‘God is, therefore I think and I am’
The Bible begins with God, who has always existed. It emphasises that God is in control and that our thinking should centre on him. It teaches that there is one real God who has created a finite world into which he has placed man. The Bible begins,
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1
This explains why our world is based on mathematics and laws. We call these laws, ‘laws of Nature’ but the natural world of matter cannot create laws. The laws and rules that scientists see are the principles by which our creator has made this world. The basis of a rational world is a rational God. There can be no other explanation.
The Bible continues,
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule . . .” Genesis 1:26
This gives an explanation for the presence of our innate, moral, processing mind that works on a rational basis. Man has something of the mind of God.
World philosophies are based on one of two basic principles. One starts with God as our creator who has shared with us some of his attributes. The other starts with man at the centre with the possible concept of any God being derived from our thinking. It is no surprise that the latter approach has great trouble defining the source of rational, moral and aesthetic values within man, or of a rational mathematical world that we can investigate.
When there is a belief in a sovereign God there are considerable consequences. It is notable that so many early scientists believed in a personal God. It was this belief that gave them the basis to investigate a world that they knew to be rational and worked according to God’s laws. They could rely on their reason, because God had made man as a reasonable creation in a rational world.
It also explains why, when we turn against God and reject his right to rule, we also turn to selfish immorality and inhumanity. See what happens in atheistic states such as Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, Mao Tse tung’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia or North Korea today.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778)
Rousseau wrote in his book ‘Social Contract’ of what he called his Copernicus discovery – that it is not God but man who is at the centre of the living universe. This thinking has been spreading rapidly ever since.
Paul Johnson, in his brilliant book ‘Intellectuals’, has highlighted the effect man-centred philosophies have on the moral lives of such self-centred thinkers. He begins with Rousseau who felt he was not bound to live as he wanted and was consequently very egotistical. He admitted to being promiscuous but he treated his consorts meanly. He had many children, the first five being abandoned nameless as soon as they were born. Two thirds of such babies died in the first year and only 14 per cent reached the age of seven but he didn’t seem to care. His one-time friend David Hume said he was ‘a monster who saw himself as the only important being in the universe.’
Most philosophers have recognised that there are inherent values that need to be accounted for. When the starting point for a philosophy is man in a material world, it has been hard to derive a strong basis for an inherent purpose to life and for values such as honesty, beauty and integrity to be real, in spite of the fact that nearly all humans recognise that these are core values that define humanity.
René Descartes (1596 – 1650) (1)
Descartes had a broad education under the Jesuits typical for that time, studying classics, ethics, mathematics and theology. At university he studied law but then became a soldier, becoming able at riding and fencing. It was during his military training that his love of mathematics and logic came to the fore. His passion for trying to think out the larger questions of life then took over. He became involved with the Rosicrucians, a secret order that sought to discover the “mysterious esoteric truths of the ancient past", which "concealed from the average man, provide insight into nature, the physical universe, and the spiritual realm.”(2) He began to be involved in meditation to try and discover these secrets. The Rosicrucian manifestos proclaimed a "universal reformation of mankind", through a science allegedly kept secret for decades until the intellectual climate might receive it. Descartes was trying to discover answers from within himself.
On November 10th 1619, whilst in a deeper meditative state than normal, he had a flash of inspiration which he felt opened up a completely new form of science. He then had a series of memorable dreams. In the first he was lame and sought refuge in a church from a heavy storm. In the second he was also in a violent storm with thunder and showers of sparks around him. In the third he opened a book written by a Roman poet, Ausonius, (c. 310 – c. 395 AD) where he read these words,
“Which way of life shall I follow?’
This experience had a profound effect on him. During the next eight years he spent much time meditating and seeking for deeper truths. Although he remained a Roman Catholic he did have an illegitimate son. He also wrote a treatise called ‘The World’ in which he sided with Copernicus who had claimed that the earth was a planet and that the earth moves round the sun. Just at this time he heard of the way the Inquisition had condemned his contemporary, Galileo for publishing similar ideas so he did not publish this as a book! However he did publish the new ideas he had had since he had been meditating which did result in the church authorities accusing him of atheism. Consequently he fled to Sweden where he died a year later.
Although he always wanted to remain within the Roman Catholic church, he had strong feelings against its authoritarianism and the prescriptive way people were taught. He thought that ordinary people could find the truth for themselves without having to study the sacred texts and the eruditions of the scholars or follow the dictats of the pontiff. He felt that all ideas could be tested internally and that the truth would reveal itself by being ‘clear and distinct’ just as a mathematician determines the truth of theorem. People must determine by constantly doubting and double checking any ideas presented to them.
His meditation and thinking led him to realise how imperfect he and his thinking processes were. He argued that seeing himself as imperfect meant that there must be a perfect being, there must be a god but this argument was later ridiculed by others, opening the door to atheistic philosophies that are also based on Descartes suppositions that start with man.
Descartes’ thinking begins with himself. The fact that he could think led him to assume that he existed. He classically said,
“I think, therefore I am.”
By placing what seems reasonable and clear and distinct as the judge of what is true opened the doors to many subsequent philosophies, most of which accepted Descartes’ foundation that man is the judge of all things. Even the existence of God is brought before the mind of man to decide whether that concept is reasonable and clear and distinct.
The tide was turning. Now it is God who is in the dock and man is the judge. Man is supreme and God, instead of being worshipped and obeyed, becomes the object of study. The difficulty is that it is impossible to put God under a finite microscope when he himself is infinite and we are definitely finite!
The scholar and writer, C.S.Lewis astutely analysed this tendency man always has to minimalise his own sin and to place Almighty God in the dock:
“The greatest barrier I have met is the almost total absence from the minds of my audience of any sense of sin... The early Christian preachers could assume in their hearers, whether Jews, Metuentes, or Pagans, a sense of guilt. (That this was common among Pagans is shown by the fact that both Epicureanism and the mystery religions both claimed, though in different ways, to assuage it.) Thus the Christian message was in those days unmistakably the Evangelium, the Good News. It promised healing to those who knew they were sick. We have to convince our hearers of the unwelcome diagnosis before we can expect them to welcome the news of the remedy.
The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man, the roles are quite reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge; if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the bench and God is in the dock.” (3)
It was Descartes who publicised this way of thinking, but ever since Adam, mankind has always tended to sideline and disregard God; at root this is what ‘sin’ is. A better maxim would be,
“God is - therefore I can think and therefore I am.”
It is no coincidence that when God first revealed himself to Moses he puts himself at the centre when he said that his name was ‘I am’!
“I am who I am..” Exodus 3:14
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
Kant was one of the most influential of philosophers. He was raised in a strict Protestant home and with religious schooling but he reacted against this. As a philosopher the basis of his thinking had man at the centre, ‘human autonomy’ was his key. He accepts that much of the data we live by comes into us by our senses but argued that a mass of chaotic sensations would not make sense without a pre-ordered mind which is somehow programmed to co-ordinate all the data. He argues that all that we consider to be true is dependant on the pre-ordered mind. He then goes on to suggest that everything that makes sense to us is because of this inherent mind that is programmed to make sense of everything. The mind, for him, is an active organ which co-ordinates all the sensations into ideas. He distinguishes sensations from perceptions. Sensations come via our senses of touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing through a vast network of nerves but these have to be sorted and made sense of by the mind. It is the mind that gives us perception of ideas. He tried to establish a basis for values and for God from this starting point.
Plato had spoken of ‘the rabble of the senses’ whereas Kant argued powerfully that that is all they would remain unless these sensations are ordered and sorted. We see this in modern computers. There are a wide variety of inputs but there has to be a core processor that is programmed to make sense of the data.
This mind, he suggests, is programmed to accept mathematics, space and time which are all necessary to make sense out of the myriad of sensations we receive. So far this all makes sense.
Kant then argues that it is the mind that also transforms these ‘perceptions’ and converts them into ‘conceptions’ or ideas.
Kant felt that the philosopher Locke was wrong when he said, “There is nothing in the intellect except what is first in the senses”; Leibnitz cleverly added, ‘Nothing, except the intellect itself.’
Kant tried to understand how moral values fit in. He claimed that the mind also contains “an unanalysable feeling of the good” which supplies our moral obligations. But Kant doesn’t say where this innate processing moral mind comes from!
The philosopher, Schopenhauer said,
“Kant’s greatest merit is the distinction of the phenomenon from the thing itself.”
Kant didn’t deny the existence of the real world outside of ourselves but suggests we can know nothing substantial about it.
On this basis, that all knowledge is subjective, how can we know for sure about God? Kant considers that all we know for sure is that space, time and cause and a moral sense are absolutes that are independent of our senses. Science becomes, not an objective search for truth, but personally conceived ideas. His concept of the absolute is vague and gives rise to ideas such as ‘This is my truth.’ His ideas destroy true reality and undermine traditional doctrines such as a benevolent creator, an eternal soul with every man. As these ideas cannot be proved, religion becomes subjective and therefore cannot be denied. It is no wonder that clergymen in Germany in the later 18th century, who understood the consequences of Kant’s thinking, protested so loudly against his views.
Although putting man, instead of God, at the starting point of our philosophy gives rise to many problems, the idea that implanted within us is a ‘processor’ or mind, that enables us to sort out and co-ordinate all the billions of sensations we receive, has much to support it. This innate processor does appear to have a moral sense, that we call a conscience. This could be the God-given source of the spiritual instincts that are in us all.
I have just been asked that if our brains are just made of neurones, synapses and chemical transmitters how do our minds differ from computers. The answer given in the Bible is that mankind is more than a machine. God did make man out of the dust of the earth, out of chemicals, but then he put his Spirit into man. It is because God has put his Spirit into us we become both living and spiritual beings.
