Comparative understanding of Islam to the Christian religion

The church discipleship group which I attended yesterday was going through a comparative religious study on Islam. The focus of the study was on Islam’s understanding of the resurrection of Christ.

The differences highlighted by the discipleship group leader about Islam in regards to Jesus Christ is that Islam teaches in the Qur’an that Jesus is only a prophet and not divine, and that Jesus was not crucified, but it was merely made to appear so, while Allah raised Jesus to heaven.

The material that the discipleship group leader had prepared then went on to the question on whether the Bible or the Qur’an was more reliable. The answer given was that the Bible was more reliable because it was written down within the first generation of the events recorded, while the eyewitnesses were still alive, as compared to the Qur’an, written over 600 years after the events with no independent, historical source of information. An excerpt from William Lane Craig’s article “Who is the Real Jesus : The Jesus of the Bible or The Jesus of the Qur’an?” was presented in the material, which states that “In fact, the Qur’an contains demonstrably legendary stories about Jesus which evolved during the centuries after his death….For example, the Qur’an mentions the story – borrowed from the legendary forgery entitled The Infancy Gospel of Thomas – of how the boy Jesus made a bird out of clay and then made it come to life. Such stories are fictional.”

The material also cites historical evidences other than the bible which corroborates with the account of Jesus crucifixion, such as the Jewish historian Josephus reference to Jesus’ condemnation to the cross by Pilate in Testimonium Flavianum, Roman senator and historian Tacitus reference to Jesus in his Annals, and Greek satirist Lucian’s scornful remark of Christ in The Death of Peregrine. One objection that I have heard raised by counter-apologists is whether these other sources qualify as independent attestations of the gospel narrative, since they were written decades after the crucifixion, and might have been derived from the same sources used for the gospels

The session also discusses about the understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Islam rejects the Christian belief of God as existing in three persons. The material attempts to explain the idea of the Trinity with William Lane Craig’s description of God as a soul endowed with three complete sets of rational cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood. The discipleship group leader tried to explain this using the analogy of three different people in a company holding the similar position of CEO and being able to sign off with such a title. Another member in the discipleship group attempted to explain the idea of the trinity with an analogy of different descriptions given of a three-dimensional object from different perspectives. According to her, there exists a fourth dimension not comprehensible by human mind where God can exist in separate rational forms but maintain the same essence. Another discipleship group member casually cites the example of someone with the mental illness of bipolar, where two separate personalities exists in the same person, much like the story of Jerkyll and Hyde. For me, I find it easier to understand the idea of the Trinity as simply one rational faculty controlling three persons, much like how a puppet master controls multiple puppets, although I reckon that such an idea of the trinity would run into problems explaining why Jesus would admit not having knowledge that belongs to God the Father, or why Jesus had to pray to God. Considering such difficulties of conceiving the idea of the Trinity, I can understand why Islam would reject this idea and why some Muslims would even label this as polytheistic.

I would like to present here the beliefs of a Jewish law professor on campus on how he understands the Christian religion in relation to his own Judaistic faith. This professor believes that Jesus is both the Messiah prophesied in Isaiah 53, but also the prophet described in Deuteronomy 13 whom God had warned the Israelites not to follow but to put to death. As such, the Christian religion is God’s way of reaching out to the gentiles, but is also a test of the Jews to remain faithful to their Judaistic roots and not be led astray by other beliefs. I wonder whether such a pluralistic theology explaining Judaism and Christianity as being God’s different ways of reaching out to different people can also encompass Islam.

A tale of a devout old lady and an atheist neighbor – Differences of paradigms

Today at church, the sermon was given by a Lutheran German pastor whom I occasionally see visiting my church. In his sermon, he was telling a comedic story of a devout old woman who always praised God despite her circumstances. The old woman had a neighbor who was an atheist who was rather fond of mocking the old woman of her spirituality. The old woman went into financial difficulties one day. As she was praying in her house for God to come to her aid, the atheist thought of a plan to mock the old lady for her belief. He bought groceries, and left them outside the door of the old woman’s house. Then, he knocked a few times on the door, and quickly went to hide behind a bush and observe what happen. The old lady opened the door, and upon seeing the groceries, gave praise verbally to God for what she thought was an act of divine providence. The atheist neighbor sprang up to his feet, and remarked, “Aha! You silly woman, it was me who placed the food there and not God.” The old lady was undeterred and sang even more praise, saying “Praise God for providing, and even making an atheist pay for it!”

I am not too sure what I should be taking away from the story. Is it trying to say that the old lady was virtuous for being so pious in the way she sees all things as an act of God, despite the difficult circumstance and supposed “persecution” of her faith by the atheist neighbor? Is it trying to say that God can work through mediums that we might not perceive to be coming from him? Or perhaps, the story might be trying to say that there are different ways of perceiving the same thing, and where one sees that there is no God, another can interpret that there is God quite conversely.

I suppose different people can have different paradigms in viewing a similar situation. And it is possible that different paradigms might be equally good in interpreting or explaining an observation. I think that when people disagree with each other sometimes, they might perhaps be evaluating a set of observation according to their paradigm and fail to see that other paradigms may just be as effective or coherent. For example, where the atheist sees only natural processes, the believer sees God working through these processes. Where the atheist sees unfortunate circumstances as the absence of God, the believer sees these circumstances as possibly God’s will.

Is there a way to determine whose paradigm is right? One possible principle is Occam’s Razor, which states that amongst competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. A common critique that I hear from the atheist side is that the attempt by believers’ to explain things with God is artificial or assumes too much. One parody that is used is that of the flying spaghetti monster, which satires a believer’s use of God as an explanation as being no different from another person use of a fictitious flying spaghetti monster to explain the thing as well.

Divine Love and Wisdom by Emanuel Swedenborg

I borrowed a book titled Divine Love and Wisdom written by the Swedish polymath Emanuel Swedenborg. According to the Wikipedia website, Emauel Swedenborg was a Swedish scientist, philosopher, theologian, revelator, and, in the eyes of some, Christian mystic. There is a short text in the translator’s preface of the book which goes, “In 1745, at the age of fifty-seven, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688 – 1772) had an experience that radically hanged the course of his life. Much later, he would describe it as a vision of Jesus Christ commissioning him to “open to people the spiritual meaning of Scripture” and initiating years of regular experiences of the spiritual world. Soon after this vision, he resigned from his post on the Swedish Board of Mines and spent the remainder of his years writing and publishing the theological works for which he is now best known.”

There is an entry titled “The Church of the New Jerusalem – Swedenborgianism” in Walter Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cult. Walter Martin critiques Swedenborg’s doctrines on the Holy Scriptures, the Trinity of God, vicarious atonement, and the destiny of man. He concluded at page 519 that “Swedenborg was far from being a Christian, and certainly was not a Christian theologian.” Personally, I am skeptical of people who profess particular stances in religious doctrines on the basis of personal divine revelation. Nevertheless, I am interested in what Swedenborg might have to say about the notion of divine love and wisdom.

I had come across the name of Emanuel Swedenborg in the past when I searched for IQ of famous people back when I was quite interested in the concept of psychometric assessment of intelligence. There are websites listing Swedenborg as having an IQ of 205, exceptionally way above the average of 100 on the IQ scale. I haven’t taken a proper IQ test before, but according to the free IQ test I took online, my IQ is rated at 134, which is deemed as gifted, but below the genius level. But I am not very sure about the credibility of these online IQ tests which I suspect give inflated scores to make its takers happy. I am not sure about how credible the IQ score assigned to these various famous figures like Swedenborg are credible when IQ test did not exist when these guys were alive. Moreover, I am not sure how useful an IQ test is in measuring intelligence. Some remarkably intelligent people who have taken the IQ tests did not fare exactly too well in their IQ score. The physics Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman was determined to score only 125 when he took the IQ test in high school, high, but only above average. Francis Crick, Nobel prize winner in medicine and co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule with James Watson, scored only 115. William Shockley, Nobel Prize winner for physics for his part in the invention of the transistor was measured at 129. He later became a staunch advocate of eugenics, making controversial statements like proposing that individuals with IQs below 100 be paid to undergo voluntary sterilization. But these individuals have certainly achieved more intellectually and contributed more to humanity than any other people who claim to have higher IQ scores, especially those who apply to become Mensa members.

I found some of the contents discussed in the introduction of the book by Gregory R. Johnson interesting. I shall give the excerpts of the various passages below.

1. At page 24 – “Every account of creation must deal with the question, “Why did God choose to create the world rather than remain alone?” There are two basic answers to this question: God creates out of need or out of abundance. If God creates out of need, this implies that God alone is not perfect and self-sufficient and that the net amount of being and goodness is increased by the creation of the world. Expressed mathematically, God plus creation is greater than God alone. In the Hermetic tradition, for instance, God creates the world because he lacks self-consciousness. Self-consciousness can only come by the recognition of oneself in another who is capable of recognizing one in turn. God, therefore, must create another being who can know him. He cannot create another God, for a god is uncreated. But he can create a mortal being who is capable of knowing him. This is the human being. Once the human comes to know God, God comes to know himself and is complete. Creation is thus a circular process in which God goes out of himself and then returns to himself by beholding himself in the mirror of his creation. If on the other hand God creates out of abundance, this implies that God alone is perfect and does not need creation to augment his being and goodness. This means that all the goodness and being of the created world is a gift of God, that God shares his superabundant being and goodness by creating beings that can receive them. The created world has no being and goodness of its own. Therefore, in terms of being and goodness, God plus creation is not greater than God alone. There are different models for understanding creation out of abundance. Plotinus, for example, resists ascribing any human traits to his concept of the One from which all beings emanate. The One gives rise to the world simply as an expression of its infinite creative power (Plotinus Enneads 6:8). Christianity, by contrast, understands the creation of the world as an act of love, and not a selfish love that seeks something in return, but an unselfish love, a love that arises not out of neediness but out of the fullness of the soul (Sokolowski 1995, 31-40)”

Continuing – “Swedenborg’s account of creation is complex because it contains elements of both creation from need and creation from abundance. On the one hand, it is apparent throughout Divine Love and Wisdom, from the title on, that Swedenborg casts his account of creation in the Christian language of love. Yet his account of the workings of divine love quickly become expressed in the language of need. In ss47-49, under the proposition “Divine love and wisdom cannot fail to be and to be manifested in others that it has created,” Swedenborg argues that “the hallmark of love is not loving ourselves but loving others and being united to them through love.” Self-love is a matter of “feeling our joy in others…and not theirs in ourselves.” Swedenborg argues that by contrast unselfish love involves mutuality, that is, feeling our joy in others and feeling the joy of others in ourselves. “What is loving ourselves alone, really, and not loving someone else who loves us in return? This is more fragmentation than union. Love’s union depends on mutuality, and there is no mutuality within ourselves alone” (s48). Because God loves, and love requires mutuality, God must create an “other” to love. This other cannot be another God, for even if it were possible for God to create another God, the love that would exist between them would be more like self-love than love for one’s neighbor. Thus God requires the existence of finite beings – humans and angels- whom he can love and who can love him in return. In s170, Swedenborg claims that the ultimate goal of creation, the “eternal union of the Creator with the created universe,” cannot happen “unless there are subjects in which his divinity can be at home, so to speak, subjects in which it can dwell and abide.” Although Swedenborg speaks of God’s need of other beings to love and be loved by in return, his position does not ultimately reduce to creation out of lack or imperfection. God loves out of abundance, not out of lack. But once he loves, the nature of love requires beings who can reciprocate.”

I am not sure why God made creation. And I don’t think it is possible to analyze any being’s psychology definitively by reasoning alone to come to a conclusion on why that being does a certain thing. A god could easily have made creation out of his own amusement, boredom, or on a whimsy. But I suppose that it is reasonable to take our impression of how God is like from religious sources containing such description, and the bible contains description of God as a God of love, with such an expression of love being most magnificently and evidently displayed by the redemption of humanity from sins by God’s death on the cross. I think it is open for one to appraise though whether they believe that God is a God of love, and the problem of evil and suffering is a defeater of that proposition. Personally, I like the evangelical Christian conception of God as a loving Father, who is wise, all-powerful, all-knowing, yet someone whom you can treat like a friend. He is there to help you, guide you, and to pick you up where you fall.

2. On the goal of creation at page 28 – “Swedenborg’s account of creation can be depicted as a circle. God goes out of himself, creating the world out of his own substance. But God implants in creation a desire to circle back and return to himself. According to Swedenborg, the goal of creation is “that everything should return to the Creator and that there should be a union”; “The grand purpose, or the purpose of all elements of creation, is an eternal union of the Creator with the created universe”. This circular conception of creation is present in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as in Neoplatonism and Hermeticism.”

I often hear Christians saying that God made creation for his glory, and that we are created to glorify God. But sometimes, I wonder why God would ever want, or need that glory from creation. I personally like the idea of God as a friend. But I don’t think or feel that God is really my friend, or someone who loves me. He seems very much impersonal to me such that what I pray for goes unanswered.

3. On why it is necessary for humans to have the illusion of autonomy when it comes to loving God at page 36 – “Swedenborg denies that “we ourselves climb up to God on our own power. It is done by the Lord” Our ability to ascend from one physical level to the next and one spiritual level to the next depends on our receptivity to divine love and wisdom. This receptivity is not, however, something we control. All created beings are, in themselves, dead and inert. All their vital and active powers are infused into them by God, who is the only intrinsically alive and active being. God is at work in our inmost thoughts and feelings, always guiding us toward him…We are unaware of this fact, because nothing seems more our own than our lives: “Angels, like us, simply feel as though they participate in love and wisdom on their own, and therefore that love and wisdom are theirs, their very own” (S115).

I suppose it is a contention whether free will exists, and what is its nature. Some theists tries to make an argument for free will on the basis that the soul exists, and is unconnected to any material form which is governed by deterministic natural laws. Some others would provide some sort of indeterministic natural laws like quantum theory to provide an explanation for free will. But it is interesting that Swedenborg here agrees on the view that free will is an illusion, much like the views taken by atheists who believe in a naturalistic worldview. Still, that illusion of autonomy is significant according to Swedenborg because it is necessary for an individual to have that illusion to be able to internalize that love for himself. And I would say that going by this line of argument, I see that a case for why notion of moral responsibility can arise even if free will doesn’t really exist. The illusion of free will itself creates that moral responsibility because the individual who chooses the evil action internalize that decision for himself, and that is the basis for moral judgment. But I have heard how Christian apologists like William Lane Craig argue that if the world was naturalistic, and there is no such thing as free will, then notions of moral responsibilities cannot exist.

On a method for the appraisal of evidences for Christianity

A friend of mine provided quite some interesting insights about how to go about the question about whether God exists, and whether Christianity is the correct religion. He says that it is necessary for one to consider the broad framework of the arguments being presented for Christ, and not to over-focus on one aspect of the case for Christianity to the exclusion of other evidences being put forth for the case. The various components of the case theory for Christianity varies in strength. They are usually disputable on their own. For example, historicity of individual instances of the bible may be disputed. Divine revelation alone remains dubitable because of problems such as the difficulty of attributing the experience to the Christian God. However, when all the evidences are examined in totality, they present a very strong argument for the truth of the Christian religion.

An analogy he gave was about how evidence works in the court of law. There may be more than one way to supply evidence. Witness testimony may be one of them. The presence of articles, and motives of the suspect may be another. Now, the evaluation of a case is made on the preponderance of evidences. One aspect of the evidence may be weak, or even inimical to the case theory. But the appraisal of the case theory is strengthened when the various evidences are taken into consideration.

I was thinking that there may be something about case theory fitting the evidences that strengthens the case theory. And this is especially so if the evidences are discovered after the case theory had been formulated. There are cases of archeological findings that corroborates with the historical narrative of the bible. For example, the finding of Noah’s ark in turkey, or the discovery of the ancient dwelling place of a particular clan that was mentioned in the bible. Now, on its own, these examples remain disputable. It is not conclusive whether the structure that was discovered in Turkey really was Noah’s ark. Or it may not be conclusive whether the various findings about the historicity of Jesus are true. But when taken together and compared against the case theory of Christianity as provided by the narrative of the Bible, the strength of the evidences is enhanced, as well as the case theory itself.

