The Logic of Christianity 4: Lights! Camera! Action!

Very well, I will stipulate that the CAMERA was invented by humans (although, the principle by which the camera works has been known since before the time of Aristotle, who, in the 4th Century BC, observed the crescent of a solar eclipse by allowing the light to proceed through a hole of a sieve), but I DO CONTEND that LIGHT AND ACTION definitely preceded the Dawn of Man. Even advocates of the Big Bang Theory will stipulate that LIGHT itself goes back to the very beginning of the universe. The issue related to ACTION is a little trickier.

As I mentioned in my previous blog, in order to have “action,” according to Kenneth Burke, there must be an “agent” who “acts.” That agent must have “free will” to act in accordance with his own “purpose.” A basic premise of the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution is that the universe and all life forms were spontaneously generated WITHOUT the help of any Agent/higher being. How could anyone ever possibly prove such a premise? One could certainly never prove such a premise using the scientific skepticism of Modernism. How could an experiment be devised to test the hypothesis? There is no way to reproduce the circumstances and test them by experiment. The most that scientific Modernism could accomplish was to be skeptical of the premise that the universe and all life forms WERE generated by the “agency” of some higher being. But, being skeptical does not produce knowledge. As we have learned in the paradigm shift from Modernism to Postmodernism, skepticism has simply demolished the hope that humans can ever discover absolute knowledge or truth. Until someone is able to TIME TRAVEL back to the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life forms, whether or not an intelligent being “acted” in the formation of the universe or in the generation of life forms must remain among those issues with which Rhetoric deals: matters about which we debate. Aristotle, in Rhetoric I.2.xii, asserts: “[W]e debate about things that seem to be capable of admitting two possibilities” (Kennedy [1991] translation). So, welcome to the debate over whether ACTION was involved in the generation of the universe and life! As Aristotle requires, the issue of whether ACTION was present early in the universe admits two possibilities: POSSIBILITY 1. That the universe came into existence without any Action, or POSSIBILITY 2. That the universe came into existence by the Action of an Agent.

What sorts of PROOFS may we use to assert that the universe came into existence by the Action of an Agent? PROOF 1. Syllogistic, deductive logic (which we will consider later), PROOF 2. Empirical evidence (which we will consider later), and PROOF 3. Something that one of the key rhetoricians of the Twentieth Century, Richard Weaver, called “THE METAPHYSICAL DREAM.” We begin with this third proof; then, we will move to the second proof and finally to the first proof.

PROOF 3. THE METAPHYSICAL DREAM Richard Weaver has earned a great deal of respect in the field of Rhetoric. As a Professor at the University of Chicago, Weaver and Burke had some contact. They were by no means friends, but they both agreed that humans (as distinct from other animals) are symbol-using, and that they are beings of choice and free will. Sonja K. Foss, Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp, in their widely-acclaimed book Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric (30th Anniversary Edition) review and analyze ten “thinkers who have exerted a profound influence on contemporary rhetorical theory.” Among these 20th Century thinkers are Kenneth Burke, Chaim Perelman, Stephen Toulmin, Michel Foucault, and Richard Weaver. Weaver posits that a level of knowledge exists for human beings that is “an intuitive feeling about the immanent nature of reality” (Ideas Have Consequences, page 18). He calls this level of knowledge “THE METAPHYSICAL DREAM.” Burke, while he resists having his own personal critical method "characterized as 'intuitive' and 'idiosyncratic,' epithets that make (him) squirm" (PLF 68), DOES (at the same time) CREDIT animals with possessing “an INTUITIVE signaling system” as their form of communication (“Motion, Action, and the Human Condition,” p. 79). It seems LOGICAL (using argument from analogy) that, if even ANIMALS have INTUITION, certain concepts that humans hold to be true might also come to humans primarily through “an INTUITIVE feeling about the immanent nature of reality.” For example, one cannot empirically prove that such a thing as “JUSTICE” exists. The concept is an INTUITIVE feeling. We “INTUITIVELY feel” that JUSTICE exists when one who has committed a “wrong” receives some sort of punishment. But where do we get the idea that “WRONG” exists? We “INTUITIVELY feel” that someone who takes advantage of another by virtue of his or her superior intellect, physical strength, or skill is somehow doing something “WRONG.” Why else do we protect children from adult advertisers who might exert persuasive methodologies? Why do we have laws against stealing, rape, murder, etc.? “INTUITIVELY,” we “feel” that such “acts” are “WRONG.” And yet, in the animal world (comparing humans “empirically” to other genuses), no such “INTUITIVE feelings” of “right and wrong” or “justice” exist. Animals that are larger or stronger feel no shame about preying on smaller or weaker animals. Alpha males seize females at their own discretion. There is no concept of rape. From where does our concept of “free will” come? Are these concepts not the result of “an intuitive feeling about the immanent nature of reality”?

When humans began to bury their dead, and to bury artifacts along with them, “an intuitive feeling about the immanent nature of reality” was operative. In the fact that 99% of all humans who have ever lived on planet Earth have believed that superior beings/gods exist who have free will to ACT relative to humans on Earth, “an intuitive feeling about the immanent nature of reality” is operative. What is particularly interesting is that, even science-oriented humans such as astronomer Carl Sagan, who refuse to admit the possible existence of a divine being, are somehow convinced that superior beings (aliens) from other planets do exist. This is just further evidence of “an intuitive feeling about the immanent nature of reality” that cannot seem to dismiss the possibility/probability of the existence of beings who are superior to humans.

In the Modern Period—the period which Stephen Toulmin decries as the hegemony of theoretical argument—and most especially in the portion of that period dominated by Empiricism, such talk of “an intuitive feeling about the immanent nature of reality” would be dismissed, out of hand. But, we are no longer living under the super-skepticism of Modernism. We live in the period of Postmodernism, in which the bankruptcy of philosophical Empiricism must be acknowledged. But, the belief in someone who ACTED in the formation of the universe is CERTAINLY NOT DEVOID OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

PROOF 2. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. The amount of EMPIRICAL (sense) data that may be used to argue for the existence of ACTION in the formation of the world is growing exponentially, in our generation. But EMPIRICAL data has long been cited as evidence of divine ACTIVITY. The shepherd-poet-lyricist-singer-turned-king, David, the author of many of the Psalms in the Hebrew Bible cites EMPIRICAL evidence in his poetic proclamations that God was easily detected in the formation of the universe:

Psalm 8:3 states: “I observe Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars that You have established.” Psalm 19:1-6 elaborates: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies show forth his handiwork. Day after day, they speak; night after night, they declare knowledge. There is no language system that does not hear their voice. Their measuring line stretches throughout the whole Earth; their words reach to the ends of the world. In the heavens He has placed a home for the sun, like a bridegroom who goes forth or an athlete running a race, it rises at one end of the heavens, and completes its circuit to the other end.” In Psalm 65:9-13, he notices the regular cycles of rain and agricultural growth: “You visit the land and water it . . . . You provide grain, for so You have ordained it, watering the furrows, softening the ridges. You make it soft with showers [and] bless its vegetation. The pastures . . . hills . . . and meadows are clothed with flocks and the valleys are covered with grain.” In Psalm 104:10-30, he observes the balance and cyclical renewing of nature: “He sends forth springs into the valleys; they run among the mountains; they give drink to every beast of the field . . . . By them the birds of the heavens have their habitation . . . . The earth is filled with the fruit of Your works. He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread that strengthens man’s heart. . . . The cedars of Lebanon . . . where the birds make their nests: As for the stork, the fir-trees are her house. The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the rock-badgers. He appointed the moon for seasons: The sun knows its going down; You make darkness/night . . . wherein all the beasts of the forest creep forth. The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God. The sun rises and they get away and lay down in their dens. Then, man goes forth to his work and to his labor until evening. . . . The earth is full of Your riches. Yonder is the sea, great and wide, wherein are innumerable creeping things, both small and great beasts. . . . These all wait for You that you may give them their food in due season. You give and they gather. . . . You take away their breath and they die. You send forth Your Spirit and they are created. You renew the face of the ground. In Psalm 139:14-16, he empirically considers human life and is impressed: “I will give You thanks, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are Your works . . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in secret . . . . Your eyes did see my unformed substance.”

