response to the Passion (I might have rivaled BJ in length here)

Becky has allowed me to post on this thread because I am quite interested in the discussion and am eager to take part. I don't attend the Denver Seminary, nor do I have the training that any of you have, but I think I can contribute. Thanks for your indulgence folks, please ignore me if you wish.

Becky and I saw the Passion of the Christ on Wednesday with the Regis crowd. I had, perhaps unwisely, read Dr. Groothuis's letter on the subject and David Denby's New Yorker review (http://newyorker.com/critics/cinema/?040301crci_cinema) before seeing the film. I also went in having little respect for Mel Gibson's work as a filmmaker.

I want to reflect on the following issues in response to both BJ and Dr. Groothuis: Gibson's use of the image in its relation to the word and the role the audience plays in understanding the work.

My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image. In that way, the film seems to attempt to function as an icon painting or a grisly medieval altarpiece. He fails to consider his literate audience and the age in which we live. Icon paintings and the images of suffering that adorned church walls had the aim of cautioning and educating the parishioners who were largely illiterate and who were just coming to acquire written language, thanks to good ole Gutenberg. Gibson's audience has the benefit of widespread literacy and unprecedented access to scripture, and the responsibility to read and understand the word. Gibson allows the "masses" (who I assume he considers lazy) to skate by with reading the image _he_ constructs on-screen.

After making this assumption, he constructs his film using the same methods and techniques as every other latest blockbuster. He ignores the lessons of filmmakers before him in favor of the flavor of today's popular cinema. His compositions and pacing (not to mention music) are derivative of the latest action films. His use of slow-motion and stop frames, borrowing (or stealing) at best from Hong Kong actions films (which are greater testaments to modern catholicism for everyman - John Woo for example) at worst from American films that are derivative of that genre. He references his own films in the most pious manner - Lethal Weapon in the initial chaining of Jesus, the shoulder dislocation scene and the showering/baptism of the guard, and Braveheart in countless images of torture. In the ascension he borrows from the Matrix by whip-panning in motion-control, and then mimics David Fincher by panning through walls and the earth. He copies countless horror films in his depictions of Satan (which by the way border on interesting until he indulges in cheap, thrilling scare tactics, which he employs inconsistently and for shock value.)

While I won't argue that the violence is gratuitous, it seems to play into a game of one-upmanship. The audience was consistently reeling with every new torture and every painful moment. What is next I wonder, or is this the worst of it? (I, for one, was numb by the mid-point of the scourging, so everything thereafter became kind of drab.)

Gibson engages in the worst elements of popular culture for the greatest of goals. Is this appropriate or responsible? In what ways is the evangelical spirit responsible to move beyond the bounds of the aesthetics of the day (or year or decade)? (By the way, _I_ complain about violence in historically based movies, Saving Private Ryan for instance.)

In the style of his film Gibson has constructed an enormously effective device for reaching a culture and audience that can seemingly only respond to an image, and he has created a "visualization" of a universal and transcendent story in a particular and material (and base) manner that conforms to the trends of the day. This is not a film of ideas, it is a series of tableaux meant to appeal to an audience that cannot read or understand, one that can only see.

In understanding this film beyond its filmic elements I am most moved by accounts of insight and as BJ puts it, "a deep and profound spiritual experience with my Lord." These accounts cannot be contested. Was it the suffering, the blood and gore that moved you or your fore-knowledge of what was going on? What made you open to be moved? I found myself most moved by the human interactions that occurred between the violence, in flashback (which seemed rendered with the opposite and equally hyperbolic effect in the bucolic carpenting scene, the Last Supper, the Sermon on the Mount, and even the Resurrection.) I believe that any redeeming qualities of this film happen in the viewer, not as a result of the film itself but as a result of their previously held notions of these events or as a result of subsequent interactions with knowledgeable friends or the word. That one is moved to worship or praise must be the result of the individual, the audience member and their community. Is it consumed at face value or is it reflected upon and does it bring people to the word of God or does it compel us only as far as the image of Mel?

