Perspective of Perfection -Will Brady
There I was, all hyped and ready to blog about the five proofs of God... But then two of the proofs were missing from my download of the handout, replaced only by a big blank page; I shall instead proceed to blog about how I, too, formulate half a complete idea and then default to blank stupidity. I feel you, handout. But in all seriousness, the two missing proofs of God I found online were the most interesting--as such, I shall hesitantly dedicate this blog to things not found specifically in the reading that I can only hope are the same as what would have been in the reading.
Of all the arguments, the one that struck me the most was the argument by degree--the first three all seem to be variations of the teleological and cosmological arguments, but the fourth? According to the internet, its the argument from degree: we have standards of "perfection" (i.e., a straight stick is perfect compared to a crooked stick) that must come from the existence of a perfect being. Now, this is an argument I've seen spun in ways where it carries a heavy impact and in ways where it sort of falls flat. I've heard a lot of folks simply say, "I see a crooked stick here; because I can imagine a better stick, a better stick must exist. Likewise, because man is obviously imperfect, the fact that I can imagine a perfect being proves that he must exist, as well." ...That argument doesn't quite follow when put in those terms, though. I can imagine a perfect car that has zero fuel emissions and drives underwater, but that doesn't mean that the invention of such a car is attainable. I've seen many people make this argument, but... they're going about it wrong.
This is an issue of perspective. When someone says "I can imagine perfection, therefore it must exist," they're building from the bottom up--from them to God, opening the door for people to base God off their idea of perfection. But that isn't how the argument should go; it should be about why we even have an idea of perfection in the first place. We should instead be saying, "This is a crooked stick. How do I know it's crooked? How do I even know what crooked is? Knowledge of crookedness is only possible if out there somewhere exists a straight stick by which to compare the crooked stick. Likewise, how do we know what evil is or that man is corrupt and imperfect unless we are subconsciously aware of the existence of a perfect being we are striving to live up to?" This is a top-down perspective--it helps close the ability for us to call "perfection" whatever we want and submit ourselves to attempting to fit the mold that exists from God.
Perspective. Is. Everything. That cannot be stressed enough. It can change this entire argument around, from "God exists because we imagine a perfect being" to "We can only recognize that we are imperfect because there is a perfect God." The first line of thinking is a trap that's too easy to fall into; how harmless it seems is what makes it so dangerous. One could say, "We imagine a perfect being. What is He like? So long as He's better than us, He will be whatever we decide." Alternatively, one could say, "There is a perfect being because we know we are imperfect. What is He like? He is everything we usually aren't, as His existence is the only reason we know we're so corrupt."
I almost blogged about St. Francis and his wolf when the three proofs of God on the handout underwhelmed me, and I was worried that my idea for that would churn out a short blog. Hah, that would have been unfortunate.
P.S. I commented on Eliza and AnnaKate's posts.
Of all the arguments, the one that struck me the most was the argument by degree--the first three all seem to be variations of the teleological and cosmological arguments, but the fourth? According to the internet, its the argument from degree: we have standards of "perfection" (i.e., a straight stick is perfect compared to a crooked stick) that must come from the existence of a perfect being. Now, this is an argument I've seen spun in ways where it carries a heavy impact and in ways where it sort of falls flat. I've heard a lot of folks simply say, "I see a crooked stick here; because I can imagine a better stick, a better stick must exist. Likewise, because man is obviously imperfect, the fact that I can imagine a perfect being proves that he must exist, as well." ...That argument doesn't quite follow when put in those terms, though. I can imagine a perfect car that has zero fuel emissions and drives underwater, but that doesn't mean that the invention of such a car is attainable. I've seen many people make this argument, but... they're going about it wrong.
This is an issue of perspective. When someone says "I can imagine perfection, therefore it must exist," they're building from the bottom up--from them to God, opening the door for people to base God off their idea of perfection. But that isn't how the argument should go; it should be about why we even have an idea of perfection in the first place. We should instead be saying, "This is a crooked stick. How do I know it's crooked? How do I even know what crooked is? Knowledge of crookedness is only possible if out there somewhere exists a straight stick by which to compare the crooked stick. Likewise, how do we know what evil is or that man is corrupt and imperfect unless we are subconsciously aware of the existence of a perfect being we are striving to live up to?" This is a top-down perspective--it helps close the ability for us to call "perfection" whatever we want and submit ourselves to attempting to fit the mold that exists from God.
Perspective. Is. Everything. That cannot be stressed enough. It can change this entire argument around, from "God exists because we imagine a perfect being" to "We can only recognize that we are imperfect because there is a perfect God." The first line of thinking is a trap that's too easy to fall into; how harmless it seems is what makes it so dangerous. One could say, "We imagine a perfect being. What is He like? So long as He's better than us, He will be whatever we decide." Alternatively, one could say, "There is a perfect being because we know we are imperfect. What is He like? He is everything we usually aren't, as His existence is the only reason we know we're so corrupt."
I almost blogged about St. Francis and his wolf when the three proofs of God on the handout underwhelmed me, and I was worried that my idea for that would churn out a short blog. Hah, that would have been unfortunate.
P.S. I commented on Eliza and AnnaKate's posts.
Great post! Too often do we as humans try to base everything off of ourselves. We constantly decide what is important or good based upon our own definitions. Breaking news, God has already set some standards, and they are impossible to understand unless we accept His superiority as God. Many people view the problem of sin as how we as imperfect people can get to God. This is not the problem. The problem is how does a Holy and Perfect God dwell in the midst of such terrible, rebellious, and grotesque individuals. Thankfully, in an unnecessary and divine act of grace, God sent Christ to serve as a propitiation for our sins upon the cross, so that all who believe upon Him will be saved. God is always the focus. Romans 11:36 states that absolutely everything is from God, through God, and to Him.
ReplyDeleteOkay, first off perfection is imperceptible because we have never seen perfection in any form. Even when Jesus appeared on the Earth, he came looking like any other man; and even when he acted and lived perfectly, the people of the day still chose to see him as a heretic and imperfect. We don't know perfection, but we have an idea of what perfection is, or at least what it could be. You say we can't formulate God from our perspective, and that's correct: we cannot hope to understand the complexities and nuances that make God, God. However, we are given the Scriptures to understand everything we need to know about God. He is perfect, and we are imperfect. Thus, we can derive that from every imperfection about ourselves, the world, and the actions made within the world that God, in his perfection, would complete those tasks perfectly, act perfectly, and be perfect--whatever "perfect" entails. We can say God exists because we can imagine a "perfect" being, but we don't necessarily have to define perfection since there are infinitely many details that describe perfection.
ReplyDeleteThat's why we just say God is perfect.
"Knowledge of crookedness is only possible if out there somewhere exists a straight stick by which to compare the crooked stick." I don't see why. You don't actually have to see a straight stick in order to imagine one. All you need to see is a limiting case. You'll quickly get the idea of a straight stick if you see a stick bent at 90 then 45 then 20 then 5 degrees.
ReplyDelete