ANY KIND IS ESTABLISHED, THE GROUND OF DOUBT THAT RESTS ONLY ON THIS SUPPOSITION IS SLIGHT, AND SO TO SPEAK METAPHYSICAL. BUT, THAT I MAY BE ABLE WHOLLY TO REMOVE IT, I MUST INQUIRE WHETHER THERE IS A GOD, I MUST EXAMINE LIKEWISE WHETHER HE CAN BE A DECEIVER; FOR WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THESE TWO TRUTHS, I DO NOT SEE THAT I CAN EVER BE CERTAIN OF ANYTHING....



...BUT BEFORE I EXAMINE THIS WITH MORE ATTENTION, AND PASS ON TO THE CONSIDERATION OF OTHER TRUTHS THAT MAY BE EVOLVED OUT OF IT, I THINK IT PROPER TO REMAIN HERE FOR SOME TIME IN THE CONTEMPLATION OF GOD HIMSELF--THAT I MAY PONDER AT LEISURE HIS MARVELOUS ATTRIBUTES--AND BEHOLD, ADMIRE, AND ADORE THE BEAUTY OF THIS LIGHT SO UNSPEAKABLY GREAT, AS FAR, AT LEAST, AS THE STRENGTH OF MY MIND WHICH IS TO SOME DEGREE DAZZLED BY THE SIGHT WILL PERMIT. FOR JUST AS WE LEARN BY FAITH THAT THE SUPREME FELICITY OF ANOTHER LIFE CONSISTS IN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE DIVINE MAJESTY ALONE, SO EVEN NOW WE LEARN FROM EXPERIENCE THAT A LIKE MEDITATION, THOUGH INCOMPARABLY LESS PERFECT, IS THE SOURCE OF THE HIGHEST SATISFACTION OF WHICH WE ARE SUSCEPTIBLE IN THIS LIFE.



RENÉ DESCARTES



MEDITATION III



OF GOD: THAT HE EXISTS



René Descartes, Meditation III, Of God: That He Exists, in Discourse on Method, Rene Descartes, London: J. P. Dent & Sons, Ltd. 1912 Edition, Reprint 1946.



Descartes thought through the question of the existence of God and considered first the awareness of himself, then that which is external to him in a logical way. His meditations are instructive in that the delimiting factors with which mankind has as a fleshly being become manifestly obvious. From a rational view, Descartes decided that God Is. The fact that he noticed his way of knowing if indeed the man Descartes exists, has become celebrated. He is famous for the statement: "I think therefore, I am." Some have gone so far as to suggest that we think we exist and therefore that gives us being and substance. The knowledge of mankind is based on what we can know. Descartes was not so foolish to think that he exists because he thought that the did. This demonstrates the fact that our knowledge is limited to some indeterminate degree.



Logic and rational thought are certainly well appreciated gifts that we are born with to one extent or another. It is not a coincidence that John points to God as Logos as Jesus, rational and logical thought of the Highest Order. Others may meditate and conclude that God does not exist using a method of approaching reality that is different in significant ways from that which Descartes employed. Existential and experiential knowledge is limited to that which we can glean from our experiences and abstract means of acquiring what there is to know. If we are ever waiting for Godot and fully anticipate our existential and experiential expectations to be met, it may be that we could be disappointed. We might miss the arrival of God in our lives thousands of times if we innocently think that He will match what we logically conclude He is like. We may be logical but we do not possess exhaustive knowledge. God knows these limitations and we could know something of them if we might pause and reflect on the fact that no human has exhaustive knowledge of the Universe. If it is true that no one has exhaustive knowledge of the Universe, then why would we think that we would have sufficient knowledge of God based on our finite existence and experiences?



Descartes formulated a rough model by which we become self-aware at first and then become aware of the external natural world. However, Revelation from God to us, provides the means with which we can know God as He Is. No matter how well we come to know the Universe, there is the chance we will be stuck in a darkened room waiting in vain for Godot and miss God. Some choose to accept a "No Exit" in the absence of God.



We first apprehend that God is the Creator and this only because He told us that He is the Creator in Genesis 1:1. Descartes wanted to know if God might deceive him or if God is a deceiver in his critical path thinking. If God might deceive him then logically that would imply the potentiality that God does not care about him, or anyone else for that matter. Humans can only go so far in knowing that we can trust someone else. If we cannot trust someone, we usually find out the hard way and that leaves a lasting impression on us. Experience takes us to the brink of trust and leaves us there unknowing.