I cite the Psalms as textual evidence that ACTION was observed (by a shepherd) in the physical world, thousands of years ago. The EMPIRICAL evidence of logical ACTION is quite strong. The amount of EMPIRICAL (sense) data that may be used to argue for the existence of ACTION in the formation of the world is growing exponentially, these days. Why? Because technology has enabled us to SEE more of the physical universe than was ever possible for David or his predecessors. NASA’s New Horizons space craft reports from near Pluto. The Hubble Telescope gives us EMPIRICAL glimpses of galaxies, far, far, away. Genetic researchers study the codes of biological forms. Atomic scientists investigate the very structure of atoms. And, every element of new EMPIRICAL data discovered reiterates the same message handed down from David’s humble observations: There is ACTION in the universe. Ours is not a world of random motion. From galaxies to atoms, entropy (or the tendency to decline into disorder) is SYSTEMATICALLY arrested. The centrifugal force that would tend to cause the Earth to fly away from the sun (as you tended to be drawn outward from your spinning merry-go-round, as a child) is carefully balanced by the centripetal force (gravity) of the sun. Likewise, the moon is balanced to avoid entropy from the Earth. Likewise, every minute atom in the universe is balanced to avoid entropy, until we humans split the atoms and release untold energy. Genetic research discovers “CODES” or LANGUAGE MESSAGES that tell our bodies whether to be male or female, black or white, short or tall, blond or brunette, inclined or immune to certain ailments, etc. Who wrote the language? Who wrote the code? Can codes just WRITE THEMSELVES? The logic of Christianity argues that the likelihood of some intelligent being ACTING in the universe is tremendous.

PROOF 1. SYLLOGISTIC, DEDUCTIVE LOGIC So, the rhetorical syllogism looks like this: MAJOR PREMISE: EVERY INSTRUMENT KNOWN TO MAN THAT IS MADE WITH SYSTEMATIC WORKING PARTS THAT OPERATE IN AN “ORDERLY” FASHION, AND THAT HANDLE THE PROBLEM OF ENTROPY AND TAKE MEASURES TO AVOID ENTROPY ARE THE RESULT OF SOMEONE’S “ACTION.” (Conversely, if there is no “order,” the instrument moves randomly, and without purpose, “motion” but not “action” is involved. Compare, for example, a clock with a rock.) MINOR PREMISE: GALAXIES, SOLAR SYSTEMS, THE EARTH AND ITS MOON, VEGETABLE LIFE FORMS, ANIMAL LIFE FORMS, HUMAN LIFE FORMS, ATOMS, ETC. ARE MADE WITH SYSTEMATIC WORKING PARTS THAT OPERATE IN AN “ORDERLY” FASHION, AND THAT HANDLE THE PROBLEM OF ENTROPY AND TAKE MEASURES TO AVOID ENTROPY. CONCLUSION: GALAXIES, SOLAR SYSTEMS, THE EARTH AND ITS MOON, VEGETABLE LIFE FORMS, ANIMAL LIFE FORMS, HUMAN LIFE FORMS, ATOMS, ETC. ARE THE RESULT OF SOMEONE’S “ACTION.”

This is the logical conclusion of scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers who subscribe to the theory of “Intelligent Design.” It is also the logical conclusion of some very well respected authorities. One mathematician who theorized (based on principles of modal logic) that a higher being must exist was (the close friend of Albert Einstein) Kurt Gödel, who died in 1978 after driving the last nail in the coffin of Modernism. You don’t find mathematicians who are more highly respected than Gödel. For his part, Einstein said in 1954: “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” He once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Fair enough. The only link in the logical chain we seek to establish, at this point, is that intelligent ACTION is evident in the structure of the universe. Other famous scientists who have expressed the belief that the structure of the universe argues for a belief in the ACTION of a superior being are Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, and even Descartes. But, none of these were specifically advocates of the theory of “Intelligent Design.” Why? Partly because the intelligent design movement began after these scientists had died. The intelligent design movement began in earnest in the early 1990s with Phillip E. Johnson’s book, Darwin on Trial. Essentially, the movement began in order to create an alliance among scientists who believed in a theistic explanation of the design of the universe. A primary goal of the movement was to defend and promote the teaching of a theistically based view of the beginnings of life and the universe in the public school systems to counterbalance the teaching of evolutionary theory. The National Academy of Sciences, issued a policy statement saying "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.” That statement is probably true enough; but just as true is the statement “The claims of EVOLUTIONARY THEORY in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.” As I stated at the beginning of this post: Until someone is able to TIME TRAVEL back to the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life forms, whether or not an intelligent being “acted” in the formation of the universe or in the generation of life forms must remain among those issues with which RHETORIC deals: matters about which we debate. NEITHER evolutionary theory nor intelligent design is testable by scientific methods.

The conclusions of many EXPERTS who have seriously grappled with the issue of this debate is that SOMEONE “ACTED” IN THE FORMATION OF GALAXIES, SOLAR SYSTEMS, THE EARTH AND ITS MOON, VEGETABLE LIFE FORMS, ANIMAL LIFE FORMS, HUMAN LIFE FORMS, ATOMS, ETC. Is this the conclusion of EVERYONE? No. But, that is the nature of rhetorical argument. The logic of Christianity is based upon rhetorical argument—dealing with matters that cannot be known for certain, but only probably or possibly. If you grant the possibility or probability that “ACTION” was present in the formation of the world, you have some level of “faith.” We next turn to the second link in the syllogistic chain: that there is a God.

The Logic of Christianity 3: The Four Logical Explosions of Human History

What is a “logical explosion”? The phrase “paradigm shift” was coined by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, to describe the fact that scientists do NOT passively allow their thoughts to GRADUALLY change over time, in a linear fashion. Instead, every now and then, there is an “EXPLOSION” that destroys the old paradigm and replaces it with a new paradigm. The scientific community realizes that the paradigm (or pattern of discovering truth) that it had been using is defective. The pattern no longer works satisfactorily to explain reality—as when the notion that the sun revolved around the earth no longer satisfactorily explained the relationship between our planet and sun. In the scientific community, then, a paradigm shift or scientific revolution occurs. The old pattern of detecting reality is discarded and a brand new pattern takes its place. This is a logical explosion, of sorts. The most recent major paradigm shift that rocked the world occurred somewhere close to the time I was born. It was the shift from Modernism to Postmodernism. (I will consider this Postmodern shift, later, as the Fourth Logical Explosion.) The fact that these paradigm shifts occur is actually evidence that “action” exists (as opposed to sheer “motion”). The scientists are “agents” who of their own “free will” “act” in accordance with their own “purposes.” In order to have “action,” according to Kenneth Burke, there must be an “agent” who “acts.” That agent must have “free will” to act in accordance with his own “purpose.” If there is no free will involved (as when a bird builds a nest, according to “instinct”--not free will--in the same way every other bird of its species builds it), this is not “action”—it is “motion.” A rock tumbling down the hillside is not “acting,” but it is “moving.” The rock has no free will; it is moving in accordance with the law of gravity. (Nevertheless, if an “agent” with free will “intentionally” kicks the rock to initiate its downward motion, “action” is involved.)

