Saturday 27 September 2008

Dissertation: Theology of Love

I have decided to continue my studies and reapply (back) to the University of Helsinki. In my thesis I studied John Paul II's theology of the body. In my dissertation I hope to enter one of the many doors opened by my thesis and focus on theology of love. The exact topic needs to be ratified by my professors, but I'm hoping that I'll be able to conduct a comparative study between the conceptions of love (theologies of love) of two great minds: John Paul II (Catholic) and C. S. Lewis (Anglican/Protestant).

The topic, on one hand, is superbly interesting, but on the other, superbly terrifying. I am not just referring to the academic dimension in conducting a study of this scale. What terrifies me is the topic itself: love. Let me explain.

It is an age old question whether knowledge or virtue constitutes the essence of a good life. What is the relationship between knowledge and virtue? When we say we "understand a thing", is it by virtue of knowledge or by virtue of virtue that we do understand? After analyzing the question deeper, many would conclude that the answer is both. And that knowledge and virtue, at the end of the day, are organically connected to one another. But what does this have to do with a systematic study on love?

Nowhere is this interconnectedness between knowledge and virtue more apparent than in love.

This poses a serious limitation for any study of love, a two-part limitation. Firstly, a true understanding of love requires not only knowledge of love, but also love itself, love as a virtue. The true studier of love must be a true lover. Otherwise we are dealing with superficialities. The innermost secrets of love reveal themselves to the scholar-lover more than to the scholar. Thinking about love is not a substitution for loving.

I believe both John Paul II and C. S. Lewis to be scholar-lovers par excellence, so the content their lover-minds produced is most likely of superior quality. So they are excellent sources. However, if the studier of their thought is himself not well versed in the school of love, this superior quality will not be penetrated.

The second part of the two-part limitation follows the same logic. Somehow the findings of a study of love -- a study which for argument's sake we take as successful -- must be communicated to the public, to the readership. By virtue of all what's been said of knowledge and virtue (in understanding), the deeper findings of the study will be comprehensible only to the lovers.

So I'm anxious firstly because the chances of conducting a successful study are slim and the topic, love, obligates the serious researcher to attempt something of a conversion of heart; and secondly because, presuming the study is successful, the topic, love, obligates the serious reader to attempt something of a conversion of heart.

A difficult situation. Yes, but what could be more important than love? I think I am the luckiest person alive if my study plans are ratified.

"We must remember that love reveals itself, not by words or phrases, but by action and experience. It is Love which speaks here, and if anyone wishes to understand it, let him first love." -- Bernard of Clairvaux

Thursday 25 September 2008

Proofs of God's Existence -- Part III

(The Atheist-bashing ends.)

1. ARGUMENT FROM PRESIDENTIAL IGNORANCE
(1) If I ask God to blesserize Texas, nobody'll mess with it.
(2) Nobody messes with Texas.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

2. ARGUMENT FROM C.S. LEWIS
(1) C.S. Lewis had a lot of good arguments in favour of Christianity ... at least that's what all my Christian friends tell me...
(2) C.S. Lewis wrote some popular books too!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

3. ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN EXPERTS ARE IGNORED
(1) Dembski, Behe, Kreeft, Graig and Plantinga are ignored by mainstream intellectuals.
(2) Only a fear of the truth could explain this.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN EXPERTS ARE NOT IGNORED
(1) Mainstream intellectuals are paying some attention to Dembski, Bene, Kreeft, Graig and Plantinga.
(2) Only a growing recognition of the truth could explain this.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

5. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (II)
(1) The Bible says the Bible is true.
(2) Therefore the Bible is true.
(3) The Bible says God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

6. ARGUMENT FROM UNTRANSLATED OLD FRENCH
(1) "Mais pourceque j'avois déjà connu en moi très clairement que la nature intelligente est distincte de la corporelle; connsidérant que toute composition témoigne de la dépendance, et que la dépendance est manifestement un défaut, je jugeois de là que ce ne pouvoit être une perfection en Dieu d'être composé de ces deux natures, et que par conséquent il ne l'étoit pas; mais que s'il y avoit quelques corpos dans le monde, ou bien quelques intelligences ou autres natures qui ne fussent point totutes parfaites, leur être devoit dépendre de sa puissance, en telle sorte quelles ne pouvoient subsister sans lui un seul moment." -- René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode
(2) How could you possibly refute that?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

7. ARGUMENT FROM YOUTH GROUP MINISTER
(1) God is awesome!
(2) Like, totally, dude!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

8. ...