“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
Sartre was a French writer and philosopher who lived in France during two world wars. He challenged the traditional ways of conformist living, he just wanted to live his way. He had an inner dislike of ‘bourgeoisie’ lifestyles and thinking. He was an atheist and felt that people should be allowed to exist as they want and not as others want them to. ‘Free will’ meant he should be free to behave as he wanted to. Nobody else mattered. He popularised what came to be known as atheistic existentialism.
Although he rejected the concept of God he did have a strong social conscience. He embrased Marxism but did not become a communist. He despised those who collaborated with the German occupation of France during the second world war but did not join the resistance. He was later awarded the Nobel prize for literature but refused to accept this.
He thought that, as God does not exist, the only person responsible for our behaviour is ourself. He concluded that humans were ‘condemned to be free,’ though he didn’t say who had condemned us. It must either be God or the thinking of humanity itself. He taught that there was no purpose in life but throughout his life he thought that there were rights and wrongs, justice and injustices.
Sartre tried to take the idea that man is the centre of everything, that previous philosophers such as Descartes and Kant had espoused, and showed the emptiness and meaningless of life that this inevitably results in. Existentialists have no means of explaining how mankind has inherent principles and values, how these should be developed and why we feel life has a purpose when there can be none, according to their thinking.
Without God man is lost, without purpose and without knowing definitely how to behave. We have no foundation on which to build our lives.
The Bible’s Answer to man-centred philosophies
It is highly significant that the Bible begins with God who created the universe and then put man on earth.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1
“Then God said, let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule . . .” Genesis 1:26
God determined that there should always be a people who would live according to God’s wishes and so fulfil his aims. God taught this people,
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one, the LORD is one.” Deuteronomy 6:4
We were made to live under the authority of our creator. He continues,
“Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them upon your children. Talk about them when you sit at home . . .” Deuteronomy 6:4-7
Such thinking is the opposite of the famous dictum by the poet Swinburne who, mocking the angelic host, wrote,
“Glory to man in the highest for man is the master of things.”
Even God’s people have a tendency to drift away from this relationship with God. When Joshua had led God’s people into the promised land he reminded them of all that God had done for them but then added that they must make a decision about who is sovereign, themselves and the gods around them or the LORD himself.
“Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshipped . . . and serve the LORD. But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods you forefathers served or the Gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.” Joshua 24:14-15
Isaiah, who died around 681 BC, recognised that there were essentially just two ways of thinking. He concluded that people will either allow God to be at the centre of their lives or they will provide themselves with their own lights but this latter group will face tragic consequences. He also recognised that there can be pseudo-faith where people say they trust in God but do not obey or rely on him in practice.
“Who among you fears the LORD and obeys the word of his servant? Let him who walks in the dark, who has no light, trust in the name of the LORD and rely on his God.
But now,, all you who light fires and provide yourselves with flaming torches, go, walk in the light of your fires and of the torches you have set ablaze. This is what you shall receive from my hand: You will lie down in torment.” Isaiah 50:10-11
Jeremiah also noted that it was man, wanting his independence from God, that is the root cause of our problems.
“My people have committed two sins: they have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns that cannot hold water.” Jeremiah 2:13
When mankind, represented by Adam and Eve, walked with God in the Garden of Eden they had both purpose and joy. When they rejected God they lost both. Humanity now has the option to return to live under the authority of God who has revealed himself in the person of Jesus. By his own death, Jesus has enabled us again to live in partnership with our creator because he has taken on himself the penalty and consequences of our sins.
One of the great Messianic psalms looks forwards to the day when the Messiah, God’s chosen king, would enter his world,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a sceptre of justice will be the sceptre of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” Psalm 45:6-7
John the Baptist experienced this same joy because he lived under the authority of God. He saw his life as being fulfilled by being in a relationship with his Lord and Saviour. He said,
“I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him. The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less.” John 3:28-30
The apostle Paul also turned to live under the authority of God. He then understood that purpose, satisfaction and truth can only be found together in the person of God’s Messiah. He concluded,
“For me to live is Christ and to die is gain.” Philippians 1:21
The Bible teaches that this world is just a trial run. The real world is the one to come where we will live in full harmony with our creator. That is what Jesus has promised us, that is what the whole Bible speaks about.
A schoolboy made a poignant mistake in an essay he had written. He should have described Jesus as ‘God’s only begotten Son’ but instead he wrote ‘God’s only forgotten Son.’
BVP
7 November 2020
This brief summary owes much to E.W.F Tomlin’s book, ‘The Great Philosophers, the Western World’ Skeffington and Son p 135-141
2. Martin, Pierre. Lodges, Orders and the Rosicross: Rosicrucianism in Lodges, Orders and Initiating Societies since the early 16th century. Edition Oriflamme, 2017.
3. C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics
