Augustine on The Problem of Evil

Augustine on The Problem of Evil  

The problem of evil has plagued Christianity as perhaps one the most difficult questions to address. This problem serves as a stumbling block to the unbeliever, as well as serves as serving to confuse the Christian who often retreats to a compartmentalization of faith and reason. Scripture does not teach faith and reason as being opposed to each other, but rather that they are mutually reinforcing.

Christians sometimes get over run by contemporary fideists, who respond to the battle between faith and reasons, conceding that some things we can only “know” by faith alone (which I would argue is not the prober definition for knowledge in the first place). However, has it always been this way? Does the Church have a legacy for pitting faith against reasons?

Various theologians have written extensively and articulately on the subject, and it is the aim of this essay to focus upon one of them. This essay will serve to show the impact that Augustine had upon the philosophical understanding of the problem of evil as well as his impact upon the Church.

Aurelius Augustinus

In 354, emerged on the scene a North African child born to a couple committed to give their child the best opportunities, especially education. He would later serve to inform the conversations on Christian Theology and leave a legacy of positive impact on the church. This child would later be known as St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.

In the introduction to his famous work, The Confessions, John K Ryan summarizes the early Augustine as "a man who had great emotional powers along with great powers of intellect and will, who had lived a life of conscious depravity as a quasi-pagan."^[1]As the convictions from the Lord, which he later recognized as, grew louder and louder, Augustine sought truth through various religions. He tried Manicheanism, a religion which taught a type of dualism, specifically dualism between good and evil. Augustine had originally sought out a religion which "claimed to appeal to reason and to offer a rational solution to the problems of life,"^[2] and he grew dissatisfied as Manicheanism was found lacking in their reasonable defense of dualism. 

            In a state of agony, Augustine began to read the New Testament. He was practically instantly converted and was soon baptized. He recognized this conversion as of both the intellect and of the will.^[3] He candidly penned his spiritual journey in The Confessions, where one can read his famous phrase, “our heart is restless until it rests in you."^[4]

            As an extensive and eloquent writer on various subjects of theology, he has left an impact on many. "Roman Catholicism draws upon [his] doctrine of the church and Protestants upon his views of sin and grace.”^[5] However, he did eventually come back to the idea of dualism of which Manicheanism had taught. He recognized the problem that evil presented upon Christianity. That is, the threat it imposes upon the doctrine of the goodness of God. As a brilliant philosopher, his writings have served later theologians, as well as the Church at large, in answering what later became known as The Problem of Evil. "No philosopher has written better upon [it]."^[6]

Problem of evil

            Augustine was intimately acquainted with evil. He, “like Paul, he felt that two warriors, a higher and a lower, were struggling in him for mastery.”^[7] He even felt as if "his power to do right was gone."^[8] In light of this, he came to refer to his conversion experience as an act of irresistible grace on God’s part.

The argument which leads to the problem of evil is deductive in form. That is, the conclusions necessarily follows based on the truth of the premises. Its two premises say that 1- God created everything, 2- evil is a thing, and the conclusion follows which states that therefore, God created evil. (Premise one stems from the Kalam Cosmological which proves that everything comes from God). However, in response to the argument, Augustine reformulated the argument with two premises which say that 1- If God is good, he only creates what is good and 2- Evil exists, but it is certainly not good. The conclusion which follows asserts that evil must be of a different kind that the other “things” which God created.

            A great influence upon Augustine was Plato. Indeed, he “had more influence on Augustine more than any other Greek philosopher.”^[9] Though Plato has a different concept of God than Augustine, he knew that "the good is not the cause of all things, but of the good only, and not the cause of evil.”^[10] Augustine drew heavily upon his influence when he explained that “all of nature, therefore, is good, since the Creator of all nature is supremely good. But nature is not supremely and immutably good as is the Creator of it. Thus the good in created things, can be diminished and augmented.”^[11]

A contemporary symbol which is typically used to represent a misunderstanding of the relationship between good and evil is the Yin-Yang, which implies that there is a little bit of good in evil, and a little bit of evil in good. Obviously this is not a Christian symbol. However, Augustine would have agreed with the former assertion. In Enchiridion he explains that “if there were no good in what is evil, then the evil simply could not be,”^[12] and in Confessions he claims that  “evil is only the privation of a good, even to the point of complete nonentity."^[13]

Augustine’s argument rests of the fact that God is good (see premise one of the second argument above). This is an argument from natural theology, i.e., general revelation. Augustine was able to infer from nature and morality the necessity of God’s goodness. We have come to refer to this type of argument as a moral argument. Moral arguments draw off of common human experience, that of moral intuitiveness, to infer a source great source of these moral values.

Augustine advocated a “formula” of humility, love, and knowledge of signs for the seeker of truth. He meant signs to refer the means given by God to reveal himself.^[14] Indeed, he understood any truth derived from philosophical reflection as a sign by which God was revealing himself. Augustine did not idolize autonomous reasons, however he did realize that reasons can come alongside of faith to strengthen and uphold it.  It could also serve to expand one’s theological understanding, as it serves as the bridge from more intuitively obvious truths to those which must be deduced from other more foundational concepts.

Conclusion

For these reason, Augustine has left a legacy in the theological field for his philosophical convictions. “It was [his] appropriation of Plato’s two-level view of reality that produced the mysterious non-material God who exists outside of all space and time (e.g. is infinite and eternal).”^[15] His conviction that reason and faith will never conflict, has assisted the Church in strengthening its arguments for non-dualism, the problem of evil, the goodness and infinite nature of God,  as well as various doctrines including that of the Church, sin, and grace.

We can learn from Augustine that the problem of evil should not be the biggest problem for the church today. Indeed, there are strong arguments which can be made in favor of Christianity in spite of this seeming problem. In fact, it is contemporary fideism which is the biggest problem for the church today. By separating faith and reason, the church is opening itself up for attacks which it cannot defend against. Reason is a means by which we can come to know truth about all of reality. It should never be compartmentalized apart from our faith, as our faith is in regards to the most important truth of all. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Augustine. The Confessions of St. Augustine.  New York: Doubleday, 1960.

B. Hoon Woo, “Augustine’s Hermeneutics and Homiletics in De doctrina christiana,”  Journal of Christian Philosophy 17 (2013): 97–117.  

Baillie, John, John T. McNeill, and Henry P. Van Dusen. The Library of Christian Classics Vol VII. Augustine: Confessions and Enchiridion. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955.

Plato, Republic. New York: Barnes and Noble Classics, 2004.

Shelley, Bruce L. Church History In Plain Language. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008.

Whitesell, Faris Daniel. "The Problem of Evil as Treated By St. Augustine" (1939).                Master's Theses. Paper 423. http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/423.

“Augustine,” Great Philosophers,             http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Augustine/augustine     .html, accessed April 28^th, 2014.

---

^[1] John K Ryan, The Confessions of Saint Augustine (New York: Doubleday, 1960), xvi.

^[2] Ibid., xxi.

^[3] Ibid., xxx.

^[4] Augustine, The Confessions of Saint Augustine, 1.

^[5] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History In Plain Language (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008), 125.

^[6] John Ryan, The Confessions of Saint Augustine, xxxii.

^[7] Bruce Shelley, Church History In Plain Language, 125.

^[8] Ibid., 129.

^[9] Whitesell, Faris Daniel, "The Problem of Evil as Treated By St. Augustine" (1939). Master's Theses. Paper 423. http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/423, 20.

^[10] Plato, Republic (New York: Barnes and Noble, 2004), 66.

^[11] Augustine. The Library of Christian Classics Vol VII. Augustine: Confessions and Enchiridion. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955), 343 (emphasis my own).

^[12] Ibid, 345.

^[13] Augustine, The Confessions of Saint Augustine, 43.

^[14] B. Hoon Woo, “Augustine’s Hermeneutics and Homiletics in De doctrina christiana,” Journal of Christian Philosophy 17 (2013): 97–117, 106.  

^[15] “Augustine,” Great Philosophers, http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Augustine/augustine.html, accessed April 28^th, 2014.

Can God Change His Mind?

Can God Change His Mind?

Among the various characteristics of God which are celebrated by Christians all over the world and from the time of creation, is the immutability of God. God is unchanging. In Malachi we read that God refers to Himself as unchanging (Malachi 3:6). In addition to being unchanging, we learn from other Old Testament writings that God does not lie nor does he regret (1 Samuel 15:29). These additional characteristics will prove important as this essay unfolds.

As one reads through the narrative of the Old Testament, with the above characteristics of God in mind, one will stumble upon various circumstances which prove confusing. Stories such as Saul's kingship, Jonah and Nineveh, and Hezekiah are examples of when God seemingly changes his mind. How is one to reconcile these seeming contradictions?

It is the aim of this essay to examine a few attempts at reconciling the contradictions, as well as looking at the law of noncontradiction, in order to conclude how the Christian is best to understand these dilemmas.

Attempting to understand

Some theologians attempt to solve the dilemma by subscribing to a view called Open Theology. This view asserts that God does not know (either by his choice or his limitation) the future. Ergo, God is actually making up his mind as events unfold, because he did not know beforehand. (One Open Theist even considers prayer to only be coherent within the model of Scripture if God does not know the future).[1] If God cannot change his mind, based on his inability to know the future, then Open Theorists are left the understand references to God "changing his mind" in terms of anthropomorphism (that is, ascribing a human characteristic to that which is non-human). However, this understanding can be problematic.

Robert Chisholm explains that an anthropomorphic label is "an arbitrary and drastic solution that cuts rather than unties the theological knot."[2] The solution which Chisholm offers is to divide the statements of intention offered by God, into two categories. He explains "In the Old Testament not all statements of intention are the same. Some are decrees... [and] others, which may be labeled announcements, retain a conditional element and do not necessarily bind the speaker to a stated course of action."[3] He further explains that announcements depend "on the response of the recipient or someone else whose interest it affects."[4] Though Chisholm does hold to the immutability of God, he recognizes the passages as unhelpful for that particular argument.  

What it seems that Chisholm is getting at, which would be consistent with many Evangelicals, is that God can change his mind, but only within the bounds of what would be consistent with his character. If God has given an ultimate command, such as those found in the Decalogue, God cannot change his mind regarding the nature of these commandments, because any alteration would be inconsistent with his character. However, if he is given humanity (whether individually or corporately) a chance, he is using a conditional command of which humanity has the ability to influence. This understanding is consistent with what we read in Jeremiah "If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them” (Jer 18:8).

Bruce Ware, at least as far as this issue is concerned, is an agreement with Chisholm. He elaborates that "divine repentance, in such cases, functions as part of a tool for eliciting a dynamic relationship with people."[5] Yahweh is a personal god who engages with his people, ultimately for the cause of a restored fellowship with him. He is a god who is willing to change his mind in instances when it would not conflict with his character. Francis Andersen and David Freeman reiterate that "Yahweh's repentance is limited to situations of a certain number and kind and occurs only under certain conditions."[6]

Though I follow what Ware, Andersen, and Freeman are saying, I find the wording of change and repentance dangerous, because it connotes something contradictory to what is affirmed by Christians. Taking into account the doctrines of the immutability and the omniscience of God, it seems of utmost importance for the Christian to qualify these words before using them too freely, and especially before letting these passages serve as a theological foundation from where we infer various truths about God. Chisholm is in agreement when he notes that these passages should not "be applied generally to every divine forward-looking statement."[7]

God and Logic

When titling this paper, I wrestled with whether to use the word does or the word can, one being more philosophically weighted towards to ontological nature of God. I chose the word can, because I believe a proper understand on the necessary nature of the immutability of God is necessary for a robust understanding of the issue at hand. Even if we grant the conclusion that God can change his mind in regards to what is consistent with his nature, there is a strong case to be made for why his nature is constant.

The law of noncontradiction asserts that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time and in the same way. When applying this to Yahweh, we can conclude that Yahweh cannot be both one way and a contradicting way at the same time. His nature is unchanging, i.e., he is immutable.

