Steven Colborne's Blog, page 68

The Clockwork Universe

Welcome to this week’s Friday Philosophy post. Today, we’ll be looking at the English scientist Sir Isaac Newton, whose approach to natural philosophy created a revolution, the effects of which are still being felt today. I will offer a brief snapshot of Newton’s life and thought, followed by some personal reflections on his contribution to the history of thought.

Who Was He?

Isaac Newton was born in 1642 in the county of Lincolnshire in the East Midlands of England. Newton learned Latin and Greek at the age of about twelve, and went on to study at Cambridge University, where teachings at the time leant heavily on the work of Aristotle. Newton, however, became particularly interested in the more recent work of the philosopher Descartes, and astronomers such as Thomas Street and Galileo.

After completing his studies at Cambridge, Newton studied privately for two years, and during this time developed his theories on calculus, optics, and the law of gravitation. Newton’s most famous book, published in 1687, is known as the ‘Principia’ (an abbreviation of a much longer Latin title which when translated is Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy).

What’s the Big Idea?

Newton’s work lent great weight to the idea that the universe could be understood as having a mathematical basis, an insight first developed by Pythagoras in the 6th century BC in Ancient Greece. The mathematical laws developed by Newton birthed the idea that events are predictable. Given a complete description of the present state of a physical system at any one time, one would be able to accurately predict the state of that system at a future time.

The name given to explorations of the natural world, such as those undertaken by Newton, was ‘natural philosophy’. It wasn’t until the 18th century, that the term ‘science’ was used to describe this revolution in thinking.

My Reflections

The confidence that the new type of philosophy birthed by Newton gave to scientists is still evident today, in the new atheism movement, for instance, where we see scientific philosophers such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins, speaking with great confidence (some would say arrogance) about the superiority of science as a way of understanding reality, when compared to religion.

There is no denying that the scientific laws developed by Newton and others have impacted the world in a substantial and wonderful way. We only have to look at the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century, which leant heavily on the work of Newton, to see that. But I would argue that while scientific laws are very useful in answering the how questions of existence, they do little to answer the why questions (such as: Why are we here? Why does the universe exist? Why do mathematical laws seem to work?).

I have a rather radical understanding of the way the physical universe operates, which is somewhat in conflict with the scientific understanding. I believe that events will only happen on a particular occasion if God wills them to happen, rather than those events being caused by preceding events. My understanding is that God can alter the so-called ‘laws of nature’ at any time, as God’s role in existence is that He is sustainer and animator of the cosmos, a belief that naturally follows from a literal understanding of God’s attribute of omnipresence.

The fact that many people witness miraculous events is evidence that God is above the laws of nature. I believe that the reason why not everyone experiences miracles all the time is because God enjoys creating regularity, but this doesn’t mean such regularity is absolute. God could mix-up the laws of nature at any time, a truth which is evident, for instance, in the dreams we sometimes experience, where the laws of nature can be completely different and yet still feel just as ‘real’ as our experience in the waking world.

In next week’s philosophy post I’ll present a snapshot of the life and work Niccolo Machiavelli, who was the first philosopher to study politics and government with a scientific attitude. If you’d like to follow this series, please considering subscribing to this blog. What are your thoughts on this week’s post? Feel free to leave a comment below.

Does God Make Scientific Errors?

In this week’s philosophy post we’ll be moving on from the Medieval period to look at the beginnings of modern science and the life and work of Nicolaus Copernicus. I will offer a snapshot of this scientific thinker whose work would challenge the very role of the Church, and the Bible, in society.

Who Was He?

Copernicus lived between 1473-1543 AD, and was born to a Polish father and a German mother. His father was a merchant who dealt in copper, and his mother was the daughter of a wealthy city counsellor. The surname ‘Copernicus’ is derived from a village named Koperniki in Poland (to where his father’s family history has been traced) although Nicolaus used different titles and surnames throughout his life.

