Also, it needs free will to be anything better than what a computer can do. Computers are great at deductive logic, that’s what they do. But, people can only be more than another kind of fancy computer if they can do more than deductive logic. Free will, per ID, gives them precisely this ability, even in a formal mathematical sense.

Additionally, if we were only computers, we’d get totally screwed epistimically. So, not only is mysticism a nice, touchy, feely thing, it’s an epistemic necessity.

Anthony, I’d add Paul right in there too. How many times does he have to say “therefore” before people understand that he’s logically and rationally working towards something?
I’ve never understood the EC accusation either.

To say that the Enlightenment invented all this rationality stuff is too absurd to even argue with. A few hours with Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas, etc., should be enough to disprove that theory.

To the contrary, modern “mystical” movements have been the direct descendants of the Enlightenment. The Romantics were Romantics precisely because they despaired of finding that truth which, prior to the Enlightenment, western scholars believed in.

Thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated.

Yup, Abolition of Man is right in line where my analysis is headed. It’s fair to say, in fact, that I just learned it all from Lewis. But I really wanted to frame the issue more historically than even he does.

Daryl,

I agree with you about the truth bringing about change. And I think this is very well said: “Having said that, living out the ramifications of truth is a radically different thing from using truth to suit our own ends.” I have nothing to add other than my hearty thanks!

Aha! That clarifies it for me. It’s pretty plain on the face of it. I’m a little red-faced that I missed that…

About the truth for it’s own sake or truth sort of taken over for our own ends…it seems a bit of a balancing act I think. I mean truth should bring us to some kind of realization that then changes our behaviour.
Having said that, living out the ramifications of truth is a radically different thing from using truth to suit our own ends.
There needs to be SOME of that I think, but certainly the former should vastly out weigh the latter.

Anyway, this is a great post – and I’ll have to chew on this awhile to get it all I think.

By “ends of their own,” I mean something like their own purposes or goals that are intrinsic to the sorts of creatures they are. For instance, a tree has an “end” (photosynthesis, increasing oxygen) that is tied to its nature as a tree. This structure to creation–and a tree might be a bad example–seems like it should govern ethical decision making.

I think there is a subordination aspect to naming in Scripture, as when Jesus speaks the demons. But it seems like that authority is derived from the fact that the names are tied to the sorts of things the demons are, and so to “name” something is to understand its essence. That might be a kind of subordination, but a natural kind (think, for instance, Bombadil in LOTR).

Matt

I don’t quite get the “ends of their own” idea. And I don’t think the naming the animals equals subduing them.

I wonder if part of the naming process is identifying those things which will need subduing. Just a thought.
On the other hand, subdue probably has implications of not letting the “wild” world get in the way of what must be done, rather than (as so often happens now) run roughshod over everything just because we can.

Thanks for the kind words, and I’m glad you enjoyed the post. I completely agree with you about the ancients and their orientation toward truth. That’s well said.

Best,

Matt

Yah, that’s a great question.

I think the important difference is that in Genesis, the earth and its inhabitants seem to have ends of their own that limit Adam’s “use” of them, a principle that modern rationality and its fusion with Darwininian naturalism seems to reject. I think a robust doctrine of creation entails something like natural kinds (and hence, teleology) and I think I see that in Adam’s naming of the animals.

Does that help at all? Really, it’s a great question. Thanks.