"The best statement I've heard yet came from a young boy who saw the film with his dad (which, by the way, I am against. Let's keep the kids home on this one). The boy is 12 years old. After the film his dad asked him what he thought about it. He pondered for a moment and then said, "This is the kind of film nobody should see and everybody should see." The kid is right on." - I wonder what happened with this boy? Maybe he is right on, but what did he _think_ about it? Was there a discourse or did it end at a thumbs up?

Some final questions:
Does anyone know if any work has been done in Christian aesthetics? I am concerned about the difference between saying something is a "good" work of art and "I was moved by it" in Christian thought. Are these statements the same?


Films that deal with ideas of suffering and redemption and that would spark some fascinating discussions:
Kieslowski - "The Decalogue" and "Three Colours"
Tarkovsky - anything, but in particular "Stalker," "Solaris," "The Sacrifice" and "Andrei Rublev"
Brakhage - "Panels for the Walls of Heaven" and many more
Ming-Liang - "What Time is it There"
Van Sant - "Gerry"
Teshigahara - "The Woman in the Dunes"
Noe - "I Stand Alone" and "Irreversible"*
Dreyer - "The Passion of Joan of Arc"
Von Trier - "Dancer in the Dark" and "Breaking the Waves"*
...there are lots more that I am too swamped to know about

and if any one is interested in some films that constitute interesting critiques of violence in movies:Tarantino - Kill Bill
Miike - "Ichi the Killer" and Dead or Alive trilogy*
Noe - same as above*
Haneke - various*
...there are lots more that I am too swamped to know about

* Not for the faint of heart, as there are accounts of people seizing during screenings of these films

A couple more pro-Passion comments

As I've been discussing this with several of you, here are a couple more arguments in defense of the film:

1) No one can claim that this violence is gratituous. It is not. This violence is historical and it is, as we know and believe, incredibly purposeful.

2) No one complaines about other films that show horrific violence of a real historical event as being too violent (well at least not very often), because people generally believe that since it was a historical event we should take an account of it. The perfect example would be films on the holocaust. I recently watched "The Pianist". A tremendously good film. Yet, it was horrifically violent as it portrayed awful scenes of death carried out by the Nazi's. But I have never heard anyone come out against the violence in the film. It is understood that the violence is actually what happened, and, although horrible, it seems like in some way we "need" to see it.

3) The best statement I've heard yet came from a young boy who saw the film with his dad (which, by the way, I am against. Let's keep the kids home on this one). The boy is 12 years old. After the film his dad asked him what he thought about it. He pondered for a moment and then said, "This is the kind of film nobody should see and everybody should see." The kid is right on.

Debate on The Passion (still a very long post... sorry)

Ok friends, at first I posted a very long post that had Dr. G's and I'd email debate back and forth over this issue. After talking to Dr. G I decided to change it to this post. Instead of posting every email I will simply sumarize his points and my counter points (just remember these all took place over a "conversation" of several emails). Finally, I will end with my final (and longest) email that I sent yesterday after seeing the film.

This will STILL be a very long post (my apologies).

First, Dr. G and Rebecca wrote this letter to the editor of Christianity Today which most of us have seen:

"Re: “The Passion of the Christ”
Dear Editor:
There is no need to depict graphically the suffering of the Suffering Servant. We know from Scripture that he suffered. We know it was terrible. The inspired Gospel writers describe these events in careful, factual detail, but they stop short of the sensational. Jesus did not die for the sake of spectacle, box office revenues, or the feeding frenzy of a society hooked on cinematic violence.
Why would anyone who loves Christ want to see image after gruesome image of his torture? Would we want to witness the torture of a loved one, however noble the suffering may have been? Reviewers have said the movie’s violence is “ferocious” and that it will test the audience’s emotional stamina. But the test God requires of us involves recoiling from the sin that put Jesus on the cross, not enduring sustained, explicit, and horrifying images of his suffering.
But perhaps the gory and gratuitous display is what is required to grip the desensitized souls of people today. If so, one hardly knows whether to be glad or sad for it.
Sincerely,
Douglas Groothuis
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis"

