Background for Genesis Essay – 2.1

In the immediately preceding blog posting in this series of background essays, the author stated that “the Septuagint does not seem to be ‘just one more translation’” of the Hebrew Bible, but instead “seems to be a divine authorization, or warrant, to take Greek philosophical presuppositions seriously.”  At that point, beyond the issue of the acceptance of some Greek philosophical presuppositions, the author should have added the sentence: “Whether or not the Septuagint, as a whole, rises to the status of a divinely inspired writing is a complex issue not adjudicated here.”

However, we will now go on to note that the whole idea of calling the first Hebrew-to-Greek Bible translation “The Seventy” (Septuagint) was to emphasize that its 70 (or 72) participating scholars had isolated themselves in separate rooms and produced identical translations.  Hence, their work must have been divinely inspired, based on the apparently presupposed principle that hyper-consistency implies divine inspiration.  If the Septuagint had not been originally received as a divinely inspired text, then none of the original recipients would have given any credence to it.  Later, Calvin thought that the Septuagint must be respected, albeit without an authority equal to that of the Hebrew Bible: The Septuagint had, after all, been quoted in the New Testament, which presumably was divinely inspired.

Belief as an attitude toward a proposition: The philosophical approach to belief, as delineated in these background essays, distinguishes between the objective, propositional content of a belief and a thinking subject’s attitude towards that propositional content.  If the subject’s set of attitudes includes an acceptance of that objective content, based on “considered judgment,” then the subject is classified as a believer of that content.  If the accepted, objective content deals with religion, then the subject typically also holds other attitudes or inclinations, such as a propensity to worship, to reverence, to pray, to stand in awe, to seek forgiveness, or even to seek mental clarity on what should be taught (a.k.a., orthodox doctrine).

Timelines from the Vastly Old to the Merely Ancient: Some civilizations and religions from the valleys of the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, and Yellow Rivers date from circa 3500 B.C.  (The historian, Toynbee, defined and analyzed more than twenty world civilizations.)  During the last few centuries, natural scientists have been inclined to look for ever more remote physical traces of ancient civilizations, evolving life forms, planetary origins, and those ultra-remote cosmic events defining (or proceeding from) either the Big Bang or the most recent Big Bang (in case there really are intervening Cosmic Crunches).  For a given world-historical event, we assume the existence of an associated time-zero and a timeline proceeding from that time-zero up to the present and beyond.  A timeline is a half-infinite line (ray) whose unique terminal point is a time-zero for the real variable, time, appearing in the laws of physics.

The concept of the Big Bang allows one to speak meaningfully about physical laws that existed in an “inflationary epoch” (infinitesimally after a time-zero); or, on the other hand, about purposes and final causation that timelessly exist “logically prior to,” or “metaphorically before,” the Big Bang (provisionally assuming only one Big Bang).  Physical laws describe, typically via differential equations, the efficient causes operative in the universe.  Final causation considers questions such as “Why is there something rather than nothing?”  Empirically, the time-zero for the Big Bang is about 15 billion years ago.

The timeline that goes into effect after (or on the occasion of) the Big Bang might be designated as the Cosmic Timeline, which has been in operation for some fifteen billion years, has extended to the present, and will extend into the indefinite, if not infinite, future.  In other words, the time-zero in this case is 15 billion years ago.  The Cosmic Timeline seems to be consistent with the idea of ex nihilo creation attended by a “significant radiation event.”

A timeline tracing less far back, to planetary origins in our solar system, might be designated as the Old-Earth Timeline.  These planets might have become visually recognizable, albeit not yet habitable, after a certain period of swirling-dust accretion that had been mostly completed by some five billion years ago (the time-zero for this timeline).  This timeline is not consistent with ex nihilo creation, because billions of years had elapsed between the Big Bang and the heyday of planetary formation in our solar system.

A timeline tracing very much less far back - - to the celebrated homo sapiens and their predecessors who are now thought to have wandered about in Africa for multiple hundreds of thousands of years - - might be designated as the Anthropological Timeline.  In this case, the time-zero seems to have been 300 thousand years ago.  This timeline is not consistent with ex nihilo creation, because billions of years would have elapsed from the Big Bang to the origin of the DNA-encoded information that guided the development of amino acids, proteins, and molecular machines; and that led inexorably to that biological efflorescence known as homo sapiens.

At this point, the Cosmic, Old-Earth, and Anthropological Timelines provide a naturalistic temporal framework upon which to locate at least some of the events portrayed in Genesis 1.  For example, the original radiative blast establishing the time-zero of the Cosmic Timeline fits in very nicely the “Let there be light (radiation)” of Genesis 1:3.  Genesis-1 history was summarized in Genesis 2:1 as “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.”  The stage had been set for a much shorter, more finely grained timeline starting with Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2.