Existential life is that unknowing on the brink, such as expressed in The Plague and The Stranger by Albert Camus and as he writes in his The Myth of Sisyphus. It leaves us unknowing and in harm's way under conditions that we may not have any control over. Camus wrote of its sudden unannounced quality coming from nowhere seemingly--and striking fear in us, catching us off guard in The Myth of Sisyphus:



"At any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face."



The problem that Descartes expressed is the same problem posed to us by mere existence, mere existential life. The absurdity of life is real in this sense. Rationally and logically we know that misplaced trust may end existence as Camus expresses in The Rebel:



"In order to exist just once in the world, it is necessary never again to exist."



The observations of Camus are especially true today in a highly secular society. There have never been any guarantees in life apart from those of God and Camus speaks to the world as existential under our reason and existential logic alone in Helen's Exile:



"Whereas the Greeks gave to will the boundaries of reason, we have come to put the will’s impulse in the very center of reason, which has, as a result, become deadly."



For Camus, the philosophy of the Greeks had been revived several hundred years before and refined in the modernism of the 20th century until it passed in the absence of Faith to something deadly. Camus was a contemporary of Adolf Hitler and as such the words "triumph of the will" were familiar. Hitler deceived people as a little god holding out lies and myths along with a supposed "aristocracy of nature" and "Eternal Will," that human will could rationalize and join with in some sort of mystical tour de force that ended in tragedy and violence with 60 million casualties in WWII, along with the extermination of some 12 or so million people. The world of the survival of the fittest was being realized in its fullest potential in the Spanish Civil War, the Brown Shirt Movement in the United States, the Vichy government under Petain, and the Gulag in the Soviet government. Pushing the point to its logical end and the reasonable conclusion claimed the lives of millions and produced horror for millions who were wounded, tortured, and changed forever.



Human will had indeed become the deadly arbiter of reason for Camus. This is predictable and repeats in generation after generation for those who forget that we are limited and stay at the brink in unknowing existential reality without God. It is God Who tells us that He is the Creator and that He created us for good, not evil. Who else would any human be able to trust based on reason and logic? Like Descartes, Camus and others point out these essential facts of life.



The Truth matters existentially and experientially. Descartes and any other sane persons are not going to take a chance on a known or unknown deceiver. Descartes knew that there were those who deceive and devour others in his time. This has been ever true. Jesus came in the flesh to rescue us from absurdity and mere existentialism and liberate us from experience alone. In a large measure we are saved from reason alone and logic alone as they lead to no hope, no exit, and no life. We are saved from ourselves in many cases because we do not need any external force to enslave us. We do it just fine all by ourselves.



Shape without form, shade without colour,

Paralyzed force, gesture without motion;



Those who have crossed

With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom

Remember us--if at all--not as lost

Violent souls, but only

As the hollow men

The stuffed men



T.S. Eliot



The Hollow Men



T.S. Eliot, Collected Poems 1909-1962, NY, NY: Harcourt Brace & Company, Copyright 1968 Esme Valerie Eliot.



It is good to say this or that based on facts we know. The study of how we are put together and about animals and plants that lived millions of years ago is exciting. The contemplation of the Universe is capable of filling any of us with awe and wonder. Thomas Chalmers lived at a time when astronomy was being investigated and delivered his sermon 17 years after Hutton had died. His sermons were published one year before Lyell published Principles of Geology. Questions about Catastrophism versus Gradualism emanated from controversies between Astronomers and Geologists. Chalmers saw the Universe as God's Creation and did not see why the earth had to be a certain age. Religious people had a problem with it as Bishop Ussher had published his Annals of the World (1654) which gave the date of Creation as 4004 B.C. Veneration can be mistaken for truth sometimes. Chalmers spoke of the Creation with awe and wonder.



"Now what is the obvious and fair assumption? The world in which we live is a round ball of determined magnitude, and occupies its own place in the firmament. But when we explore the unlimited tracks of that space in which is everywhere around us, we meet with other balls of equal or superior magnitude, and from which our earth would either be invisible, or appear as small as any of those twinkling stars which are seen on the canopy of heaven. Why then suppose that this little spot, little at least in the immensity which surrounds it, should be the exclusive abode of life and of intelligence?