That started our debate because I disagreed with them. I agreed with them that our society is obsessed and overrun with wonton and gratuitous violence. However, I argued that in this one (and only this one) case I feel that the graphic violence depicted in film is warranted. Yes, our society may be desensitized to such violence, or, perhaps, they are so desensitized that something like this is needed to wake them from their slumber. And that is sad. Yet, at this point, I recognize this concerning the film: it is an accurate representation of what our Lord did on behalf of this fallen world because he so loved it. Millions upon millions in America have utterly no understanding of this and think of Jesus only as a particularly flavorful curse word. This film, if the Church is behind it and follows up on the wake it will make, has the opportunity to force people into some level of thinking on the person of Christ. Dr. G, you and I are both thinkers. It is what we do -- our minds are constantly at work. But, believe it or not, I've discovered that most people today simply do not think very long or hard or deeply about much anything, much less God and his incredible love for them. If this films forces them to think, for many for the first time, seriously about the blood that was spilt by the perfect and holy God incarnate in human flesh -- then I say Amen.
Yes, we love Jesus. You are correct -- who would want to watch a film about the torture that their loved one endured? But you have to admit this: the suffering of our Lord is quite different from any other suffering that has ever taken place in all of history (or ever will). Yes he is our dearly loved one, but he is also the perfect Lord. His suffering is very different than if we were watching a movie on the suffering of, say, Jed McFatter (someone we both care about). His Passion (in the original meaning of the word) is horrific and yet, in a divine, unique, and ultimate way, shockingly beautiful. It is beautiful because of what we know his death accomplished. So much of Christian theology can be wrapped up in his suffering: the fall of humanity, the sin of the world, the separation from God, His desire for reconciliation, His work to accomplish it, His unsurpassable love for us, His substitutionary death on our behalf. I could go on and on. Paul tells us very plainly to preach Christ and Him Crucified. The crucifixion of our Lord, of THE Lord, is a terrible and disgusting and shocking and disturbing thing. That is simply what it is -- and whatever it is, is what people need to see. Whatever it is, is what we need to proclaim. People are going to Hell everyday in this broken world and the breaking of Christ is their only hope.

I then told Dr. G that I am planning on seeing the film on Ash Wednesday and after I see it, most likely I will then try to take several friends who do not believe in Christ to see it with me.

In the conversation that followed this initial starting point, Dr. G made several strong points: 1) He questioned the use of not just the Gospel’s but the Catholic mystic’s visions of Christ as the content source for the film. 2) He questioned some of the speculation that was taken in the film concerning some of the things that are stated very plainly in the Gospels (specifically the Roman soldiers being depicted as sadistic and some particulars like Jesus’ eye being swollen shut. 3) He went on to point out that several reviewers say that only the violence and gore come through in the film, not the message of Christ. Specifically a scholar Rabbi in the Rocky Mountain News made this point. 4) He pointed to the fact that images are very limited in what they can convey properly and accurately – and if this is just images of Christ’s death, the meaning – the propositions – contained in the events will be missed

I responded to those charges, I think, adequately. 1) I was basically under the impression that relatively little was taken from the Catholic mystic. Now that I have seen the film I can affirm that. I read the passion accounts in all 4 gospels before seeing the film and the vast majority of the content is straight from those. 2) If we can get past the mystic, I argue that some speculation is needed if we are to tell a story at all. Guessing what a human body will look like (swollen eye) or the character traits exhibited by certain people in the story (soilders) I did not feel was outlandish historical speculation. Here’s the content of that argument from me: Forget the Catholic mystic for a minute: aren't the speculations taken the most likely ones? I mean, yes we don't know that the Romans were particularly mean or sadistic: but we know that they spit in his face, mocked him, hit him, kicked him, beat him, scourged him, yelled at him to prophesy, etc. Do you think they did this in a "nice" way? I think for anyone to be capable of scourging another human being they would have to be sadistic. I think speculating, based upon what we know about how the human body responds to beatings, that Jesus's eye was swollen shut is a completely plausible and likely speculation. I do not think that any of these things that you raise are way out there or ridiculous. Instead, they seem like the most likely way it went down. The gospels don't spell out every detail of what happened during the Passion, so a film about it has to make the best possible guesses on what would be most likely to fill in some of the details


3 & 4) I completely agreed that propositions are essential and we cannot rely on images alone to convey truth. I also have no doubt many people will watch this film and simply “not get it” (that has been confirmed by a few post movie interviews (and that Rabbi), but the vast majority do “hear” the propositional message declared by the image of Christ’s suffering in this film). My point was simply that perhaps many WILL hear the truthful propositions concerning Christ, and that is a very good thing.

Now, up until this point neither one of us had seen the film. On Ash Wednesday, as I said in my previous post, Abbi and I both saw the film. After I had seen it, I sent this email below off to Dr. G. In one of Dr. G’s email he quoted the prolific film critic Roger Ebert and particularly his comment that “It was the most violent movie I’ve ever seen”. I actually found Ebert’s review to be a strong defense of my position. This may get a little confusing, because I quote from Ebert review quite a bit (I have placed everything that is quoted from Ebert in italics). If you would like to read the entire review, go to: http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html

Here is the email:

Dr. G,
Yes, I have read the Ebert review as well, and, actually, I was going to bring it up in defense of the film.

I am writing you this on Thursday morning. I saw the film last night and I had a deep and profound spiritual experience with my Lord. Abbi and I both did. You and I need to discuss this face to face. Yes, the film is violent, but the crucifixion was violent. That is what it was. Dr. G, you and I need to talk more about this in person for several reasons: 1) because you command a lot of respect regarding your opinion on issues in popular culture (which you should) and I simply think you are mistaken on this one. 2) You are a mentor, role model, teacher, and friend of mine. My respect for you and your opinion is incredibly high. It is rare that I disagree with you at all. But, in this case I completely disagree with you and as such I want to hear your case (perhaps I am not fully hearing your argument) and I want to have a chance to give you mine more fully.

Now that I have seen the movie I encourage all to prepare their hearts, contemplate over the love of Christ, and then go and watch this film. I can imagine no better way to start this season of Lent.
Since you brought up the Ebert review, here is also what he said:

"Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it). "

You feared that this movie would be too image based and would not be able to communicate propositions, but look here at how Ebert says this movie is about an idea:

"It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a single-minded urgency. "

Frankly, Ebert is not a Christian (but he was raised Christian). Yet, look at how incredibly he understands the concept of Christ's Passion. His words are powerful: the idea of Christ's suffering is necessary to fully comprehend Christianity. Amen. He is right on. Ebert also says this, which I think describes you:

"Some will agree [with the above claim about the centrality of the cross to Christianity] , but be horrified by the graphic treatment. "

You and I agree that today's society doesn't think nearly enough and is always wanting to be entertained -- that we are amusing ourselves to death. Ebert, traditionally would be considered one of the gatekeepers of this insatiable hunger for entertainment, but look what he says claiming very explicitly that this film is not entertainment:

"This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But 'The Passion of the Christ,' more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call 'commercial,' "

Furthermore, you have here a film to help Christians encounter and understand the cross. Yes, I think all Christians have heard and accepted the proposition that Christ died on the cross for my sins. But how many have really internalized this concept existentially? Ebert, in describing how as a Catholic he was raised with an attempt by the Church to help him understand this idea (the suffering of Christ through the stations of the cross), points out that he never really "got it" deep down, and this film has been able to do that for him:

"For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience [the stations of the cross]. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it. "

Let me reiterate: This film is a visualization of the central message of the Christian religion. And so many simply "don't get it". Ebert's words here are strong when he says for the first time in his life he has a true idea of what the Passion consisted of. That is powerful. Here's the thing Dr. G: I love my Lord. I know you do too. I have often contemplated the cross that he bore for me. But I too can say, like Ebert here, that this film gave me, in many ways for the first time in my life, a look deep into the suffering Christ took upon himself on my behalf. I understand it now better than I did before. In Ebert you have an American who has turned away from his faith but responded to and respected the film nonetheless:

"I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it. "
Yes, Ebert said it was very violent. But he was not condemning the film by that statement -- let's look specifically at what he said:

"I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. "

Do not mishear Ebert on his statement about the film's violence: Ebert is not trying to turn you away from seeing this film, but he is trying to do his part to prepare a culture that is normally jaded and flighty to prepare themselves for a deep and powerful experience encountering Christ the Lord. This is not entertainment. It is not supposed to be that. If this was supposed to be a "gory spectacle" as you call it -- the crucifixion put on a show for us to gawk at -- then I too, like you, would be in utter revulsion. But it is NOT. This is not a spectacle. This is a proclamation of the Passion of Christ. This is a film doing what Paul did: I preach Christ and him Crucified. In the book of Corinthians we read, : "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" In the same chapter we also read: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Christianity is not nice and clean. It is messy. It is bloody. It is in many ways horrific to this world that wants everything to be nice and tidy. But that is because Christianity understands just how messed up this fallen and broken world is -- this world is not nice and tidy and only a bloody, bloody savior, to be frank, can possibly deal with this evil world properly. Christ is the only answer to it. Christ's suffering, Christ's Cross, Christ crucified is bloody, messy, and horrible. And it is the power of God to save this broken world. I worship him. I worship the crucified and risen Christ.

Let us talk more of this face to face.
Many Blessings upon you,
-Tornado


That was my letter. He and I continue to be in dialogue about it. I’ll give you more updates if I think they are warranted. Thanks for reading such a long post. That is the substance of the dialogue up until this point. I will gladly talk to anyone of you about the film. Please go and see it when your heart is prepared to deal with this, and then make sure you are not planning on doing anything else that night.

The Passion

BJ,

Thanks for your thoughts. I also was in disagreement with Dr. G’s letter. I too greatly respect his opinion, ideas, thoughts and insights especially into our culture and because of this I took some time to think through it. I very nearly responded to him but after reading your post I am humbled. You stated the case better than I could have. I took several days to contemplate Dr. G’s words and then Amy and I also went to see the movie last night.

I am still in a state of … I don’t know what to call it. Reflection, contemplation, meditation? I am not sure at this point that I am capable of putting into words what I feel or think. I need time. Amy said something to me on the way home last night that struck me. She said that even after reading the crucifixion accounts in the gospels as many times as she had, she now realized that the magnitude of what Christ suffered had never really registered with her. I do not think that the crucifixion is something that she will ever look at or experience the same way again.

I understand Dr. G’s comment that we would not want to go and watch a loved one suffer as Christ did. However, I would not want to read about that either yet we have the gospel accounts. The difference here is not one of the horribleness of what occurred. It was horrific. This is partially because of the violent nature of the movie but also because it so clearly demonstrates and forces us to see the falleness of humankind. However, at the same time it shows the majesty and love of Christ. Christ, who willingly laid down His life for us.

I think that whether we see it or not, and I think everyone needs to decide for themselves, we must recognize that large numbers of people WILL see it. I also think we as the body have a responsibility not to castigate people for seeing it but be there to help them work through it afterwards for I do not know how anyone could watch it and not be moved in some manner.

Matt

The Passion

Abbi and I saw the Passion last night...


It was, simply put, the greatest film, far and away, I have ever seen. But, of course, that is ridiculously besides the point. I don't care much about what is the greatest film of all time. We all do not care much about the things of this world. I care about the greatest person of all time and what he did for us. I know there is a good deal of controversy over this film amongst us. Several of you, including Dr. Groothuis, think the film is too violent and therefore not worth watching. I could not disagree more strongly. After this post I will post the email interactions between Dr. G and myself on this point. But, in actuallity, no email chain can possibly explain my argument correctly. Friends... No, brother and sisters: this film is ... .... hmmm, no words seem to fit here. I honestly do not know how to describe it. But hear me: you should see it. It portrays the most important event in history. It does so very well and very powerfully. It was a deeply profound and impacting spiritual experience for both of us. When you do go see it, prepare your heart, set aside Christ as lord, and do not plan on doing anything else the rest of the night (you will need time to process through it. For me, I needed the rest of the night to weep, think, and rest upon the fact of the love of Jesus Christ. My King. I worship him. And I needed to spend last night simply aware of that fact).

Another post with more discussion to follow.

Dr. Obitts and his ability to "sniff people out"

After reflecting on my response to the Onto I realize that I certainly come across as an Empircist.

Do you remember in class (for those of you that were there) when Dr. Obitts said that everyone deep down is EITHER an Empiricist or a Rationalist? That surprised me, and then further when he said that eventually he can always "sniff you out" and figure out which one you are.

Well, I suppose in reaction to the Naturalists/Materialists (who are my most frequent advesary) I would have thought that I'd tend to fall on the Rationalist side of things. Yet clearly of late I've been arguing against such speculation and for experience based knowledge. How odd... I am really quite surprised at myself, to be frank.

Has anyone else wrestled with what you "are" in this sense (Empiricist or Rationalist)? Dr. O's comments have stayed with me... Is he right? Are we all really one or the other?

An Attempt to "bring it around"

OK, I will pre-empt an answer to my simple question from the Onto apologists:

-My point was this: I think that with whatever answer any one could possibly provide (and again, I'm assuming now -- that's why I wanted an answer) to the question: "Why is it greater to exist than to not exist?" Would reveal some underlying assumptions about the term "greatest" in the first place, and then second, it would show that our attempts to quantify anything as greater or lesser comes from experience (even it is experience of "existance"). So often people would just say "well it just IS better to exist than not exist" to this question. But if you get down to WHY is it better -- it will reveal the way your mind is thinking and drawing from experience (yes?).

The point of that? I still think the Onto is dependent upon a posteriori knowledge. Therefore, it really doesn't do much for us -- it is superfluous.

Would the "greatest" BJ please stand up, please stand up, please stand up?

BJ, just to keep up the tradition of answering questions with further questions (maybe we should be counseling majors instead of philosophers...haha).

Which is greater, the BJ Strawswer that currently exists, or a potential BJ Strawser of even greater moral, intellectual, and philosophical prowess who does not exist?

Riddle me this, Batman... Can a non-existent, only postulated, purely theoretical being of ANY sort have any impact on reality?

Ian

How do we know what is "greatest"?

Ok, let's enter round 17 (or whatever) on this Onto debate we are embroiled in.

I have a very simple question that I would like any of the supporters of the Onto to answer (Ian I hope you are not alone... other pro-onto's please speak up).

Ian you write "Can you postulate anything greater than an existent omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect being?" The answer, of course, is supposed to be no, we can not. Another example of where I am go with this is in the excellent quote you gave us from Anselm, "For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist."

Now here's my straight forward simple question: How do we KNOW that something that exists is "greater" than something that does not exist? Or to say it another way: WHY is "greater" to exist than to not exist?

I recognize that this sounds like a foolish and almost ridiculous question. I'm sure the initial response is, well OF COURSE something that exists is greater than something that does not exist. But seriously: Why? Why is it greater to exist than to not exist.

I anxiously await whatever answer you can provide to this question. I think that this is the major hidden assumption in the onto that does not reveal on the surface what is already taken for granted at the outset. I predict that any answer you give to this question will provide ammo for an assualt on the Onto being either superfluous, dependent upon cosmo/kalam or at least a posteriori thinking, or just plain fallacious. We will see.

What say you?
-Tornado

PS
I think I saw the Zoink careening off of I-25 at a high rate of speed locked in a death spin.

PPS
The newspapers got it right this time: Dewey actually did win. Or, in other words, the Onto's funeral arangements are being made right now by Blunt Mortuary.

No Retraciton Here

David, I do not retract my statement of 2/4. I will merely clarify that it was a response to BJ's 2nd Zoink attempt, in which he postulated a necessary Zoink. My response was that ONLY the greatest being could be necessary (dragging in the cosmological phraseology that BJ inserted into the dialog).

Now back to poor Onto...

Can you postulate anything greater than an existent omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect being?

The very fact that you can not, means that this being must in fact exist.

Is it this portion of the argument that you are questioning, or is it the jump equating this being with God?

News of Ontological Argument's Death Premature (i.e. Dewey Wins)

Onto (as we seem to be calling it now) is not dependent upon cosmo/kalam.

Let's examine Anselm's original argument (see below), note that there is no mention of necessary vs. contingent.

"God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived.… And [God] assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being thou art, O Lord, our God."

