Chapter 16: The Lost World of Genesis One

Chapter 16 is titled 'Scientific Explanation of Origins Can Be Viewed in Light of Purpose, and If So, Are Objectionable'. In this chapter, one particular lesson one can draw is that the theological idea of the Fall is not undermined by endorsing the theory of evolution. In the process, one may raise a question why there has to be such a huge debris of death before human eventually emerged at the top of the evolutionary ladder. Well, if one could go back to the Scripture there are various events where one does not really know the reasons why things happened this way instead of that way. Yet those who were situated in that particular stage of history did not fully understand God's way of working. However, they trusted God's plan. Similarly, even about death in the evolutionary process, one may not really know the theological reason why it was so; however, the fact that death was there does not really undermine any other theological idea -- whether it's about the Fall or about the fact that God is in control or that God is the creator. In the end the fact is that whether it's this way or that way, God is the creator.

On AFSPA

There are those hardcore Indian nationalists who have defended Armed Forces Special Powers Act. In the name of national security, criticism of the Act has even been prevented. Those who criticise the Act are portrayed as compromising their love for the motherland, and only those who defend the Act are protective of the country. Thankfully, P. Chidambaram has been vocal about the untenability maintaining the Act as it stands today. He has once again raised the matter, which can be read here. He has done that in the past too as a Home Minister but could not alter the status of the Act due to Army folks putting their foot down to any proposal to get the Act amended.

Two comments. First, the Act would not have generated such controversy had the army personnel acted strictly within the guidelines provided by the Act. However, the matter is such that the army personnel would rape or kill through fake encounter again and again and again and again and again...and then get away with all of these by invoking the Act. The Act does not provide immunity for rape or torture or fake encounter killing. However, as it happens in the ground, the army personnel would go about doing anything and then get away with it. The Act has been misused! But if there is the understanding within the army and the government that the Act virtually contain allows the army anything to do and get away with it, then let it be spelled out explicitly. But this cannot happen! A state will never admit that the it gives the army personnel to commit such crime against the civilians, deliberately and systematically for over fifty years! But if it is not willing to be transparent, why continue to maintain the Act as it is? 

Second, the army cannot defend its action publicly. The covert acts that have been deliberately and systematically committed on civilians, and invoking AFSPA whenever dragged to Court, cannot be allowed to continue. How can crimes against humanity be allowed to continue in the name of AFSPA? The debates at the level of ideas and the way democratic form of governance, which includes defending human rights or right to liberty of any individual, are sustained and needs to progress, are not the job of army personnel; this domain lies with the civil authority. To let the army put its foot down against the wishes of the civil government and let the Act continue as it stands is not a healthy way of governing the state. Every body contributes to sustain the state, and each one has its role. The army must perform role to sustain the state, and so must the civil authority. There is even this rumour in the North East that the army deliberately create low intensity warfare to receive high funding. Given this rumour and its history of being a victim of army excesses, allowing the army to have final say in policy matter is unhealthy.

This draconian Act should not continue as it stands today.

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapters 8-10

I would say chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 require very careful reading. In chapter 7, Nick gives a lengthy description of political emotions of the eudaimonists. I have avoided giving the explanation of the finer points then and just give the final bid of his argument. In chapter 8, Nick argues why Augustine broke away from the eudaimonist tradition. The chapter is titled 'Augustine's Break With Eudaimonism'. And chapter 9 is titled 'Moral Vision of Scripture in Antiquity, and chapter 10 'Characterizing Life-and History-Goods'. And again a lengthy discussion on political emotions is laid out. The discussions in fact bring out the rigor of Nick's scholarship! This post combines chapter 8, 9 and 10.

The Stoics held that tranquility is necessary to lead a eudaimon life, a life that is well lived. However, the Stoics also believed that since the tranquility can be disturbed by external factors or those outside of me, one should value only those that are within one's control. Be virtuous and be happy! That would be a Stoic.

But the Parepatetics would say that there are external factors or those outside that are helpful for me in me becoming a virtuous person. So a Parepatetics may value an external good or those outside. However, the purpose for loving this good or those outside of me is so that I may become a more virtuous person. And if I lose this good or those outside, I grieve! Aristotle's eudaimonia is a sort of egoism.  Augustine goes further. Augustine thinks that one is to love one's neighbour as one loves oneself (just as his master Jesus Christ taught). So to value an external good or those outside is not just to help me become more virtuous, but because it/he/she is love-worthy. And if I lose this person, I grieve not just because I lose someone I prize or value because this person would help me to become more virtuous, but because I have compassion for the person. My life thus is then not going well if I grieve because I lose someone close. 

For the eudaimonists, the two way relational traffic with others is not really the emphasis; it's one way. For Augustine, it's a two-way traffic; it's about social relationship! Since rights are about social relationship, this way of looking about life can only account for a theory of rights. An account of life that takes into consideration the interest of the individual self alone cannot account for a theory of right. Augustine's conception of life is thus unlike Aristotle's well-lived life that concerns only with how well I live my individual life; Augustine's conception of life is about well-going life; or rather flourishing life, that takes into consideration the surrounding conditions. 

Chapter 15: The Lost World of Genesis One

This chapter is titled ' Current Debate About Intelligent Design Ultimately Concerns Purpose'. The previous chapter is here. In this chapter the author examines Intelligent Design (ID) -- or rather what the proponents say about it. The author argues that the proponents of ID critiques Theory of Evolution (TE), yet fails to give an alternative theory for the effect that we observe today. Saying that a theory is bad is one thing, but giving an alternative model is another thing. And unless an alternative model could be provided, one gets stuck. 

The other argument the author made is that ID boils down to using 'god of the gap' argument. 'God of the gap' argument is the sort of argument where natural explanation of an event is not possible possibly due to our present ignorance, divine hand is invoked to explain the cause; but when the later generation through a more developed scientific knowledge explains the cause in a natural way, the divine hand is removed from the scene. Thus, over a period of time, the space that the divine one operates in is reduced considerably. Though the proponents of ID argue that their is not a 'god of the gap' argument, it boils down to such argument, argues the author. The author thus finds ID unsatisfactory. 

When the book first came out, ID was an adversary to TE. But today as it stands five years later, I think it's fair to say that ID is no longer an attractive option for the Christians. Those working at Biologos or Faraday Institute for Science and Religion have made ID redundant -- or close to that!

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 7

This chapter discusses the idea why Eudaimonism cannot account for a theory of right. The chapter is titled 'Why Eudaimonism Cannot Serve as Framework for a Theory of Right'. The previous chapter is here. The chapter discusses about the viewpoint of the Stoics and the Parepatitics. There are differences between the two. But for the purpose of arguing for the point Nick attempts to make, the distinction is not so crucial. However,  the same points that Nick raises create a hole or seems to create a hole in the philosophical skin of the eudaimonists of both strands.

A eudaimonist believes that virtuous activities are essential to living a life well. 'Eudaimonia' is translated 'happy', but it is not happiness in the sense of living a fun filled live. A happy life is about living a virtuous life doing the sort of things that a good person is supposed to be doing. So the function of the man is important besides the point that it is in accordance with having acquired a good habit. Even if you are doing the right thing, say, fighting a war instead of running away from the battle like a coward, if you are fighting the war because the king tells you that running from war without fighting will mean killing you and your family members, you are not really doing the 'good thing' out of having acquired the virtue of courage; you are just doing the right thing out of fear for your life or the lives of your beloved ones. For a eudaimonist, this is not living a life well. To live a life your life, cultivating courage is important, and also fighting the just war. 

Now Nick argues. If someone speaks ill of you behind your back, and your living well is not harmed at all, your right is violated, yet your living well is not harmed. This sort of example demonstrates that right theory cannot go along with the eudaimonist concept of living well. To have a a theory of life and a theory of right go together, one must move beyond the concept of a happy life as espoused by the eudaimonist.

Chapter 14: The Lost World of Genesis One

This chapter is titled 'God's Roles as Creator and Sustainer Are Less Different Than We Have Thought'. Chapter 13 is here. In this chapter, the author argues that Christians should avoid two extreme viewpoints. The first point is that Christians should not think like a deist. A deist is one who thinks that God exists but is not really involved in running the affairs of the world. Rather God left the world to run on the mechanism that has been 'wounded' into its system; so that it's the gravitational force, the law of motion etc that pull the universe along. The author argues that when the Scripture speaks of God as the creator in six days, he is talking about God's intimate involvement in the creation process. The other extreme is to insist that God is a micro-manager for the affairs even today. This is not so because creation process has ceased; in the sense that creation process is not going to be an everlasting process. Creation process has a beginning and an end. There is a teleological purpose of God for the created order. Well, the author argues that God is more of a sustainer after the first six days of creation.

The author's point is well taken. There is not so much of a controversy in this regard among the Bible believing Christians!