Following the gist of Kuhn’s “paradigm shift” terminology, but applying it to the broader sphere of the “human” community—not just the “scientific” community, as Kuhn limits his term—I detect four “MAJOR LOGICAL EXPLOSIONS” in human history. These are times when virtually all of humanity discards the old ways of viewing the world and substitutes brand new ways of viewing reality. I call these times “explosions” rather than “shifts” or even “revolutions” because their effects are seismologically far greater than even Kuhn’s paradigm shifts. They each entail drastic observable behavior changes that appear to affect virtually the entire human population (not just science). The four explosions occurred at 1) the dawn of man, 2) the time of Jesus, 3) the Renaissance, and 4) the middle of the Twentieth Century. Kuhn’s paradigm shifts cannot comprise these explosions because science (in Kuhn’s sense of the word) did not exist at the dawn of man or at the time of Jesus. Kuhn is useful in pointing to the various tremors (or paradigm shifts) that occurred during the Renaissance and afterward, but the Renaissance itself was the “explosion.” Constant “shifts” in the tectonic plates produce minor tremors that constantly reshape the earth, but a gigantic shift or earthquake, such as many fear could happen due to the San Andreas fault, might actually reshape a continent. Just as the asteroid explosion that scientists want to credit with the disappearance of the dinosaur reshaped the physical landscape, so these four logical explosions have reshaped the landscape of human logic.

THE DAWN OF MAN. Before the dawn of man, no carbon-based life forms exercised “action.” Only “motion.” There was no free will. Botanical and zoological life forms, so far as we can tell, “behaved” only in predictable, instinctive, deterministic ways. I use the term “behave” advisedly. “Behaviorism” relates to “motion;” it is a study of what animals do, not what humans do. According to Kenneth Burke, humans “act,” rather than “behave.” On page 134 of my book Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy, I point out:

“Burke is concerned with the essential nature of mankind (CS 219). He asserts that "a definition of [hu]man is at least implicit in any writer's comments on cultural matters" (LSA 2), and he thereupon serves notice that he rejects the reductionism of the behaviorist view of humankind (DD 11). It is human language which, for Burke, distinguishes humankind from all other animal life. Burke tells his audience at the Heinz Werner Lectures: ‘I had in mind the particular aptitude that the human biologic organism has for the learning of conventional symbol systems (such as tribal languages), our corresponding dependence upon this aptitude, and the important role it plays in the shaping of our experience.’ (DD 15) . . . I [earlier] consider the issue of determinism and free will in connection with Burke's preference for the term "motive" rather than "cause" as an explanation of human action. . . . [Burke] actually believes that human symbolicity implies free will. Otherwise, he would not have taken "sides against behaviorist reductionism" (DD 11). Yet, Burke accedes to biological determinism insofar as human animality is concerned. Burke locates the deterministic factor for humankind in the realm of human animality. He locates free will in the realm of human symbolicity.”

What kinds of “actions” did humans engage in at the dawn of man? Burke has already mentioned the use of symbols (words, language). Animals do not choose the means by which they communicate; humans do. You or I may choose to speak English, German, Spanish, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, French, etc. For an animal, there is no communicative choice. If one is a dog, one barks; a cat meows; a bird chirps; a cow moos, etc. Furthermore, the other members of the animal’s species instinctively understand the meaning of the specific animal’s communication. Not so, with humans. I do not understand Chinese, Japanese, etc. In addition to language use, Burke notes that humans design and make tools to separate them from their natural condition. Stone Age humans developed stone knives, axes, spear heads, arrows, etc. And, then, they did something with these tools that they had made that indicated an important logical explosion: They “buried” these tools with their dead! Why? The best explanation anthropologists can put forth is that these early humans “believed” in an afterlife, and wanted their dead relatives to have access to these tools in that afterlife. This is RELIGION! On page 93 of my book Disneology: Religious Rhetoric at Walt Disney World, I observe:

“Anthropologists are interested in human views of the afterlife. Dennis O’Neil, on the website ‘Evolution of Modern Humans: Archaic Human Culture’ (http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_3.htm), writes: ‘The Neandertal ritual burial of their own dead implies a belief in an afterlife. This is basically a rudimentary religious concept. Likewise, the ritual burial of cave bear trophy heads is consistent with a supernatural belief system.’”

Religious belief (the belief in the afterlife) was the first logical explosion. There were no signs of religious belief anywhere else in the animal world. The term “logos” from which the word logic is formed means “word.” A syllogistic chain (or logical sequence) began just as soon as this carbon-based being was capable of using “words.” The ability to use logic in making words was extended to using logic to make stone tools. And the ability to use logic for making words and tools gave birth to the first “logical” view of human existence in the world: there probably is an afterlife. Other logical sequences (syllogistic chains) seem to have developed in human cultures: 1. If there is an afterlife, some beings must be living in some realm beyond the mortal human realm. 2. If there are beings who are beyond mortality, they must be superior to mortal humans. 3. If beings that are superior to mortal humans exist, these beings must in some sense be more powerful than humans, and it may be in the best interest of humans to make these beings well-disposed to the weaker mortals. 4. To curry the favor of these more powerful beings, humans should sacrifice animals (and other mortal humans?) to these immortal beings. Animal (and, sometimes, human) sacrifice developed in virtually every religion on earth. Even the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans whose world empires took turns encompassing the small religious culture of Israel practiced animal sacrifice, as did Israel . . . UNTIL the time of Jesus.

THE TIME OF JESUS. The death of Jesus, somewhere around 30 AD, began a logical explosion. For Christians, the logical need for animal sacrifice was annihilated. No longer was any animal sacrifice necessary, because Jesus, as the sacrificial lamb, perfected and thus finished all need for blood sacrifice. The logical explosion ensued, throughout the empire. In 70 AD, the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Roman legions. The great Jewish religion, which for thousands of years had followed a code of animal sacrifice to atone for sins, immediately and totally ceased all animal sacrifice. Never again would animals be sacrificed in a priestly Jewish cult. Fewer than 300 years later, Constantine decriminalized Christianity and, in 380 AD, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Sacrifices to the Roman pantheon of gods ceased. For a thousand years, the logic of Christianity progressively engulfed the world.

The Christian religion grew like wildfire. The civilized world embraced not only Jesus, but also the entire logical system: his God, the God of Abraham, and the moral code of ancient Judaism, the Ten Commandments (even if all humans in the world—or in the church—did not always obey the code). Even the upstart new religion of Muhammed, in the 7th Century, agreed that the one true God was the God of Abraham. Progressively, all vestiges of early pagan religions were being erased . . . UNTIL the Renaissance.

