ECREE

Hello readers and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! As it stands, it still looks like I will be heading out of town again tomorrow and won’t be back until next week so if you don’t see a new post tomorrow, don’t panic. There is simply other business that I must take care of.

Today, I’d like to take a look at the standard atheist answer to many Christian claims and this is to say “ECREE.” What’s that? It means “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.” This is a response that is met so often that it has become a platitude in our times. Indeed, there is a problem when thinking is replaced with soundbites. To be fair, Christians can be just as guilty.

I recall one of the responses a professor of mine has about this kind of objection that is being raised. What is extraordinary evidence? Does it glow? The whole concept of extraordinary evidence is subjective. Propositions do not require extraordinary evidence to believe them. They require sufficient evidence.

Let’s take the claim of an atheist as best exemplified by Carl Sagan. “The cosmos is all there ever was, is, and ever will be.” For Sagan, that sounds certainly like a reasonable claim. However, if we are talking about extraordinary claims, in that there is a claim that is out of the ordinary, Sagan’s claim is just such a claim! The majority of people alive today and who have ever lived in the past have believed in some form of deity.

With that in mind, the rest of humanity can just look at Sagan and say “ECREE!” However, he will look at our beliefs, those of us who are theists and not just Christian theists but all theists, and say “ECREE!” If you are a naturalist, the claim that there is a God will be extraordinary. If you are a theist, the claim that there is no God is the claim that will be extraordinary.

When we reach this point then, the problem becomes more along the lines of examining the believers of the worldview instead of the evidence. It’s “I hold this worldview and yours is contrary and therefore, I must view your belief system with suspicion. I cannot believe it lightly. I require extraordinary evidence.”

None of us should take our worldview lightly, but we should not assume that we have no burden of proof. My thinking is that everyone who is asserting a truth claim has a burden of proof. The atheist needs to demonstrate that there is no God. The theist needs to demonstrate that there is. Of course, there are different methods of demonstration.

ECREE is not a response. It is an excuse to not give a response. It is a way of avoiding thinking because you could always look at the data and just say “Not extraordinary enough.” Instead, it’s best to look at the data for any claim and say “Does this match the claim? Yes or no. Is this data verifiable and/or believable? Yes or no. Do those who are knowledgeable on both sides hold to this? Yes or no.”

With the last one for instance, if you are arguing for a position, you want to get as much of your opponent’s worldview in as possible. For instance, Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker argues that macroevolutionary theory is true. Because macroevolutionary theory is true, God does not exist. That is not part of a Christian worldview however. The Christian worldview does not necessarily say either God or evolutionary theory. There can be both/and. I could grant everything Dawkins says about evolutionary theory from a scientific perspective and that would not disprove that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Meanwhile, when I approach my opponent, that is what I want to do. I want to say “I will grant you your macroevolutionary belief for the sake of argument. I will argue as if the proposition ‘Human beings are the result of a macroevolutionary process’ is true.” Now of course, I don’t mean a naturalistic process, but a process nonetheless. Upon saying that I will then say “Now give me your argument against my theistic beliefs.”

This is coming to the table and accepting the data. A way the new atheists misconstrue this often is their common notion of faith as believing something without evidence. I don’t know of one dictionary of biblical words that defines faith in that way. It is certainly not the way I understand faith. Still, the new atheists regularly trot this out. I only wish to ask “Do you have any evidence that that is the definition of faith?” If they do, then please give it because it has never been found in any dictionaries of biblical words. If not, then they are believing something without evidence, the very act that they condemn.

Instead, the new atheists need to come and say “Here is the data the apologists put forward. Here’s where we think the data is right. Here’s where we think the inference from the data is wrong.” (Check the bibliography several times in works of the new atheists. It is woefully lacking in Christian sources and if they are cited, interacting with them is negligible.)

We Christians need to do better than our opponents are and part of this is calling ECREE the nonsense that it is and really arguing. ECREE has been an excuse for too many people to avoid thinking about data for a long time and really confront it. It is entirely subjective, which is amusing as most of our opponents pride themselves on being objective thinkers.

Christians also need to realize something else. We do have the evidence. It’s whether we present it rightly and if the heart is receptive.

Liking Truth

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. It looks like I could be out of town again shortly. I have done the major work I need to do for my project, but again, I want it to be that I have uninterrupted focus. I shall let you readers know for sure, but I am not putting something off for the sake of putting it off.

Tonight, I’d like to comment on something I heard today with an atheist on a program talking about the exclusivity of Christianity and how they don’t like that idea and it keeps them away from the Christian faith. Now we could do a blog sometime on how Christianity is exclusive and why this is the way it is and answer objections to it, but I’d like to deal with another point.

There is an underlying issue many of us have it seems that we think an argument or position cannot be true because we do not like something about it. There are some things we don’t want to think and so we automatically say they’re untrue. In some cases, this is denial. Not all doubt is like this, but some of it is.

What we as Christians must learn to do however and encourage others to do is to seek truth for the sake of truth. We must realize that even if we do not like a particular belief, that will not change the truth of that belief. If we are to be people who say we believe in truth, then we have to accept the painful truths. In fact, for all of us, there are painful truths.

Consider the doctrine of Hell. I believe in Hell. I do not believe in a literal flaming furnace, but I believe there is a place of the greatest misery and suffering possible. Do I like this belief? No. I agree with C.S. Lewis that it would be wonderful if universalism could be true and somehow all could be saved, but reality doesn’t work that way.

I would encourage any atheist who sincerely is wanting an answer in these areas, and I believe the one I heard today was open, that we have to all put aside what we like and don’t like. If I could have it proven to me that Christianity is false, I would not want to believe in it just because I like it. On the other hand, if Jesus is who he said he was, and there is a God who will judge the world, and there’s a heaven to gain and a hell to lose, then none of that will change just because that belief is not liked.

Consider if you are a non-believer this point. What if Christianity is true? If it is, the denial of hell will not change the existence of hell. The denial of Jesus being the only way will not change Him being the only way. What you must first ask yourself is not “Is this doctrine something I like?” You must ask yourself “Is it true?” If it is true, you have to accept it whether you like it or not. The universe does not change to fit us.

Let’s not think I’m just being hard on atheists here. Many Christians fall into the same boat. Because you don’t like Calvinism, that does not mean Calvinism is false. Because you don’t like Arminianism, that does not mean Arminianism is false. To reverse things also, because a belief is comforting, that does not mean that that belief is true. It would be very comforting for me to wake up tomorrow and know I have a lot of money in my bank account, especially in my financial situation as it is now. However, I cannot just say “I’m going to wake up tomorrow and believe that!” Reality will have me in a bind very quickly if I go to a bookstore believing that.

Now once again, in any case, this does not mean that you like the belief that you accept. It simply means that you accept it. We are to be seek to understand the world around us as it is and not as we wish to see it. Part of being an honest thinker is realizing that, going where the evidence leads, and believing it and letting things work out as they will.

The Problem Of Evil And The God Of The Gaps

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Tonight will be it for a very limited time. In the morning, I head out to see my wife’s family so traveling mercies for our journeys included in your prayers for us would be greatly appreciated. However, before I return and then get to work on the project I have in mind, I would like to share an idea I’ve been pondering lately that I notice in atheistic thought.

One of the most notorious claims that atheists make about theistic thinking is that it’s a “God of the Gaps” mentality. In other words, when there’s some gap that the theist doesn’t know about, well then God did it. Now in many ways sadly, this reputation has been fairly earned. In fact, it was a Methodist layman who first coined the term “God-of-the-gaps.” Too many Christians have looked at any gap in history, put in God, and said that was it.

It’s an attitude we should avoid. Now there are no doubt times in history when God has acted, but we dare not say God is the one who acted immediately just because we know of no other explanation. I have no problem with saying “Let’s exhaust all natural possibilities first and then see what we have left.” If we can’t find anything, we might have something miraculous, but let’s not just assume that a priori.