And Anselm's got a modern supporter on his side also. As Plantinga so eloquently puts it:

- A being is maximally excellent in a world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in W; and
- A being is maximally great in a world W if and only if it is maximally excellent in every possible world.

Nowhere does he state that God is a "necessary non-contingent being". I'll admit that all that necessary vs. contingent talk was "Cosmological baggage" that we were bringing into the ontological argument, but as you can see it's not present in the original argument or the modern interpretation of it.

Now where are those Zoinks again? Maybe they went into a "Death Spin"...

OK, one more round of the Zoink... sorry -- I'm tired of him too.

Alright, Ian you are telling me that the Zoink counter example doesn't work b/c there cannot be two necessary beings. There can only be one necessary being -- and that's the point. But hold on a second... why do we even concieve of God as necessary in the first place?

Here's where I think Geisler is right (You guys know me... I "like" Geisler) -- the Ontological arg. used as you are doing only works because of the conception of God as the only necessary non-contingent being. Well, quite frankly, the only way we think or conceive of God in this light is AFTER we have learned (or, if you're really smart, thought up) the Cosmological argument for a necessary being (you know: cause - effect, cause - effect, etc... all the way back -- if there is a present there had to be a first cause AKA Kalam).

So, if we don't know the cosmological arguments FIRST then our conception of God wouldn't include him being a necessary being (it also wouldn't include him being contingent -- our conceptions of things just wouldn't think in those terms). If this is the case, and I think clearly it is, then the ontological argument is simply something we deduce after the establishment of the cosmological argument. Since it is entirely dependent upon the cosmo. arg, it may "work", but really -- is it saying anything that the cosmo doesn't? Namely that God is a necessary non-contingent being; the unmoved mover.

Is there any way to rescue the Ontological argument from its dependence upon the cosmo arg? I think not. Unless you were to argue that we conceive of God as a necessary being without arriving at that conclusion based upon some sort of thinking about cause/effect, etc. For example, I think we do conceive of God as omnipotent (and other attributes), by the very def. of God. But we don't even think in TERMS of necessary or contingent (and therefore would not conceive of God as either necessary nor contingent) until we play out the cause/effect situation of reality and come to realize that there must be a necessary non-contingent who started everything.

What say you?

-Tornado.

death spins and roman candles.

Nothing really to add here -- although I too buy into the best possible world's theory to explain the problem of evil (which only makes sense since I am have been courting Molinism for this long now) -- but I just wanted to say for some strange and unexplainable reason I found Ian's use of the term "Death Spin" to be rather humorous.

I guess I am a weirdo.

Tornado

PS
Jeff, the par-tay is at my in-laws house, which Abbi and I have for the weekend since they'll be out of town.

It's Da Best

Jeff,

What if there was another possible world in which a family of six (on vacation from Sheboygen, New York) was driving along a few minutes behind you. The dad was fumbling with the map trying to figure out where they were going, when suddenly the mom saw the aforementioned rodent (only in this world he's still kicking because you narrowly missed him) and screams at the top of her lungs for dad to stop the car. Dad drops the map in his lap and swerves wildly, just narrowly missing the poor little furry guy, but throwing his minivan into a death spin that causes it to finally flip over and burst into flames like a roman candle, thus immolating the poor vacationing family who would have been just fine if you had only killed the rodent.

I'm sure that the family from Sheboygen thank God that this wasn't the world that was actualized!

Philosophy Party

You probably all got the email invite and I'll be sending out hard copy invites to the mail boxes...

but if you didn't, email me and I'll send you the invitation.
It's on March 6th at 7:00 at a cool place in Higlands Ranch.

Please come and RSVP to me if you can make it.

later
BJ

Kant and Me

Sounds like the title to a Michael Moore film doesn't it?

Next Thursday, Feb. 12th, 2004 is the 200th anniversary of Immanuel Kant's death. It also happens to be the 35th anniversary of my birth.

In the words of the immortal philosophers C&C Music Factory, "Things that make you go hmmm."

So when are we having the big PR blowout BJ and Becky? My noumena is in need of a little phenomenal interaction.

Ian

P.S. - David, I'm too tired for a full critique of Geisler's argumentright right now, but I think the problem is in assertion 2. I can spend a real dollar (which is a very important characteristic to me), while an imaginary one won't get me very far.