Thomas Chalmers, 1814, Tron Church, Glasgow

Modern Astronomy



Thomas Chalmers, Modern Astronomy, NY, NY: American Tract Society, n.d. (publication date inferred from other sources as 1829)



That awe and wonder gets missed today by some as the Theory of Evolution is used to replace God as He reveals Himself to us in the Bible. Somehow the Theory of Evolution becomes a means to ask, "hath God said?" Even Darwin attributed Creation to God. However, the Theory of Evolution thinks that we were evolved from a single combination of organic material. Is that it, is that the important thing about us? Maybe some of us have it backwards and we should decide to look at science in the light of Scripture rather than the other way. Somehow Creationists make up stories that are not true sometimes to force the issue that way.





"We do not place especial value on the possession of a virtue until we notice its total absence in our opponent."



Friedrich Nietzsche



Human, All Too Human



We have an opponent, nihilism, and it has no virtues. We have an opponent, absurdity, and it has no virtues. We think that getting conned out of money or cheated is not absurd falsely console ourselves no harm was done as it is a hard experience that is a good teacher although a cruel taskmaster and unforgiving to the point of another opponent, Death. We like to think about a lot of things but some conclude nothing can be done and stick our heads in the sand rather than deal with it by adopting the absurd notion that nothing could come after Death for us. Maybe Death comes for us and that is it and Death has a reality. It is reasonable and logical to assume that Death has no virtue if Death is a reality. Scripture says that Death is a reality. Elevating the atoms and radiation of the Universe to explain reality in contradiction of Scripture is heterodoxy that leads to that brink of unknowing. If probabilities are all one accepts, one accepts absurdity. If probability is a co-Creator with God, one has established two gods and that is absurdity. The witness of Scripture negates absurdity. It is only by Revelation that we know that God is Creator and Redeemer. All other choices are absurd. Theistic Evolution is absurd, not because of God but putting stock in the absurdity that random chance orders things so nicely that surely God ignores His Creation. It is absurd not because of Scripture but because Scripture teaches that God is the Creator, the Author, and the Finisher--the Beginning and the End of all reality in the Universe. There is no One but Him. Theistic Evolution is absurd as it introduces heterodoxy, the same kind that was introduced into Christianity by elevating Aristotle and Plato as luminaries within the Ekklesia which touted "reason" only to end up described by Camus in the 20th century as having no virtue because "...we have come to put the will’s impulse in the very center of reason, which has, as a result, become deadly." That is always what happens with God plus something, even if that something is The much vaunted "Theory of Evolution."



Tertullian illustrates this point:



"It therefore served Thales of Miletus quite right, when, star-gazing as he walked with all the eyes he had, he had the mortification of falling into a well, and was unmercifully twitted by an Egyptian, who said to him, 'Is it because you found nothing on earth to look at, that you think you ought to confine your gaze to the sky?' His fall, therefore, is a figurative picture of the philosophers; of those, I mean, who persist in applying their studies to a vain purpose, since they indulge a stupid curiosity on natural objects, which they ought rather (intelligently to direct) to their Creator and Governor."



Tertullian, Apology, Translator, Rev. S. Thelwall, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3, Master Christian Library Edition, Albany, OR: AGES Software Version 1.0, Copyright 1997 Ages Software, 1997.



Thales did not even unknowingly stop at the brink but walked into the well. That is the rest of the story, that thing we fear beyond the brink. The reason, logic, rationality, wisdom, and understanding that God sent to us as a man, Jesus Christ negates absurdity and the pit beyond the brink. Jesus is the Creator in Genesis 1:1.



The rational mind can apprehend that there is a God and apprehend that there must only be One. Descartes demonstrates this. However, he also demonstrates the fact that rationality alone cannot identify God. Descartes reasons that God would not deceive him, but then he wonders how might he know that? Descartes acknowledges that Faith plays a part. Our ideas help to form a basis so we might have the necessary cognitive structures and reference points why which we might be able to apprehend a knowledge of God. This knowledge must come from Revelation and that Revelation comes from God to us through His Word, the Scriptures, and His Holy Spirit.



In the whole counsel of God in His Revelation to us Scripture speaks of the Father as Creator. In the Gospel of John, John begins by identifying Jesus Christ as Creator:



"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."



John 1:1-3



This account of the Good News was written in a way that the Jewish Targums would immediately be brought to the mind of Jewish readers and hearers. The Logos is the same as the Memra of the Targums. Memra means the same exact thing that Logos means and is from the same root as the Hebrew word davar is from. Memra is the word used to identify God as actively working in the lives of those in the Old Testament in the Targums. Logos did not simply mean rational wisdom to those who read the Gospel of John, it referred to God the Creator actively working in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. John therefore easily identifies the Logos as the Expected One and also the One Who created the Universe as shown above. The witness of God from the first verse of the Bible is that God created the Universe in the Beginning. Paul points out in Colossians that it is Jesus Who Is the Beginning. He writes to the Colossians in part to refute the Gnostic teachings and establish in the minds of the believers of Colossae the identity of God and His Son Jesus Christ. He says of Jesus that,



"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.



