• About Me

Madman's Lantern

~ Ravings and Insights

Madman's Lantern

Category Archives: Philosophy

Review and Critique of Steven Colborne’s New Book, “God’s Grand Game”

27 Wednesday Mar 2019

Posted by The Madman in Philosophy, Religion, Theology

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Atheism, critique, determinism, free will, God's Grand Game, new book, problem of evil, review, Steven Colborne, theism, Theology

(Image Courtesy of JESHOOTS.com via UnSplash)

Checkout Steven Colborne’s blog out here: https://perfectchaos.org/

This is the first review/critique I’ve done for a contemporary author. Steven Colborne just released his new book, God’s Grand Game: Divine Sovereignty and the Cosmic Playground and allowed me to read an advanced copy for review. So I would like to thank him for that and direct you all to the book’s website here:
https://geni.us/godsgrandgame

In this book, Colborne argues that the “thing” holding the space-time universe together is God. In fact, the entire book is an outline of how God is the Sustainer of the cosmos. I struggle to categorize his perspective because, I feel, it is incomplete and evolving. However, there are certain elements that come through about his writing that I will touch on: quasi-Berkeleianism, presuppositionalism, evidentialism, and existentialism. Quasi-Berkeleian because, while not denying the existence of material things, he believes that the existence of material things depends upon God (whether through God’s thoughts or simply his permeating, sustaining power – I do not know). He certainly is a theo-constructivist in the least. He also has the basic tenet of Christian Presuppositionalism: God is assumed to exist. However, this is not true Van Tillian presuppositionalism because Colborne proceeds to give his evidentialist reasons for believing God exists. These are better understood as rationalizations. His strongest feature lies in an existentialist approach where God’s existence need not be defended because of the weight of personal experience. Could this be called existential presuppositionalism? I am not qualified to say.

There’s also evidence that he is reacting to certain “new atheist” arguments in the book, particularly on free will, the substance of God/faith, and the problem of evil. Although his short exposition on what exactly determinism and free will are is flawed (to be fair, this is quite common), his position that free will does not exist comes out clearly. For this, he seems to be in line with a number of linear determinists like Sam Harris. His conception of God is too difficult for me to describe. It feels contradictory when the descriptive terms are taken in their traditional sense, but I do not think that is Colborne’s intention. Faith is taken as a given and each faith tradition is blended into a cosmic whole in God’s sandbox (literally think: God playing God in a sandbox video game). What he does well, for what all it sacrifices, is argue against the problem of evil. How? God is both the author of good and evil – every bit of it. Colborne bold asserts it and for the reason that God as Sustainer permeates every single moment, object, and action in the universe. The consequences for the nature of God are huge, but not insurmountable if God is understood to be more of a force than a person.

I find the book to be an exposition of what Colborne believes and likely to be a sounding board for others who are exploring metaphysical questions. It’s also autobiographical in a number of places. The last positive bit I have to say about the book is that Colborne really tries to level the playing field for humanity. All those who believe and disbelieve do so by the will of God and God is made more glorious for it. Not only that, but God will treat each person for their worth in the end since he is responsible for their belief or disbelief. I also appreciate how this also places responsibility back onto God for all sin since He chose to create the world knowing that sin was coming. It’s a more just view of God than the traditional Christian view that those who don’t believe. In the Calvinist view, one can only believe if God lets them believe. Oh but wait, if you don’t believe, then you’re going to hell. So God must have created some people predestined for hell (double-predestination is a logical outcome from the former thought, although people try to deny this). So kudos for this part of Colborne’s theology. He can’t support it be any Scripture of any faith, but he does base it on logic. And since God sustains the universe including logic, then all logic is part of who God is and we can expect his actions to conform to his nature.

Now for my final critique. Ultimately, what Colborne leaves us with is a non-objective universe and a capricious God. I think that Colborne stays consistent in following his train of thought, however, I am not sure why he must begin with God. If you took his position, removed God and agency words, and then replaced those ideas with “the universe” and “crap happens,” you would get the same outcome. Additionally, by adding back in an objective universe, you could reclaim an objectiveness for morality (among many other things). But, that is from my perspective and you can read my other writings on this blog at some other time.

For those interested in gaining a new perspective or to simply have some trick cards to throw out in debates, I invite you to check out Colborne’s God’s Grand Game. I expect this to be the start of deeper studies for those seeking to defend and refute it.

