Archive for September, 2013

Hello Again!!
Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said, ” Man is born free yet we see him everywhere in chains”. I don’t know about you, but I find that so true even today. He believed that humans by nature wanted to live in harmony. If they had been given the freedom to developed they would do what was best for themselves and other. Unfortunately, I don’t think that is true. Rousseau knew man were fallen and not acting in their true nature. I like Jean-Jacques Rousseau belief that man is not inherently wicked. God said let us make man in our image and God is good. We were meant to reflect the goodness of God and to be intimate with him. Even intimacy itself is good. The plan was for intimacy for goodness and freedom. For example we produce good things like inventions, ideas, and innovative medicines or medical practices that save lives. I believe without any motivation to be good man only looks out for himself. Man is mainly motivated by money, fame, having a purpose, or religion. Sometimes all those things can’t keep a man motivated. However, if men are motivated by pure love that changes things immensely. Rousseau knew that man was fallen and bound up in chains not able to live up to their potential goodness. Rousseau believed that humans did not need to be governed and that’s understandable because in Eden Adam and Eve weren’t governed. It seemed as though God just came and went as He wanted to. Once the fall happened we were brought the law or the government. The government kept us from attacking ourselves, even Jesus came to fulfill the law (and its purpose) not destroy it. Law showed us our brokenness and that we needed structure and order. However, after Christ it becomes a hindrance because in our immense brokenness even the thing they looked to correct them could not provide the perfection they needed. Rousseau did not like the government and that is understandable because it is not the way we were meant to be. Law, as much as we wanted  it to, could not give us freedom.

While the idea of empiricism began to overtake the previous idea of rationalism, Francis Bacon saw that a marriage of the two was was the best way to go about the sciences.  Bacon believed that scientists should follow two rules: “lay aside received opinions and notions, an the other, to restrain the mind for a time from the highest generalizations.”  He believed that there were four sources of error that could contaminate scientific observation and research.  These, he referred to as idols- the idols of the cave, the tribe, the marketplace, and the theatre.  All these idols refer to the different biases that the scientist or observer may have.  This focus of Bacon’s and the critique of the way to do science resembles the Biblically historic stage of Redemption.  Bacon claimed that we can only command nature by obeying her, hence concluding that “knowledge is power.”  By this understanding of human weakness, he is able to actually make humanity stronger.  The book claims that Bacon was ahead of his time in insisting that scientists rid themselves of bias. I classify him as a redemption philosopher because this understanding comes with a hindsight of the fall.  Seeing the mistakes in the the sciences and philosophies of the medieval period, he sees the affects of the fall and desires to correct it in hopes of a better future of scientific inquiry.  There is also an element in redemption of knowing our weakness. Bacon embraces the Renaissance focus on humanity, but claims his fallenness and seeks to correct it.  Ultimately this idea has transformed the way empirical data is collected.

I would categorize the works of Francisco Petrarch with the idea of redemption. “Petrarch was concerned with the freeing of the human spirit from the confines of medieval tradition.” (p.99) He was a revolutionist in his philosophy because he saw what was flawed with popular beliefs at the time, and sought to influence people.

Petrarch urged people to return to religion for personal reasons such as satisfaction and counsel. Similarly, encouraged the study of classics written by human beings for their outwardly reflective value. This supports redemption because Petrarch believed in living life on Earth now. Lastly, Francisco Petrarch’s “skepticism towards all forms of dogma paved the way for modern science.” (p.100) This shows that the petitions of this man encouraged the consideration of today. Not exclusively, “who are we?” but also, “what can we be doing?”

This is applicable to a psychology class because wecan apply the progressive thought process in our field of study to challenge ourselves and popular belief. The theory of Petrarch is imperative to Christianity to approach our personal reflection differently. This open-minded approach doesn’t act out of obligations but for personal gain.

This photograph shows Petrarch depicted as holding an unlabeled book. I included this graphic because I associate him with literature and embracing cultural works of art. He is considered the “Father of the Renaissance” for this reason.

During the Renaissance, one of the main themes was emphasis on personal religion. This was different from the dark ages where religion was a public institution. I would classify the emphasis on personal religion as a part of the redemption. In order for one to be redeemed, they truly need to focus on their individual relationship with God. In today’s society, this is where the emphasis still lies. Not so much a strong focus of the church but a focus on the faith and religion that you share with Jesus Christ. So to us, this is an old thought.
But, to those in the Renaissance, this idea of personal religion was a new one. The people didn’t know anything different from the industrialized form of religion that they had been taking part in. This is also a part in the “redemption” of the world/society. God’s love is for his people, and the Renaissance began to put a lot of emphasis on that, and bring the focus back to the people. This was also a form of Individualism, a second major theme of the Renaissance. So together, these both are a part of the redemption story.