And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell..."

Colossians 1:16-19



Paul says further that to this end



"...Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints..."



Colossians 1:25-26



Paul is telling that the people at Colossae are Gentiles and they are of the saints of God, believers in His Ekklesia even though they are not Jews by birth. The identifications made that God is the Creator and the Redeemer, the Savior and King of the Universe apply to those who believe on Him no matter the nation or tribe, race or sex, slave or free. In this dispensation the veil has been lifted and the eyes of all opened to know that the Creator is this Redeemer and is the Savior of all. It was a mystery and hidden from the eyes of the Gentiles and God made sure that the Gentiles would know of Him personally through His Son Jesus Christ by the preacher Paul. Paul says explicitly that it is Jesus Who is working in him to bring this knowledge of God as Redeemer that is the hope of to the whole world. God intended that all would know that there is hope for Eternal Life and that it is given freely to all Who believe, Gentiles,



"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:



Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:



Whereunto I also labor, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily."



Colossians 1:26-29



God wants us to know that He created the Universe because that is our first clue as to Who He is. There are many things that people might wonder and think perhaps something else or someone else might be responsible for our existence. God goes to great lengths to prove to us Who He Is for our benefit.



The rational mind can apprehend that there is a God and apprehend that there must only be One. Descartes demonstrates this. However, he also demonstrates the fact that rationality alone cannot identify God. Descartes reasons that God would not deceive him, but then he wonders how might he know that? Descartes acknowledges that Faith plays a part. Our ideas help to form a basis so we might have the necessary cognitive structures and reference points why which we might be able to apprehend a knowledge of God. This knowledge must come from Revelation and that Revelation comes from God to us through His Word, the Scriptures, and His Holy Spirit. ) to their Creator and Governor."

rogero
January 15th 2005, 05:05 PM
...


God wants us to know that He created the Universe because that is our first clue as to Who He is. There are many things that people might wonder and think perhaps something else or someone else might be responsible for our existence. God goes to great lengths to prove to us Who He Is for our benefit.


...
Your font size choice and use of all CAPS make this post hard on the eyes. Also, it's difficult to tell what words are your own and what is a quotation. The "quote" and "cite" features that TWeb offers during post creation and editing are very nice and useful.

I assume that the above quote is in your own words. I really don't know what you're trying to support with this OP. Is it supposed to be yet another polemic against Theistic Evolution? If so, you've failed miserably once again. For example, Christian TEs would have no problem with the above quote.

So, I will ask once again -- what is your point?

R

Jack777
January 19th 2005, 12:20 PM
I looked to edit it for you as I realize maybe other people's screens are not too big, so thanks.

I used quotes and footnotes that is how you can tell the difference between words that are quotes and what I wrote.

So, is that all you got from my words... try this about the Creator

http://www.fathersloveletter.com/fllpreviewlarge.html

rogero
January 19th 2005, 07:02 PM
I looked to edit it for you as I realize maybe other people's screens are not too big, so thanks.


OK. I think the text wraps around to successive lines, so making the text size smaller shouldn't make it any easier for those with small screens to read.




I used quotes and footnotes that is how you can tell the difference between words that are quotes and what I wrote.


OK, fair enough -- so those were your words?






So, is that all you got from my words... try this about the Creator

http://www.fathersloveletter.com/fllpreviewlarge.html
AFAIK, the Cosmogony forum is for discussion of differing theistic views on origins. So, everyone on this forum presumbly believes that God is Creator. The discussion is about HOW God creates.

In view of that, I see no point in the OP, other than God is not a deceiver. That's the reason I'm TE -- in my opionion any other view would make God a deceiver.

R

Jack777
January 20th 2005, 11:50 AM
Thanks,

There was more to my post than that.

So, why would God be a deceiver if He did things according to the witness of Scripture?

rogero
January 20th 2005, 05:47 PM
Thanks,

There was more to my post than that.

So, why would God be a deceiver if He did things according to the witness of Scripture?
First of all, exactly to what "witness of Scripture" are you referring? Genesis requires at least some interpretation in its relation to physical reality, and I'm not at all sure what your interpretation is.