Memento RULES!

OK, so the violence may turn a few people off, but WOW what a tour de force! If this movie doesn't get you jazzed about the intricacies of the mind then nothing will! It's got a great soundtrack too. Did I mention that I own the DVD?

Zoinks Redux

BJ, you said, "let's suppose that a Zoink is the 2nd greatest conceivable being, but it is ALSO a necessary being." This definition doesn't work. This is where it feels like the ontological argument cheats. ONLY the greatest conceivable being has to be a necessary being, all others are contingent. Your Zoink can not ALSO be a necessary being. The same goes for the mountain of gold (hegmount) that Van Inwagen talks about in his chapter on the ontological argument in the skinny Metaphysics book.

BTW - sorry, but I already nominated "Phoebus" for the name of the bull - it just sort of came to me.

P.S. - Becky, being the number afficionado and moviephile that you are, please tell us how many times you've seen the movie Pi... ; )

Zoink's and other matters...

Speaking of the Ontological argument, I have something that is completely stupid... but fun.

If you notice in the most recent Campus News they are having a contest to name the Denver Seminary recruiting mascot guy. It's some Bull dude.

Anyway, they are accepting any suggestions for his name. I sent in... you guessed it: Zoink. I recommend that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US submits "Zoink" as the name of the mascot. Wouldn't it be cool if they named him Zoink?

I mean, you guys take ONE look at this thing and tell me that it is NOT the second greatest conceivable being! It certainly is! Heck, it's what I picture when I think of what the second most conceivable being is...


Speaking of Zoinks. Let me try my Zoink argument again. Using your layout of the argument Ian, let's suppose that a Zoink is the 2nd greatest conceivable being, but it is ALSO a necessary being. The way or manner in which it is the 2nd greatest is because of some other attribute that is a little bit less than the greatest conceivable being (GCB). Let's say, for example, that the Zoink is just shy of omnipotent. It is very, very powerful no doubt... Indeed, the only thing MORE powerful in all of existence is the GCB. So... The Zoink is still in the category of necessary being -- that is, it shares all other attributes with the GCB, except this one of omnipotence, which it has slightly less power than the GCB. Ok, so now, you ontological argument nuts, does the Zoink exist?

I am certainly conceiving of it. And my conception of it is that it necessarily exists. That IS the concept of a Zoink. So you tell me... Why is this not a valid counter-example? Because we all know that a Zoink does not exist -- yet according to the logic of the Ont. Arg. it does.

I guess at the heart of all of our frustrations with the Ont. Arg. is that it comes across with the feeling that you've been "Duped". After you hear it, you say, "well... hmmm, OK I guess that seems to work. But I feel liked I've been tricked -- like a linguistic slight of hand just happened." The reason for this psychological skepticism concerning the Ont. Arg. I suggest comes from the fact that the argument rests upon OUR conception of something. The cosmological arguments, by contrast, rest upon the simplicity of a cause and effect reality -- not what is our highest conception of being. Yet, I suppose that almost all of the args. for God's existence include anthropological elements (We are the one's analyzing them and offering them in any case).

I will continue to listen to reassertions of the argument, but as of yet I am still unconvinced that 1) it works, and 2) that even supposing it does "technically" work I don't see how it can contribute to the cumulative case for God. I have no problem if an argument doesn't directly point to the Christian God -- just arguing for the existence of any supreme being is a huge step for most naturalists -- I just don't see this argument convincing anybody. Actually, I think such an argument would turn people AWAY from the truth because they would feel like we are really "stretching". I see no need to risk such a reaction when we have SOLID arguments in the cosmological, teleological, axiological, and others. (Of course, Dr. Obitts thinks the Ontological is SOLID).

Let us continue to wrestle. Jed and others -- I know that in the philosophical issues class with Dr. G, you guys are going to spend a good deal of time on the Ont. Arg. Because of that, I'm sure that your more refined and developed thoughts on the matter would be profitable to all of us here as you guys walk through it.

Go and vote for ZOINK as the mascot!!! :)

-BJ the Tornado
a confused philosopher thinking of Zoinks.