Certain theologians consider applying logic to the study of God as at best problematic and at worst arrogant. Those in the former category foresee the conclusion that God’s word is not to be trusted if God is to be reduced to logical understanding and he seems to contradict himself. (Though this would be the logical conclusion if God in fact did contradict himself, we must fall back on our theological foundation of the immutability of God, and look for another answer). In order to retain the reverse conclusion that God’s word is to be trusted, they have to deny the antecedent. However, this is a typical Modus Tollens argument. If P, then Q. Not Q, therefore not P. In the attempt to deny logic, one has to implore it. This itself is a logical claim, though implicit as it is: If God seems to contradict himself, then his word is not to be trusted. His word is to be trusted, so therefore God does not contradict himself. In order for God to not contradict himself, his character cannot be understood by traditional laws of logic.

Those that would consider appealing to logic as arrogant, could assert that God is too big to be bound by human logic. However, if God is knowable and has revealed himself is various ways, then ignoring one of those ways does not make someone humble, they only rob themselves of God’s revelation. What is more, I would say that it is a false dichotomy to present human logic versus any other kind of logic. The law of noncontradiction is intuitively obvious, as is its close partner the law of identity. When one asserts that these are simply laws of human logic, I would ask how then would God would his people to understand what an idol was, if the laws of logic presented above do not apply to both him and humans. If there is no law of identity, then how would the people of God determine who he was and therefore what an idol was (if an idol was a false version of God)? If the people of God recognized him by his characteristics, one of which was his unchanging nature, how would they then continue to recognize him as God, and steer clear of idolatry, if they inferred a contradicting characteristic (a changing nature)? Obviously God thought it was important for them to be able to recognize him, and expected them to so, which can be inferred by his prioritizing of the Decalogue: Thou shalt have no other God before me (Exodus 20:3).

Conclusion

            When doing theology, it is best to let the more intuitively obvious truths inform the scripture passages which are harder to interpret. This usually works itself out by general revelation informing specific revelation. In fact, it we do not look to general revelation initially, we have no reason to trust to specific revelation (the Bible). Though the two will never contradict, we must let both inform our study of God.

            The doctrine of the immutability of God can be established though reflection and experience, and this should serve to aide the interpretation of certain passes which seem to imply God changing in some form or another. Logic is a form of general revelation which also serves to help us remain consistent in our understanding of God.

            Based on these truths, it is the conclusion of the author that though God is consistent in nature, He purposefully delays deciding certain future outcomes when a variety of consequences would be consistent with his character. We see examples of this in the stories of Saul’s kingship, Jonah and Nineveh, and Hezekiah.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freeman. Amos: A New Translation in Introduction                      and Commentary, The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleway, 1989.

Chisolm, Robert B. Chisolm Jr. "Does God 'Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sarca, 152,                      (October - December 1995): 387-99, accessed April 21, 2014                                          http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/02-                                       exodus/text/articles/chisholm-changemind-bsac.pdf.

Sanders, John. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence. Downers Grove:         InterVaristy,                 1998.

Ware, Bruce A. God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. Wheaton:   Crossway, 2000.

 

---

[1] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 268.

[2] Robert B. Chisolm Jr., "Does God 'Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sarca, 152, (October - December 1995): 387-99, accessed April 21, 2014 http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/02-exodus/text/articles/chisholm-changemind-bsac.pdf.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Bruce A. Ware, God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton: Crossway, 2000), 97.

[6] Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freeman, Amos: A New Translation in Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleway, 1989), 644.

[7] Chisholm Ibid.

The Age of Reform

The age of reform refers to the period covered by the thirteenth through the sixteenth centuries. Steven Ozment recaptures this journey helping to draw out significant themes and changes within the church during this time. Several prominent figures emerge, all of who serve to aid the development of the understandings theological issues the Church faced throughout the age of reform. 

This essay will serve to analyze Ozment’s writing, highlight the life of Luther, as well as the specific local reformations of this time. Conclusions and applications for twenty-first century Evangelical Chistians will follow.

The Age of Reform

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries we begin to see the emergence of reason and the beginning of its nature as an informative one for theological issue. The Church in the past has not relied on reason as much as experience and direct revelation. The Middle Ages were considered an age of faith, This was beginning to change and would have profound consequences. “The scholastic synthesis of reason and revelation in the 13^th century was a chief source of both the intellectual and ecclesiopolitical conflicts of the late Middle Ages.”

The figures of most prominence during the early Middle Ages were farmers and soldiers. Physical survival was the focus of most people. We see a lot of experimenting with preservation tactics. People were not preoccupied with reason, much less reconciling reasons with their faith. In fact to some, the two were opposed. “The proper relationship between philosophy and theology, between reason and faith, because a major problem for thinking of the high and later Middle Ages”

As we move to the fourteenth century, the idea of mysticism surfaces and we see people reverting to their old ways of grounding their theology in subjective experience and unjustified dogmatism.  Ozment comments that the options in that day were simply “either ‘practical skepticism’ or ‘blind fideism.’” 

The high Middle Ages were marked by self-discovery and definition. As we fast-forward to the late Middle Ages, we see challenges emerge that were unprecedented. Famines, wars, revolts, and schism in the church. However, the fifteenth century was also considered a true renaissance of culture and learning.

The new discipline of the days was call “dialectic.” Everything was beginning to be subjected to logical analysis. Indeed, even the articles of faith began to be scrutinized.  These “thinkers first discovered the pains and pleasures of truly critical thought.” Ideas now had consequences. There was now a disbelief in the neutrality of ideas. There were logical consequences that could be found through reason. 

Though the concept of reasons was being esteemed in a way that it was not before,“the church did not challenge bad logic with good logic or meet bad reasoning with sound.” There existed a dichotomy between the realm of life to which reason could apply, and the other realm of like to which reasons could not be applied. “Reason and revelation, nature and grace, philosophy and theology, secular man and religious man, the state and the church – all progressively lost their common ground and went their separate ways”

Martin Luther and the German Reformation

Martin Luther was born at the end of the fifteenth century in Germany. He was an active scholar, and by the age of twenty-two he had received both his bachelor and master’s degrees. He would have continued with his studies in law had not other circumstances pointed him towards the monastery. He soon became a doctor of theology, and was considered the “ages most brilliant theologian.”

The most important doctrine that led to reformation in the Church was that of justification by faith; Luther stressed it as well. The implications of the doctrine of justification by faith were far reaching. “The Reformation was an unprecedented revolution in religion at a time when religion penetrated almost the whole of life.” However, according to the medieval church, what made fallen man righteous again was not faith, but was rather “the remission of the guilt incurred by sin by priestly absolution…In theological doctrine the medieval Christian was always sinning, always beginning anew, always returning to the sacraments for short-lived strength and assurance” 

The doctrine of justification challenged priestly authority head on, potentially influencing the balance of power. In light of the unacceptable implications of what he was preaching, the emperor gave Martin Luther “a brief period of grace in which to reconsider before he cam under the imperial ban and subject to capital punishment”

Luther lived his life expecting “religious values to inform secular life and the sword of the magistrate to defend religious truth.” Sadly, this was not what he experienced. He had already begun influencing what would undermine the authorities of the day. The people had been listening the Luther. The people agreed with Luther. “Many common people looked to him for deliverance from both social and religious bondage.” Luther was familiar with what the scriptures taught on obeying authorities, but he instructed disobedience to authorities which aimed to rule over people’s (believer’s) conscience.

The German Reformation, in regards to the doctrine of justification by faith, “enhanced the inner, personal side of religion against its stultifying external and institutional forms… [It] made it possible for Christian values to penetrate German society and politics and transform German culture.”

I believe Luther had many strength in his approach to reforming the Church. Partly because his focus was on reading scripture aright, that is, properly. If scripture properly read implies justification by faith, and if by emphasizing this doctrine there follows reform in the Church, then that reform was needed. When examining the life of Luther, it does not seem that from the get-go he set out to shake things up in the Church. Rather, as he studied and experienced his own Christian pilgrimage, he was attuned to the convictions of the spirit and did not remain quiet.   

In the same respect, because Luther was not always enacting a specific thought-out strategy, some might accuse him for having various weaknesses. However, I think that his strengths and his lasting impact on the Church far outweighed any weaknesses one might challenge him for. 

Swiss Reformations

The Swiss reformations included both that Anabaptists and the Reformed. Each reformation had its own essential theme: Anabaptism was concerned with baptism, and the Reformed tradition was concerned with the Eucharist. 

Conrad Grebel was the founder of Anabaptism. Anabaptism was an opposition that focused “especially on the issue of infant baptism.” Though people sometimes baptize infant for different purposes, such as simply a way of dedicating them, Anabaptist were responding to the type of infant baptism that seemed to be equated with salvation. Baptism viewed in this way was also viewed to Baptism neutralized “the individual’s responsibility for original sin” and weakened “the inclination to sin.” Familiar with the understanding of baptism of their time, the Anabaptist were convicted that rather, people should be baptized “as mature, consenting adults who had freely chosen a life in imitation of Jesus.”

In response to the Anabaptist movement, adult rebaptism became a capital offense in the sixteenth century. “Scholars estimate that at least 850 and perhaps as many as 5,000 Anabaptists were legally executed between 1525 and 1618 by burning, decapitation, and drowning.”

The second Swiss reformation was started by Ulrich Zwingli, and  “n several ways, Zwinglian Protestantism broke more radically with medieval religion than Lutheranism.” Zwingli was a well-studied young man like Luther, and also left a lasting impression in the church as did Luther. However, Zwingli and Luther had their differences. 

The main concern of the reformed centered around the sacraments, specifically the Eucharist. Rather than literally understanding the elements of Christ’s body and blood, as had been previously held, the reformed interpreted it as symbolic. “In contrast to others, the Zwingli “believed as firmly as any medieval mystic that tangible things could neither contain nor dispense spiritual reality; the physical could not nourish the spiritual.”

Though each local reformation succeeded in challenged what was assumed in the day, they each were very different. “So it was that in 1530 Lutherans and Zwinglians went their separate ways, both confessionally and politically.”

American Evangelicalism

In several ways American Evangelicals have been faithful to the Reformation heritage. However, I do believe there are some issues that the reformers would have with the way we do church now. We focus first on the former.

American Evangelicals have whole-heartedly embraced the doctrine of justification by faith alone. There is no room for a works-based justification in most of our local churches, as there is no sacred space reserved for anything in authority to pardon sin. As whole congregations, pastors included, we acknowledge we are on level playing-field at the foot of the cross. 

However, have we swayed too far away from responding to certain commandments, because our focus on faith rather than works? Faith and works are not pitted against each other in scripture, but sadly this is what many of our churches do today. Faith produces good works, but I think the reformers might ask where that work is, if they walked into some of our churches today. 

Luther’s influence left the church with the “opportunity to invest society’s established institutions with moral and religious values.” Are we as involved with our institutions as to invest in them would the truth we know from scripture and from reasons, or do we function as if we still live with the dichotomy of two realms, one of which is informed by scripture and reason and one of which is not. Luther might be disappointed.

Ozment concluded that the problem of the Reformation was the “naïve expectation that the majority of people were capable of radical religious enlightenment and moral transformation.” In spite of whether this is true or not, have we thought about whether people today are capable of radical religious enlightenment and moral transformation?

It has been said that whoever does not remember history is doomed to repeat it. As I have journeyed through history classes, I have realized that some of my grand ideas were actually tried by people earlier on and they didn’t pan out so well. I am thankful to be able to learn from history. However, I do not think that “learning from history” can be reduced to simply meaning avoided the large mistakes they made. I think it means we can take pointers and see how strategies work/fail and mold our plans having gleaned from what history has taught us.

In an age of postmodernism, we find ourselves in a current culture which has sanctioned religious life as “reason-free.”  Believers are being called as they were in the twelfth through the fifteenth centuries to be faithful in their witness and to fight against this dichotomy. We are not called to escape this world but are called to participate in the redemption of it. This is done at the institutional, religious, and cultural levels. All of which believers should find opportunities to share the gospel and to influence through proper morals. 

