From the hit show Friends: an Empiricist/Rationalist VS. Postmodern/New Ager

Before you read: copy and paste the link below to your browser and watch (great clip, pretty funny!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfcs3BBrRbU&feature=related

Who won the debate? It seems as if Ross gave up, and yet we are left feeling as if this issue is unresolved. Didn't Phoebe win; after all Ross was left with nothing to say. Didn't Ross present impenetrable evidence for his position? Let's take a closer look.
Ross represents the Empiricist and the Rationalist. What are these two positions exactly? I'm glad you asked.
Empiricism: Any view which bases our knowledge, or the materials from which it is constructed (such as gray matter, eyes, ears and the corresponding outside world being perceived)on experience through the traditional five senses(The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, pg.226).
Ross is also assuming Rationalism.
Rationalism: Stresses reason as the means of determining truth.
In some ways Rationalism is in conflict with Empiricism if Empiricism is taken in the classical sense in which the mind is a blank slate or a tabula rasa in which the world foists data onto the mind and determines what is believed. A strict Rationalist will give the mind authority over the senses or what is known as
"a priori" or rationality before what is sensed. Why is Ross both? Well, Ross has a synthesis that is assumed in his argumentation but it is interesting to note that Ross gives up the debate when Phoebe appeals to a possible flaw in Ross's Empiricism (not to mention the liberal producers of the show would probably not let a male win the debate over a female, although I question whether Ross is really a male throughout the course of the show). If all the data points to Ross's conclusion how could he possibly be wrong? Because the data does not necessarily affirm his Rationalism. Possibly his biggest flaw is not choosing one over the other, but the producers of the show are lay persons when it comes to philosophy so its not necessary to speculate too much on this. We will chew on this a bit later when I dissect the dialogue.
Phoebe represents the Postmodern New Ager.
Postmodernism: This is a view that is suspicious of any metanarratives or systemic worldviews. It emphasizes the inadequacy of the human mind to achieve true knowledge. It sees any truth claims or positions about the definition of the universe as culturally relative and nominal and suspects that the propagation of "reason" or "truth" or "science" is in fact a facade to suppress others for the cause of domination.
New Age Movement: For the most part this view emphasizes the influx of Eastern philosophy (Pantheism, Buddhism, Panentheism, etc.) into the Western Mind set. While it is not readily apparent from the dialogue or clip, Phoebe is well known for embracing a litany of eastern modes and tropes which fit very neatly into her Postmodern schematic. Why does it coalesce so well? Because much of Eastern thought rejects "Western Rationality".
Ahhh, don't you miss the 90's?!