As a rhetorical matter, we acknowledge that there will never be an absolute resolution of the issue whether the “Days of creation” in Genesis 1 are literal or metaphorical.  However, in these essays we will assume that the Biblical Days of creation in Genesis 1 are metaphorical; and that some such metaphor offers the only way of taking the Biblical text seriously.  For example, the universe’s inaugural radiative blast dominated billions of subsequent years; and the declaration “Let there be light” can therefore only refer to a metaphorical day.  To the extent possible, we want to develop a Biblical understanding in which metaphor and literal interpretation can peacefully coexist in a reasonable, or at least plausible, manner.

The “apparent timeline” portrayed by the Days of Genesis 1 differs from the timeline to be developed in Genesis 2.  Genesis 1 deals with the six metaphorical days of Biblical creation.  These are not six units of physical time, but rather are representations of six tasks logically required to have been accomplished before the whole panoply of heavens and earth could finally be assembled and proclaimed to have been “completed in all their vast array.”  Internal to each of these six metaphorical days, there may be temporal processes; but, overall, there seems to be no unifying time allowing sequential completion of all six tasks.  In contrast, Genesis 2 only begins its account of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden after the “heavens-and-earth completion” in Genesis 1, seeming to imply that the Big Bang, planetary formation, and those arduous African wanderings had all been things of the past at the time of the Genesis 2 story.

“In the beginning,” as Genesis-1 creation is ramping up, if not exactly proceeding along a unified physical timeline for all of its Days; the heavens and the earth were formless, empty, and dark (Gen. 1:2); seeming to cry out - - if metaphor and personification are permitted - - for some ex-nihilo creation.  The Spirit of God was “hovering above the water,” meaning that the stage was being set for God to proclaim a various, six-fold “Let there be … Day N (N = 1 - 6),” i.e., “to speak the world into existence” in Genesis 1.  This six-fold plan featured the following: There was to be initial radiation, inorganic phase separation (solid - liquid - gas), organic plant life, astronomical development of stars, organic animal life in the water and in the air, and organic land-based animal life including mankind.  Radiation having been mentioned for Day 1, the internal timeline for Day 1 seems to correlate with the beginning of the Cosmic Timeline.  The Days’ tasks being only logical prerequisites for creation, however, there is no expectation that - - for example - - organic plant life (Day 3) must develop before stellar development (Day 4) can occur.

A timeline tracing again very much less far back than the Anthropological Timeline - - to the human and horticultural origins portrayed in Genesis 2 - - might be designated as the Young-Earth Timeline.  An estimate of its time-zero value will be given in the next blog posting in this series.  That time-zero value marks the creation of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden.  The Young-Earth Timeline is not consistent with ex nihilo creation, because billions of years would have elapsed from the Big Bang to whatever modification of DNA coding was required to guide the first appearance of Adam: “The Lord God formed a man, Adam, from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7).  On this view, Adam was not the world’s first homo sapiens, but rather an obscure branch of homo sapiens, perhaps with some slightly reinitialized DNA coding.  There is, however, no reason to doubt that Adam, Eve, and their Garden were the first of their kind in their allotted corner of Mesopotamia.

Regarding the Garden of Eden and, presumably, the Middle East generally: Where there had been no surface water, no plants, and no one to work the ground; there God created streams, plants, a horticulturalist (Adam) “from dust,” and Adam’s wife (Eve) “from one of Adam’s ribs.”  Nearby Africa may have had water, plants, and animal life from an early date; but Genesis-2 creation concentrates specifically on its own Young-Earth Timeline, during which the creation of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden occurs.  These particular creation events occur, evidently, in Mesopotamia.

Summarizing: The Cosmic, Old-Earth, Anthropological, and Young-Earth timelines are not incompatible: In the indefinite past, there were notable events that established timelines with different estimated values for their “time zeros.”  For example, empirical evidence puts the Cosmic, Old-Earth, Anthropological, and Young-Earth time-zeros at, respectively, 15 billion years ago, 5 billion years ago, 300,000 years ago, and a value to be discussed in the next blog in this series.

Background for Genesis Essay - 1

In the preceding blog posting in this series, the author concluded with the statement that “the first (of the following) essays will start with the first part of the book of Genesis.”  Now, however, it seems best to defer that assignment until after two preliminary essays on the philosophy and history of the Judeo-Christian religion have been presented.  Developing philosophical and historical clarity now is expected to lead to quicker comprehension of the Genesis text once it is started.  Today’s essay will start with some philosophical background on the topics of belief, faith, trust, states of affairs, facts, unrealized possibilities, truth, and knowledge.  Then, we will state some Biblical background information.

Philosophical Background: Prior to any philosophical or theological reflection, it might seem that a comprehensive presentation of God’s truth could be accomplished with a Bible that “started at the beginning” and said everything that was worth knowing (in the sense of “capturing in writing”) about the relationship between God and man.  Among presuppositions of this exposition would be the ideas that belief is another word for faith; that the Hebrew Bible presents faith as trust in God; and that the Christian Bible identifies faith as trust in Christ, who is the second person of the Holy Trinity.  Here, “trust” includes experiential or emotional factors, if any, that cannot be captured in writing.

However, the terms “belief” and “faith” have not only a branch of meaning relating to the term “trust,” but also a branch of meaning relating to the terms “truth” and “knowledge.”  These latter two terms are in turn related to a real (or actual) world, which is assumed to exist and to be intelligible.  This real world is thought to consist of states of affairs (SOA’s) that “obtain” and that are usually known as “facts,” whereas SOA’s that “do not obtain” are merely unrealized possibilities.  SOA’s are also known as “situations” that may or may not occur.

An SOA is a way that the real world must be in order for some corresponding (or underlying) proposition about the real world to be true in a logical world.  In other words, an SOA is a truth-maker; whereas a proposition is a truth-bearer.  SOA’s either obtain or fail to obtain; whereas propositions are either true or false.  For example, if historical research and judgment lead one to believe that the SOA “Caligula is cruel” obtains; then, as a matter of logic, the proposition “Caligula is cruel” is true.  Likewise, if the relevant judgments lead one to believe that the SOA “Caligula is cruel” does not obtain; then, logically, the proposition “Caligula is cruel” is false.  The distinction between truth-maker and truth-bearer is based on the difference between empirical research and judgment, on the one hand; and the logical world of premises and deductions, on the other.

We speak of a belief as one particular type of introspective judgment or attitude toward a proposition, which in turn is something that can be true or false in logic.  If the attitude is one of acceptance, then we are said to have judged (fallibly) that the SOA under consideration obtains in the real world; thereby forcing the corresponding proposition to be true in the logical world.  If the attitude is one of rejection, then we are said to have judged (fallibly) that the SOA under consideration does not obtain in the real world; thereby forcing the corresponding proposition to be false in the logical world.

One notes in passing that there is a panoply of possible attitudes that one might take towards a proposition, including, but not limited to, expecting, hoping, or fearing; intending, desiring, or wishing; believing, knowing, or judging; and accepting, rejecting, or doubting.  In this essay we are focusing on believing and knowing.  Attitudinal analysis presupposes that we are capable of (fallible) introspection and judgment; that we can recognize real and logical worlds; that these worlds are intelligible; and that we can estimate subjectively (or in some cases, statistically) how much confidence or probability to attach to any particular belief - - from certitude to barely above 50%.

Finally, knowledge is sometimes said to be justified true belief, i.e., belief that is true and that is backed up (i.e., justified) by a “story” of why the belief must be true.  Ever since the Platonic dialog, Theaetetus, however, this approach has been shown to be plagued by circularity.  One recent philosopher, Robert Nozick, created a “work-around” for this problem.  In this new approach, knowledge is said to be “belief tracking truth”:  Your belief, X, qualifies as knowledge if X is true, you believe X, and you would not believe X if X were false.  Presumably, you are aware of some “factor” or “story” that explains why X couldn’t be false.  In effect, Nozick substitutes “couldn’t be false” for the traditional “must be true.”  It took more than 2300 years to get from Plato to Nozick, and one doubts that we have heard the definitive last word on this subject.

The nebulous role of certainty in accepting propositions: One might contrast certainty in the mathematical and logical worlds; a high degree of confidence for at least some empirical laws in the physical world; and sufficient reason for actions or beliefs in the moral or religious worlds.  Mathematical propositions that follow from self-evident principles and deductive proof are considered to be certain, because the “mind’s eye” sees, and assents to, each step in the proof.  Perceptions, being empirical, can sometimes be accumulated so as to allow the formulation of physical hypotheses, which in turn are tested via falsifiability criteria and possibly accepted with a high degree of confidence.  Some moral and religious propositions are thought to be so “existentially charged” that they rise to the level of “moral certainty” or “incontrovertible belief.”  One recalls that Aristotle’s practical syllogisms envision propositions as premises and actions as conclusions.  In the Christian New Testament (Hebrews 11:1), one reads that “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (NIV-1983).  Thus, the idea of certainty surpasses its original domain of mathematics and logic, migrating into the domain of religious faith.

Biblical Background: The Hebrew Bible contains 24 books divided among the five books of the Law (Torah) given to Moses; the eight books of the Prophets; and the eleven books of the Writings (e.g., Psalms, Chronicles, etc.).  The Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek as the Septuagint, which presents the books distributed among four sections (Law, History, Poetry, and Prophets) for use by Greek-speaking Jews in the third century B.C.  The Torah is referred to in Greek as the “five scrolls,” or “Pentateuch.”  The Christian Old Testament is essentially based on translation from the Hebrew Bible, with the Septuagint being available for context.  The first book of the Law is referred to (in English) either as The First Book of Moses or as Genesis, which is a Greek word that means “origin, source, or beginning,” albeit not a word that actually occurs in the Septuagint itself.  After the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth, his followers produced a completely different set of writings that followed a different canon and that became known as the “New Testament.”

The first Hebrew word of the First Book of Moses is translated into English (NIV) as “in the beginning.”  According to the Bible-hub Interlinear web resource, this Hebrew word occurs four other times in the Hebrew Bible (always in the book of Jeremiah), in Jeremiah 26:1, 27:1, 28:1, and 49:34.  All four occurrences in Jeremiah are translated into English (NIV) as “early in the reign of …”  Thus, the same Hebrew word can bear two different senses, either as indicating an absolute or unqualified beginning or as indicating “relatively early” or “near the beginning” of a particular king’s reign.  The English translation of Genesis 1:1 as “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is on solid ground.

However, the first two Greek words of the Septuagint (in Genesis 1:1) are transliterated as “en arche,” which means “as a first rule, highest ruler, or philosophical first principle.”  (One recalls that “monarch” means “the one ruler of a government or of a nation.”  See also Philip Wheelwright, “The Presocratics,” Odyssey Press, 1966, p. 15.)  On this Greek view, the English translation of Genesis 1:1 becomes “As a first rule or highest ruler or first principle of the universe, God created the heavens and the earth.”  The question arises: How could this utterly novel, Septuagint-based “context” of Genesis 1:1 have arisen?

The apparent answer is that Greek translators make Greek philosophical presuppositions, which God evidently intended to introduce into his Biblical revelation.  Some pre-Socratic Greek philosophers had proposed that one or another of the classical elements (earth, air, fire, and water) is the fundamental source, or arche, of all matter; which is to say, a basic, irreducible substance from which all other matter is composed.  In the case of Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint, if the Creation truly occurred “in the beginning,” then the Creation is not a part of any temporal sequence.  Instead, temporal sequences arose within the Creation.  In the ancient Greek view, the Creator must be a true first principle, or arche, existing outside of time, not an interloper in the temporal order.  A “creator within time” could only be what the Greeks called a demiurge, a cosmic worker who fashioned the universe out of pre-existing materials (as in line 28a6 in the Platonic dialog, Timaeus).

The Septuagint version of Genesis, Chapter 1, envisions a logical sequence of purposes to be fulfilled, or tasks to be completed, while God “speaks the universe into existence.”  This type of creation is consistent with the Aristotelian worldview that there exists an Unmoved Mover who is a first principle or final cause of the universe.  Moreover, Greek presuppositions are useful in dealing with philosophical questions such as the apparent problem of a “young earth” at variance with the modern estimate (nearly 5 billion years) for the age of the earth.

The Septuagint does not seem to be “just one more translation” that is a forerunner of the relatively recent KJV or NIV translations.  Instead, the Septuagint seems to be a divine authorization, or warrant, to take Greek philosophical presuppositions seriously.

In the following blog posting, a second preliminary essay will deal with some guidelines for the historical dating of certain prominent Biblical events - - events that are remote in time and that typically allow only very imprecise suggestions for their historical dates.

Biblical Sermons, Commentaries, and Essays

Recently, the author of this blog posting heard online an otherwise good Christian sermon based on Chapter 10 of the Book of Luke, a sermon that was regrettably impaired by one flaw.  This sermon began promisingly enough by exploring the conditions under which it is advisable to be vulnerable (no extra shoes or luggage, etc.) when venturing forth to spread the gospel.  Such evangelists, being without dedicated supply lines, are like lambs among wolves.  The 70 (or 72) evangelists sent out in pairs by Jesus were directed to “set up shop” for peace and healing in every town and place that were about to be visited by Jesus.  Such locations would wind up being classified, retrospectively, either as “welcoming towns” or as “unwelcoming towns.”  When leaving either type of town, these 70 (or 72) evangelists were to proclaim the positive message that “the Kingdom of God has come close to you.”

However, in order to complete the unitary (single and complete) train of thought based on Luke 10:1-12, it should be noted that the evangelists departing from an unwelcoming town were also told to wipe the dust off of their feet as a warning against that town’s ways.  The unwelcoming town thereby elicited from Jesus the ominous pronouncement to the effect that “It will be more tolerable on ‘that day’ (the day of judgment) for the city of Sodom than for the unwelcoming town just left behind.”  This comment presupposes that the city of Sodom had previously set a high bar for maximally sinful behavior, a high bar that is nevertheless surpassed by the unwelcoming town under consideration.  Ultimately, one might argue about the results of a competition for the “worst of the worst” places, towns or cities; but wouldn’t it be a lot easier (i.e., more straightforward) merely to strive for the status of “welcoming town”?

Why does the Zeitgeist consider Luke 10:12 to be so “radioactive” that it may be neither explored nor mentioned?  (Related discussions of other cities exist in Luke 10:13-24.)  Clearly, what is needed is an authoritative Biblical commentary or book of essays, which includes Luke 10:12 and offers a way to finesse its interpretation.  But, of course, one surmises that the entire problem is that no authorities have survived the Zeitgeist’s contemporary reign of terror.  Not volunteering, as he most certainly is not, to receive theological tumbril-service at the present time, the present writer will also not elaborate upon Luke 10:12 in this essay.  On the other hand, the present writer is now sufficiently motivated to contemplate writing a limited series of Biblical commentaries or essays that might help promote mental clarity and avoid regrettable exegetical shortcuts.

A commentary is an explanation of, or an opinion about, a given text at hand.  An essay is a short work on, or an “attempt at,” a topic presumably written up as a text elsewhere.  Regarding either a text or a topic: Exegesis is a particular instance of interpretation (determination of meaning, including authorial intent); whereas hermeneutics is the general theory and methodology of interpretation (including the interpreter’s own viewpoint and presuppositions).

Commentaries on books of the Christian Bible may start with exegesis; but they inevitably incorporate some related topics from history, philosophy, sociology, etc.  At what point does the sheer volume of such related topics swamp out the Biblical exegesis and turn a purported commentary (text-based) into an essay (topic-based)?  Here, “swamping out” means overly reducing the analytical emphasis on authorial intent in favor of the interpreter’s own viewpoint.

It might be best to view the writing at hand as an introduction to a proposed series of hybrid commentary-essays on Biblical texts, as well as on some topics in the history and philosophy of religion (primarily Christianity).  For simplicity, these hybrid writings will be called essays; which will be indexed, or brought to mind, by many - - but not all - - of the successive books, chapters, and verses of the Protestant Bible (sixty-six books without apocrypha).  In these essays, some topics may be of more interest to Protestants (e.g., the theory with the acronym “TULIP”); while other topics may be of more appeal to Catholics (e.g., the Vincentian Canon or some ideas from G.K. Chesterton).

The Bible considers faith as trust, as in Matt. 6:28-30, which poses the question “Will God not clothe you better than the grass and the lilies of the field - - O ye of little faith?”  Dealing, as Paul Tillich does, with faith as the object of “ultimate concern,” one might think that there would be widespread agreement about the Bible’s meaning and application to questions of faith and practice.  Alas, not only are there civilizational differences about what faith is; but there are also seemingly innumerable anxieties besetting religious believers: Ontological anxieties (What is the most real?), moral anxieties (What are the criteria for right action?), and spiritual anxieties (What are the grounds, if any, for rejecting the thesis of the ultimate meaninglessness of life?  Or for rejecting the thesis that the existence of other minds cannot be philosophically proven?).

If one were only seeking agreement among Christians, then one might perhaps hope for a greater chance of success in resolving all theological issues in an utterly perspicacious manner via Biblical commentaries or essays.  However, some attempted resolutions seem to leave behind irreducible disagreement (e.g., Luke 10:12); while others are more likely to lead to mental clarity and agreement (e.g., Matt. 6:28-30).  But “hope springs eternal,” and some commentaries or essays may possibly promote common understanding.

Apologetics is, generally speaking, a presentation of evidence and rational arguments in defense of deeply held beliefs.  That evidence may come from Biblical commentaries or essays, and the results may help remove conceptual clutter impairing religious judgment.  Apologetics in the form of certain Platonic dialogs (Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and Euthyphro) predates the New Testament.  For example, Euthyphro poses the controversial question: Is something good because the gods approve of it; or do the gods approve of something because it is good?  Later, apologetics came to be known as the rational defense of the Christian faith, often in the “Areopagus” or “Mars Hill” mode of debate found in Acts 17:16-34.  (One recalls that the Greek “Areopagus” refers to the Greek god Ares or to the Roman god Mars.  The “Hill” in this case was in Athens.)  Martin Luther and John Calvin thought that their commentaries might help to increase the accessibility of Scripture by lay persons and to promote the apologetics underlying such Reformation ideas as justification by faith alone.

Orthodox starting point: In the 400’a A.D. the Vincentian Canon was written in support of Christian doctrinal orthodoxy, where doctrine is “what is taught” and orthodoxy is right, correct, or true (ortho) thinking or opinion (doxa).  In this rather optimistic view, Christian doctrinal orthodoxy is “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”  (Here, “everywhere” refers to the known Greco-Roman world and its immediate border regions; “always” refers to historical time since Jesus walked on the Earth; and “by all” means “by all Christians.”)  For the sake of self-consistency, however, Christian doctrine has come to be thought of as including tradition, reason, and the development of doctrine; because, among those things widely believed and held in high regard, one finds the following concepts:

First, the concept of the “democracy of the dead” (G.K. Chesterton, in his book, Orthodoxy [Chapter IV]) implies that all spiritually engaged Christians have a say (or a “vote”), in what is believed, independent of their current status as being dead or alive. (One does wonder about normalization, or how the effect of increasing total population over time affects the weighted value of past votes.)  This is the source of tradition (what is handed down).

Second, the life of the human mind, with its limited logos, or reason, seems to run parallel to the life of the unlimited Logos, or Word of God, through which all things were made (John 1:3).  Without such parallelism there could be no perception of God in physical nature; no recognition of God’s own invisible qualities, power, and divine nature; no understanding of God from what has been made; and, contra Romans 1:20, abundant excuses for mankind to be and to remain ignorant of God.

Finally, some theologians find that the ongoing application of human reason to Christian doctrine leads, over long periods of time, to ever more highly articulated doctrine and - - if not exactly to an asymptotic approach of the Hegelian Zeitgeist to Absolute Knowing - - at least to a modest development of Christian doctrine over time (J.H. Newman).  This viewpoint was strongly opposed by C.S. Lewis in the Preface to his book “Mere Christianity,” in which he maintained that calling someone a Christian is like calling someone a gentleman (in the original British sense): We are dealing with a description of belief in the case of a purported Christian; and with certain facts about land ownership and possession of a coat of arms in the case of a purported gentleman.  In Lewis’ view, we must we stick to the original, obvious meanings of simple, unwavering, and, hence, time-independent doctrines when assessing a network of beliefs.

We will now turn, in subsequent blog posts, to the presentation of essays on selected Biblical books in English translation (most commonly, the NIV).  It is anticipated that some references may also be made, occasionally, to the Bible Hub online resource for Hebrew and Greek.  Finally, the Schlachter 2000 German translation of the Bible has also been found to be useful.  The first essay will start with the first part of the book of Genesis.

A Retrospective on Three U.S. Presidential Elections

Eight long years ago, the 2016 U.S. Presidential election resulted in the Electoral-College victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, despite Clinton’s winning of the national popular vote.  Trump won the popular vote in six of the seven so-called “swing states” (Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin), failing only to win Nevada.  (For a summary of these 2016 results, click here.)

In 2016, the Electoral College once again achieved its Constitutional goal: inducing the candidates to campaign in a broader swath of the country and not limiting themselves to the states of largest population (California, Texas, Florida, and New York).  Widespread campaigning avoids the appearance that the smallest states are merely colonial possessions of the largest states.  In winning most of the swing states by small popular-vote margins, Trump rolled to a robust 304-227 victory over Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College.

An aside: The 2016 U.S. Presidential race revealed seven so-called “faithless Electors,” who voted for persons other than those at the top of their party tickets.  These faithless seven have never been punished, thereby providing a precedent for future Electoral-College misbehavior; yet as far as the present writer knows, no one has ever expended any effort to remedy this situation via statute or Constitutional amendment.  It would be more accurate to say that the 2016 U.S. Electoral-College results were 304-227-7; indicating support for Republicans, Democrats, and what might be described as Insurrectionists, respectively.

A second aside: The Electoral College is based on a number of Electors for each state (plus three Electors for the District of Columbia).  Each of the state numbers is equal to the sum of that state’s number of Senators (two for each state, assuming states to be co-equal in sovereignty) and of that state’s number of U.S. Representatives (representation proportional to population).  The egregious Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sabotages the original idea that the Senators represent the states themselves via appointment by their state legislatures to the federal legislature.  James Madison thought that this appointment process would convey a sense of each state’s authority and legitimacy in the federal system - - i.e., that no state was a colonial backwater in a federal system.  But what did James Madison know about the Constitution?

Joseph Biden defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election in the midst of the COVID pandemic, the George-Floyd riots, outdated election-integrity laws, and an unprecedented flood of mail-in ballots.  Biden won six of the seven swing states by small popular-vote margins, losing only North Carolina.  (For a summary of these 2020 results, click here.)  Biden recorded a strong 306-232 victory in the Electoral College.

In the 2020 U.S. Presidential race, Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin (11+16+10 = 37 Electoral votes) were decided by approximately 11,000, 13,000, and 21,000 popular votes, respectively.  However, a few percent of the millions of mail-in ballots in those three states in 2020 seemed, to some analysts, to lack legitimacy - - or even to have been wholly fabricated - - based on the following line of thought: If a relatively low level of mail-in balloting in 2016 and previous years had resulted in an error rate of a few percent (rejection rate due to defective signature, dating, receipt-time, voter-ID, or any other problem), then a relatively high level (flood) of mail-in balloting in 2020 must have had at least the same error rate, not the much lower error rate alleged by some election precincts in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin.

In the case of the U.S. Presidential race in Wisconsin in 2020, a remarkable example of the aforesaid mail-in ballot conundrum has been documented: In 2016, only 4.8% of the total number of ballots were mail-in ballots; and of those mail-in ballots there was an error rate (rejection rate) of 1.4%.  In 2020, however, an unprecedented 41% of the total number of ballots were mail-in ballots (due to COVID and other causes peculiar to 2020); and of those mail-in ballots there was an error rate of only 0.2% - - a seven-fold decrease in error rate coinciding with a more than eight-fold increase in the fraction of mail-in ballots (41% / 4.8% = 8.54).  Ultimately, in the case of Wisconsin in 2020, it seemed plausible that tens of thousands of questionable votes were being injected into a Presidential tally in which the purported margin of victory was also on the order of tens of thousands of votes, vitiating Biden’s claim to victory in Wisconsin.  Analogous remarks pertain to Arizona and Georgia in 2020.

In this novel situation, however, the judicial system typically professed not to find anyone with a suitable legal standing to sue election officials over anomalies in the rejection rate for mail-in ballots.  In these potential court cases, there was the distinct appearance that the judges just wanted “to get out of Dodge City” in unseemly haste before any rioting broke out.  Additionally, the candidate challenging the vote count was left with the nearly impossible burden of proving a negative, viz., that the true rejection rate for mail-in ballots did not go down by an order of magnitude or so even while a much higher volume of mail-in ballots was being processed.  If indeed the 37 Electoral votes of Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin had gone to Trump in 2020, then Trump would have achieved a 306-37 = 232+37 = 269-269 tie in the Electoral College, sending the election to the House of Representatives and generating even more excitement!

Just prior to the 2020 election, a widely acclaimed, professional, scientific poll of Wisconsin voters gave Biden a projected 17% margin of victory in Wisconsin - - the supposed expectation of all those who “follow the science.”  (This was in the October 28, 2020 ABC News / Washington Post Poll.)  The 17% projected Biden victory contrasted sharply with the 0.6% actual Biden victory.  One wonders whether, heaven forfend, the 17% projected Biden advantage had been a polling fiction publicized precisely in order to discourage Trump voters from voting at all or to encourage them to switch sides in the contest.

Now compare the U.S. Presidential pre-election polling results from Wisconsin in 2020 to those from Iowa in 2024: The now infamous Des Moines Register pre-election poll by “legendary pollster” J. Ann Selzer purported to find, just days before the 2024 Presidential election, that Kamala Harris was ahead of Donald Trump by three percentage points in Iowa.  Regrettably for Selzer, Iowa went for Trump by thirteen percentage points in 2024.  Whoops, sixteen percentage points’ worth of error!  The day after Election Day, Selzer seemed to be shocked - - shocked! - - that such egregious error could have infiltrated the inner sanctums of scientific polling.  Selzer pledged to comb through her data in order to find the source or sources of this monumental error.  One wonders again whether, heaven forfend, the 16% over-estimate of projected Harris support had been a polling fiction publicized precisely in order to discourage Trump voters - - nationally! - - from voting at all or to encourage them to switch sides.

Without the confusion posed in 2020 by the COVID pandemic, the George-Floyd rioting, and the inadequate voter-ID laws in some states, etc., the 2024 U.S. Presidential election resulted in the Electoral-College victory of Donald Trump over Kamala Harris.  Trump won the national popular vote by 49.9% to 48.3%.  Trump won the popular vote in all seven swing states.  (For a summary of these 2024 results, click here.)  The Electoral College again worked as intended in forcing the candidates to campaign in a broader swath of the country than just in the states of largest population.  Trump stormed to an utterly dominating 312-226 victory over Harris in the Electoral College

In the opinion of Michael Barone, emeritus fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “Mr. Trump’s ability to connect with the voters has ‘shaped and hastened’ two developments that could portend a political realignment,” which is to say, a fundamental change in the so-called rainbow coalition of political factions in the U.S.A.  First, immigrants are drifting toward the Republican Party, demanding border security as much as any other citizen of any background whatsoever.  Second, there is an “unraveling of black political unity.”  One has recently seen extreme dissatisfaction expressed by some black citizens of New York and Chicago regarding the billions of dollars diverted away from the support of those cities’ citizens and funneled towards immigrant groups.  Like any other citizens, those residing in the inner cities expect all levels of government in the U.S. to operate preferentially on the citizens’ behalf.

Alternative Views of Free Will and Rationality

Aristotle noted that every agent, through his actions, aims at some good, which is an end (a.k.a. telos, goal, or purpose).  The chief good, specified without reference to any other good, is the final end, or final cause of that action.  The rational account (logos) of a complex set of actions, agents, ends, goals, and purposes is teleology.  Thus far, Aristotle’s logos of this matter seems to be straightforward; but he also held, more controversially, that nature itself is a cause that acts for a purpose and is analyzable via a natural teleology, or science of final causation in nature.

Aristotle’s immaterial and metaphysically perfect Unmoved Mover is the final cause of the motion of the heavenly spheres, which are physical enough to support the fixed stars (“fixed” because they all move in concert), but mental enough to qualify as cosmic “Intelligences.”  Desiring the perfection of the Unmoved Mover, these Intelligences are motivated to execute the observed, perfectly circular motions of the fixed stars.  Equivalently, one may say that the Intelligences freely choose to love the Unmoved Mover; hence, “Love makes the world go round.” Alternately one may say that the movement of the fixed stars occurs for the sake of the Unmoved Mover, which is the final cause of that celestial movement.

For Aristotle, the Unmoved Mover, as object, serves as the telos for celestial motion.  As subject, the Unmoved Mover thinks about itself through all eternity, which is a tall order, since the Aristotelian universe has no temporal beginning or end.  In contrast, some analysts maintain that Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover thinks about both itself and nature during its epic contemplation.

An aside: Aristotle seems to have held that if there had ever been a state of complete physical non-movement, then the passage of time would have lapsed; the universe would never have escaped the ensuing stasis; and, hence, the universe and its motion have no temporal beginning or end - - Aristotle’s universe is temporally infinite.  A separate Aristotelian analysis revealed, to his satisfaction, that the universe is spatially finite.

Since Aristotle’s cosmos exists from all eternity, there is no requirement for any cause, final or otherwise, to have created it.  Instead, the Aristotelian question is “What is the logical source for observed cosmic motion and order?”  Aristotle’s answer is “The Unmoved Mover, which is the cosmic final cause, is a rational principle existing outside of nature (metaphorically beyond the highest heaven) but yet accounting for motion and order.”  The cosmic Intelligences are both heavenly, rotating crystalline spheres in the natural order, as well as mental processes that are linked to final causes outside of nature, up to and including the Unmoved Mover.  These Intelligences do the explanatory work of bridging the gap between the eternal realm of rational principles, final causes, and free will, on the one hand; and the spatial and temporal world of concrete existences, observed motions, and neurological states, etc., on the other.

While comparing abstract thought to the capacities of matter, Stephen M. Barr notes that Aristotelian thought is something more than the activity of a bodily organ.  The human intellect and will are rational and immaterial (i.e., spiritual) powers.  Presumably, no one would deny that if one particular, carbon-based biological organism or platform for thought (i.e., a human person) were to die, then universal reason would persist in other human persons, if they exist; in other non-carbon-based organisms, if they exist and have minds; and in pure ideas that would ricochet around a depopulated universe, if no finite rational agents were to survive.

In the hyperlink cited above, Barr reviews the book, Determined, by Robert M. Sapolsky, who gives the impression that further developments in the philosophy of thought and action are superfluous.  Indeed, “neuroscience can settle the question of free will on its own.”  Barr reviews the so-called Libet experiments (from the 1980’s) that seem to indicate that a characteristic brain-state (“readiness potential”) arises, presumably deterministically, before a human agent (1) becomes aware of his own decision to move a randomly selected finger and then (2) executes the chosen movement.

In contrast, Barr interprets some more recent Libet research as indicating that the “readiness potential” is not a sign of the brain actually having reached a decision.  These tests on so-called “consequential choices” - - choices that involve a reason to act, rather than randomly elicited finger movement - - found no “readiness potential” preceding the awareness of choosing.  If truly free will is the power to choose the good, then free will pertains to consequential choices based on reasons, rather than random choices based on indifference or spontaneity.  Finally, even when a “readiness potential” exists, it is not a reliable predictor of whether the agent actually executes the chosen response.

In Barr’s view, Sapolsky has two interpretive problems in his analysis of Libet experiments: First, Sapolsky demands that true “free will” not be influenced at all by various physical factors.  But such influences abound in everyday experience: Aquinas, an enthusiastic expositor of Aristotle, writes about “temperaments and dispositions” that interfere with free will.  Indeed, the Bible (Matthew 26:41) identifies cases in which “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” i.e., free will sometimes fails to be executed when the “flesh” (natural, unreflective passion) presents overwhelming temptations.  Second, Sapolsky inverts the burden of proof in his argument: “One need not know exactly how free will works to have rational grounds for thinking one has it, any more than one needs to know exactly how vision works to believe that one is able to see.”  Indeed, Sapolsky has the burden of showing that no other causes are at work if he is to prove that physical causes completely determine one’s thoughts and actions.

Barr continues by conceding that the traditional conception of free will raises deep, as-yet unresolved problems.  Not knowing how free will interacts with physical brain states raises questions but does not of itself present sufficient reason to deny free will.  Indeed, there are profound problems in understanding the existence of consciousness itself and how consciousness fits into the science of physical brain states.  But this also does not of itself present sufficient reason to deny that consciousness exists.

Barr concludes that Sapolsky veers into an unfruitful “eliminative materialism,” which is the theory that whatever neural mechanisms cannot explain is either unreal or not sufficiently well-defined for polite, scientific conversation.

Sapolsky seems to welcome determinism on utilitarian grounds, in that determinism undermines moralizing judgment , thereby reducing the frequency of wrongful punishment.  In contrast, Barr maintains that decisions - - moralizing or not - - can be influenced by reason, indicating the presence of free will.  For example, mathematicians may come to new conclusions via attainment of new insights into old problems.  How could the brain be open to new truths if its operation were “determined”?  Long live “free will”!