Bibliography

Ozment, Steven. The Age of Reform 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press,1980. 

 Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980) 20.

Does Plato's Republic reduce to a reductio ad absurdum?

Plato’s Republic

Plato’s Republic has served as rich instructive material upon which philosophers have reflected for centuries. Written in the 4^th century B.C.E., Plato drew up his inspiration from the great philosopher Socrates. Though we do not have any writings from Socrates directly, he serves as the narrator in Republic. As the speaker of the phrase “the unexamined life is not worth living,” the character of Socrates engages in an extensive dialogue regarding justice, politics, and ethics. Among the men whom Socates engages with are Plato’s brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus, the home owner of the home where the dialogue takes place, Polemarchus and his father, Cephalus, as well as the rhetorician Thrasymachus and the Athenian politician Cleitophon. Each character plays an important role in fulfilling the wide array of perspectives on the issues at hand. The Republic is “not only [an] advertisements for the Socratic method of inquiry, but also a vehicle for a complex agenda that is at once ethical and intellectual, cultural and political.”

Athens served as the cultural center of Greece, and it is here where this dialogue takes place. An array of divinities were worshipped and the Greeks did not have a strong mindset regarding moral issues. Because the political system of the day was based on the moral psychology of the day, this is one of the first discussion points that Socrates engages in with Thrasymachus.  “The center of Plato's Republic is a contribution to ethics: a discussion of what the virtue justice is and why a person should be just.” “The challenges of defining justice and understanding its effects on long-term happiness, fulfillment, and well-being… lead to the discussion of the ideal city-state”

Socrates “offers up a striking blueprint for an ideal city-state.” 

The dialogue will be examined below, in an attempt to draw out applications for the contemporary philosopher. The issues of circular reasoning and the question of whether Plato was writing this piece as a reductio ad absurdum will also be addressed.

The Republic

Socrates begins the discussion with regards to repayments of debts, which eventually leads to a discussion on justice. His main interlocutor is this section is Thrasymachus, who shows pretty quickly his annoyance when Socrates shows the inconsistence with his theory. This is how the remainder of Republic plays out: Dialogues progress through Socrates’ use of questions, and theories then serves as hypotheses of which the most practical serves as the conclusion.

As most philosophers are all too aware, a discussion on justice can only continue for so long before the concept of absolute truth and goodness surfaces, for justice must appeal to what is binding on both the enforcer of justice and the so-called unjust. “Until the person is able to abstract and define rationally the idea of good [by appeals to absolute truth], you would say that he knows neither the idea of good nor any other good.” Just as justice is a slippery slope to speaking of absolute truth, so is morality a slippery slope to speaking of God.

Though it was not titled so at the time, the problem of evil is referenced. “Then God, if he is good, is not the author of all things…the good is to be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere.” The men also agree on the immutability of God, advising that “it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change; being as is supposed, the fairest and best that is conceivable, every God remains absolutely and forever in his own form.” (One wishes to debate with these men on the singularity of God, but alas, our only option is to learn how we can better debate with others regarding this issue). They also affirm that “God [is] perfectly simple and true both in word and deed; he changes not; he deceived not, either by sign or word, by dream or walking vision.”

After laying a foundation with justice and virtue, the men began discussing how and where these characteristics should manifest themselves. They begin by demanding that those responsible for ruling the city (the guardians) and educators must possess virtuous characteristics, alluding to anybody in authority in the ideal city-state. In combining this with the need to control potentials for unjust action, Socrates and the rest of the men also insist that everything should be in common. We find a summary of their argument at the beginning of Book 8,

Wives and children are to be in common; and all education and the pursuits of war and peace are also to be common, and the best philosophers and the bravest warriors are to be their kings… [houses] are common to all…no one was to have any of the ordinary possessions of mankind; they were to be warrior athletes and guardians.