THE RENAISSANCE. The explosion began when Christians’ faith in the promised return of Jesus did not materialize at the time they expected it. John Thomas Didymus, who apparently believes that Christians should accept the conclusion that their hope in the return of Christ might well be mistaken, states the situation fairly in his article “Failed End-of-World Predictions of Jesus’ Coming: Montanists and the Ecumenical Council (1000 AD)”:

“The Ecumenical Council sitting in 999 declared solemnly that the world would end on January 1, 1000 A.D. That was the signal for mass madness. On the last day of the year, St. Peter's at Rome was filled with a crazed mass of people, weeping, trembling, screaming in fear of the Day of the Lord. They thought that God would send fire from heaven and burn the world to ashes. Many rich and wealthy people gave away their possessions to the poor to make heaven. They dressed up in sackcloth and poured ashes over themselves. The grounds of St. Peter's on new year's eve was filled with people vying to outdo each other in acts of penance and self-mortification, self-mutilation and flagellation. Some branded their skins with hot iron to prove their repentance; some were actually beaten to death by overzealous mates. But new year came and passes [sic] and nothing happened.” (Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/5476263)

And yet, something DID happen—an explosive fuse was lit! Just as it took nearly 400 years to enact the full effects of the logical explosion occurring at Jesus’ death, it took roughly 400 years from the disappointment of Jesus’ non-return in 1000 to enact the full effects of that logical explosion. The Christianized world had begun (in 1000 AD) to lose faith in Christianity as the single source of truth. The Renaissance (dating from the late 14th century AD) was a rebirth of interest in classical Greek and Roman culture and philosophy. Humans world-wide looked to other humans as the source of truth, as they systematically doubted the truth that was being fed to them by the Church. An extremely important development in this logical explosion of doubt was the work of the philosopher Rene DesCartes. In my book, Disneology: Religious Rhetoric at Walt Disney World, pages 6, I write:

“The seventeenth century philosopher Rene DesCartes . . . is credited with founding Modernism. His methodological doubt suggested that Realists should doubt everything that could be doubted. Whatever is left is truth. This is the basis of the scientific method. Scientists make propositions that they are not entirely certain of. These uncertain propositions are called ‘hypotheses.” Scientists, then, attempt to systematically ‘doubt’ their hypotheses. They conduct experiments, to see if they can disprove the hypotheses. If they cannot doubt the hypotheses, these hypotheses are considered ‘truth.’ Empiricists, following DesCartes, suggested that one could doubt everything that is not empirically verifiable (capable of being verified by sense-data—seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling).”

In terms of the logic of Christianity, this move was a major blow to Christian faith. Since one cannot see, hear, taste, smell, or touch God, Empiricists could conclude that faith in God is “non-sense” (meaning literally that it is not based on “sense” data).

POSTMODERNISM. Then, I was born (around 1950) and the logical world exploded again (coincidence, not causality!) As it turns out, skepticism can be aimed not only at God and Christianity. It can also be aimed at Empiricism, Science, and even Mathematics. In terms of Empiricism, I can be fooled by my sense of sight, as when I see a mirage in the middle of the road. Hearing can be wrong, as when one has tinnitus—the hearing of sound when no external sound is present. The sense of smell can easily mistake the smell of sulfur water for rotten eggs. The sense of taste can cause one to think s/he has consumed butter, when it is actually Parkay margarine. The sense of touch can confuse having walked through hanging threads in a dark haunted house, so that one feels one has encountered spider webs and continues to have them on oneself. I continue, in Disneology: Religious Rhetoric at Walt Disney World, pages 6-7:

“[E]ven empirical evidence (sense-data) can be doubted, so Empiricism as a Modernist philosophy was largely discredited by the relentless application of methodological doubt. Mathematics was the last stronghold of Modernism. When Kurt Gödel [a friend of Einstein] demonstrated that even mathematics could be doubted—because the whole system proves itself by itself—Modernism effectively crumbled . . . . In place of Modernism, Postmodernism arose. Postmodernism could be called a Realistic philosophy in that it makes a truth claim: typically, ‘there is no truth’ or ‘there is relative truth.’ Burke is a Postmodern Realist, but he is not happy with either of these truth-related formulas. In his essay, ‘The Rhetorical Situation,’ Burke is much happier with a Postmodern truth-related formula such as ‘there is probable truth.’ Aristotle teaches that ‘probable truth’ is discovered through rhetoric. Christian Realism is close to Burke’s Postmodern view that “there is probable truth.”

WHAT A LOGICAL EXPLOSION POSTMODERNISM IS! Beginning with the Dawn of Man, humans concluded that an afterlife was logical—there is a realm beyond the grave. With the advent of Christianity, the world shifted from believing in the efficacy of animal sacrifice to please the gods. The truth was to be found in the teachings of the God of Abraham. With the Renaissance, the logical explosion began to abandon God as the source of truth and rediscover truth from human sources. Skepticism became the operative method of discovering truth. Then, around 1950, it became evident that skepticism had become bankrupt. With Gödel’s last nail in the coffin of Modernism, Postmodernists concluded that “THERE IS NO TRUTH!!!” What a scene: it is just as if the ultimate Nuclear War had taken place IN LOGIC! Instead of the pictures of the smoldering Los Angeles ruins from the Terminator movies, visualize the barren smoldering ruins of anything resembling logical truth. But, Burke points out that one cannot LOGICALLY say “There is no truth” because that statement is, in itself, a TRUTH CLAIM! If there is no truth, the statement that “there is no truth” CANNOT BE TRUE! Those (illogical) Postmodernists who still cling to the (illogical) statement that “there is no truth” continue to attempt to disparage the logic of Christianity, saying that it cannot be true, because there is NO truth. The only logical way out of this malaise is Burke’s formula: THERE IS PROBABLE TRUTH. If there is PROBABLE truth, we can reintroduce empirical data into the argument. But, we can also reintroduce non-empirical data—the logic that seems to be implicit in humanity since the dawn of man: that God and the afterlife do exist. We return full circle.

But, the new ground rules for logical argument are in the field of Rhetoric, not the field of Philosophy. As I stated in my earlier post, The Logic of Christianity 1: The Shroud, the Pope, and the Faith Continuum: “In his book, On Rhetoric, Aristotle teaches how rhetorical logic works. In rhetoric (as opposed to dialectic), the aim is not to provide absolute truth, but only possible or probable truth. It applies only to matters of which we cannot be certain. Nevertheless, although certainty is impossible, we can logically conclude that something is ‘probably’ or ‘possibly’ true. Aristotle says that the goal of this type of logic is to achieve ‘faith.’ . . . [And, as] the Bible says: “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6).” The next link in this logical syllogistic chain, then is to argue that “action” took place before there was “human” action. We will turn to the “intelligent design” debate to establish that some agent was using “action” in the formation of the universe.

The Logic of Christianity 2: Building a Logical Pathway--The Syllogistic Chain

I was born during the first half of the Twentieth Century . . . just barely. Actually, my mother brought me into this world just 22 days before the beginning of the second half of the century--on December 9, 1949. I grew up on a farm not far from New Salem, in Illinois, the pioneer (log cabin) settlement where Abraham Lincoln as a young adult had left his career as a rail splitter, and had begun to study law, a century earlier. In fact, the Sangamon River which borders New Salem also bordered my family’s farm.

In the first map, pictured here, our farm was located about where you see the word “Salt”—just south of “Walker’s Grove.” Note that the squiggly line from around Kilbourne (going west to east) that makes a sharp right turn south at our farm going towards Petersburg is the Sangamon River. In the second map, you will note that the river winds further south toward Springfield, the Illinois state capitol, where Lincoln’s tomb is located. If we had navigated the Sangamon River by boat from our farm to New Salem (just barely south of Petersburg), we would have been only about 10 miles away, and another 15 or 20 miles from Springfield. Even though I grew up on the banks of the Sangamon, however, I cannot recall anyone ever boating on the river. I recall it being a very muddy river. At least, the land that my dad farmed bordering the river was muddy, but that was a good thing. Our farm was located in what was called the “Sangamon River Bottoms.” Johnny Carson made jokes about finding a good piece of bottom land, but my dad had actually found it. The rich black soil (mud or silt) in the Sangamon River Bottoms produced excellent crops and a very respectable farm income. You will notice in the picture of the farmland the hills in the distance. These were actually the original banks of the Sangamon River. The river, over the centuries, had deposited layers and layers of thick black silt (mud) in the river bottoms. That silt contained extremely productive nutrients for crops.

My mom had the job of spending the money the farm brought in. She travelled frequently to downtown Springfield to shop for clothing for the family in some very nice clothing stores. There were occasions when my mom could make this trip to Springfield in a very short period of time, but that was not usually the case. Usually, my mother would need to travel north out of the bottoms to Easton, where she could choose to travel either east or west to catch another highway southward to Springfield. This doubled the travel distance and time. The problem she encountered was that the river that connected our farm to New Salem also provided an obstacle to our travels southward. There was an old Oakford Bridge across the river from the Bottoms, but it had become dilapidated and rusted out and was closed when I was very young. Another bridge from the Bottoms across the Salt Creek toward Greenview was an option, even as I grew to be a young man. This route shaved off one-half hour from the trip to Springfield. The bridge was a rusty iron structure with no side retaining walls. Wooden planks were laid across the iron frame and rattled unnervingly as we drove slowly across the single-lane bridge. But even getting to this bridge was a major feat. The only roads that connected our house to this bridge were field roads, which we called “mud roads.” The primary roads in the Bottoms were covered with gravel, and other than being very dusty to drive on, were usually passable. But the mud roads were impassable after a rain. The gooey mire would engulf the wheels of the car, if one were to attempt to drive on the road. Even if someone drove a tractor on the wet roads, and was thus able to pass, the tractor tires would leave deep tracks in the mud. Anyone who subsequently attempted to navigate the road (after the mud dried) would be obstructed by the rutted path. What, you may ask, do mud roads and bad bridges have to do with the logic of Christianity? The story I have related is a representative anecdote. The mud roads and rattling bridge are metaphors for the dilapidated and impassable state of the syllogistic chain that currently exists for Christian logic. The need for logical infrastructure repair and refurbishment for Christianity reaches back to long before my childhood in the middle of the Twentieth Century. The issues come from before Abraham Lincoln’s mid-Nineteenth Century reiteration of our founding fathers’ (late Eighteenth Century) position that all men are “created” equal. They even predate Martin Luther’s Sixteenth Century reformation cry: “Sola Scriptura” (translated: “by scripture alone”). Some pertain to a time earlier than that of Jesus, his disciples, and the New Testament. They go back to the time of Aristotle in the Fourth Century BC, and even earlier—although Aristotle provides a roadmap to get us to where we need to be. The logical refurbishment of Christianity must go back beyond Daniel, Isaiah, King David, and even Moses. This current blog series is an attempt to resurface some of the mud roads that have become impassable, to repair some crumbling bridges, and to pave the highways that will allow others to more easily follow our logical pathways. Aristotle calls the various steps one must take to build a logic a “syllogistic chain.” In my book, ArguMentor, page 165, I describe such a chain:

“[Each link in the] chain of argumentation must be completed before the next one begins. And, so on. And so on. As an arguer, one must build his/her argumentation on facts, statistics, case studies, anecdotes, examples, and syllogisms that others have established. If one moves the argument along by only one link of a chain, it is a successful argument. If one, by supplying a rebuttal for which there is no valid backing, refutes an argument, the refutation is a successful argument, until someone else comes along with a backing or inductive argument or deductive argument that moves the syllogistic chain along.” On page 93, I point out: “What Aristotle called a chain of syllogisms, Kenneth Burke (1968) called syllogistic progressive form. Syllogistic progressive form simply suggests logic in the development of any literary work. The major premise and at least one minor premise must be established as credible with the audience before conclusions can be drawn. Then, in turn, these newly established conclusions may be employed as premises for other conclusions, until one reaches the final conclusion, the point that the author is ultimately attempting to persuade his/her audience to accept. ‘In so far as the audience, from its acquaintance with the premises, feels the rightness of the conclusion, the work is formal [meaning that it has syllogistic progressive form]’" (124).

As I grew up on the farm in the 1950s and 1960s, I believed (as many Evangelical Christians do, today) that, when arguing theological issues, I could simply appeal, as did Martin Luther, to the scriptures. If the Bible clearly stated a truth proposition, the issue was resolved. In my naïveté, I assumed that the authority of the Bible had long been established. I felt that the syllogistic chain could begin with the premise that the Bible was authoritative. The only legitimate questions, then, pertained to issues of interpretation of scripture. In my undergraduate years, at a conservative Christian college, I took three years of Hellenistic Greek language courses and two years of Classical Hebrew language courses, in addition to multiple content courses covering Old and New Testament texts. As a master’s student in Rabbinic Hebrew at Indiana University, I continued my study of Classical and Mishnaic Hebrew, and added courses in Aramaic and Syriac, in addition to multiple content courses covering Old Testament and Rabbinic texts. My naïveté dissipated rapidly. My Jewish professors and classmates felt no compunction whatsoever to assist me in defending Christianity. Quite to the contrary, I found myself challenged constantly to defend my premises. It was not even a generally accepted premise in a primarily Jewish department that the Hebrew Bible was authoritative. One of my professors warned me that it was proverbial in academia: to earn a master’s degree, one must stop believing in the Bible; to earn a Ph.D., one must stop believing in God. When I wrote my master’s thesis, I invited a New Testament scholar from the University to be a part of my thesis committee. He offered even more resistance to my notions of the reliability of the New Testament than did my Jewish professors.

What had happened to the Sola Scriptura premise? I began to realize the full extent to which the syllogistic chain of Christianity had been compromised. Over the years, as I watch other young unsuspecting college students face the onslaught of critical Biblical scholarship in religion classes at various universities, I have empathy. I know what they are going through. They are hopelessly mired in a mud road, in the logic of Christianity. They cannot logically argue for the truth of a biblical proposition until they have established the premise that the Bible is reliable. This is no mean task. More than a century of concerted scholarly skepticism has targeted the credibility of the various biblical texts. Furthermore, before they could even begin to argue for the correctness of the Bible, they find themselves face-to-face with a crumbling rickety bridge of theism vs. atheism. How can one argue that the God of Judeo-Christian scriptures is the true God, if it has not been successfully argued that there even is a God? And, before one can argue that there is a God, one must grapple with the issue of whether the universe is randomly constituted, or whether there is purposeful action that produced its existence. We find ourselves precisely where Genesis begins—at the beginning of the universe. (How interesting!) We may use Aristotle’s concept of syllogistic chains to begin building a logical pathway from there.