In 1491 Copernicus enrolled into the University of Kraków in the Polish capital, and began to study within the astronomical-mathematical school there, which ignited the interest in astronomy that would subsequently be the focus of much of his life’s work. Key philosophers who Copernicus studied during his time at university include the famous Greek master Aristotle and the Muslim polymath Averroes.

What’s the Big Idea?

Up until the time of Copernicus, astronomers had embraced what is known as the Ptolemaic system, that harks back to 2nd century Alexandria. The system held that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that the planets and stars circulated around it. This would be the prominent idea in astronomy until the 16th century.

Copernicus studied observations that indicated that the sun, rather than the earth, is at the centre of our solar system. This caused a great deal of unrest within the Catholic Church, as theologians had always found biblical support for the ‘geocentric’ model of the universe. Well known Christian scholars, including Martin Luther and John Calvin, vehemently opposed the ‘heliocentric’ model, with reference to Scripture. For instance, in Psalm 93 the psalmist addresses God, saying “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm”.

My Reflections

The scientific breakthrough Copernicus made is of tremendous philosophical importance, so much so that it really makes us think about who we are and our place in the grand scheme of things. The Bible suggests that human beings have a very special, and central, place in existence, as we are made in the imago dei; the image of God. But if we are not at the centre of the universe, this special place may be seen in a different light.

Being convinced, as I am, that God exists, it would be appropriate to question why God would place in a sacred text words that seem to contradict scientific observation and understanding. For me, it would be absurd to think that an omniscient God would have made a mistake in this respect. The solution to this predicament, in my understanding, is that the progress of science, and the evolution of knowledge and wisdom, are all a part of God’s long-term plan for creation.

I don’t believe, as many religious people do, that God is distinct from creation and that we are free creatures. My perspective is that God is in control of all things, and is unfolding a plan for all of creation, and that there is a role within that unfolding for diverse religious perspectives and also for science. Of course, this means that I would have to disagree with many fundamental teachings of, for instance, Christianity and Islam, with their exclusive truth claims and insistence on free will. But I am happy to do that, as the impartial pursuit of Truth is my guiding principle.

While the Copernican revolution in astronomy posed a significant threat to the power and influence of the Catholic Church, it certainly doesn’t pose any threat to the existence of God, which I believe is still the most realistic and rational explanation for the unfolding of creation, including the patterns we observe in our solar system.

My Friday Philosophy series aims to provide a weekly snapshot of a key thinker from the history of philosophy. Next week, we’ll continue our look at modern science with some reflections on the life and work of Sir Isaac Newton. If you would like to follow the series, please consider subscribing to this blog. Thank you for reading!

Geoffrey Parrinder: Interfaith Master

I’ve been interested in comparative religion ever since my university days, when I used to spend hours listening to recordings of talks given by the philosopher Alan Watts. Watts, with his knack for communicating Zen paradoxes, has these days become somewhat of a cult figure in spiritual circles.

After joining a central London library a few weeks ago I felt eager to explore the Religion section, and was delighted to find a couple of shelves dedicated entirely to works of comparative religion. I’m sure the contents of these books could keep me entertained for years, but in this post I just want to talk briefly about one book which has been a delight to read, and which I would highly recommend.

The book is entitled Upanishads, Gita, and Bible and was written in 1962 by an English philosopher named Geoffrey Parrinder. I was unable to find out much about the author, except that he was a Methodist minister for some time, published around 30 books in his lifetime, and was active as a professor at Kings College London until 1977. He also undertook extensive missionary work in West Africa.

It was interesting that when reading this book, I had no idea whether Parrinder was writing from a Christian, Hindu, or other standpoint, such was the impressive impartiality of his writing. It was only after finishing the book that I discovered he had been a Christian minister.

The book’s structure is clear and intuitive. It begins with a comparison of the creation stories of the Bible and the Indian religions, before proceeding to tackle many of the key topics of fruitful interfaith dialogue, including ‘The One and the Many’, ‘What is Man?’, ‘Immortality’, ‘Mysticism’, ‘Conduct and Suffering’, and a few others. The subject matter is tackled with a great depth of knowledge, and as I read the book I felt as though each paragraph had been carefully and thoughtfully constructed, with no words wasted.

There were a few insights in the book that really struck me, and which I believe will stay with me for years to come. By way of example, I will share three insights that really stood out for me.

1. Parrinder points out that the Bible, and in particular the Old Testament, is very sketchy when it comes to the idea of souls. This is something that has occurred to me in the past, and I once wrote an essay on the subject. It is very difficult to discern what a soul might be from what is written in the Torah.

2. The author used a phrase that really struck me. He described the human experience as being a journey ‘from the alone to the Alone’. This captures something very beautiful about Eastern spirituality; the idea that the individual, upon death, is absorbed into the being of God. This short phrase expresses the relationship between the Atman (the human soul) and Brahman (the universal soul).

3. Another beautiful concept from the book is that the Eastern religions have an ‘I-it’ relationship with God, whereas the Abrahamic religions have an ‘I-Thou’ relationship with the divine. The difference, of course, is that in the first example God is not personal, whereas He is in the second. This is an important distinction between Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions, and a fascinating point for interfaith discussion.

I know that among the readers of this blog there are many Christians who are very sceptical of non-Christian religious traditions. I do understand and respect that, having been an evangelical Christian myself in the past. But I would suggest that to open one’s mind to the beliefs of billions of people who have lived and died outside of the Christian faith is a wonderfully enriching thing to do.

I would love to read more of Parrinder’s works, and I note from a quick search that he has written books on the Qur’an, African Mythology, the Wisdom of Jesus, as well as many other interesting topics. If you’re looking for a book that contrasts Eastern and Western traditions in a clear and intelligent way, Upanishads, Gita and Bible will serve you well.

Is Self-Publishing a Good Idea?

Are you considering self-publishing a book? In this post I’m going to write briefly about the experience I’ve gained from self-publishing two books, and will describe the different opportunities that are open to authors who are looking to get their work published.

There is a huge amount of work that goes into getting a book published, and the way you proceed will largely depend on your budget and how much control you want to have over the various aspects of the publishing process.

You can, in theory, do everything yourself; from writing, to proofreading and editing, to formatting your book, to designing a cover, to getting your book in stores, and then promoting and marketing your book. You could do all of this on a tight budget, but you would need to have plenty of time and patience, and for a first-time author it would be a steep learning curve.

Another option is to work with a self-publishing company. For my first two book releases I worked with SilverWood Books, who provided a range of services at a cost. They formatted my books for Kindle (and other eBook readers), designed the cover art, and arranged for Print On Demand distribution through all the leading retailers. It proved to be very difficult to get my books into physical book stores because the competition is fierce and it’s still the case that big publishing companies have a lot more power to persuade retailers to stock their books than self-published authors.

Many self-publishing companies, including SilverWood, offer PR and marketing services, to help your book get more exposure in the form of reviews and features. I worked with a dedicated PR agency on my books, which is another option, although this can be costly, and results are by no means guaranteed.

If you’re considering going down the traditional publishing route, be aware that approaching large publishing companies is very difficult. Many of the leading publishers don’t accept submissions from authors directly, and your only hope is to be represented by a reputable agent. Agents are overwhelmed with submissions, and you would normally need some leverage (like a substantial following or friends in high places) to even be considered.

I used to work in the music industry in various PR and marketing roles, and for that reason I feel I am reasonably well-equipped to undertake some book promotion activities myself. For instance, I have some experience running Google ads, and have written dozens of press releases and email marketing newsletters. Having said that, the publishing industry is evolving quickly, and it can be helpful to join an authors’ alliance in your country in order to get help and support, and find out what’s working for other independent authors and what isn’t.

It’s becoming very important to think outside the box when it comes to making money from your writing. Authors are increasingly looking to alternative income sources like crowdfunding and Patreon, although Amazon is still by far the number one way that most authors make money. I believe that in the future the most successful authors will be those who are able to best take advantage of emerging technologies.

I wish it were easier for self-published authors to make an impact, but the market is incredibly crowded, and expectations for success should be tempered accordingly. On the other hand, it’s important to remember that in the digital age there are more opportunities for entrepreneurial authors than ever before.

I hope this article had been of some help. If you would like to check out the books I self-published with SilverWood, you can find them on the books page. What are your thoughts on self-publishing? Feel free to leave a comment below.

What is Occam’s Razor?

Welcome to another instalment of Friday Philosophy. In this week’s post I’ll present a snapshot of the English friar and theologian William of Ockham. We’ll look his most famous idea, known as Occam’s razor, and I’ll offer a few reflections on the man and his thought.

Who Was He?

The ‘Ockham’ part of William’s title relates to a small town of the same name in Surrey in the South East of England, where he was born in 1287 AD. In the same vein as Thomas Aquinas, who we looked at in last week’s post, William was a scholastic theologian and a major Christian thinker of the Medieval period.

William wrote influential works in the fields of logic, theology, and physics, and is celebrated in the Church of England with a commemoration each year on 10th April.

What’s the Big Idea?

The idea that came to be known as Occam’s razor is as follows. Where in matters of philosophy or science there are competing theories or hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be the one with which we proceed.

It may be not entirely accurate to attribute this idea solely to William of Ockham, as many centuries earlier, Aristotle had said, “Other things being equal, we should prefer a demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.” (Aristotle, Posterior Analytics).

My Reflections

I think Occam’s razor highlights the fact that there is often beauty in simplicity. We all love the formula E=MC2 because it is very simple yet captures a significant truth about the functioning of the physical world that has become profoundly important in the world of science.

I believe that Occam’s razor has some application when we consider deep philosophical questions about, for instance, the nature of God. Perhaps one of the reasons why the pantheist perspective that ‘all is God’ is so appealing is because it’s such a simple theory.

On the other hand, I don’t think Occam’s razor could be applied to all aspects of theology and philosophy. For instance, if we look at moral questions, such as the theodicy problem (why is there so much suffering in the world?) I believe the answer may well be very complex. Simplicity and complexity are both facets of the nature of God, and of the world, and both should be taken into account in the study of philosophical subjects.

In next week’s philosophy post we’ll move on from the Medieval period and begin looking at key thinkers in the 16th and 17th century, which saw the beginning of modern science. If you’d like to follow the series, please consider subscribing to this blog. Feel free to leave your thoughts about Occam’s razor in the comments below. Thank you for reading!

Essence and Existence

In this week’s philosophy post I’ll be offering a snapshot of the Medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas, who is referred to by Catholics as Angelic Doctor of the Catholic Church, owing to his significant contributions to Christian theology.

Who Was He?

Aquinas was an Italian friar of the Dominican order, who lived between 1225-1274 AD. He is regarded as a key thinker in the field of scholasticism, which was a trend that saw Medieval Christian thinkers move away from monastic life and explore subjects such as art, law, and medicine.

The scholastics used reason to try to understand the world, and Aquinas, who drew heavily on the philosophy of Aristotle, is famed for being a leader in the process of synthesising the history of Western thought with Christian belief. He is regarded by many as the Catholic Church’s most important philosopher.

What’s the Big Idea?

Aquinas left us with as many as 50 volumes of written work, but for the purposes of this post we will hone in on just one of his key philosophical ideas.

Aquinas developed a distinction between essence and existence that has been important to philosophers and theologians ever since. A classic example of this distinction would be the unicorn. If I asked you to describe a unicorn you would be able to picture its essence (i.e. its physical characteristics), but you would also probably agree that unicorns don’t exist. But why is this important?

In last week’s philosophy post we looked at the ontological argument for the existence of God, which states that God’s essence must include existence. But according to the philosophy of Aquinas, this is not necessarily so, because as we have seen from the unicorn example, we might be able to picture or describe many of God’s attributes, but that doesn’t prove He exists.

My Reflections

As I stated in last week’s post, I find the ontological argument less persuasive than many arguments for the existence of God, and I believe the distinction between essence and existence that Aquinas makes allows us to reason through that argument.

Perhaps this is one good example of how reasoned philosophical enquiry can shed light on many of the difficult problems that people of faith struggle with. Of course, I should point out that for Aquinas philosophy and religion were in certain key respects distinct from one another, and he believed, for example, that philosophers would never be able to conclusively establish whether the universe had a beginning, whereas the Bible gives us a meaningful answer to that mystery.

In next week’s philosophy post I’ll offer a snapshot of another Medieval philosopher, William of Ockham. If you’d like to follow this series, please consider subscribing to this blog, and feel free to leave your thoughts on today’s post in the comments below. Thank you for reading!

The Ontological Argument

Welcome to this week’s Friday Philosophy post. Today I’ll be offering a snapshot of the life and thought of Saint Anselm, who was an important philosophical theologian of the Medieval period, and produced an interesting argument for the existence of God.

Who Was He?

Saint Anselm was a monk, abbot, philosopher, and theologian of the Catholic Church, who lived between 1033-1109 AD. He held the office of archbishop of Canterbury (the post held by leaders of the Church of England) between 1093-1109, and is remembered for his rational and philosophical approach to the Christian faith.

What’s the Big Idea?

Anselm is most famous for espousing what is commonly known as the ontological argument for the existence of God. The world ‘ontology’ basically means ‘being’, and so God’s being is the focus of the argument.

Imagine, says Anselm, the greatest, most perfect being of which you can conceive. If the being you think of has every possible desirable attribute of greatness, but not existence, it is not the greatest most perfect being possible, because a being that had all the same attributes plus existence would necessarily be greater. Therefore, argues Anselm, the greatest, most perfect possible being (which is God) must exist.

My Reflections

I’ve never found the ontological argument to be very convincing. It feels to me to be more like a philosophical trick than a convincing argument. Is it really the case that the greatest possible being of which we can conceive must exist? I’m not convinced of the veracity of this argument.

It seems to me that there are much more compelling arguments for the existence of God. For instance, the fact that miracles happen, and the fact that God speaks to people and reveals Himself in dreams and visions. Of course, if you haven’t experienced the reality of God then philosophical arguments will seem like an enticing way of trying to understand whether or not God exists.

I do believe there is some merit to philosophical arguments for the existence of God, but I feel there are much stronger arguments than Anselm’s ontological argument. For instance, the so-called ‘teleological argument’, which says that God is revealed in the fact that the universe displays design and purpose, is far more convincing to me.

Progressing through the Medieval period, in next week’s philosophy post we’ll be taking a look at the theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas, and exploring why he is still considered to be one of the key figures in the history of the Catholic Church. Thank you for reading!

Does Suffering Serve a Purpose?

In this post I’ll be giving a snapshot of the life and thought of Anicius Boethius, a figure who lived around the 6th century AD and has been described as the last of the Romans and also the first of the scholastic philosophers.

Who Was He?

Generally regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the Middle Ages, Boethius was imprisoned for some time by Theoderic the Great, who was King of Italy for a time and controlled a stretch of the Roman Empire. Boethius was accused of plotting to overthrow Theoderic, who eventually executed him, but not before he wrote his most famous work entitled Consolation of Philosophy.

Stylistically similar to some of the Socratic dialogues of antiquity, the book features a dialogue between Boethius and the spirit of philosophy personified as a woman. The work was translated into old English by King Alfred the Great in the 9th century (although some scholars dispute Alfred’s part in the translation), and later by the famous English poet Geoffrey Chaucer.

What’s the Big Idea?

In the Consolation of Philosophy Boethius argues that there is a higher power and that all suffering serves a purpose. He wrote that true happiness cannot be gained through the pursuit of money and power, but is found through philosophical detachment and the acceptance of hardship.

My Reflections

I think we all wonder at one time or another whether our suffering serves a purpose. In some religions, such as Hinduism, we are seen as responsible for our suffering due to the karmic consequence of our prior actions either in this lifetime or previous lifetimes. Within Christianity, suffering for the sake of the gospel is seen as honouring to Christ and to the glory of God.

I believe God is in control of all our suffering, and contrary to the perspective of many atheists, I would agree with Boethius that the suffering God brings us through serves a higher purpose. There have been times in my life when I have been truly broken by suffering, but without fail God has always turned my life around and brought me into a place of greater clarity and healing. I’m sure many of you reading this can relate.

I believe God is working out a plan for all His creatures, that may not make sense in this lifetime. When faced with life’s trials, the rather stoic acceptance of hardship recommended by Boethius can be seen as admirable, although I would add that we need a tremendous amount of grace in order to be able to see suffering, which at times can seem gratuitous, in a positive light.

In next week’s Friday Philosophy post I’ll be profiling Saint Anselm, whose ontological argument for the existence of God has been highly influential in the history of philosophy. If you’d like to receive an email with every new post, please consider subscribing. Thank you for reading!

Molinism Refuted

A theological position that has risen to prominence in recent years is that of Molinism. Getting its name from the 16th century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, but brought to prominence in our time by the American debater Dr William Lane Craig, the position attempts to reconcile God’s sovereignty with human free will.

Anyone who has read much of my writing will know that this subject is one I believe is at the heart of Christian theology, and theology in general. In this article I will explain the central tenet of Molinism, and will suggest that while it may be philosophically interesting, when we relate the theory to the real world, it actually makes no sense at all.

Molina’s theory is a complex one. He posits that God has three different types of knowledge; natural knowledge, free knowledge, and middle knowledge. To explain the difference between these types of knowledge would require a lengthy exposition, and I want to keep this post as brief as possible. For those who would like to read such an exposition, I recommend this article.

For our purposes we will focus on ‘middle knowledge’, which is the aspect of Molina’s theological perspective that has been considered to hold the answer to the divine sovereignty versus human free will predicament.

Let’s allow Dr Craig to explain the position:

“What Molina said is that logically prior to God’s creating the world, God knew what any free creature that He might create would freely do in any set of circumstances in which He might place that person…”

(Source: YouTube video)

This is so-called ‘middle knowledge’, which Dr Craig also defines as follows:

“Middle knowledge is God’s knowledge of what people would do freely in any set of circumstances, and those people may never exist.”

(Source: ReasonableFaith.org article)

So as I understand the position, Molinists believe that prior to creation there are an infinite number of possible worlds, all of which God knows everything about, and within those worlds God knows every choice that any free person would make in any set of circumstances (and this is true before He has even decided to create a person). God picks one of these possible worlds to be the actual world and thereby puts each person in a set of circumstances that He is perfectly in control of, so He knows exactly what they will do, but they are still free to act in whichever way they choose.

To even conceptualise this is a real struggle, but as I mentioned above, it’s a complicated theory. In terms of the specifics, I am willing to hold my hands up and say there are some aspects of the theory that I don’t fully understand. But I am confident that I am able to grasp enough of the theory to see why it fails. So I will now offer three refutations in response to the theory, all of which are interrelated:

1. It is impossible for anyone to do anything freely. God, by His very nature, is omnipresent, which means that there are no boundaries to God’s being. If God has no boundaries, it logically follows that every atom in existence is a part of God and therefore under God’s control. In this context, free will is impossible.

2. There is no separation between God and man. Molinism says that we have man on the one hand (who is free), and man’s circumstances on the other hand (that are determined by God). But in reality, it is impossible to draw a distinction between man and his circumstances because there is no dividing line where one ends and the other begins. For instance, is your breathing caused by you or your circumstances? How about your choice of clothes or food? If you consider the answers to these questions it should be obvious that you cannot separate man and his circumstances into two separate categories. Really, all that exists is a single present moment unfolding that is not ontologically distinct from God. Entities within this unfolding are merely aspects or appearances of God, and crucially, that includes human beings.

3. Creation is an ongoing process. Dr Craig’s view of the universe is that it was created at a specific point in time long ago (in a ‘Big Bang’ event). But if this is the case, what is God doing right now? The separation between God and creation is a fiction – creation didn’t happen at a specific point in the past, but on the contrary, God is unfolding all events right now in the present moment. The past and future, which are necessary components of Dr Craig’s take on Molinism, don’t exist in reality, they are just ideas in the minds of creatures.

If we deeply consider the nature of God, it is easy to see why Molinism fails to reconcile the divine sovereignty versus human free will predicament. The solution to that predicament is the realisation that all that exists does so within God, and is therefore under God’s control. There is no free will, and once we realise this the need to posit God’s ‘middle knowledge’, as Molina and Dr Craig have done, evaporates.

For a more detailed explanation of why I believe God is in control of all events, I invite you to read my book entitled Ultimate Truth: God Beyond Religion. To watch a book trailer or buy the book, click here.  What are your thoughts on Molinism? Feel free to leave a comment below. Thank you for reading!

Who was Saint Augustine?

Every Friday I offer a snapshot of a philosopher from history, reflecting on an idea of significance they contributed to the history of thought. There is necessarily some crossover between philosophy and theology, as is evident in today’s post, where I’ll be profiling Augustine of Hippo, a central figure in the history of the Catholic Church.

Who Was He?

Augustine’s father was a pagan and his mother was a Christian. He lived between 354-430 AD, during a time when Christianity was growing and the Roman Empire was beginning to decline.

As a teenager, Augustine explored the writings of Cicero, which inspired him towards a quest for knowledge which saw him embrace for a time the teachings of Manichaeism, a philosophical school of thought that saw the universe as a battleground between the forces of good and evil. Recognising problems with Manichaean philosophy, Augustine grew sceptical and instead went on to study the teachings of Plato and the Neo-Platonist thinker Plotinus. When he eventually returned to Christianity at the age of 32, he carried with him much of what he had learned during this period of philosophical exploration.

What’s the Big Idea?

There are people who spend their entire lives studying Augustine’s thought, and I could not do justice to his extensive doctrinal writings in a brief snapshot post such as this. I highly recommend Augustine’s autobiography The Confessions, which I have read several times, as a wonderful introduction to the man and his thinking.

One of Augustine’s key doctrines was that of predestination, which is the idea that God has foreknowledge concerning whether or not humans will become believers, and this entails God knowing all things about our lives even prior to our birth. He argued that salvation is not something that we can attain through our own efforts to be worthy in God’s sight, but is purely an act of grace.

My Reflections

Augustine was accused of holding to a doctrine of double predestination, which is the idea that people are consigned either to heaven or hell by the will of God before they are even born. In the present day, there are still some Christians, particularly in the Calvinist denomination, who hold this view.

In my view, predestination would seem to make God a very cruel being, as He would be punishing people in hell for actions that were not undertaken freely, but have always been a part of God’s plan. Many Christians are what is known as ‘compatibilists’, and they try to argue in strange and complex ways that we do have free will despite God’s foreknowledge of all events.

I believe there is a clear logical contradiction in the attempt to hold that both God’s foreknowledge and human free will are true, but there is certainly an argument that can be made that both positions are espoused in the Bible. For me, this is a significant problem with the Christian worldview, and it’s one that I see Christians wrestling with constantly. The solution to this predicament, which is that God is in control of all things (and therefore we don’t have free will) is logically coherent, but necessarily weakens the argument for Christianity.

In next week’s philosophy post we’ll be looking at the Roman philosopher Anicius Boethius, and an argument he formulated in order to try to make sense of the divine foreknowledge / free will predicament. If you’re interested in following this series, please consider subscribing. Thank you for reading!