I've tried to understand what your views are on the physical history of Earth, Cosmos, and biosphere. I know you're not YEC, that you do accept some standard geology (plate tectonics perhaps?). I know you don't accept (biological) evolution.

On the scriptural side, you're apparently a Biblical literalist (even inerrantist.) But one thing confusing about this is that YECs are also Biblical literalists and claim that the plain-simple-clear-even-to-a-child reading of Genesis points to a 6Ka/24hr/6 day Creation. If you and YECs claim a plain reading of a inerrant Scripture and yet you conflict on the age of Earth and the geology of Noahic Flood, then something's wrong with either the Scriptural or the physical interpretation. So, what gives?

It would help me immensely in my understanding of your viewpoint if you gave a quick synopsis of your view of the history of Earth and biosphere. Do you believe in numerous total extinctions followed by special re-creations of the biosphere, or what? I simply can't figure your views out, all I know is that you believe (biological?) evolution is dangerous and atheistic and evil.

So, yes, to answer your bolded question --- using the witness of nature, the preponderance of physical evidence points to multiple Ga Earth and Cosmos and absence of a global flood (ergo, forcing the YEC interpretation to make God a deceiver) and change in the biosphere over time, as witness by paleontological, anatomical, and genetic evidence (ergo, forcing your anti-evolution interpretation to make God a deceiver.)

R

kofh2u
January 21st 2005, 02:08 PM
Jack777, Descartes is a great starting point, but I believe you miss out on the importance of what he said.
Perhaps this is true because you are focused on his direct acknowledgement of the "Creator." You apparently believe he supports your own perspectives.

"Descartes was not so foolish to think that he exists because he thought that the did. "

Descartes was in a shaman-like state of mind for 10 days. He had had a mystical peak experience, ala Abraham Maslow.

From the observation that he recognized doubt, personally doubting everything, he said, questioning everything, he observed that ALL that was apparent and undoubtable summed to: "I am, because in this doubting I evidence the thinking required to so do."

This far preceeded his deductions yet to come.

One might conclude that his quoted statements omitted the predicate of:
"I, (whatever that may mean), am thinking.
So, the unknown first cause behind this phenomenon of thinking 'is,' or exists.
The unknown First Cause responsible for the observable thinking is the "I am."

Descartes was discovering, only in the kingdom within, the Immanent God of the Trinity, not the external Godhead of the remaining aspects of this triad.

Jack777
January 23rd 2005, 05:06 PM
witness of scripture--the whole counsel of God, the Bible, The Holy Bible, like that.


God is the same on the inside as the outside. I was not trying to bring that out as that is a separate thesis altogether. The important thing is the Creator, not us. That was my point. I am not trying to be a junior metaphysicist and get my big start here. I was adressing something more important: God, His Kingdom versus the kosmos. I see what you are saying I think.

Since you brought this up, though.
Response to Descartes opinion of kofhu2



Descartes, as I presented his views, in those specific quotes, was explaining things from a human perspective. His being self-aware does not make him a source of Revelation. The fact that he was in a state of ecstasy when he came up with his famous saying, “I think therefore I am,”does not equate with any religious insight or anything spiritual. Anything we know that is absolutely valid comes from God, not our own self-effort. I was demonstrating the ability of rational thinking in terms of the natural self versus the spiritual self. Descartes was able to come to a rational conclusion that God exists. That is not the same thing as coming to Faith, although I am hoping that he did. I cannot know that of him. Besides it was not the point. Mystical experiences may make people all warm and fuzzy and deceive us into thinking we gained spiritual insight, but may not and likely do not put us in touch with God. I did not suspect Descartes of being a spiritual fruitcake and was not trying to say that he was. His spiritual ecstasy has nothing to do with what I pointed out. I pointed to God not to mankind and experience as our source of Revelation knowledge of God that is saving. Descartes defined the differences between, Faith and mankind’s ability to reason, and exhibit rational thought.



I went to a building to a meeting and there was a beautiful fountain in the lobby. I sat for awhile and soon I had to go to the restroom and asked the receptionist where they were located. She told me and then, someone passing, by noted that the fountain, “ got to him.” The cool air conditioning and the running water worked to alert me to more basic needs than I was aware of at the time. That is hardly the stuff of spiritual enlightenment. Ecstasies can have their basis in mental processes that are not related to anything spiritual at all. Some people with Dissociative Identity Disorder sometimes retreat to a place where they literally see nothing but light in order to cope with a situation. It is for them a safe place to be. Emotional triggers based on past experiences or body memories have the ability to have an alter “come out” that deals with a particular type of trauma in this specific way. There are gradations of this ability with people and some have proposed the term “multiple intelligence” for people who do not have amnestic barriers, yet dissociate. That does not discount valid spiritual experiences. God does act directly in the lives of His creatures. However, things that can plainly be seen in the light of our innate abilities given as gifts to us as humans do not automatically qualify as a spiritual experience.



EST and other brainwashing methods are designed to fortify people against trauma and depend on the natural man solely and it works to a great degree. The mistake cults and bogus religious phonies perpetrate on people is to confuse the two. In between the spiritual and the natural visible world are beings that are not seen, yet are created, as natural in a way as we are. We make a grave mistake in thinking that they are spiritual in the sense God is spiritual. God is Spirit and we are endowed with His Spirit as believers, yet we are also natural beings of flesh and blood. These beings are of a higher order than we are in some cases but confusion ensues if we deal with them as familiar spirits. Doing this is forbidden and some of them are malevolent and worse things than confusion occurs.



One of the reasons why it is important to know the Creator and His Son and His Holy Spirit is this keeps us from being led off in the wrong direction. The Bible specifically details all of this. One of the reasons there is enmity between the spiritual man and the natural man is that the natural man will die and the spiritual man won’t. One way is Life and the other is Death.



As far as the metaphysical is concerned, I do not think that way in the usual sense of the word. Because something occurs “naturally” does not equate with correct or right. Some of us have the natural ability to key into separate realities and then some use peyote buttons to do so. That does not mean these separate realities are spiritual in the true sense of the word. People are ever learning the hard way or not at all about this.



One of my favorite quotes that I take as an aphorism is from the Argentinian writer, Jorge Luis Borges,known for his metaphysically flavored short stories.



“One concept corrupts and confuses the others. I am not speaking of the Evil whose limited sphere is ethics; I am speaking of the infinite.”



Jorge Luis Borges



Avatars Of The Tortoise



He notices something about reality and it multiplicity that sometimes mimics the spiritual. This is confusion, a Hebrew definition for sin, putting two things together that do not belong together. It always messes people up eventually. He, however, thought of Evil as something infinite, close to a dualistic being, the mistake of the Cathars and others. Evil is not equal with God and is not co-eternal. I was not assuming that Descartes made this same mistake.



God is the event, the Event, not us and not our experiences. The modern term “spiritualization” (more correctly understood as allegorizing) of Scripture is bogus. That is, in part, what the Reformation was a reaction to. Saying I understand the Bible literally simply means we cannot make up a story from Scripture out of our imagination and then claim we have interpreted it. The same folks who brought spiritualization after heterodoxy from Greek philosophy was introduced into Christianity as “official” were the same ones people deridingly said of that they argued over how many angels danced on the head of a pin. That was a saying, the theologians did not really argue over that, it was a way of pointing out they were nuts. I would agree with Kerry Shirts as follows:



‘Hebrew thought does not construct the truth as a philosophical system; rather it is essentially the response to an event.’1



This is demonstrated perfectly in the Bible with its beginning with the beginning, a non-human event. "The human involvement is described only as a passive reception, or an enjoyed reaction that comes after the event…"2 (Gen. 2:1-3, cf. Exodus 20:8-11). Likewise the Israelite theology of salvation is based and drawn from the event of the Exodus from Egypt, (Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 5:6; Isaiah 40:3). Exodus 24:7 illustrates this rather graphically in Israel’s response to Gods giving of the Law:

(mf#$:niw: h#&e(jna n’aseh venishma’ "We shall do, then we shall obey."

Instead of thinking from cause to effect as we do, the ancient Israelites reason from effect to cause! And Micah 1:10-15 demonstrates this showing that the cities that mourn for the exiles are listed before the cities that gave up exiles. First the effect, then the cause. 3



The Hebrews did not say "I think, therefore I am," they said, "I am, therefore I think." 4

Interestingly, Descartes, in relation to spiritual thinking had it exactly backwards.5




Jacques B. Doukhan, Hebrew for Theologians: A Textbook for the Study of Biblical Hebrew in Relation to Hebrew Thinking, Lanham, 1993: 192.
Doukhan, p. 192-193.
Doukhan, p. 193.
Doukhan, p. 193.


http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/archaic.htm (http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/archaic.htm)