PHOEBE: I'm sorry, but sometimes they need help. That's fine. Go ahead and scoff. You know, there're a lot of things that I don't believe in, but that doesn't mean they're not true.
JOEY: Such as?
PHOEBE: Like crop circles, or the Bermuda triangle, or evolution?
{Notice evolution is lobbed in with two well known conspiracy theories. I believe this is done for dramatic effect to contrast Ross's position more effectively.}
ROSS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, you don't, uh, you don't believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: Nah. Not really.
ROSS: You don't believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: I don't know, it's just, you know...monkeys, Darwin, you know, it's a, it's a nice story, I just think it's a little too easy.
{A nice story or metanarrative or worldview and because it is no more than this it is debatable according to Phoebe's postmodernism.}
ROSS: Too easy? Too...The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single-celled organisms, too easy?
{Not so much easy as it is too explanatory, while I believe that Ross's position is the wrong explanation Ross clearly is struggling with the notion that one would have the gall to disagree at all. For Phoebe, evolution is too easy because it claims to explain things which Postmodernists reject as culturally relative. Any explanation is too easy because this complex world is too much for puny human minds.}
PHOEBE: Yeah, I just don't buy it.
ROSS: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.
{I imagine even most full blown Darwin wanna be scientists like Richard Dawkins even scoffed at this one. For the lay person this argument may hold some water but for anyone studied on the issue it is no more than rhetorical posturing. First, what makes it scientific fact according to Ross? Water, gravity = empirical data = Empiricism. There is a logical fallacy here and that is the Law of the Excluded Middle. In no way is evolution similar to gravity or oxygen, these can be tested and observed (at least by proxy through effects). This may sound like splitting hairs, but I assure you not recognizing the difference is a critical error. Ross's argument is essentially: Gravity is affirmed by science and evolution is affirmed by science so it must be scientific fact. This is preposterous, in no way has evolution ever been confirmed in any remote sense the same way gravity has. This fallacy is similar to saying, Chickens have legs I have legs therefor I am a chicken. Additionally, I am giving Ross the benefit of the doubt to say that evolution is confirmed by science, it may be confirmed by scientists, but that is a whole other animal. Scientists are fallible humans with fallible agendas. There is a lot more that could be argued here but I must move on, suffice it to say evolution is a contested theory and nothing more and for you the reader if this is not enough please post a response or rebuttal and I will deal with individual issues at that time.}
PHOEBE: Ok, don't get me started on gravity.
ROSS: You uh, you don't believe in gravity?
PHOEBE: Well, it's not so much that you know, like I don't believe in it, you know, it's just...I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.
LATER...
ROSS: How can you not believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: Just don't. Look at this funky shirt!
ROSS: Pheebs, I have studied evolution my entire adult life. Ok, I can tell you, we have collected fossils from all over the world that actually show the evolution of different species, ok? You can literally see them evolving through time.
PHOEBE: Really? You can actually see it?
ROSS: You bet. In the U.S., China, Africa, all over.
PHOEBE: See, I didn't know that.
ROSS: Well, there you go.
{This is one of the most important axioms in the evolutionist's argument and yet their weakest and most glossed over. A reminder: Ross introduces more empirical data, but I use the term loosely because there is not full disclosure in Ross's argument. Much of the confusion in evolution is found in the difference in micro and macro evolution. I, nor should any Christian, doubt micro evolution. We have all seen variations within species. In fact, one apologetic for Noah's Arc is that he took two of each "kind" (not species, which is an important distinction) and micro evolution worked from there. But when evidence for the micro is used to try to affirm the macro one should pause. Is Ross doing that? No. However, the fossils Ross is speaking of hardly qualify as a fossil record. It is more like fossil conjecture. Further study into this will show that transitional fossils are practically non-existent. The ones that have been "found" are little more that a few parts and a lot of drawings and imagination. (Google "transitional fossil" and try to find more than a catalogue of skulls, single itemized bones and tons of drawings. Then type "dinosaur fossils" and look at the robust evidence of these pre-human fossils. The "fossil record" of Ross's begins to look pretty weak.)Some scientists have noticed this problem and realized they are being called on their "Ross" argument so they hypothesize Punctuated Equilibrium (long waiting periods, then a boom of evolutionary growth) or other hypotheses to make certain that evolution is "scientific fact" at all costs. These efforts have been noted by William Dempsky as shooting an arrow then drawing the target around it after it hits the wall: a bulls eye every time.}
PHOEBE: Huh. So now, the real question is, who put those fossils there, and why?
LATER...
ROSS: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?
PHOEBE: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.
ROSS: Please tell me you're joking.
PHOEBE: Look, can't we just say that you believe in something, and I don't.
{Why does Ross have to be such an oppressor? More of Phoebe's Postmodernity.}
ROSS: No, no, Pheebs, we can't, ok, because its like math, one plus one equals two. I can't stand by and let you think one plus one might equal three or four or yellow.
{Here is Ross's Rationalism. Notice now that Ross has conveniently made Evolution equal to logic and mathematics. Do I really need to expand on this to demonstrate how clearly false this argument is? All I will say is that math and logic are unchanging or static. What would Ross say produces these unchangeable facts? He would say the human brain, but how are they unchanging reliable truths if they are originated in a changing, dynamic brain? The cause must be greater than the effect and if the genesis for the laws of logic were produced by something that is in constant flux they too would be in constant flux. Ross's argument is self refuting (so is any other evolutionary argument)he is essentially saying that the ever changing evolution is an unchanging reality and yet all logic is within the changing human brain and yet retains its unchanging nature, very dogmatic and contradictory. Even Carl Sagan when he wrote Contact admits that math would be a universal language, and so would logic.}
PHOEBE: What is this obsessive need you have to make everyone agree with you? No, what's that all about? I think, I think maybe it's time you put Ross under the microscope.
{Again, why does Ross have to be such an oppressor? Yet more of Phoebe's Postmodernity.}
ROSS: Is there blood coming out of my ears?
LATER...
PHOEBE: Uh-oh. It's Scary Scientist Man.
ROSS: Ok, Phoebe, this is it. In this briefcase I carry actual scientific facts. A briefcase of facts, if you will. Some of these fossils are over 200 million years old.
PHOEBE: Ok, look, before you even start, I'm not denying evolution, ok, I'm just saying that it's one of the possibilities.
{There are many metanarratives why should one be greater by being true?}
ROSS: It's the only possibility, Phoebe.
PHOEBE: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?
{Scientists have made mistakes so they can't be trusted according to Phoebe. There is still progress yet to be made so science can not be trusted according to Phoebe. Lastly, Ross is morally flawed (arrogant) for believing his views to be true. Postmodernism}
ROSS: There might be, a teeny, tiny, possibility.
PHOEBE: I can't believe you caved.
ROSS: What?
PHOEBE: You just abandoned your whole belief system. I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. How, how, how are you going to go into work tomorrow? How, how are you going to face the other science guys? How, how are you going to face yourself? Oh! That was fun. So who's hungry?
{Ross loses due to the rhetorical leverage gained by Phoebe's attack on Ross's epistemology, which states that there are no doubts when there is overwhelming empirical data. Ross's rationalism failed for it could not be supported by the assumptions of Empiricism. Once Ross conceded doubt he did so on the grounds that the empirical data alone would not suffice and because he grouped the rationality of logic as part of evolution his Rationalism failed as well. Winner: Phoebe, who is actually a loser as well because she assumes that her position (that all views should be treated as equally plausible) is true and because no position can claim to be true then this would include her own making it false. So the real winner is: you if you do not embrace either of these false views, congratulations! You win a copy of 1984!}

God, Time, and Eternity X, Part 1

Well, now things really heat up as we explore the opposition to timeless eternity or what we will be calling the Temporalist's position. I am fascinated to know what their ideas are as I hope that you are as well so let's dive in.

TIMELESSNESS AND GOD AS A PERSON
What does it mean to be a person? Are there not some things that must be inherent in an individual in order to qualify one as a person? Certainly we would say that God is a person wouldn't we? If God is a person what are some of the important qualities required to possess personhood?
Feinberg quotes Richard Coburn whom I will paraphrase:
In order to be a person one should be able to do the following: remember, anticipate, reflect, deliberate, decide, intend, and act intentionally (if your thinking what I'm thinking this list in reference to God should be bothering you right about now. In reference to humans I am a bit uncomfortable with this list as well, there have been babies aborted whom would not possess some of these traits, are they not persons? Don't count him out yet, but this is not a good beginning and seems to reek of a bit of existentialism). If an eternal being lacked these qualities he could not be a person, if he did possess these qualities he must be in time.
Furthermore, a timeless being could not respond in writing or speech or stimuli. The being would be frozen or static as he would have no before or after. Some disagree with the notion that a timeless being is incapable of doing ALL of these things. How so? Let us say that God (given atemporal assumptions)intends to do something or has a purpose. Now, suppose you or I intend to go shopping this would be that we wish to go shopping (not necessarily that we intend in that we are making plans to go but incline to go shopping, or that we have the desire to go). To say that God intends all to be saved means he wishes all to be saved. One can be timeless and have such a wish. Another way in which the word intend can be used is to say one intends to accomplish something by doing something. One does not have to be temporal in this sense either. To do something in the belief that there will be some consequence, one would not have done said activity if one did not believe that certain results would be achieved. Although the activity to produce the results must be in time the agent causing the activity does not. This only holds water if a timeless being can act on the timeless at all (interesting!). All of this assumes that the timeless agent knows what time is in a world wrought with time and the Temporalist believes that this will be very difficult for the Atemporalist to maintain. Many Atemporalist say that this is all a moot point because God acts out of a perfect timeless state and makes events occur within time with precision, Feinberg seems to doubt that this will turn out to make sense though.

The next part of the argument will look at hog God interacts with time outside of time and how he responds to time laden events outside of time, should be interesting.

Brain Teaser

Thomas Reid

The ideal system of David Hume is mainly under attack by Reid’s philosophy. He is replacing the concepts of the ideal system with principles of common sense. For Reid the mind works with inherent principles of conception and belief which is almost opposite of Hume’s concept. According to Reid the mind is fashioned to automatically believe when spurred on by sensations prompted by the external world. For example, smelling something causes belief that there is something to be smelled. The belief is not anecdotal or rational but is actually caused by the smell its self.

Sensations cannot be synonymous with external objects, therefore there is an epistemic chain from the object to belief through the median of sensation. The sensation cannot be confused with the object itself for they are not the same thing. This bifurcation allows one to have confidence in the existence of the external world, according to Reid. Intuition (I think the assumption of the law of identity) makes it plain to us that objects and senses are different, so this answers Hume who would say that sensations are merely representations or imprints.

John Frame

For Frame knowledge is tethered to the Lordship of God. This lordship makes God known and known to all. Those who would embrace agnosticism are self deceived and in some cases are proactively deceiving others. God is a Lord that works through covenants and his “covenantal presence” is found in all God has created. Frame concludes that this makes his presence epistemologically inescapable. All things are under God’s control, knowledge is a recognition of divine norms for truth which in turn is a recognition of God’s authority. Due to these conclusions Frame implies a question; if we know anything do we not also know God? For the believer this implies a knowledge of wrath as well as general knowledge of God.

-Are these positions compatible or opposed?

-Can there be a synthesis formed between the two?

-Is Reid's position less dogmatic than Frame's?

-How do these systems compare to your own understanding of knowledge?

God, Time, and Eternity IX

Analogy of God as Spaceless
We have touched on God and analogy several times in Sunday School and I think that we are all pretty familiar with analogies so I don't think I need to go over this too much, but if this portion becomes confusing (which I can't imagine happening :) please post a question concerning analogies. God's relationship to space has often been considered by theologians analogously and so has God's relationship to time. Now, Feinberg considers some examinations on the subject from Schleiermacher who explains that God has a lack of spacial extension or he does not fill space with height, weight and so forth. A corollary position must then be considered; God has no contrasts within space. He is not above or below an object at a particular measurement. In the same vein as his relationship to space so also is his relationship to time, both temporal extension and temporal location. To be more clear, he lacks extension in time and location in time. The assumption of this proposition is that time and space are related in a similar manner so much so that what is true for the spacial proposition is true for the temporal proposition. Feinberg only offers a summery of a bigger argument. Essentially if God is proven to be timeless then he is spaceless, however those who oppose Atemporalism are attempting to prove that God is in time and therefore in space which is against traditional Christian doctrine.

This is an intriguing argument and I am disappointed that Feinberg didn't cover it in more detail. I will leave it up to you to determine the strength or weakness of this position. In my personal opinion it seems a bit flimsy. It may even come a bit close to violating the excluded middle which says that because two things are similar it does not follow that they are the same. I think that time and space are very closely linked (although I have friends who are persuading me to rethink this position) but for this argument to be effective it needs more assurance in this regard.

Temporal God Leads to Process Theism
This argument is used to demonstrate the consequences of adopting an alternative position. If God is temporal then he may not be immutable and if he is not immutable than he may not be impassible. He could experience reactionary emotions and suffer just like any human. If God is in time then he can not know all of time at once. One could say that God knows the future while in time, but this would be a strict determinism (I think Feinberg is a determinist of some kind and it should be interesting seeing how he deals with this because he does favor the atemporal position). Because Indeterminists hold to their position so strongly it has led some to deny that God has any foreknowledge at all. If the stakes are this high should not one be careful about adopting a position that would lead to heresy? Due to the fact that the other attributes of God are so clearly stated in scripture then this argument carries a lot of weight.

Next time we will begin Feinberg's session on arguments against timeless eternity. Some of these arguments are very long and may take several sessions just to cover one so your feedback could be helpful. I don't mind the arguments being difficult and wading through them but I don't want you to have to wade through formatting issues so keep me informed as to how I can help.