Luther had a very strict view that people should be punished. He did not believe that people could escape their bad choices. He states that, “People should not be able to escape consequences of sin through penance or absolution; if they have sinned, they should suffer the consequences, which could be eternal damnation. (96)” Luther was very strict with his views and did not let others change his mind. He was devoted to what he believed and fought hard against others to prove that he was right.

I believe that the fall goes great with Luther because he talks about our sins and how we can not make up for them. He is truly defining the fall of man. Also, he does not give an alternative for a way to overcome our sin. Man must try to live a perfect life. The fall of man fits this so well, however, he does not go into how others can receive redemption. Luther is a perfect example of a priest who believes that we must live the right way, or we will never make it to Heaven. I think that his believes are the definition of the fall of man and he just did not understand that there is redemption with Jesus.

In a time when materialism was replacing religious belief, George Berkeley suggested another perspective to the Creation ideal. Popular thought for his time period believed that all matter on earth could be broken down into “atomic and corpuscular structure” (p. 140). The universe that they perceived was materialistic and physical events could be explained by mechanistic laws. Our world was just “matter in motion”. The materialistic perspective falls under the Creation sector because it deals with and examines the questions of created things and events.

Berkeley though, rejected the idea of materialism and suggested that matter does not exist. This challenges the traditional way that we examine Creation. I think that we are quick to associate Creation with the idea of making something –which more often than not, usually evokes a physical and tangible connotation. For Berkeley we are in a world of our perceptions and nothing more. Creation in this sense exists in the mind as what are called Secondary Qualities. This is not to say that Berkeley rejected the idea of an External Reality and claimed that our perceptions alone are valid. Instead, he understood the fallacies present in that thinking and acknowledged that God’s perceptions make up the consistent reality that is not a subjective experience from person to person.

When God created the world He spoke. The reality that resulted came from within Him. Words are not tangible. For all we know, the world began for us through an intangible and most certainly unknown mechanistic way. Reality for us as human beings is the sum of our perceiving God’s perceptions. We give His way entrance into our own minds and our perceptions are changed as a result. Essentially, according to Berkeley, “to be [human] is to be perceived”. The “good life” results when our perceptions synonymously line up with God’s.

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/gardenofeden.jpg

Imagine the garden and the reality that Adam and Eve walked as God spoke. Prior to the fall, their perceptions of reality could be argued to be exactly like God’s. For the first and only time in all of Creation man’s and God’s realities were identical. As God spoke His world into motion, His ideas became the reality of the garden. This idea stems from Berkeley’s Principle of Association. For Adam and Eve the integration of their senses wove together what we would imagine the garden to be. By sunlight and color, hard and soft, hot and cold…etc etc the garden came to be. And it was Good (Genesis 1:31).

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

I think that if we apply George Berkeley’s beliefs, we can see that the term “made” is in and of itself an act of Creation. His explanation poses the question that perhaps “made” does not imply the physical. A perception is made. And that perception can create/define reality.

Desiderius Erasmus is a man the textbook described as depressed all of his life, a believer in free will, author of  the book The Praise of Folly, critical of the organized church, complimentary of the simple life Jesus lived, and an observer of the world (95-97).  At first glance, Erasmus sounds just kind of sad.  He was depressed, “fond of pointing out mistakes,” and disturbed by certain things about the church, such as how bishops became rich and famous.  Erasmus appears to focus on the negative.  But, I think what this informs us about is the fall of humans.  Erasmus reasons that “anything created by humans could not be perfect.”  He also discusses in his book, The Praise of  Folly, that those who are “fools” are happier, able to live and act on their true feelings, and do not fear death.  His book implies that those who are not “fools” are unhappy, incapable of making good decisions without the pressure of religious doctrines, etc.  In other words, again Erasmus is informing us about the fall of man, the imperfections, the inconsistencies of our nature.

However, that is not all there is to Erasmus’ contribution to history.  Erasmus talks about following Jesus’ example, therefore admitting that he approves of Jesus’ simple life and thinks there is value in the way He lived and set the example.  I think by telling people to look at Jesus as an example, Erasmus is admitting that he believes there is more than the human brokenness and fallen state (95).  I think he is admitting that we can be redeemed and don’t have to continue living in a life of ignorance. His ideas are further promoted when we examine his thoughts on free will versus pre-destination.  Erasmus writes to someone who might believe in pre-destination:

“Doesn’t the reader of such passages ask: why do you [God] make conditional promises, when it depends solely on your will?  Why do you blame me, when all my works, good or bad, are accomplished by you, and I am only your tool?… Why bless me, as if I had done my duty, when everything is your achievement?  Why do you curse me, when I have merely sinned through necessity?”

What I really like about Erasmus is that he doesn’t seem to sit in this fallen idea and just wallow in it. Rather, he looks to scriptures and says, basically, “I see where God says we get to choose whether we want to do what is good or what is evil.”  In this way, I believe Erasmus teachers us about Redemption.  Through scripture, through looking at the simple life of Jesus Christ, we can change our ways.  We can choose to make decisions that are for the good.  One example of this recognition of the fall, but use of redemption is actually in Erasmus’ life.  The textbook tells us that all of his life he struggles with depression.  And yet, when the book talks about the disagreeing views of Erasmus and Martin Luther, it says that Erasmus was respectful, kind, and conciliatory throughout his debates with Martin Luther.  Martin Luther on the other hand is described as mean, disrespectful, and dogmatic.  So although his depression could have resulted in excuses for ugly behavior, Erasmus chooses redemption.  It appears to me that he chooses to reflect Christ in his responses.

Johannes Gutenberg, due to his invention of the movable type printing press, was very influential during the Renaissance. Thanks to his printing press and his *Gutenberg Bible*, people were no longer forced to rely on the church to spoon feed them the scriptures. There was then questioning of the Catholic church as to why the sermons were still being delivered in Latin, rather than in a text than everyone understood. The invention of the printing press also spurred the religious Reformation that took place because the people now had access to information that they could not previously obtain or understand. Most people were illiterate due to the fact that literature was not common or widespread prior to the printing press, but Gutenberg’s invention encouraged literacy as well. With newfound literacy and more readily available printed information, the people did not have to rely so heavily upon the word of the Catholic church.

Along with Mengyuan Tang’s post, I agree that free will falls into the Creation category. As Erasmus defines free will as “the power of human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that which leads into eternal salvation.” With our free will, we are deciding the path of life we want to live and that would lead us to whether we are going to be granted eternal salvation or end in hell.  As God as our creator, he is the only one that knows how we will live our life. “…human actions are predestined that “it would be dangerous to reveal such a doctrine to the multitude, for morality is dependent on consciousness of freedom.”” I think that if we were to know the paths we were going to take in life from the day we were born, we would change up our mind from either the wrong path to the right path while not living your life freely and the world would be a total different place. I believe God granted us life to of course make our own decisions and live by our own choices. I’m actually kind of back and forth with Erasmus and Luther because I do in ways feel like in this world we live in slavery. As Luther states, “In all things pertaining to salvation or damnation, man has no free will, but is captive, servant and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.” As we do decide how we want to live our life, we do choose who to worship and that puts us under their control based on our decisions to end good or bad.  I do question though to why God would allow us to make some of those bad decisions and end in hell, instead of being granted the eternal salvation. As Luther states, “in other words, God only knows.”

Giovanni Pico, whose books for burned for being heretical, believed that the ideas of man should be respected in the name of understanding. The idea that a Christian point of view didn’t need to be at odds with the point of view of everyone else didn’t sit well with many in the church, but it fits one of the central ideas of restoration: Peace. Pico also thought that humans had the ability to choose to make good decisions or bad, and that ultimately rationality and intelligence would lead to good decision-making.

He further argued that different philosophical viewpoints, which seemed contradictory, would be part of one whole if they were properly understood. Giovanni Pico saw the need for peacemakers in a world made hostile for intellectuals. He fits an interpretation of the end times that doesn’t involve a bloody war and a rapture to save those few truly faithful, but rather the reconciliation of all mankind underneath the grace of God. Unlike many thinkers of his time, he doesn’t have a pessimistic view of the secular world. It’s possible that, were he alive today, he would fit in among universalist Christian scholars (those who believe that God will save or has saved everyone, including non-Christians).

In true fashion of a peacemaker himself, he analyzed opposing viewpoints in order to find common ground. Had he lived in a world needing diplomacy, he would have made a great diplomat, prepared to give ground and compromise not just in property, but in intellect. Pico displayed the kind of humility the world needs to come to peace after thousands of years of war. It’s a shame he died young instead of being confronted by the Church. Like with Christ, there are few people who could hate someone unwilling to hate them back.