Thursday, December 28, 2017

Masters of Suspicion Part II - Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud is also considered one of the Masters of Suspicion.  Freud’s psychoanalytic theory revolutionized psychology in his day, even if it is not so attractive to many now.  Freud’s basic idea was that besides our conscious mind (which is the place philosophy believes it can answer all questions of truth, beauty and goodness), we have an unconscious mind where in fact most of our “reasoning” goes on.  Freud, like Nietzsche, saw our “reasoning” as rationalizations.

Freud saw the unconscious as the place of base urges, sexual urges.  Sexuality is what drives humans to do what they do.  He did many case studies on mentally ill patients, who were suffering from symptoms or disorders like neurosis, which could be explained by finding a primal root.

In one study Freud focused on a young woman named Emma Eckstein (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Eckstein).  Emma seemed generally to be a normal young woman. However, when she went into a shop alone she became abnormally agitated and rushed out.  Through a long series of counseling sessions Freud brought to Emma’s conscious mind an incident which she was repressing (not suppressing - which is conscious; but repressing - unconsciously keeping buried from her conscious mind).  Emma finally recalled consciously that she had been groped by a shop keeper when she was a young girl.  The trauma of the event caused her to repress the memory.  Only through a long series of sessions of psychotherapy was she able to surface the hidden spring of her odd behavior (and supposedly find healing).

Freud developed other theories of behavior based on sexuality.  One of the most famous is the Oedipus Complex.  Oedipus was a character in a play by the ancient Greek playwright Sophocles.  In the story at Oedipus’ birth it is prophesied that he would kill his father and marry his mother.  This was his fate. To prevent this fate, he is sent away and not raised by his parents.  Later, however, he returns and in fact kills his father (of course not knowing that he is his father) and marries his mother (not realizing that she was his mother).  Freud theorized that all boys go through a period of hating their fathers and desiring to “possess” their mothers (not necessarily sexual possession, but having her undivided attention and affection).  Freud also wrote an article about this concept called “Dostoevsky and Parricide”, (https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Freud_Dostoevsky_Parricide.pdf), in which he explained the behavior of the Karamazov brothers by use of his theory.  They were driven by the Oedipus Complex.


While Freud is not so popular in psychology circles these days, his theories and ideas can give us pause before we act.  We need to ask: Just what is driving us?  Are we in fact being rational?  Are our reasons really rational or just rationalizations? When we say that we believe in Christian morals and then are unfaithful to our marital promises and justify ourselves using logic like “She never really loved me.” or “We grew apart.”, are being honest or are we merely justifying our desires? One heir of Freud among Postmodern thinkers was Jacques Lacan.  Lacan aims his sharp arrows at our “inmost parts” questioning our motives, asking whether we even know what they are or even what we want.

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Masters of Suspicion Part I

Masters of Suspicion Part I

When I was studying for my Master of Philosophy at the University of Leuven (Louvain) I was introduced to the term, “Masters of Suspicion.”  The Masters of Suspicion were Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx.  Each one in a different way cast doubt or raised questions about the rationality of the society around them.

First Master of Suspicion - Friedrich Nietzsche


Friedrich Nietzsche eschewed the German Idealistic philosophy of his day.  He hated Georg WF Hegel.  Nietzsche did not believe that the Prussian state was guided by rationality.  Nietzsche believed that the wealthy and weak had devised their philosophy to protect their prerogatives and privileges.  According to Nietzsche Prussia was not the kingdom of God on earth, but rather a place where old men tried to keep their own positions.

Nietzsche felt, for instance, that the Christian religion was used to keep the weaker in charge.  Nietzsche despised the fact that “Old woman’s religion” and “Old woman’s morality” bound the strong to behaving like weak sheep.  Nietzsche believed that the only true motivation was “will to power.”

Will to power means that everyone wants to rule and no one wants to serve.  However, since most people weren’t strong enough to rule or force their will on others, they adopted systems like Christian morality to force the strong to be kind and follow the rules, which would benefit the weak.

Nietzsche believed that it was only the Superman, Übermensch or Blonde Beast (Teutonic males) who should rule.  The powerful should rule by force.  The powerful should make the laws for the weaker.  What the powerful want should be law.

Giving “reasons” was only giving rationalizations for what one wanted.  The Superman should impose his will without giving reasons.  Will was primary for Nietzsche, not “reason”, since will was what drove people.

Nietzsche wrote in a literary, aphoristic style. He would not write systematic philosophy.  For generations he has been either despised as a sideshow to philosophy or seen as a brilliant mind, who overthrew the sham of old German Idealism.

Nietzsche helps us all to examine our motives and ask whether we really are seeking what is morally good and true, or whether we are simply trying to gain the upper hand. 

A Russian Response to Nietzsche - Dostoevsky’s Crime & Punishment and The Idiot


Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote Crime and Punishment to answer Nietzsche. Raskolnikov, the “hero” or anti-hero of the novel, chooses to act as a “Superman” to determine that, in his case, murdering his landlady to steal her money was justifiable, since he was the more evolved person morally and was above the law.  Raskolnikov could not finally maintain this super human status, and finally confessed his crime and repented.

Dostoevsky also wrote another novel called The Idiot in a way again it is a reply to Nietzsche.  There are two male figures, who are among the main characters: Prince Myshkin and Rogozhin.  Myshkin is a physically weak person.  He is an epileptic.  Still he is a kind person, despite being despised due to his “foolishness.” Myshkin has a childlike faith in people and is “naive.”  Rogozhin (which literally translated means “the horned one” [Satan?]) takes what he wants by force.  Rogozhin and Myshkin love the same woman. Rogozhin can’t stand that she won’t choose him.  So, he decides to kill her.  Both men go mad after this act.  There is a difference, though Rogozhin goes mad having murdered someone and loses his mind while raving and cursing.  Myshkin likewise goes mad, but as he does he is holding Rogozhin in his arms, rocking him and comforting him.

It seems a rather bleak story, but Dostoevsky’s point is that: “Yes, Nietzsche is right. We will all return to unconsciousness. We will all die, but we can choose how we die. We can choose to “go down” raving and cursing or blessing and comforting.”  Dostoevsky is not directly answering Nietzsche, but he is facing us with an extreme dilemma: Would we rather embrace Nietzsche’s will to power and achieve what we want (if we could) at whatever price it costs or is the “old woman’s morality” so bad, even if it is “unworldly?”

However, Nietzsche as a Master of Suspicion can still goad us to examine our motives.  We say that we are Christians, but are we really rather using anything at our disposal to get what we want?  Are we really behaving as true believers or are we really acting as anyone else in the world?

A Postmodern thinker influenced by Nietzsche was Michel Foucault.  Foucault wrote a seven volume history of sex.  He was gay.  One of his basic insights is that the powerful criminalize those behaviors they dislike.  The reason for laws is not some basic moral code, but fear of the other, the different, and a desire to remain in power.  Whatever we think of Nietzsche or Foucault, we need to ask: Just what are our motives?  Are we driven by love and truth or are we driven by a desire to remain in control?  For Foucault it is all about power plays, not about rationality.

Monday, October 16, 2017

The Pleasure Principle

I know I "cheat" by invoking Freud when I have no intention of speaking of him, but I do generally invoke the idea that pleasure is a sure guide to right behavior (or equally that the avoidance of pain is a sure guide to right behavior).

Such a view is strictly speaking called hedonism.  It comes from the Greek word, hedone, which is the word for pleasure.

If we could show that life resulted without God (that is without a ground beyond ourselves which establishes morals), hedonism might be a reasonable view. But, it fails for several reasons.  

First, how did we get here?  One astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, said that Evolution was the most unbelievable miracle of all time.  He saw that the mathematical odds for evolution were incredible, even for an astrophysicist like himself.  He did, not, though reject evolution, but he moved from theism (there is an omnipotent Creator God) to panentheism (there is a spirit or designer within the world directing its evolution or progress).  This is usually a Hindu view, but is also present throughout the whole of western philosophy.

Panentheism has a fatal flaw: "God" has no guarantee of "winning" or achieving his or her outcomes.  "God" must work with matter, and humans and other creatures to try to achieve his or her goals.  Such a god is not worthy of worship.  Such a god also carries out his or her project at our expense.  He or she gains from our efforts, but we pass back into unconsciousness.

Some now are willing to postulate that aliens "seeded" life on earth (for instance, as in the film, Jupiter Ascending).  This is no better.  Where did the aliens come from?  How did they come to exist?  If they are created, then they had a creator.  This is an example of an ad infinitum argument.  There cannot be an endless regression of causes.  At some point there has to be an uncaused cause (a theistic God).

I suggest again Geisler on panentheism.  The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics might be easier than his explanation in Christian Apologetics.

The issue of hedonism is also self-destructive.  First, it's difficult to define "pleasure".  Do you mean unbridled pleasure?  Surely this can't be true, because after your first several undergraduate drinking sprees, you learn that drunkenness is not pleasant, at least the hangover isn't.  It's also in the long run self destructive.  So, you moderate your behavior.  If you moderate your behavior, you admit that there is a rule beyond mere pleasure, and it must be a rational one.  No one can be a pure hedonist seeking immediate gratification.

There is also a problem of what is pleasure.  For some torturing others is pleasant.  If you're into sadism or masochism, that might sound good, but what if you are not and you are being tortured?  (The Marquis de Sade is the person from whom we get the term sadism.)

Also there are arguments that it might be preferable to suffer pain and even death for some higher cause.  Any country which institutes conscription into the army in time of war uses such an argument.  The greater good requires some individuals sacrifice themselves for the preservation of the greatest number.

It seems easy to define pleasure, but it is not so easy.  If we want firm definitions, we must have a rule or a standard, upon which to base our definition or judgment.  For Christians that standard is what God, the Creator says, and who He is in Himself.

For instance, God says that monogamy is his intent.  We can ignore it to pursue "pleasure" (whether heterosexual - adultery or sex outside of marriage - used to be called fornication - or homosexual).  However, sexually transmitted diseases show that we suffer consequences when we ignore the rules God gives.

Even if we use a naturalistic explanation, defining pleasure is not easy.  Some pleasures are immediate: taking LSD gives a person a "high", but it has long term detrimental effects (at least, addiction, if not overdose).  Some pleasures might not have immediate negative consequences, but they have long term ones.  Nicotine has been called "the perfect drug".  It lifts you up when you're down, and calms you down when you're anxious.  The problem is that long term smoking leads to emphysema or lung cancer.

So we're back to the same problem: What is pleasure? and Should it be governed or controlled?  It must be controlled, then pleasure is not the final arbiter of behavior, but rather reason.  Whether arguments from reason or physical explanations are given, there must be a rule or ground of reason and a design in creation, which wanton indulgence in pleasure breaks, resulting in consequences.

For further interaction with hedonism, one could see Carl FH Henry, Christian Ethics, for an explanation of how hedonism is self-defeating.  The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics also has an article about hedonism.


Does God exist?

When one says that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, there are two possible explanations.

Archangel Michael points at empty shroud


First, it could be that one doesn't trust the biblical record.  I have discussed this at length in a previous blog.

A second reason might be that we do not believe in a God, who can do miracles, that is a theistic God, or in the concept of super-naturalism, that is that a God can do miracles or miracles occur.

For a discussion of theism and supernaturalism, I suggest Norman Geisler's Christian Apologetics.  It's a hard, philosophical read, but it's got the "goods".  Otherwise, one might try New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell or Geisler's Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.

I will summarize the argument of Geisler's Christian Apologetics. Geisler's Christian Apologetics has three parts. First, he shows that the only trustworthy form of epistemology, theory of knowledge, is rational empiricism - there is a world and we can know it. Then he shows that theism (that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God exists) is of all world views the only possible rational option. He uses the cosmological argument: Something doesn't come from nowhere. Therefore, there has to be a final source, or an uncaused cause (theistic God). He shows then that if we believe in such a God, then miracles are believable, rational.  Finally, he examines the evidence for the NT, and from it he derives evidence for Jesus' life and miracles, as well as his resurrection.

There is plenty of evidence for the credibility of NT documents.  The issue is really first a question of believing in a theistic God (almighty Creator God).

There are several ways to approach showing that a theistic God exists.  The first is a cosmological argument, which I've mentioned above.  

Another way is the teleological argument: There is design in nature. Design points to a Designer.  Creation shows designed. Therefore a Creator / Designer exists.  This designer must be more than a simple "demiurge", a higher being.  The designer must be an uncaused cause, to use Geisler's term, that is a being which is the cause of all else and is itself without a cause or origin.

Another way is the moral argument:  All peoples have a law.  A law must have a law giver and a guarantor of the law, that it will be justly executed.  All laws must have a ground or rule by which they are judged just.  This law must be unassailable and eternal.  The give rof such a law must also be absolutely just and eternal.  Since, justice is never completely served in this life.  There must, therefore, be an afterlife, in which justice is served.  Only an omnipotent, good God can be both the final lawgiver and guarantor of justice. (This is Immanuel Kant's version of the deontological argument, moral argument).

Another argument in favor of a Trinitarian God comes from Francis Schaeffer.  Atheists say that God cannot exist, because if he created us to meet a need in himself for fellowship or love, he would not be a self-sufficient entity.  Therefore, there is no God.  However, Scripture tells us that God is a Trinity of three persons.  God never needed fellowship or love.  He was and is love from all eternity, and has always had fellowship within himself.  Since God has fellowship and love within himself, he could create us freely for ourselves, and not to meet a need in himself.  Therefore, the God of the Bible exists and is our creator.

It is preferable to call these arguments "ways" as Thomas Aquinas did.  We do not call them "ways" because the require blind belief, but because no amount or argument can overturn a decision of the will to disbelieve.  No rational arguments can dissuade someone who will not consider them.

One simple example which is not religious would be smoking cigarettes.  Scientific evidence is unequivocal and unassailable showing that smoking leads to lung cancer. Yet, many people continue to smoke.  Aside from nicotine being addictive, there is an issue of will.  If a person will not act upon sure knowledge, then that person is not saying, "The evidence is false", but rather I choose to ignore the evidence.

Arguments for God's existence are persuasive to many people.  Others are not persuaded.  Whether the evidence is sufficient may say more about the hearer than the argument.


Did Jesus really exist?

Whether Jesus existed depends on several types of evidence: Christian or biblical record, secular record and/ or archeological evidence.



First, there is plenty of proof that parts of the New Testament at least were written no longer than 25 to 30 years after the events (some of Paul's epistles and probably Mark's Gospel) and no longer than 100 years after the events (John's Gospel, though this is hotly debated).  The mss of the NT is 95% to 99% sure in terms of faithful copying and early dating.

For further information one can go to this link and read the article there.  


The article is short, but the main point is that there is more evidence that the New Testament was written or copied earlier and in more copies than for many other ancient books than, for example, Plato's works. Thus, we know that the NT we have is more sure as an ancient book than we are that Plato wrote his dialogues.

Liberal scholars have applied an approach, which involves an evolutionary growth in the "myth" of Jesus, e.g. Rudolph Bultmann.  Miracles are explained away.  Most of these scholars are no longer credible.

Here's an article in the Guardian (a liberal English newspaper) affirming that Jesus lived and died. 


Here is a longer article giving good nonChristian evidence for Jesus' existence.


If one wants further evidence for the reliability of the New Testament, I suggest FF Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable?  It's an older book, but it's still got the evidence.

You can also try New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.  It's a compilation of many sources.

The issue is: "Can we trust the New Testament to give us true evidence for Jesus' existence, words and life, and resurrection?" or "Is the NT only a Christian document which is full of myths?"

The main issue is whether we believe miracles (like a resurrection) can occur.  If we do not, then the NT must be full of myths.

Rudolph Bultmann many years ago set out to "demythologize" the New Testament.  He wasn't the first. Thomas Jefferson cut out all the miracles from his paper Bible to have a "pure", rational Bible.


The issue is whether we believe in a God who can do miracles (theistic super-naturalism) or whether we do not.  There are several good reasons or arguments which can be given for the belief that God exists.  I will give them in another blog.