For Colborne, I would challenger you to read John Loftus’ book Why I Became an Atheist, or at least his “Outsider Test for Faith.” This may help spur your thoughts forward in some way.

Pagan Christianity: My Learning to Doubt

21 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by The Madman in Atheism, Christian Apologetics, Philosophy, Religion, Theology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Atheism, Christianity, doubt, Frank Viola, George Barna, Pagan Christianity, Philosophy, thoughts

The image above is the second edition of Frank Viola’s original book, Pagan Christianity, because George Barna, Christian pollster, wanted in on the arguments. It’s a great book for anyone wanting to trace the origins of certain Christian practices, or at least that’s what I thought at the time I read it. Who knows now. It might need to be critically evaluated by someone… and not me right now because I don’t have the time.

But back to my tale, I attribute this book with the first honor of skepticism about Christian practices. I was quite the young fundamentalist (although I did always try to excuse away the chauvinism the epistles to Timothy) and I never thought about whether tithing was biblical or if there should be more than one pastor per church. But Pagan Christianity showed me that there were things that the evangelical “church,” note that I use it loosely here, simply did from tradition rather than the Bible. And I wanted church practices to derive from the truth! I was a six-day creationist, anti-charismatic (not hostile though, for I had several friends who were Pentecostals or charismatics), I aspired to be a leading apologist, etc. etc.

But then I wondered why Viola didn’t criticize the idea of the Trinity just like he did with other practices derived after the first century. I doubt he ever would doubt it from the way he writes.

All of this reminds me that I failed to start at the beginning and should turn there next. Here is the link to check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00APOW7JI/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_p8WKCb7K393DR

I will have to come back to this book again as I continue my story, but for now, I’ll say that I have a special post coming out the 27th as a review of a new book and that my next in this series involves a fiery 14 year old fighting against the “lie of evolution.”

Thanks all

How Apologetics Leads to Disbelief

16 Saturday Mar 2019

Posted by The Madman in Atheism, Christian Apologetics, Philosophy, Religion, Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

apologetics, arguments, Atheism, Bertrand Russell, Books, Christianity, defense, literature, Philosophy, Why I Am Not a Christian, William Lane Craig

While I can’t say that I started reading my first atheist book exactly on 9/10/05, I definitely did close to it. I still use same day receipts as book marks and I have never taken this one out of Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian. Of course, when I walked out of Books-a-Million that day, I also carried out a Christian book and explained that I was studying to defend against atheism. In fact, I remember the book’s namesake essay and thinking, “I wouldn’t want to be the kind of Christian Russell disliked either.”

This series of articles will document how searching for “the way, the truth, and the life” led to disbelief in one individual. And it’s inspired by a random event that happened tonight as I was skimming through my library. I hope to outline how my apologetics studies began and where my beliefs stand today. I’ll start here in the middle, inspired by this little token of my past.

I went back through Why I Am Not a Christian years later and noted where certain arguments were now “outdated,” especially by arguments posed by William Lane Craig. But now I am reading it through again. And I see such simple power in the article. I think what amazed me then still amazes me now – that Russell though he could sidestep Christianity so easily.

The pages of the book have long been yellow now, but the content is just as fresh as the day I bought it nearly 14 years ago. Back then, everything was different. I was a Christian high school graduate seeking to become an apologist and philosopher, a sexual virgin, a cigarette virgin, alcohol virgin, and one hell of a cocky guy.

But at the same time, I had already bought a book that would change my life forever. And I bought it from Union University’s on-campus Lifeway Bookstore: Frank Viola’s Pagan Christianity….

———————-

Works Cited

Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. Touchstone, 1957.

Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything – Part 3: I Was Both Mistaken and Correct

06 Wednesday Mar 2019

Posted by The Madman in Philosophy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ferraris, Gabriel, Harman, New Realism, OOO, Philosophy, thoughts

I have constantly been considering the aspect of OOO that denies physicalism And I realize now that it is correct when one considers objects as Harman does. There are objects of thought and social objects that are not physical (such as imaginary friends, weddings, the election of 1996). However, I still maintain that there must be a physical substance underlying all such things. Can there be thoughts without brains? Weddings without people (at least currently on earth – for all you savage smart-asses 👍🏻)? An election without a means to record results (whether electronic or on paper)?

But now I am on page 161 and Harman directly addresses the New Realism of Ferraris and Gabriel. And he admits to the very complaint that I have against OOO. It claims no knowledge is possible of real objects. But such an absolute claim is it least knowledge of what real objects are not. And digging down into the relationships between objects and people only shows that knowledge is possible. Now if he would simply change his claim but no absolute knowledge is possible, then I would agree. He does say that direct knowing of real objects and real qualities is impossible and I agree, but this is far from no knowledge.

Perhaps I’m reading him wrong on this point. And perhaps he has read the New Realists wrong too. Absolute knowledge about anything is impossible because the relationship between the one attempting to know and the thing being known constantly shifts with the increase of knowledge by the student. I’m not sure how to word it clearly right now, but perhaps it will come to me later on. I’m just hoping I’m misunderstanding him and that he has more to offer in OOO. I feel like he is close to saying something useful but never breaking the dam’s walls to flood my mind.

Stuck in a Corner?

28 Thursday Feb 2019

Posted by The Madman in Philosophy, Random Thoughts, Religion, Theology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, experience, Philosophy, Religion, thoughts

Last Friday, my wife and I had another couple for a games night which usually consists of a board game and several alcoholic drinks. This time, we never got to any game itself and we went into theological and philosophical discussions. My wife, however, tucked a bottle of wine under her arm and got into it alone (she is terribly bored by these subjects for her own reasons).

The know about the time I declared I didn’t believe in God. That was years ago and they politely challenged me to go over that position again. I’ve been silent for years about it because I work part time at a church. I can’t afford to lose my job either. My family is counting on me. I also can’t be completely honest with myself either because I don’t want to be cornered.

I decided a while ago to be satisfied with being politely quiet on the issue. There’s the contemplative view that allows me to escape directly answering questions like that. It keeps me safe and uncornered. My honest answer is, “I want to believe in God, but claim to be agnostic until I can satisfactorily answer the question publicly.” Well, it is true… to an extent. I actually have an answer, but I will keep it to myself for the time being.

In the meantime, between all the work and school work, I’m going to work on expositing my position for myself and hopefully others.

The Eternal Nature of Love

06 Wednesday Feb 2019

Posted by The Madman in Philosophy, Random Thoughts

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

aesthetics, ancient, art, Egypt, Harman, life sucks, love, OOO, Philosophy, poetry?, Random Thoughts, sometimes, thoughts

I was supposed to be reading Gilgamesh when I flipped over to some Love Poems from the Ramesside period of 1300-1100 BCE. One describes a girl’s shyness over a boy who rides in on his horse. Another is a boy’s depressed state that he blames on his love (he says he’ll feign terminal illness just so she’ll see him one last time). Yet another describes how a girl will seduce a boy by getting him to go swim with him while she wears her new sheer swimsuit from Memphis.

Love is a biological thing I guess. When I was younger, I never would have admitted it. It seems so real – like the most real thing that could exist. But it’s all hormones and emotions tied into a drive to keep the species going while providing an existential excuse to continue on through the hardships of life. Not a bad bargain I guess. And yet it sucks to see life through the eyes of wisdom. Know why the Teacher in Ecclesiastes sounds so depressing? Because wisdom is depressing when viewed with temporal human eyes. That’s why love appeals to us. It causes us to go beyond ourselves. The mountains at sunrise, the roar of the beach, the completion of a song, and the best paintings in the world – these all draw people beyond theirselves. They point to the existence of things beyond the mind of mankind. This is where my ontology meets reality. This is why it matters and how I can agree with Graham Harman about the centrality of aesthetics in philosophy (although I not as strongly).

But seriously, love hasn’t changed because it’s tied to human nature – every magnificent moment and every damned disaster.

Midnight Books!

31 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by The Madman in Philosophy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Books, new books, Philosophy

It’s 12:48 in the morning and I just remembered I had two books delivers today! Thanks Amazon! Especially looking forward to this one. The other book is on Logic and quite well arranged. More later… if I remember.

I Never Liked Politics… Not Sure If I Do Now Either

30 Wednesday Jan 2019

Posted by The Madman in Philosophy, Random Thoughts

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

desegregation, Gandhi, Harman, King, OOO, oppression, politics, social theory

I’m laying on my bed, getting a crick in my neck, reading over OOO’s theory of politics and social order. It’s quite interesting and claims to line up with Bruno Latour’s current position. I hope that’s correct because I wouldn’t know otherwise.

You see, I’ve always neglected politics because I was so caught up in trying to understand the world around me and myself (and God at one looooonnnnnggg point), so I didn’t care to try and control the world. I felt it was like operating heavy machinery without knowing what I was operating. The good news is – no one knows precisely what they are talking about, but luckily science has stepped in to help.

I’m still listening though this book and even went and got the hardback on Sunday. I’m loving it. But it’s also making me want to take action and I’m not so good with that due to my tormenting level of introversion.

Also, I’m kind of pissed that I wasn’t educated about the last 50 years of history while I was in high school. I’m directly effects by that part of history as much is not more than the major points beforehand! I’m learning so much about desegregation in America (as well as other major themes) from Kleinfeld’s book that I feel ashamed for being so ignorant in my early 30s.

I would love to study more Gandhi and King too. There are factors that made their movements work while many others fail. We have to study what works and make policies with that knowledge rather than making policies from dirty deals, back stage bargains, and party politics. We use the scientific method in most everything now, so why do we shirk it when it comes to our political opinion? That’s lazy and dangerous.

Ignorance will kill us all unless we learn to bear the truth bravely.

Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything – Part 1

13 Sunday Jan 2019

Posted by The Madman in OOO, Philosophy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

object-oriented ontology, OOO, Philosophy, thoughts

Although I started reading Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory Of Everything a few days ago, today (my 32nd birthday) I really dove in. I’ve reached page 38 and the major takeaway is that OOO (pronounced Triple O) opposes physicalism, smallism, anti-fictionalism and literalism. Quoting Harman’s here, physicalism assumes that “everything that exists must be physical” (25), smallism assumes that “everything that exists must be basic and simple” (29), anti-fictionalism assumes “everything that exists must be real” (33), and literalism assumes that “everything that exists must be able to be stated accurately in literal propositional language” (35).

I certainly stand with him referring smallism because of my standing with New Realism against reductionism. The relationship between objects results in an emergence of a new object/property/event. You secure a cylindrical block to a wooden stick and a hammer emerges. Not only that, but when the hammer is put into various hands, it affords the user a tool, weapon, doorstop, etc. I also agree with the 3rd and 4th point due to my agreement with New Realism (and the fourth also with India and Buddhist philosophy).

However, I’m no so convinced with the first objection against physicalism. I agree, overall, Hartman is right to reject the idea. However, a simple change of wording makes a massive difference. Instead of “everything that exist must be physical”, stating it as “everything that exist must have a physical basis” creates a better view of the world (to my mind). All thoughts and information are stored and process in and through a material object, whether it be neurons, circuits, or simply objects themselves. I call this interaction between objects and data (or information) “relationships.”

But I look forward to seeing how my views and Harman’s might be reconciled as I continue through the book. A mental challenge may be the best thing I could as for as a birthday present.

On a separate note, I think I’m changing this blog to be a personal journal. I’m losing my mind with no one to talk to. Either this will help with that frustration or turn me into a raving lunatic. We’ll see.


Harman, Graham. Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory Of Everything, Pelican, 2018.

Three Is A Magic Number (My Buddhist Temple Experience)

31 Wednesday Jan 2018

Posted by The Madman in Buddhism, Philosophy, Religion

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Buddha, Buddhism, experience, Pure Land, temple, tour

IMG_6483

Three is a magic number – at least that is what School House Rock and Jack Johnson taught me growing up. Perhaps “magic” is the wrong word, but my visit to Chùa Quan Âm revealed to me just how important the number three is within Buddhism.

“Do you know why there are three doors? Think about it.” I was caught off guard when my liaison, Kim, asked me this, so I told her I was not sure. She said that the three doors stood for the past, the present and the future. Even more so, they stood for the Buddha, the Dharma (the teachings), and the Sangha (the community). From reading so my Thich Nhat Hanh, I was shocked that I actually could not recall this answer. Chùa Quan Âm is of the Mahāyāna branch of Buddhism and more specifically, it is of the Pure Land school.

IMG_6485

During the cold months, the temple keeps the front doors open, so Kim led me around to the side where an assistant monk stood in an ochre colored robe. Kim exchanged a work of greeting with him and led me into a common area with tables for the lunch later that day. To our right were shoe racks with stairs leading up into the back of the temple. As I slipped my shoes off and stepped into the back foyer, the scent of incense overwhelmed me. It was not pungent, just enough to fill the area. I followed Kim down the left side of the prayer hall and sat at the back where I sat on a step and crossed my legs on a thin saffron zafu.