The atheist says the ignorance of the theist makes them plug in God automatically and keeps them from thinking and that a theist shouldn’t be ignorant. Now insofar as that happens, I do agree. However, my problem is that the atheist has his own problem of ignorance and yet, in that case, it’s justified to him.

When the problem of evil comes to the theist from the atheist, the theist is expected to know why it is that God allowed particular evil X to occur. If the theist does not know the reason, then the atheist can be very quick to assume victory. Why? If no one can think of a good reason, surely there isn’t one.

But this is just another case of ignorance and while the Christian should not be too quick to throw in a “God-of-the-gaps”, the atheist is way too quick to think that because no good reason for an event can be thought of at the time, then there can be no good reason for it.

Now my thinking on this is that if I can’t think of a “good reason” for allowing the evil, well the atheist has proven that I’m not omniscient. If that was the goal, well I would have happily conceded that at the start. However, supposing that there was no good reason I can think of. Does that mean I cave in and claim atheism? Not at all. After all, I have several positive claims that need to be addressed. My theism is not built on a subjective experience, but on claims that I believe can be backed with solid argumentation. Because I can’t answer one counter does not mean that all my claims are ipso facto false.

However, for the atheistic thinker, we could just as easily say he’s looking for a “naturalism-of-the gaps.” But what is the basis for knowing naturalism is true? Frankly, it could not be. No one has yet to make an airtight problem of evil argument against God and even the concept of evil relies on an objective moral standard to have meaning of which there is none in naturalism. Now some could try to claim a logical contradiction in the nature of God, but that has yet to be proven either. There would also need to be a disproof of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

My conclusion is that on both cases, we have things we frankly don’t know. Now theists should not be too quick to throw in God. In fact, when I debate an atheist, I like to grant them as much of their worldview as I can for the sake of argument. Throw out the gaps and let’s see if you can explain the resurrection of Jesus, the doctrine of being, and the objective moral standard.

And perhaps, we can see some consistency on our atheistic opponents on this one.

The Doctrine Of Existence

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters, a blog where we are always seeking to take you further into the ocean of truth! I’m currently preparing for another project, though not as lengthy as the Trinitarian commentary or our look through the Summa Theologica, and while I wait for that to start, I would like to tackle some objections I see coming especially in light of the Hawking statement put out yesterday and with arguments regularly seen from the new atheists.

For instance, in “The New Atheism: Taking A Stand For Science and Reason”, Victor Stenger says on page 79 in the topic of if science can disprove existence, after talking about definitions, “I won’t get too pedantic and ask for the definition of existence. We all have a pretty good idea what that means.”

Oh really?

Suppose you were in a room one day and I came in and closed the door behind me and said “Something’s outside. I want you to tell me all you know with just one clue about it. It’s red.” Well you could list several things. You’d know it’s colored. You’d know it’s physical. You’d know it can be seen with the eyes. You’d know it has mass. You’d know that it’s extended. etc.

Now suppose the same scenario takes place but this time instead of saying “It’s red”, I say “It exists.”

Suddenly, you don’t know so much. Now it could be I’m thinking of an angel being right outside. You could counter that if you’re a materialist and say “That can’t be because we know that all that exists has physical matter!” That’s your presupposition kicking in. I could just as easily say there is an angel and although it is invisible, it has made its presence known to me somehow and is right outside the door.

Existence is a doctrine we don’t really know much about.

This is in fact a problem many of the new atheists have. They don’t understand existence. Consider Richard Dawkins’s 747 argument where he says that God must be more complex than anything he’s created and therefore will need a creator. To an atheist, that can sound reasonable, but to the informed theologian, this is a terrible argument and we have to wonder about people who put forward such an argument.

Dawkins should have known better seeing as he replied to Aquinas’s five ways in the Summa Theologica, and had he turned to just the very next chapter on the simplicity of God, he would have got an answer. God is the creator of matter and only material things are complex because they have parts. Now angels are complex in the sense that they are essence + existence, but they are simple in their essence. Their essence does not consist of parts.

God’s existence is his very nature and so if we ask “What caused God?” it is asking “What is the cause of that that exists by the very nature of its being?” It’s a nonsense question. We theists can definitely say “Yes. Something does not come from nothing and we do affirm then that something always existed.”

What we do then is get to the nature of this existence. What is it? We speak of the supreme being. He is being unlike any other type of being. He is being with all perfections and being without limitations, hence he is not material for matter is a limiting principle on any being.

Too many ideas in atheistic thought seem to imply that existence is its own explanation. There’s no need to study the concept. If you prove evolutionary theory, then you’ve disproved God. If we have an eternal universe, then there’s no need of God. Both of these are nonsense. I don’t even do the creation/evolution debate any more because I see it as pointless. I would prefer to grant my opponent macroevolutionary theory and then say “Now give me your argument against God’s existence.” I would even grant him an eternal universe and say “What is the cause of the universe’s existing?” (I am open to something being eternal but having an eternally derived existence)

Our trouble is that we’ve exchanged the authority of religion for the authority of science. It’s not an either/or game and the more we set it up, the more one side loses. Some people will avoid science thinking it is a threat to religion. Others will avoid religion thinking it has no truth since it’s not determinable by science. Both sides are making serious mistakes. (Although I consider the latter far more. Someone can be a Christian and think science is a threat)

Theologians who are unqualified in science need to stop playing scientist. Scientists who are unqualified in theology and philosophy need to stay out of that area. We can all have opinions in areas we don’t have much skill in, but we dare not speak as if we are authorities in those areas.

For those wanting further information, I highly recommend Joseph Owens’s book “An Interpretation of Existence.”

Hawking’s Statement On God And The Universe

Hello readers and welcome back to Deeper Waters, a blog dedicated to diving into the ocean of truth! I do have another project in the works, but I am going to be taking a little vacation this Sunday. The wife and I are going on a trip to see her family for an annual get-together the family has with other friends. I wish to wait until I get back before I do anything on the project. Of course, if I need to change the plan of the next project, I can do that. For now, I’d like to comment on a story that hit the news today.

The story comes from an announcement by Stephen Hawking that God did not create the universe. The news can be found here

What do I have to say about this? First off, I have a problem with so many atheists who want Christians to remain quiet on scientific issues without proper study. Is my problem with that position? No. I don’t think we Christians should speak authoritatively on science unless we’ve really done the proper study on science. However, I think the sword cuts both ways and scientists should not comment on philosophy and/or theology without the proper study. A work such as Richard Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” shows just what happens when someone comments without proper study. Anyone who thinks that book makes a persuasive case is just uninformed on the topics.

Second, I wonder what is going on when I am told however that the universe came from nothing. Nothing is non-existence. It has no properties. You cannot say anything about it. You can only say what it is not really. It is not anything ultimately. Am I to believe non-existence is capable of bringing about existence? Now I do know physicists and others can use the word “nothing” differently than I do as a philosopher, but if they have something in mind, they do not have nothing in mind.

Third, this doesn’t answer the question of existence. What is the basis for existence? Existence does not come from non-existence. Not only what is the cause of the universe coming into existence, which is a deep enough problem, but what is the cause of the universe existing?

Now someone can reply “Well what about the cause of God?” This is a question acceptable if you’re in Sunday School. It’s not one if you’re trying to be a serious philosopher. God’s very nature is His existence, as we saw in our study on the doctrine of God. Existence does not need a cause.

How do we know the universe is not exempt? Because we have evidence that the universe came into being first off. Second, even if it didn’t, the universe is also changing. It is growing older and it is losing usable energy. It is moving from one state of existence to another. My getting up and walking across the room would be a change in existence. The universe is in time and is bound by matter. Whatever is material is not the ultimate cause of all things since it is matter + form + existence.

Finally, Christians also have other arguments for God’s existence, such as the argument from morality, the argument from beauty, and the evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Unfortunately in our world, science is taken to be the final authority. Science is great, if you want to do science. It’s not the tool to use however to do philosophy, theology, history, mathematics, etc. Now there is some overlap in these areas no doubt. But theology is primarily about God even if it uses philosophy and history. Those areas are just tools used by the science of theology to study its main subject, God. Being a physicist does not mean you’re qualified as a metaphysician.

Is Every Beatitude Included In The Beatitude Of God?

Hello readers, and welcome back to Deeper Waters, where we are always diving into the ocean of truth! Tonight, we’re going to wrap up not only our look at the divine beatitude, but our look at the doctrine of God. We’ve come that far in the Summa! What will we be doing tomorrow? Well if you want to know readers, you will have to come back tomorrow! For now, we’re going to wrap up our look at the doctrine of God which as has been said, has used the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, which can be read at newadvent.org. Our topic tonight is the question of if every beatitude is included in the beatitude of God?

What do you desire? Does it somehow find its place in God? Aquinas says it does. Now of course, some of these are things we desire that are reflections of God. I think of many the young woman I met who has said she wants to be married to Jesus. Well in a way, I can understand what she means, though it doesn’t make much sense to me, but she cannot walk down the aisle and marry Jesus literally. If she wants a husband, she’ll need to look at humanity.

However, could it be that something that she does desire can be found in God and a husband is something that is meant to reflect that? Of course. What all could she want? Maybe she wants love. That’s definitely in the nature of God who is love. Maybe she wants security. That’s found in the providence and power of God. Maybe she wants sex. That kind of intimacy is also found in the love of God. Maybe she wants to be a mother. God is the one who makes the barren woman more than the mother of many according to Isaiah 54:1.

This is the line of reasoning Aquinas brings to the table. For instance, God does not have material joys such as riches in His nature, but He is self-sufficient within Himself. He not have physical pleasures such as food and drink within Himself, but He does give the pleasure of having us being provided and cared for.

Aren’t there some false desires? Of course. However, the only reason someone desires something is that they perceive that something as good. Hitler really thought he was doing something good. He thought the murder of millions of innocent Jews was a good thing for his own sick reasons. He was wrong of course and I do wish to be clear that is condemned 100%, but the reason he pursued it was he thought it was good.

A murderer might commit a murder for what he believes is justice. His means of getting what he wants are wrong, but we will not say that justice is a bad thing. A woman might commit an abortion to be financially secure. We do not condemn wanting to be financially secure, but her means to get it is wrong.

However, the good desired does in some way find its place in God. The murderer might want justice on his own terms, but he should instead seek to leave the case in the God of justice and the way he has set for humans to bring about earthly justice. The mother might want financial security, but she should trust God to provide and if she can’t handle a child, put the child up for adoption.

What about the rest of us? Seek our joy in God ultimately. We can enjoy many things here, and we should, but we should not lose sight of the greatest joy of all.

We shall begin another topic tomorrow.

Is God The Beatitude Of Each Of The Blessed?

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters, a blog devoted to helping readers dive into the ocean of truth and swim for all its worth! Our subject of discussion the past few months has been the doctrine of God. Our guide for this study has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, which can be read for free at newadvent.org. Our topic tonight is the divine beatitude and we’ll be asking if God is the beatitude of each of the blessed.

Aquinas says no, which could be seen as a surprise, but there is a reason for this. Aquinas is not one who wants to limit God, but he wants to be sure that we are being accurate with our philosophical terminology. Aquinas has said earlier that the joy of the blessed is in the beatific vision where they see God as He is.

However, there are degrees of joy, and there are some Christians, myself included, who believe this is what is meant by our rewards. We will have a great capacity to enjoy God based on how we responded to Him in this life. Now that doesn’t mean there will be unhappy people in Heaven. All will be happy, but some will have more to be happy with.

Of course, the object of this vision is always God and so the object of joy for the blessed will be God. Aquinas does not deny this. However, the joy comes in knowing God and knowing is an act of the intellect. Thus, the joy is found in the action of knowing the one who we are with.

Marriage provides an example of this that we can understand. The lovers enjoy the sight of one another, but they both know that the best realization of their joy will come in the physical act of intercourse with one another. The object of their love has not changed from dating to marriage, but the way that they are able to express that love and know the other person has increased (It is interesting in this light that in biblical terminology, to have intercourse with someone is to know them).

For all of us, we should be humbled at this. While I do say the knowing is an act of the intellect, this does not mean its reserved best for the solely intellectual types. C.S. Lewis wrote somewhere of how you can be an apologist in a church service watching some lady in the pew and your pride is tempted to think of how much more you know about doctrines and church history and evidences then that person does, but then you get reminded that when it comes to personal holiness, you’re not worthy to untie her shoes.

Our goal then should be that no matter our position, what we have, we give to God. If you have a strong intellect, give that to God. If you have a great singing voice, give that to God. If you have strength of the body, give it to God. Think of the parable of the talents and use whatever it is you have to the glory of God.

We shall conclude this topic tomorrow.

Is God Blessed According To His Intellect?

Hello readers and welcome back to Deeper Waters, the blog that seeks to explore ever deeper the ocean of truth! Our topic recently has been the doctrine of God, the highest thought in Christianity, but then, the highest thought period. How you answer the God question will determine how you answer every other question. Our guide for this journey has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, which can be read for free at newadvent.org. We’re on the topic of the beatitude of God now and our question tonight is if God is called blessed according to His intellect.

By speaking of blessed, we are referring to happiness. We do not take much time today to think about the happiness of God. Yesterday, I stated that happiness is not necessarily a feeling. God does not have passions in the sense that we do. He does have happiness, but it is not a feeling so much as it is an awareness. He has incredible happiness that is not an emotional state, for an emotion is generally a response to something else and God does not “respond” in time as we do.

However, he is happy. Why? For Aquinas, the highest joys can be found in the intellectual life and in a sense, this is so. After all, we do not believe that we have an advantage over God by our being material in that we can partake of greater joys than He can. God’s greatest joy is Himself. He does not need to be material in order to enjoy Himself.

Now we can say being material allows us to enjoy great joys of the body like food, drink, athletic activity, sex, etc. There is nothing wrong with any of these pleasures, but each of these pleasures are also pointers beyond themselves. Jesus used food to speak of the sustenance that only he provides and Paul described man and woman being one as a mystery and something not fully understood until Christ came along and we saw Christ and the church.

The intellect is that by which we understand something. It is a joy to think about that which makes us happy. Too often, we tend to do the opposite and sadly when we think about God, it often doesn’t make us happy. Our fallenness should be clear to anyone who is a Christian in that we do not think about what we ought and that even great truths we see in Scripture often do not make us happy.

But for God, He does understand and know Himself and so He is happy in Himself. It is when we see Him that we will be happy truly as well. All happiness we have here is meant to be a foretaste to the greater happiness that is awaiting us. The problem we usually have with these happinesses are that we take them to be the final. They are really the mirrors that are reflecting a greater happiness that awaits us.

Which brings us to an interesting truth. God does want us to be happy, but He knows that that happiness we seek ultimately lies only in Himself. We will never be truly happy until we know God as He is. Since that is where our ultimate happiness lies, does it not make sense to seek that happiness now?

We shall continue tomorrow.

Is God Blessed?

Hello everyone, and welcome back to Deeper Waters, a Christian blog seeking to dive into the ocean of truth! We’ve been spending time looking at the doctrine of God and right now, we’re at the final section of our study and that is the blessedness of God. Our guide for this has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, which can be read for free at newadvent.org. I hope readers will continue studying the thought of Thomas Aquinas even after this portion of our study is done. Tonight, we will begin this topic by looking at the question of if God is indeed blessed.

Happiness. What is it? What does it mean? In our world, there is much confusion over the topic of happiness. Modern minds tend to understand happiness to be a feeling and having what one desires. Now there is some truth to that, although I would not say that happiness is a feeling but it is what produces a feeling that we call happiness. (I would also say the feeling of love is more that which is produced by the action of love)

The problem however is that we do not know what we ought to desire and if we look for something else to be the ultimate and receive that something else and it does not satisfy, we will be depressed. This does not mean that we cannot look to other things to bring about happiness to some degree. They just cannot bring us happiness.

For instance, as it stands, in the realm of things that aren’t specifically Christian, I can celebrate now the love of a very good woman, the friendship that I have with several people, and to get to think about the things that matter most. For the Christian side, I have the forgiveness of God, that He has blessed me with being able to serve Him, and that I have a great church fellowship. (Although I am still in major need of employment. We would still be very appreciative of any donations made)

There’s nothing wrong with enjoying your life. Over here, the wife and I watch DVDs and enjoy video games together. Right now, she just got done asking me what the blog was about and we have some good discussion on these kinds of topics. Of course, she also makes sure I keep up with schoolwork. I can enjoy movies with friends and this evening will be enjoying gaming with friends, going to an ice cream parlor as I regularly do, and then going bowling. There is nothing wrong with enjoying pleasures in life provided we don’t make them everything.

What is happiness then really? Happiness is realizing your place in the universe and conforming yourself to it. Too often, we try to conform the universe to our desires. We should find the way reality is and not try to adapt it to us, but rather try to adapt ourselves to it. The problem is not our having desire, but our having improper desire. We desire too much the things that won’t satisfy, and we desire too little the one that does satisfy, namely God. For Aquinas, this happiness would not be reached apart from the beatific vision, that is, the seeing of God.

Is God happy then? Yes. He accepts reality as it is and accepts the reality that He is in fact God and is happy with that state. Hence, while there is much that is not good, that cannot detract Him from the overall good, which is Himself. We are promised that we will have similar happiness when we see Him.

God is blessed indeed, and by his grace, so shall we be.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Can God Do Better?

Hello everyone and welcome to Deeper Waters, a blog dedicated to diving into the truth of Christianity! We’re right now going through the doctrine of God in Christian thought. The guide that we are using for this fascinating study is the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, a work that can be read for free at newadvent.org. Tonight, we’re going to wrap up our look at the doctrine of the power of God and ask if God can do better than he does.

A lot of readers I think will be surprised and say “Of course he can’t! He’s God!” However, if you say that, Aquinas is in disagreement with you. Now there are some ways he does agree he can’t do better. For instance, if you say better refers to God’s activity rather than to what was created, then no, God could not have created in a better way. If you mean that the universe could be better than it is, then yes, Aquinas agrees with that.

There are exceptions. Four cannot be a greater number than it is. If it had something added to it, it would not be four. The reason is that in this case, it would change the substance. A man turned into an angel would no longer be a man as an example. (Hence, when people die, they do not become angels.)

There is an old joke that the optimist believes that this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist is afraid that this is correct. This was the position of Leibniz as well. When the humanist Voltaire wrote his Candide, he wrote it to mock the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds.

God has ways he could improve this world. For instance, do you think that humanity is good? If so, then God could have just added one more human. Space problems? Okay. Change the order of the universe and make everything correspond somehow. Still, you could add more. The same could be said of angels. If angels are good, then creating more of them would make things better.

Substances however do not become better by having more of them. Substances are good by virtue of what they are. We could always celebrate having more, but that won’t make them better by quality. It will simply be that we have more of a quantity of things that are better by quality.

When it comes to this with the problem of evil, a great mistake many atheists make is that they assume the world has to be perfect in every way for God to have created it. The mistake the Christian makes is that he gives in to this paradigm and just says “It will be better in Heaven.” Now no doubt it will be, but it is up to the one who is pushing the problem of evil to show that this was wrong on God’s part and that there is a necessary contradiction between a good God and the existence of evil in the world. So far, this has yet to be done.

The big question to ask for us now however is not what God could do. We should ask what are we going to do with what God has done. There is no doubt that we can do better and our God certainly deserves the best from us.

We shall start a new subject tomorrow.