D. Z. Phillips & What It Means To Believe in God
For many years, up ’til his death a few years ago, I studied under D. Z. Phillips. I am not alone in thinking Phillips, along with Alvin Plantinga, the greatest philosopher of religion of the twentieth century.
But he was more than a philosopher of religion. I cannot think of an area of philosophy about which he did not have something profound to say. He possessed a towering and intimidating intellect. I’ve been witness to many of the most notable philosophers of our time reduced to silence with a simple question or two.
So, I was delighted to come across a small lecture he gave many years ago. You may listen or read it, or read and listen to it – that would be my suggestion. I shall resume my own transcribing of Phillips’ lectures and debates shortly. Enjoy:
“Do you believe in God?
If you say you do, you’ll be asked why you believe in God. Probably you won’t object to that question.
After all, if you say you believe something, you think it reasonable that you should be asked for your reasons for believing it. The reasonableness of giving reasons for your beliefs is something you take for granted. A reasonable request isnt it?
But now, listen to this:
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou are there: If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
If I say, suely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
For thou hast possessed my reins; thous hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. -Psalm 139: 7-14
Here it is clear the psalmist testifies to the inescapable reality of God. Inescapable?
But what about the evidence? What about the reasons?
Well, it has to be admitted that it never ocurred to any prophet or writer in the Old Testament to seek evidence for this existence of God, let alone to prove it. For them this would be quite pointless, even senseless.
The movement of thought in the Old Testament is not from the world to God, but from God to the world. The whole world declared God’s presence. Not because it gave excellent evidence for God’s existence. But because the world was seen, from the start, as God’s world.
The hills are girded with joy, the pastures are clothed with flocks.
The valley’s also are covered with grain. They shout for joy. They also sing.
Let the floods clap their hands. Let the hills sing for joy together.
Oh Jehovah, how manifold are thy works. In wisdom hast thous made them all. The earth is full of thy riches. – Psalm 65
How far away that seems. That world is not our world. It hasn’t been our world for quite some time. Ever since the Rennaisance and through the Enlightenment, the view of the world as God’s world has been under attack.
As a result it’s become natural for us to look on religious belief as a conjecture, a hypothesis. And we look for evidence to justify it. Philosophers who write on such matters are busy weighing the probabilities.
Some say the probablitiy is that there is a God. Others say that the probability is that there is no God. And despite allegedly weighing the same probabilites, they never agree. How very odd. In this scientific age one would at least expect people to be able to calculate.
Did the Psalmist miscalculate? But really is that our problem? A difficulty in weighing probabilities? Surely not.
Our difficulty is that the majority of us no longer naturally see the world as God’s world. It’s all too easy to escape from God’s presence. If we ascend into the heavens, well even Bishops tell us He’s not there. If we descend into the depths, again psychoanalysts tell us He’s not there either.
Our problem, it seems, is not how to escape from God, but how to find him. We all too easily rise in the morning and lie down in darkness without Him. The heavens no longer declare his glory for us, and the hills no longer sing for joy.”
KBJ on Same-Sex Marriage
Much confusion about same-sex marriage abounds. For example, though I believe most religious people oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, the basis for keeping lawful marriage between one man and one woman isn’t rooted in religious belief necessarily.
If you’re interested in understanding such a thing, then you can do no better than Keith Burgess-Jackson. Professor Burgess-Jackson specializes in clarity (that’s what philosophers do), and he’s an atheist. This last point is irrelevant logically. But it does matter emotionally. No one can accuse professor Burgess-Jackson of trying to impose his religious beliefs on others.
I give you KBJ on “homosexual” marriage.
Taxation
Linda, a former student, sent me this:
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting Licen s e Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges& nbsp;Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage ChargeTax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation TaxNot one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt…
We had the largest middle class in the world…
and Mom stayed home to raise the kids
What happened?
Can you spell ‘politicians!’
235 years ago Americans threw tea into the sea over taxation. Today some think we’re not taxed enough. How times have changed.
What say you?
Update: Philosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson further ponders taxation and the state of the American mind.
God And The Philosopher
When I was an undergrad at UCLA I took a philosophy of religion course (and a course on Leibniz) from a visiting professor. He was a fascinating man. A man of many Idiosyncrasies. He was impeccably dressed and well groomed. He wore only two or three suits, and all of them a mixture of green and black. He was one of my favorite professors. And I can’t remember his name.
He gave several arguments for the existence of God which I am passing on to you.
An argument from design:
Why does nature abide by the laws of nature?
The laws of nature are either 1) exceptionalist regularities or 2) universal generalizations
1. If the laws of nature are mere cosmic coincidences (and properly thoughts so), then the seemingly lawful patterns hitherto observed are completely coincidental (and properly thought so).
2. If the seemingly lawful patterns hitherto observed are completely coincidental (and properly thought so), then it is not the case that we ought to expect them to continue.
a. the chances ought to be 50/503. However, we ought to expect the patterns to continue
therefore,
4. It is not the case that the laws of nature are cosmic coincidences (and properly thought so)
I will update this post with another of his arguments when time allows.
What It Means To Believe In God
Clear thinking should result in consistency; certainly among propositions, hopefully in one’s beliefs, and ideally, in one’s life.
If, for example, you can’t see why it is inconsistent to assert, “believe those who are seeking the truth. doubt those who find it”, then you are not thinking clearly. The statement is contradictory. Presumably the author thinks he has found a truth.
A most interesting inconsistency involves belief in God and those who reject, ridicule, or take that belief lightly.
Belief in God carries with it certain assumptions and implications. If you take belief in God lightly, think it a matter of sentiment only, or reject it entirely, then you should give up other beliefs.
The point, really, is to get you to read Dennis Prager’s latest column in which he urges us to think clearly about what it means to believe in God. In his article Prager lists fourteen implications of belief in God. I quote three.
If there is no God, then:
there is no objective meaning to life. We are all merely random creations of natural selection whose existence has no more intrinsic purpose or meaning than that of a pebble equally randomly produced.
. . . there is little to inspire people to create inspiring art. That is why contemporary art galleries and museums are filled with “art” that celebrates the scatological, the ugly and the shocking. Compare this art to Michelangelo’s art in the Sistine chapel. The latter elevates the viewer — because Michelangelo believed in something higher than himself and higher than all men.
. . . there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns. That is why America’s Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed “by our Creator” with certain inalienable rights. Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.
What I find odd is that those who reject, belittle, or make light of belief in God still want to take such things seriously.
The challenge then is this: if you do not take seriously a belief in God, on what basis do you believe in any of Prager’s list of fourteen? Of course, you can choose to believe such things, but what is the rational justification for such belief?
The Eldritch
Some time ago, on a different blog, I wrote:
A college campus can be a spooky place 10:30 at night. Last night it was very cold, but very clear at Chaffey College (where I teach).
It was the last class of the semester and I ended up chatting with a few students, for about an hour, after class ended.
The campus sits high, near the base of some mountains (or foot hills). As I stood alone in the parking lot (shivering), I could see from L.A. to Riverside (or what I took to be Riverside). It was quite beautiful. But there was a spooky quality to the experience.
The cold, the breeze, the visibility, and the solitude all made for an eerie experience. But what does that mean? What does it mean for the atmosphere to be eerie, or spooky? And why should human beings have such moments?
I had a similar experience last night. The atmosphere about me was not quite right. I was anxious and alive to something in the air. Have you had such a moment?
But, again I ask, why should we have such moments? I’m suggesting that there is more to them than meets the eye. I am suggesting that they are not simply emotional reactions to our environment.
When all is well (physically and mentally) with oneself, and all is right with the world, one may awaken. But awaken to what?
I liken such moments to our love of music. Why should music affect us the way it does? The paradigms of the world (Freudian, Marxist, Darwinist) do not help here. There are no easy anwers here.
What is it in the air? Have you had similar experiences?
My Students
Whether through providence or chance, I have had, in my short teaching career, some exceptional students. I am not referring to academic performance alone. I am referring to their gratitude, patience, kindness, and diligence.
Many of them lead very interesting lives, and are quite fun to be around. It is these students that make teaching philosophy a joy. They drive me to constantly revise, rework and rethink what I say and how I say it. Some of these students have become friends.
Last night I said goobye to another great class.
One of our group, Ken, held a post-final get-together. He invited the class to his place for, of course, pizza and drinks. The food was ambrosial and the conversation delectable. Maybe this will be the start of a tradition, the Parise post-final exam get-together.
Best gift of the night goes to Andrew who brought me a Galaxy t-shirt signed by this guy. Andrew signed a contract with the Galaxy this Summer. My students never cease to fascinate me.
Classic Phillips: Life After Death or Eternity?
Recall, Phillips was arguing that even if the idea of an empirically based after-life made sense, it would make no difference. Would Nietzsche, for example, change his mind if he woke from death to find the risen Christ standing before him? No, of course not, argues Phillips. Therefore, even if it made sense (which it doesn’t), there’s no point in it anyway.
April 17, 2001 (Part 3):
Stephen Davis: See, I can buy that, even though I believe that verification might possibly make sense, eschatological verification, because I can imagine a situation where Christianity lets say, or any other religion potentially, could be verified yet there still be lots of unbelievers. I think that makes perfectly good sense. Maybe they’re stiff-necked, or close minded, or something like that.
D.Z. Phillips: But does this make sense to you? I suppose this comes down to Craig’s question about life after death. . . .So, supposing now I don’t buy what doesn’t make sense to me, so that you have everything that Christianity means to you except eschatology, understood in a futuristic verificationist sense. Supposing I were right. Of course, neither of us are going to find out if I’m right. You’re going to find out if you’re right – that’s one of the horrible aspects of my view. You’re all going to be in the port of Swinburne from heaven, refusing me my class of water in Gehenna.But, anyway, I’m not going to find out if I’m right in a verificationist sense, but, of course, we can pose it now. If I were right, and it went into this category of a truth which says itself. Obviously, if I ask you, would it be any less, in certain respects you’d say “yes, there’s a whole dimension left out”. But the more interesting question, well, not the more interesting question, but the question I’d want to press is if that dimension were out, would it effect everything other than that for you>
Stephen Davis: Yes it would because I think most of the crucial Christian claims, Christian doctrines as theologians would put it, are organically tied to the future. And it would be – it’s all of a piece, it’s not like you can lump off this part and the rest of it makes sense. So, no I don’t think it would make any sense. And this has nothing to do with my sort of anally wanting to survive death or something like that
Phillips: No, no, no, no, no
Davis: That’s not the issue at all. As a system, I just don’t think it would make any sense.