Actually, I found 300 so-called "Proof's of God's Existence" from the Atheists of Silicon Valley Humor Page, but the rest weren't very funny. In fact, many of them are solid -- really, no joking -- solid arguments for God's existence, that were just modified a little to sound absurd. And, oddly enough, sometimes after the modification they still sounded solid and not absurd!

I think I will post ten of each of these two types: ten the ones that are solid but twisted, and ten of the ones that are solid, unsuccessfully twisted and not funny.

Tuesday 23 September 2008

Proofs of God's Existence -- Part II

(The Atheist-bashing continues.)

1. ARGUMENT FROM MANIFESTATIONS
(1) If you turn your head sideways and squint a little, you can see an image of a bearded man in that tortilla.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

2. ARGUMENT FROM NON-BELIEF
(1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) That is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

3. ARGUMENT FROM INCOHERENT BABBLE
(1) See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently?
(2) That is how infinite wisdom reveals itself.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. CALVINIST ARGUMENT
(1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever.
(2) I rather like that idea.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

5. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM ORIGINALITY
(1) I have written the following to demonstrate the existence of God.
(2) (insert entire text of a William Lane Graig article)
(3) Therefore, God exists.

6. ARGUMENT FROM TEEN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT
(1) God is so totally awesome, dude, and if you would pretend that Creed and POD were good bands, you would realize that.
(2) Also, our Youth Group leader Skip once, like, cured a broken leg using only the power of the almighty Lord.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

7. ARGUMENT FROM PRAYER
(1) God exists.
(Atheist makes counterarguments)
(2) You have my prayers.

8. ARGUMENT FROM SPAGHETTI
(1) A few people saw something weird in a bowl of spaghetti.
(2) Some Catholics believe it is the Virgin Mary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

9. ARGUMENT FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS
(1) The Declaration of Independence includes the words "God" and "Creator".
(2) Only a Christian would include the words "God" and "Creator".
(3) Therefore the US is a Christian Nation.
(4) A Christian Nation couldn't last over 200 years without God's help.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

10. ARGUMENT FROM INVISIBLITY
(1) God is invisible.
(2) I can't see God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Monday 22 September 2008

Proofs of God's Existence -- Part I

I've gathered a few knock-em-down arguments for the existence of God. They're quite intellectual, and some are more convincing than others. Now go and impress your friends.

1. MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

2. MORAL ARGUMENT
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed when I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

3. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) (arbitrary passage from OT)
(2) (arbitrary passage from NT)
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in my trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

5. ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

6. ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

7. ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

8. ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

9. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

10. ARGUMENT FROM LOVE
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

Friday 19 September 2008

The Power of Commas

I prefer English grammar to Finnish grammar. Finnish, as a language, is more rigid and its vocabulary is narrower. I'm sure a Finnish philologist -- someone who remembers the one million grammar rules -- might disagree. I like English's versatility. Commas, for instance, may be placed almost wherever one wants. In places where one takes a natural break. In Finnish, on the other hands, there are fixed rules. Certain words must, by default, always be followed by a comma, no matter whether there's a natural pause or not.

You might remember this example that well illustrates the power of commas in English. The two sentences are exactly the same, except for the location of the commas. And yet somehow their meanings are perhaps slightly different.

1. Woman, without her, man is nothing.

2. Woman without her man, is nothing.

Thursday 18 September 2008

Animal Update



Teemu riding in Siuntio near my parents' summer house. Their neighbors have a horse-farm and I was supposed to tell everyone what their names (both neighbors' and horses) are but I've forgotten. The children love them both. I especially like Teemu's unorthodox riding helmet.

There some sad news too. A few days ago some animal broke into the duck and chicken house in the home backyard in Helsinki and... killed them all.

We think it was a fox, but foxes don't usually kill everyone -- rather they grab one and quickly take off. So it might be a mink. Although I'm not sure if any live in the vicinity. A narrow creek runs by the house, so there you have the (required) water, but still, I'd be surprised if it was a mink. I was authentically saddened by the news. All the ducks and chickens had names, they were part of the family, and many visitors came over just to see them. The bunnies are alive, thanks to a fenced cage-floor.