In response to this summary, Socrates comments on four types of government in an effort to find which one could reflect this. He begins with (what he calls) timocracy, that is, a state that is ruled by the more simple-minded. The discussion then leads then to oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, all the while showing that one leads to the other. “Does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy…the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty.” We see a certain dilemma begin presenting itself, for though tyranny seems the best option, as the logical conclusion of the succession of the dialogue, it is in fact a government with citizens “always either the masters or servants and never friends of anybody; the tyrant never tastes of true freedom or friendship… [It is] the most miserable of states.”

Application

In her introduction to Republic, Elizabeth Watson Scharffenberger questions “whether Plato actually thought this theoretical model for a political community was practicable.” I share in her questioning, wondering if Plato was giving a type of reductio ad absurdum, showing that the conclusion of preferring a tyrannical government is absurd, yet this is where the discussion ends up. Is he perhaps trying to show that there must be more to the discussion at hand?

“Socrates takes a long way around, sketching an account of a good city on the grounds that a good city would be just and that defining justice as a virtue of a city would help to define justice as a virtue of a human being.” However, does this ring of circularity?  In book 4, we read that “good practices lead to virtue, and evil practices to vice,” but haven’t virtue and vice been defined in terms of justice and justice in terms of what is good?  How are the dilemmas (the lack of criteria for good and evil as well as the seemingly circular argument form) to be handled? If by focusing on the unchanging natures of goodness and human tendencies (most often unjust), Plato has come to the conclusion that tyranny is the best option for the much needed enforcement of justice, should not these men, and ourselves in addition, be in agreement of this conclusion? However, what we see an argument that undercuts itself: The happiest of citizens will be the citizens of the most just system, the most just system is a tyrannical one, but citizens of a tyrannical system are the most miserable.

What are we to make of this dilemma? Elizabeth gives us her opinion, advising that we acknowledge Plato’s circumstances and simply let his Republic prompt our own reflections and further study into these matters.

Socrates and his companions make innumerable assumptions and countless leaps of logic… We may raise any number of questions about the insights the dialogue might offer us into our world…Much of Republic, especially its political philosophy and argument for censorship, is at odds with modern ideals; [however] its critique of ancient Athenian society opens the door to meaningful question about contemporary cultural practices and priorities…The questions it raises and the approaches it takes to dealing with these questions are not wholly unique to Plato or even to ancient Athens. The spirit of Socratic – and Platonic – inquiry thus bids each of us to ask our own questions of Republic and let it help us, in turn, examine ourselves and our world.

Examining cultural, religious, and political practices takes commitment and humility, two virtues unfortunately not commonly held by most. However, a community desire for a just society and an individual desire for a virtuous self should overshadow and propel us into further study.

Bibliography

Plato. Republic. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2004.

Brown, Eric. "Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2011 Edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/plato-ethics-politics/.

Lecture: Eschatology

This is just the audio version, I'll spare you of my awkward stage presence.

The Hope of the Church

Will Christ return to reign on this earth?

Amillenialists: No literal millennium

Postmillennialists: Christ literally returns to earth after a long period of peace brought to pass by the success of missionary efforts

Historic premillennialists: Anticipate Christ’s literal return before his literal rule over all the earth.

Dispensational premillennialists: Not one general resurrection and judgment, but two separated by the 1000 year reign of Christ.

Premillennialists: Christ now reigns in the lives of those who recognized him as Lord and he will literally return to earth prior to the millennium. 

When will believers meet Christ in the air?

Postmillennialists: Rapture after the millennium

Amillennialists: As Christ returns to the battle of Armageddon Christians are caught up to meet him.

Premillennialists:

Post-tribulationists: Christians may expect to meet Christ at the end of the great seven year period of tribulation.

Mid-tribulationists: Chrisitans will meet Christ in the middle of the tribulation

Historic post-tribulationists: The rapture may occur at any moment.

Pre-tribulationists: The rapture occurs at any moment before the seven years of tribulation.

What happens after death?

“death ends all” (Naturalists, materialists)

“death does not end all”

Impersonal immortality (pantheism)

Reincarnation based on karma (Hindus, Buddhists)

Become invisible to those without minds attuned to psychic force (Spiritualists)

All will be saved (Universalists)

Soul sleeps until bodily resurrection (Christian cults)

Soul consciously exists (Orthodox Christians)