The Logic of Christianity 1: The Shroud, the Pope, and the Faith Continuum

On May 19, 2015, I came within 15 to 20 feet of what could be minute traces of the actual physical DNA of Jesus of Nazareth, from the minutes and hours immediately following his death. My wife, Linda, and I drove a rental car five hours from Florence, Italy, to Turin, Italy, because the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (where the Shroud of Turin is housed) had announced an Exposition of the Shroud, which would last from April 19, 2015 to June 24, 2015. As it turned out, we were going to be in Italy during that time. I was presenting a paper at a scholarly conference in Rome, so I ordered tickets (which were free of charge) to view the Shroud on May 19th. The Cathedral had conducted similar public exhibitions of the Shroud in 1998, 2000, and 2010, but we had no opportunity to view the Shroud in those years. Before we spent a few minutes in the actual presence of the Shroud, we were shown the evidence contained in the Shroud: Using a variety of scientific methods, we were able to observe visible signs of a face with thorn wounds around the head, of hands and feet that had been pierced by nails, of a back that had been scourged by whips, of a stab wound in the side--a victim of crucifixion identical to the biblical description of Jesus’ crucifixion. But was the crucifixion victim whose shroud was on display actually Jesus of Nazareth? Frankly, I do not know. The Shroud of Turin has been, perhaps, the most studied ancient artifact in history. And, there are plenty of skeptics concerning the authenticity of the Shroud. The presenters of the Exposition acknowledged the contrary arguments. For example, in 1988, carbon dating tests were performed on the cloth. These tests indicated a date of 1290-1350 a.d., but carbon dating testing is not always reliable. Once, carbon dating missed the date of the 4000 year old wrappings of a mummy by 1000 years. On the other hand, the carbon dating tests could be accurate. One’s faith in Christianity need not rest on a belief that the Shroud of Turin is the genuine burial shroud of Jesus. It may be an extremely remote possibility that the Shroud is genuine. Even so, the remotest possibility that Linda and I may have been within 15 to 20 feet of the actual physical DNA of Jesus produced a genuinely moving experience. There were no vocal skeptics at the viewing. Even if this shroud belonged to a crucifixion victim from the 13th or 14th century a.d. (the likelihood of which I am skeptical, since Christianity had, by then, long been the dominant world religion, and it seems highly questionable that someone would have been crucified, at that time, in exactly the same manner as Jesus), still the reality of physical proof of crucifixion wounds of “someone” produced reverence in the entire crowd. The point of the Shroud experience is that one need not have overwhelming faith that the Shroud belonged to Jesus in order to be moved by it. Even the tiniest, remotest inkling of a miniscule shred of possibility that we were actually in the physical presence of the DNA of Jesus was awe-inspiring. Even miniscule faith in a tiny possibility is still faith.

Two days prior to viewing the Shroud of Turin, Linda and I were in St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City. We had not known before our trip to Rome that Pope Francis would be conducting a canonization that day. The Square was packed with thousands upon thousands of people as the Pope delivered a homily and conducted services in a truly impressive “megachurch.” We were half-way back in the crowd of standing-room only spectators in the square. After a couple of hours, it seemed the service was ending. We could see on the big screens posted around the square that the Pope was visiting with a few dignitaries before leaving the scene. Then we heard some cheering in parts of the square. We saw hundreds of hands raising cameras and smart phones in various parts of the square. What was happening? The Pope, after addressing the crowd had decided to ride out through the crowds on some sort of modified golf cart. As the cheers and raised cameras seemed to get closer to us, we took a real interest in the direction in which the cameras were pointed. Then, we saw him. The Pope was riding past us, within about the same 15 to 20 foot proximity that we would later be near the Shroud. I took pictures. Linda took videos. He would stop occasionally to bless someone or kiss a child. I am almost 100% certain that I was within 15 to 20 feet of Pope Francis. As with the Shroud, one’s faith in Christianity need not rest on a belief that the Pope is a genuine representative of God. There are millions of Christian Protestants who disagree with him. You might even be skeptical about my claim that I was within 15 to 20 feet of the Pope. Even if you saw the pictures I took, you might engage in skepticism, suggesting that I may have Photoshopped the pictures. Even I cannot be 100% certain that I saw him. Perhaps, he has a double. My point is, however, that I have an enormous amount of faith that I was within 15 to 20 feet of the Pope. Although I was pleased to be almost certainly in his presence (a world-renown representative of Christianity), I was more moved by that tiny, remote sliver of a possibility that I was in the presence of the physical DNA of Jesus.

Faith is a continuum. It runs all the way from the tiniest, faintest possibility that something is true (such as the faint possibility that I was within 15 to 20 feet of the actual DNA of Jesus) to the almost certain probability that something is true (such as the almost certain fact that I was within 15 to 20 feet of Pope Francis). If I were convinced that there was zero, zilch, zip, nada possibility that the Shroud was genuine, I would not have driven to Turin to see it. I would have had absolutely NO faith in it. If I were fully 100% certain that I was within 15 to 20 feet of Pope Francis, I would cease to have “faith” in that proposition. What we “know for certain” is no longer faith. “Faith,” as Aristotle explains it, must admit at least two possibilities. In his book, On Rhetoric, Aristotle teaches how rhetorical logic works. In rhetoric (as opposed to dialectic), the aim is not to provide absolute truth, but only possible or probable truth. It applies only to matters of which we cannot be certain. Nevertheless, although certainty is impossible, we can logically conclude that something is “probably” or “possibly” true. Aristotle says that the goal of this type of logic is to achieve “faith.” If there is no possibility, there is no faith. If there is only one possibility, we call it truth. There is still no faith, because it is absolute truth. John 20:29 records the incident of the Apostle Thomas who demanded, after being told that Jesus was resurrected, that he be allowed to place his fingers in the nail holes in Jesus’ hands and his hand in the sword wound in Jesus’ side before he would believe. Jesus, after offering the physical terms of proof demanded by Thomas comments: “Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.” The logic of Christianity is a faith-based logic. Interestingly, the Bible says: “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6). To understand this type of logic, we must begin by accepting the fact that we could be wrong about various propositions. In cases, for example, of Deliberative Rhetoric (for Aristotle, this means arguments about what can or should happen in the future), Aristotle understands that we cannot really “know” the future, but we can predict things that “possibly” or “probably” will happen. This is Rhetoric. The aim is to produce “faith” that a certain course of action is wiser than another. In cases of Judicial Rhetoric (for Aristotle, this means arguments about what did actually happen in the past—for example, did O. J. actually kill Ron and Nicole?), Aristotle understands that we cannot really “know” for certain what happened, but we can argue persuasively that certain things “possibly” or “probably” did happen. Similarly, when it comes to the logic of Christianity, we are operating in the realm of “faith”—the realm of Rhetoric. We admittedly do not KNOW how the universe came into existence, what happens to us after we die, whether there is meaning in our life, etc., but we can argue logically that our views on these issues are “possible” or “probable.”

This post is the beginning of a series of blog posts I will be writing on the logic of Christianity. I have begun with an illustration of the range of the faith continuum—from the just barely possible to the “almost-but-still-questionable” certain. Notice that even “just barely possible” faith can motivate us to act, as when a terminal cancer patient opts to try a highly suspect experimental treatment, with the hope of beating his/her cancer. On the other hand, even the almost certain (but still slightly questionable) assertion that smoking causes lung cancer can still fail to motivate a given individual to stop smoking. Just the fact that someone has faith in an assertion (such as that smoking causes cancer) does not mean that any given person’s actions follow his/her faith. And just the fact that someone’s faith in an assertion (such as the experimental cancer treatment) is infinitesimally small does not mean that the person’s actions will not follow his/her faith. In the realm of rhetoric, we are all agnostics. The word “agnostic” means we do not know for certain. And, rhetoric (and its logic) are only applied to those issues the truth of which we do not know for certain. In my book ArguMentor (p. 7) I discuss a study that demonstrated that even self-avowed atheists were stressed at the prospect of daring God to do harm to their children. Could you, without stress, say the following words: “I dare you, God, to strike my children with terminal cancer”? If you could not do so, without stress, there is at least a tiny, even if infinitesimally small, germ of faith in God inside of you. In Luke 17:6 and Matthew 17:20, Jesus compares faith to a grain of mustard seed. This is a very small grain indeed, but it has great growth potential. Perhaps, as you read my posts on the logic of Christianity, your mustard seed will grow.

Mom, Dad, and Mulan

My mother was born 98 years ago, yesterday. She died not quite two years ago, at the age of 96. You might think that the purpose of writing this blog post is to “honor” my mother, but that is an oversimplification. I have come to believe that writing memorials is not the correct way to “honor” our parents. I learned this lesson from my wife Linda and from Disney’s Mulan. “Honor your Father and Mother!” is one of the Ten Commandments. Usually, in western culture, when we honor someone, we “say nice things about them.” But, the Ten Commandments were not given to western culture; they were given to eastern culture. My wife suggested to me, several years ago, that the best way for children to “honor” their parents is to live their lives in ways that their parents would approve. This is precisely the values theme of Disney’s animated film Mulan. The film is set in China, an eastern culture. The song, “You’ll Bring Honor to Us All,” plays while Mulan is being prepared to be an appropriate example of Chinese maidenhood—“washed and dried, primped and polished…a great hairdo… good taste, calm, obedient, work[ing] fast-paced, with good breeding and a tiny waist…soft and pale…balance…beauty… a perfect porcelain doll.” The preparation, though, is unsuccessful. Mulan does not satisfactorily perform as an appropriate Chinese maiden. The implication of the film at this stage is that Mulan does NOT bring honor to her parents.

Meanwhile, the song proclaims: “We all must serve our Emperor who guards us from the Huns--a man by bearing arms--a girl by bearing sons.” China, eventually, goes to war with the Huns. The army is conscripting one member of each household to fight. Since Mulan’s father has no sons, he steps forward to represent his family in the battle. Mulan’s father is old and feeble, even walking with difficulty. Mulan objects to seeing her father simply sacrifice his life by fighting (a situation she considers impossible for him to survive) and argues that her father cannot go to war. Her father responds: “You dishonor me.” Nevertheless, by stealth, Mulan dresses in armor as a man and takes her father’s place, masquerading as his non-existent son Fa Ping. As a warrior, she saves China. Mulan, thereby, DOES bring honor to her parents. Noticeably absent from the “honoring of her parents” is anything honorable that the parents have done. Honoring her parents was accomplished by Mulan doing as my wife had suggested to me: living her life in ways that her parents would approve. My father was a very successful farmer, a role that I admittedly disliked. I was a member of the Future Farmers of America, in high school, but not because I enjoyed farming. It was because FFA taught me leadership skills, such as parliamentary procedure and public speaking. I just happened to be a lousy farmer. My older brothers, on the other hand, were much better than I at farming. Did I dishonor my father by not pursuing agriculture? Before marrying, my mother was the first of her family to attend college. She became a teacher. My younger brother and I followed the teaching entelechy, but focused on teaching at the college level, while my mother had taught grades 1-12. Did my other siblings dishonor our mother by not pursuing teaching careers?

I gathered by observing my parents that there was one value they held above the values of being a good farmer and teacher. Though farming sometimes demanded working seven days/week from dawn to dusk, my father never paid attention to that demand. He never worked on Sunday. Church was more important than farming. Though my mother had an entire room in our house filled to the brim with teaching aids and materials, the vast majority of those teaching aids pertained to teaching Sunday School. Christian Education was the most important subject for my mother, the teacher. It rubbed off. All four of my parents’ sons, one of their daughters, one of their sons-in-law, three of their daughters-in-law, nine of their grandchildren, and four of their great grandchildren attended Christian colleges. My brother Rod and my brother-in-law Dean completed their Master of Divinity degrees and have spent their entire careers in the ministry. My younger brother Dennis holds a D.Theol. from Tűbingen, Germany, and is Vice President of Academic Affairs and Dean of the Faculty at a Christian university. Every one of my parents’ six children have held leadership roles in the church: Christian ministry, teaching, youth sponsors, etc. Every one of my parent’s six children’s families has had at least one person (the siblings, themselves, or one or more of their children) serving in the ministry. Like Mulan, we did not all follow the specific gender-occupational roles of our parents, but we all seemed to grasp what would bring “honor” to our Mother and Father.

Noah! Whoa!

SPOILER ALERT! In a sense I shouldn’t need to issue a Spoiler Alert for a movie based on the life of Noah. Who on Earth does not know how this story begins, proceeds, and ends? Perhaps, that’s why the makers of the Russell-Crowe-movie-Noah felt it necessary to throw in a few twists. To keep the audience engaged, the makers of the movie took into account what Kenneth Burke calls the Psychology of Information. Burke distinguishes between the attraction of the Psychology of Form and the Psychology of Information. Certain stories, such as Shakespeare’s plays and Disney’s fairy tales are enjoyed over and over and over again by the same audiences. These stories are enjoyed repeatedly by the same audiences, due to the Psychology of Form. We just enjoy repeatedly experiencing certain forms. A great example of this psychology is a hit song. People listen to the same song over and over, simply because they enjoy the form. There are other stories, however, that once they have been enjoyed, are cast aside. We may be engrossed, for example, in a football or basketball game. We may be so tied to the television set, watching the event unfold, that we cannot be torn away, even when an advertisement is shown. We do not want to miss a second of the action. Yet, when the game is over, we do not wish to watch the game again. We cast it aside.

Now, to the story of Noah . . . . There are certainly plenty who view the story of Noah from the perspective of the Psychology of Form. Not only does this group include believers who consider the story a supreme example of God’s interaction with and reaction to human beings, but this group also includes agnostics and non-believers who simply enjoy the story of Noah. Many of these individuals will be greatly disappointed in the Russell Crowe movie.

Enough of the form of the story of Noah is retained, however, that some individuals in this group may be satisfied. Most key characters are retained—Noah, his wife, and their three sons (Ham, Shem, and Japheth). The Ark is built. I personally enjoyed the visual effect of watching the construction of the Ark. Its dimensions, construction, materials (logs and pitch), cubic-rectangular shape, etc. are correct according to Biblical specifications. We are offered what photographers call “scale” by seeing actual animals in the Ark, so we can conceive of the potential for carrying multiple species of various animals. The sources of the Flood (from springs of water as well as heavy rain) are Biblical. The method of gauging the receding of the waters (sending out ravens and doves) is Biblical. From the perspective of the Psychology of Information, the movie-makers added interaction with Methuselah, the oldest person ever to live (and Noah’s grandfather), according to the Bible. While Methuselah is not mentioned in the Flood story, he is calculated, according to the Bible, to have died in the year of the Flood. The movie also adds Tubal-Cain as Noah’s nemesis. Tubal-Cain is a Biblical character who made instruments of iron and bronze, so it is feasible that these instruments were war instruments. Since it doesn’t matter who the antagonist is—the thoughts of all mankind other than Noah’s family were only evil continually--neither of these additions should be particularly grating to the Psychology of Form purists, but Tubal-Cain’s managing to board the Ark would violate the form.

A more egregious violation of form that might ruffle some feathers is the addition of the Watchers, depicted as giant rock creatures that resemble Stone-Age Transformers. Those in the audience less versed in theology might leap quickly to the conclusion that these “rock people” suddenly categorize the entire Noah story as a Fable. This would be a huge violation of what Burke calls Conventional Form for believers. Believers view the Conventional Form as History, not Fable. The movie makers had even gone so far as to offer potential justification for the historicity of a Young Earth theory (Google: “Disneology young earth” and view my blog Disneology #3) by presenting flowers that sprouted up in seconds from a drop of rain, and immense forests that grew in minutes. They even avoided potential conflict in the Creation account of Genesis as Noah rapidly related the “days” of Creation (Google my blog: “Disneology big bang” and view my blog Disneology #6). So, why utterly violate the Conventional Form of the story of Noah with these fictitious “rock people”?

The movie calls these “rock people” not humans, but angels—Fallen Angels. Since I have written a Master’s Thesis at Indiana University (as well as multiple Stan.Point blogs) on the subject of Fallen Angels, allow me to explain what I think the movie makers were attempting. In Genesis 6, right before the story of Noah and the Flood begins, the Bible speaks of “sons of God” marrying “daughters of men.” The movie is presenting these so-called “Sons of God” as Fallen Angels—something that I consider a huge mistake. See my blog on the issue: (Google: “StanLindsay.com Genesis 6” and view my blog Angels & Demons 13: Who are the “Sons of God” in Genesis?). Furthermore, even if these Sons of God were Fallen Angels, they do not fit the context of Genesis 6, in which the Sons of God married the Daughters of Men. There is no hint of the “rock people” taking human wives in the Noah movie. Rather, by applying the term “Watchers” to these “Fallen Angels,” the movie is redirecting us to the book of I Enoch, which identifies the Fallen Angels as “Watchers.” Perhaps, the movie makers believe that the non-Biblical book of I Enoch was actually written by Enoch, the father of Methuselah and the grandfather of Noah, but this view of authorship is just silly. (Google: “StanLindsay.com I Enoch” and view my blog Angels & Demons 2: The Prometheus Connection). The book of I Enoch is not in the Bible; it is what biblical scholars call Pseudepigrapha, meaning falsified authorship. The Enoch of Genesis did not write the book. Yet, the movie makers want to take later, Hellenistic Age concepts of these “Sons of God” and inject them into the Noah story. When I suggest the Prometheus Connection in my aforementioned blog, I supply most of the story the movie makers have adapted and added to the movie. The Watchers were condemned to an Abyss with Jagged Rocks; hence, the “Stone-Age Transformers” of the movie. The Watchers were banished to the Earth for the same reason that Prometheus of Greek Legend was banished by Zeus: they tried to help bring culture to humans. The character of the God of Genesis is, hence, transformed into a petty version of the god Zeus who is envious of humans and determined to stop their developing culture. Russell Crowe as Noah, hence, is transformed into a fearful-but-obedient agent of this mad god. Sound about right? While these new twists on the story of Noah, borrowed from the book of I Enoch, do provide new “information” for those who are motivated by the Psychology of Information, they are such bizarre twists that they drastically violate the Psychology of Form from the Biblical story of Noah. Perhaps the redeeming quality of having such severe violations of Form will be that it will motivate audiences to re-read the Genesis account to see if they missed something.

Hidden Mickeyisms 10: Frozen Female Philadelphia

SPOILER ALERT! Disney films celebrate love: The love between a boy and his dog (Old Yeller), The love between children and monsters (Monsters, Inc.) The love between monsters and monsters (Monsters University) The love between a child and his/her toys (Toy Stories), The love between a craftsman and his creation (Pinocchio), The love between a child and its mother (Bambi), The love between a child and its father (Finding Nemo, Mary Poppins, Saving Mr. Banks), The love between boys and girls of different species (Little Mermaid), and, of course, The love between various princesses and their princes (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, Tangled, Beauty and the Beast, etc.).

Nevertheless, until the winter of 2013, there was no specific Disney movie celebrating the love of sisters. The city of Philadelphia was so named because it wanted to be the city of “brotherly love.” The Greek word PHILOS means love. The Greek word ADELPHOS means brother. The Greek word ADELPHE means sister. The word PHILADELPHIA could be translated either as “brotherly love” or as “sisterly love,” depending on whether one assumes the root of the word to be ADELPHOS or ADELPHE. In the case of the movie “Frozen,” I apply the term to ADELPHE. The ending –IA simply refers to a state of being or a process. Philadelphia is simply the process of acting with love towards one’s sister.

The 1954 Bing Crosby movie White Christmas contains elements of such a “female Philadelphia” with its song “Sisters,” but the love between the sisters in the film—played by Rosemary Clooney and Vera-Ellen—pales in intensity to the sisterly love portrayed in Disney’s “Frozen.” Even the website of Turner Classic Movies (which owns the rights to the White Christmas movie) calls White Christmas “a film that's remembered mostly as a warm, nostalgic holiday movie rather than as one of the all-time great musicals.” Nevertheless, “it was the highest-grossing film of 1954” and it is a perennial favorite for TV viewers during the Christmas season. It was re-released on the big screen for a couple of nights during the 2013 Christmas season, as well. The Rosemary Clooney and Vera-Ellen sisters, however, faced no test as severe as that faced by the Frozen sisters—Elsa and Anna. Elsa, the Snow Queen, possesses magical powers, which she cannot control. Simply put, just as those things (and people) King Midas touches turn to gold, those things (and people) Elsa touches turn to ice. Since an early incident suggests to Elsa that there is a possibility that she will accidentally freeze her sister Anna, if she is too close to her, she intentionally separates herself from her sister—as an act of love. Anna, of course, is kept ignorant of the fact that this fear for Anna’s safety is the reason for her seclusion, but Anna’s love for her sister Elsa never flags. At Elsa’s coronation, it becomes clear that Elsa still cannot control her dangerous gift. She flees to the mountains. Anna pursues her sister to Elsa’s ice palace after Elsa has inadvertently frozen the entire kingdom. Anna is determined to reunite with Elsa. Following several fairy-tale-prescribed difficulties and obstacles, Anna is faced with the ultimate problem—she will die unless she receives an act of “true love.” Disney relies on the misdirection of the formulaic “true love’s kiss” from multiple prior Disney movies to draw the audience into the desire for a kiss from a love-at-first-sight boyfriend of Anna’s. Then, when that boyfriend turns out to be a charlatan, the audience turns to the desire for Anna to be kissed by her reindeer-loving friend Kristoff, who helped her on her quest to find Elsa. The twist occurs as Anna is more consumed with protecting her sister Elsa than she is with romance. The Jesus-love paradigm comes into play as Anna gives her life to save her sister Elsa. “Greater love has no one than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13). The Jesus motif is continued (as it is in many other Disney films) as the one who loves by giving his/her life is resurrected (Pinocchio, Baloo the Bear, the Beast, etc.).

Disney essentially disavows “true love’s kiss” as the truest indicator of “true love” in favor of the Jesus-love model. This is Philadelphia—sisterly love.