I am not sure what historians think about such a method of evaluating evidences for history. And I wonder what the court of law thinks of such a philosophy behind the appraisal of evidences as well. I am wondering whether the evidence module that I am going to take in law school next semester would enlighten me more about how evidences should be weighted and evaluated.

Star Trek : Into Darkness

I watched the latest installment of Star Trek: Into Darkness in theatre recently. I felt that it wasn’t as epic as the previous one, but good nonetheless. This time, the crews of the enterprise take on a new enemy named Khan. I am actually not familiar with this nemesis of the Star Trek world. The Wikipedia description does give good background information about who this Khan guy is. He is “one of a group of genetically engineered supermen, bred to be free of the usual human mental and physical limitations, who were removed from power after the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s.”

I thought that this Khan guy was somewhat like the Vulcans, in that they are portrayed as beings of superior intellect compared to the human beings and relative lacking in emotion. Indeed, one of the theme that is observed in the star trek world is the juxtaposition of the characteristic of intellect and emotion, with the portrayal that the two have an inverse relationship with the other. The quality of being logical and rational is opposed to what is seen as the primitive trait of emotions.

I think it an interesting inquiry about whether this juxtaposition is true. I do see the likes of such kinds of people who appear as having a lack of emotions, or a lack of ability to express them. There are professors whom I encounter who seem quite socially inept and emotionless. In the law faculty however, most of the professors have a relatively nice and sociable personality. I wonder whether the personalities of professors in the more technical-based disciplines such as engineering sport a blander sort of personality. The stereotype of the absent-minded professor is afterall the caricature prevalent as cultural memes.

Indeed, one of the observations in the field of psychology is the presence of a particular set of symptoms in human beings known as autism. While people on the autism spectrum have supposedly a higher intelligence, they suffer from a relatively lack in social skills and ability to express emotions. However, contrary to public impression, these individuals do experience emotions, perhaps even more intensely than a normal individual; they just have difficulty expressing them.

Instead of the trait of emotions and intelligence being conflicting in nature, I was thinking that perhaps emotions and intelligence are more of evolutionary trade-offs. For example, I do learn that viruses that develop the trait of being more resistant to antibiotics do so at the expense of being less virulent in nature. And as the common stereotype goes, beautiful people are less intelligent than ugly people, and vice versa. There is this concept known as evolutionary cost where the development of certain qualities in a species comes at a cost in the development of other qualities. My thought is that the ability to express emotions is a quality developed by evolution which is an effective method for communication. But intelligence, which improves an individual’s ability to communicate via words, and through signs and symbols, comes as a trade-off to an individual’s ability to express himself via emotions.

There is this interesting bit on philosophy in the Wikipedia page about Khan and the concept of the superman in Nietzche’s philosophy – “Superficially, Khan is believed by some to have similarities with Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of the "Übermensch" (superman or overman). Khan is mentally and physically superior to any normal human. In the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Borderland", Malik, the leader of a group of "supermen" created from the same genetic engineering project as Khan, actually quotes Nietzsche, telling Archer that "Mankind is something to be surpassed". Professor William J. Devlin and coauthor Shai Biderman examined Khan's character compared to the Übermensch and found that Khan's blind pursuit of revenge is against Nietzsche's ideals of transcendence and self-creation of a meaningful life. Instead, the authors offer Spock's self-sacrifice in The Wrath of Khan as a better example of the Übermensch.”

I have not read Nietzche before, but I think I do get the idea of what his philosophy is about. And it seems like a depressing picture of humanity where might is right. One of the objections that I read from Christian apologists about morality based on atheism is that the atheist has to deal with the problem of nihilism before he can suggest humanism as a code of ethics to live by.

I saw an interview of J.J Abrams who was director of the star trek movies on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He mentioned about him not being a star trek fan but a star wars fan. Jon, a Star Trek fan, humorously commented that he didn’t hear Abrams say anything after that statement, only that he observe Abram’s lips moving. I am not sure how true the saying that people who are star trek fans are not star wars fans, and vice versa. But it certainly holds true for me. I am a star trek fan and not a star wars fan. I like the space sci-fi and the concept of diplomacy amongst different space races on different planets in Star Trek, and not the fantasy, good vs evil theme of Star Wars.