I'm hoping my parents decide to get raise more ducklins and chicks, but we'll see.

Sunday 14 September 2008

Hunting in Eastern Finland



What a great trip. I just returned from a four-day hunting trip from eastern Finland. Up at 5 am each morning, coffee break at 11 am, dinner at 4 pm, and bed at 10 pm. We ate well, had good conversation, and walked for miles. We saw a lot of wild game, birds mostly, and I was able to bring one home. Jarmo and Jukka were, by far, the more experienced hunters and trekkers, and excellent company. The trip was a success -- in fact, we decided to re-do it before the season ends: we'll be heading back to eastern Finland October 17th.

Tuesday 9 September 2008

Political Theory - Q#3: Christian Politician's Dilemma

Political theory #1: Matter vs. Spirit
Political theory #2: Origin of Change--Law or Conscience?
Political theory #3: Christian Politician's Dilemma

The third and final theoretical question concerning politics I have labeled as the "Christian Politician's Dilemma". In truth, it is a universal dilemma pertaining to everybody, Christian or not, but Christians, I suspect, may be more aware of it.

As noted earlier, democracy does not guarantee just legislation, just as legislation does not weild the authority to say what is wrong or right objectively. It is the job of democracy and legislation to attempt to protect objective truth. But objective truth remains objective truth whether or not democracy has succeeded in enshrining it in legislation or not.

Now, there are two levels to morality in relation to legislation. The first level constitutes both what is morally wrong and what is legally wrong. Here morality and legislation meet. Examples of such are, for instance, theft, murder, and the like. Theft and murder are objectively wrong, and all countries acknowledge them as legally wrong too. The second level of morality, however, constitutes what is wrong morally, but not legally. Here morality and legislation may not meet. Examples of these are, for example, adultery (in Western societies) and hurting another person's feelings. Cheating and malevolent insults are both morally wrong, but you don't go to jail for them.

My question is: How is one to decide what things should belong to the first (both morality and legislation) and what to the second (only morality) levels? On what basis is something made illegal and another not, though both are wrong?

This distinction is a "Western" one, I think. As far as I understand Muslim theology, it makes little or no distinction between religion and society. Sharia law is the perfect integration of Islamic Quranic precepts into the legislation of the society. Thus, our example of adultery, among many other things, would be punishable by law too. This was quite common in ancient Judaism, and in Christianity not long ago.

Politics, as we know, is all about morality. Taking care of the common good. Rarely does one hear the naive call to "Keep morality out of politics!" anymore. However, "Keep religion out of politics!" and "Keep the Bible out of politics!" are still trendy accusations. These two can be stated in a more satisfactory way. What is meant by them is: Keep those parts of your religion or your holy book out of politics which we disagree with. For, of course, no one would say we need to legalize theft because it is forbidden in the Bible.

The reason I mused about the Christians being, perhaps, more aware of this question (two levels of morality) in society is that Christians follow the Bible. The two levels become more apparent to them because of this. The Christian Politician, as s/he pursues to uphold justice in the society, has to decide the criteria for judging whether a certain niche of morality ought to be "elevated" to the level of legislation too.

I once put this question to the ex-Chairman of the Christian Democratic Party in Finland. He acknowledged the two levels after he understood that making, say, adultery illegal would be problematic. But he admitted to me that he had never thought about this question before. "Well think about it, and I might vote for you," I said with a smile. A friend of mine told me St. Thomas of Aquinas has given this question some thought, but I haven't been able to locate where.

Wednesday 3 September 2008

Summer Days Have Gone



Time to face it. Summer, though I didn't notice it begin, has come to a close. Although I do enjoy the fall colours, I'm not a big fan of the rain, the gray sky, and the darkness.

This winter will be different, however. Firstly, in about 10 days I get to take a 3-day hunting trip to eastern Finland. Secondly, I intend to escape the dark, Finnish winter and spend it in Africa. With my brother and his family in Tanzania, to be more precise. Before I can take off, I need to arrange some things at the university in Helsinki. It is my hope that I could begin my post-graduate studies here, but physically study - at the beginning mostly read - from Dar es Salaam.

By the way, nice picture eh? It was taken earlier this "summer". Jan, my foster-brother, decided to cool down in the lake.