The prayer hall was nearly filled when the monks came in with the Venerable Master, Thích Đạo Chơn. Suddenly, an enormous bell rang out on my right and a large drum rumbled on my left. Everyone stood up and folded their hands high upon their chests. The monks faced the three large statues of Amitāba Buddha and two bhodisattvas and began chanting. Kim explained that they offered several items in celebration of life and remembrance of the impermanence of life: flowers for the beauty of life; fresh fruit, the goodness of life; water, essential and cleansing; grain, a basic staple needed to sustain life; incense, permeates the air as good deeds should permeate one’s life; and light, which extinguishes darkness as wisdom expels ignorance.

Then a bell or a bowl was sounded and everyone sat down and opened their prayer book. It was in Vietnamese and Kim wanted me to follow along. I laughed to myself a bit because I could not see that being a possibility. However, as the chanting began, I found it fairly easy to follow when everyone was going slow. But the chanting frequently changed pace and ended with three bows by everyone in the congregation – one each for the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.

The aroma of the incense and flowers, the booming of the voices, the ringing of the bells, the rigid stance and folding of hands, and the rhythmic chanting  – all of these made for an atmosphere where the senses were completely overwhelmed. Even the mere space of the room felt intoxicatingly mystical. After the chants, the Venerable Master then turned and stood just behind the laughing Buddha statue. He was a rather young man, in my opinion, and he spoke light heartedly. Kim told me that it was the anniversary of the Buddha’s awakening and we were giving celebration. Normally, the message would have waited while five to ten minutes were dedicated to silent meditation.

When the Venerable Master finished, everyone stood and recited chants from memory, bowing after each recitation – again, three times. I was caught off guard again by such an abrupt ending, but I suppose when you are used to it, the ending would not seem abrupt. Most everyone in the assembly went back to the dining area and slipped on their shoes back on, a few others stayed behind for a remembrance memorial. A teenager from the temple had committed suicide the week before because of school bullying.

Kim explained all this to me as we sat down for a Q&A session that lasted for over an hour. We naturally discussed how Buddhists understand tragedy and death, especially in those so young. Reincarnation and karma were at the forefront of this. The Buddha had taught that perhaps a soul only needed to live a short amount of time before completing its tasks from another life. Alternatively, though, there could have been bad karma from either parent.

We also discussed intellectual and social aspects of Buddhism like five precepts (Refain from killing, adultery, lying, speaking ill of others, and drinking), the purpose of bowing, the meaning of the colors in the Buddhist flag, and the eight-fold path. I was most intrigued by the eight-fold path because each aspect was needed together and could be used to strengthen the other aspects. These are: right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right diligence, right mindfulness, and right meditation. It was quite a noisy conversation as the children and teens were in a Vietnamese language class in the next room, but it was a delightful experience in itself.

As I was about to leave, lunch was being served. I think I was offered four different bowls as I was walking out. In the end, I left with a plate of sticky rice with peanuts and a green, spongy cake slice of Bánh Bò Nướng. Kim walked me out and told me that if I understood one statue in the front yard, I would understand all of Buddhism. We made our way around front as the rain picked up, but we ignored it. We stopped in front of a statue of a very fat laughing Buddha. He had five children playing on him. She said that the children were the five sense and yet they were innocent. The Buddha learned to love and protect his senses. And as for that bulging belly that seemed to suggest indulgence; it was full of compassion, not food.

I thanked Kim and we bid each other goodbye, but before I left I had to take a picture of the outside. In the top picture you see three words: Từ Bi, Chùa Quan Âm, and Trí Tuệ. The middle is the name of the temple, but the first word is Vietnamese for compassion and the second is wisdom. These three words hang above three doors. In front of the doors are three statues of different aspect of the Buddha. Is “three” magical? Depends on what you mean by magic, I suppose.

← Older posts

Recent Posts

  • Why Bother With Another Post?
  • So many years in so few songs
  • This is Politically Incorrect
  • Well…
  • By the way, he lived

Archives

  • November 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • October 2017
  • February 2017
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016

Categories

  • America
  • Atheism
  • Baha'i
  • Buddhism
  • Christian Apologetics
  • Experiences
  • Hinduism
  • Islam
  • Music
  • OOO
  • Philosophy
  • politics
  • Random Thoughts
  • Religion
  • Theology
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel