Another insightful difference between the two schools is their chosen time frame of study. Neoclassical economists are concerned with long-term equilibria. Although deviations may occur in the short-term, the assumptions of rational actors, perfect information and efficient markets will act to counteract any slumps or booms. In the long-run, the only thing that affects growth is supply.
Keynes, on the other hand, felt that aggregate demand could be insufficient (leaving 'spare capacity' in the economy) or excessive (leading to unnecessary inflation), thus justifying government intervention to preserve full employment. In other words, prices would not adjust to the 'natural rate of output' (and thus employment) envisaged by the Milton Friedmans of the world (this links back to assumptions of risk versus uncertainty). For Keynes, there was no ontologically distinct 'long-term equilibrium' in the economy - multiple equilibria could be occupied in the short-run depending on the unravelling of unforseeable events and unpredictable 'animal spirits'.
The result of this disagreement is an inconsistency in emphasis regarding the time frame to be viewed. Ironically, however, Keynes always had some definite time horizon when economic growth would no longer be necessary (the age of abundance) and a social system could be employed, whereas Neoclassicals, whose methodology is far more long-term focused, had no long-term objective. In other words, Keynes was philosophically long-term but economically short-term, and the Neoclassicals were vice versa. Keynes lived in the short-term to achieve a long-term goal; the Neoclassicals lived in the long-term to achieve short-term goals.
What does the Word tell us on this matter? Paul stresses to his various churches that they should seek eternal things that moth and rust do not destroy. We should have an eternal perspective, thus giving us an appropriate understanding of our current situation. Thus, our methodology should be very much that of the Neoclassicists - we know what the final outcome will be, and thus can plan accordingly. There is a long-term equlibrium of Heaven, and so our actions should reflect that.
However, Christ also tells us not to worry about tommorow, for tommorow has enough worries of its own. In this regard, we should be living for the moment, rather than hoarding our manna for the next day. God will provide for us in the short-term. Therefore, unlike the Neoclassicists, and like Keynes, we should not have short-term objectives (such as wealth maximisation). Our philosophy should also be long-term.
The crux of the argument is that we actually live in two time-frames, one finite and one infinite. If anything, our long-term perspective of Heaven should affect our short-term behaviour in a way that causes us to treasure every moment and live as if it were our last. Keynes saw time as finite and discontinuous, and thus constrained himself to living in the present, even though is claimed goal was long-term. Neoclassicists saw time as infinite and continuous, and thus constrained themselves to living in the future, even though their claimed goal was short-term.
We should thus fuse the two strands of thinking. Our treasure is eternal, and so we should not seek to maximise our utility during our finite time frame. However, we should not worry, as Keynes did, about short-term issues that will even out over time. I think that this is what it means for Christ to give us 'life, and life abundantly'. To enter into the Kingdom of God NOW, whilst on Earth (our finite time frame) is only possible if we are adopting this way of living. It is not natural - usually we either micromanage our life to achieve some ambition, or we are blaze about our present because we have future security. As Christians, we have the gift of eternal life, and so should try to maximise THAT life. Often, that means giving up things of the world. As the Neoclassicists studied, we can achieve that long-term equlibrium RIGHT NOW, rather than waiting for 'the age of abundance'. However, as Keynes understood, our life on Earth is frought with difficulties, and we should see these in light of what are actually trying to achieve. Seek first His Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.
Thursday 19 August 2010
Monday 16 August 2010
Economic Growth and the Kingdom of God
Two schools of thought dominate academic economics, the choice between which determines the policy stance of a given government. I will not indulge the reader as to the comparisons and contrasts regarding the assumptions, methods and implications of these two schools, except insofar as they are relevant to the present discussion. Suffice it to say that Keynesian economics generally assumes that individual behaviour is significantly shaped by prevailing customs and that future risk is irreducibly uncertain and thus cannot be estimated using past data, whereas Neoclassical economics assumes that individuals are rational maximisers of 'utility', a vague notion of egoism that has been equated with income, wealth, and GDP, subject to discounts of risk aversity and temporal impatience that can be precisely calculated. The implications diverge broadly in that Keynesians stress the importance of maintaining full employment through fiscal policy in order to minimise the disruption caused by uncertain events, whereas Neoclassicists believe in market supremacy and unfettered competition to most efficiently solve society's problems.
It is also interesitng to comment on the objective of economic growth in each case. Economists usually assume that economic growth is desirable. What they usually fail to acknowledge is that 'money' is only instrumentally and not constitutively desirable; that is, it is only a means to purchase real goods and cannot directly be consumed. Neoclassical economists fall into the trap of taking economic growth to be the ultimate goal of society, without a coherent explanation regarding its theoretical underpinning. Indeed, the high levels of human development in areas of lower GDP, such as Cuba and Kerala, attest to the over-generalisation present in Neoclassical thinking. For this reason, Keynes asserted that the positive aspect of economic growth is not that it makes society richer per se, but that in doing so it allows people to have more 'feliticious states of mind' and so act in a more socially desirable manner; the logic being that when one no longer feels the need to fend for one's survival, or even to increase the feasibility set through waged labour, a state of social equity can be arranged. So Keynes saw economic growth as a necessary evil; in fact, he was more than derragotory of the 'love of money' that has so pervaded capitalism, and indeed, has come to define it.
I argue that both schools, by eschewing the moral foundations of Christ, pursue the wrong goal, and moreover perform that endeavour using the wrong means. Because the Kingdom of God is not sought, 'these things' are not added.
Keynesian economics attempts to avoid God. It sees the future as inherently uncertain, and thus attempts to avoid volatility. Moreover, the ultimate goal of economic growth is to achieve 'the good life' through abundance, after which point Keynes argued capitalism should be discarded for a more socially benevolent system. But surely this point is arbitrary. He was right to assume diminishing returns in money to happiness, but abundance cannot be defined so long as scarcity exists - and in a physically limited world, that is always the case. In essence, Keynes attempts to construct an Aristotlean utopia based on human ethics, and is thus doomed. What do we see as a result of eras of adherence to Keynesian principles? Stagnation and a lack of progress.
Neoclassical economics, in its own way, also assumes a divine authority. If the future can be exactly calculated down to a probability function, if humans are predictably rational and markets perfectlye fficient, then selfishness is actually virtuous. Moroever, because money is taken to be the ultimate objective of life, a narrowly defined version of happiness is available to those who can pocket the most cash, and moreover, is ethically positive. For this type of economics, there is no horizon of abundance; the game goes on forever. Wat do we see as a result of eras of adherence to Neoclassical principles? Crises and revolution.
There are several points worth noting. First, the moral sentiments of these two man-made systems diverged, as underlying goals of economic growth. Second, the rationality employed to achieve those goals diverged, in the form of distinct assumptions about human behaviour and risk. Third, neither was able to reach their chosen goal through their chosen means: Keynesian economics reaches stagnation before abundance, and Neoclassical economics confronts crises that interrupt its incessant march.
Abundance of life is only available through Christ, and more importantly, so is satisfaction in that abundance. If our goal is Heaven, then we will experience the Kingdom of God.
It is also interesitng to comment on the objective of economic growth in each case. Economists usually assume that economic growth is desirable. What they usually fail to acknowledge is that 'money' is only instrumentally and not constitutively desirable; that is, it is only a means to purchase real goods and cannot directly be consumed. Neoclassical economists fall into the trap of taking economic growth to be the ultimate goal of society, without a coherent explanation regarding its theoretical underpinning. Indeed, the high levels of human development in areas of lower GDP, such as Cuba and Kerala, attest to the over-generalisation present in Neoclassical thinking. For this reason, Keynes asserted that the positive aspect of economic growth is not that it makes society richer per se, but that in doing so it allows people to have more 'feliticious states of mind' and so act in a more socially desirable manner; the logic being that when one no longer feels the need to fend for one's survival, or even to increase the feasibility set through waged labour, a state of social equity can be arranged. So Keynes saw economic growth as a necessary evil; in fact, he was more than derragotory of the 'love of money' that has so pervaded capitalism, and indeed, has come to define it.
I argue that both schools, by eschewing the moral foundations of Christ, pursue the wrong goal, and moreover perform that endeavour using the wrong means. Because the Kingdom of God is not sought, 'these things' are not added.
Keynesian economics attempts to avoid God. It sees the future as inherently uncertain, and thus attempts to avoid volatility. Moreover, the ultimate goal of economic growth is to achieve 'the good life' through abundance, after which point Keynes argued capitalism should be discarded for a more socially benevolent system. But surely this point is arbitrary. He was right to assume diminishing returns in money to happiness, but abundance cannot be defined so long as scarcity exists - and in a physically limited world, that is always the case. In essence, Keynes attempts to construct an Aristotlean utopia based on human ethics, and is thus doomed. What do we see as a result of eras of adherence to Keynesian principles? Stagnation and a lack of progress.
Neoclassical economics, in its own way, also assumes a divine authority. If the future can be exactly calculated down to a probability function, if humans are predictably rational and markets perfectlye fficient, then selfishness is actually virtuous. Moroever, because money is taken to be the ultimate objective of life, a narrowly defined version of happiness is available to those who can pocket the most cash, and moreover, is ethically positive. For this type of economics, there is no horizon of abundance; the game goes on forever. Wat do we see as a result of eras of adherence to Neoclassical principles? Crises and revolution.
There are several points worth noting. First, the moral sentiments of these two man-made systems diverged, as underlying goals of economic growth. Second, the rationality employed to achieve those goals diverged, in the form of distinct assumptions about human behaviour and risk. Third, neither was able to reach their chosen goal through their chosen means: Keynesian economics reaches stagnation before abundance, and Neoclassical economics confronts crises that interrupt its incessant march.
Abundance of life is only available through Christ, and more importantly, so is satisfaction in that abundance. If our goal is Heaven, then we will experience the Kingdom of God.
Tuesday 3 August 2010
Re: Re: Rationality Versus Feeling
Secularism is reduced to human judgement, and distances itself from any recourse to spiritual reference points. For this reason, it can never claim an absolute truth.
First, humans all over the world, at any given point in time, disagree both in what is logical and what 'feels good' or 'feels right'. For example, if you ask an American about human rights, you will get a very different reponse than if you asked a Chinese person. If you ask an Indonesian tribesman how important is the pursuit of money and wealth, again you would get a different answer than from an American. So how can we say that human rights are absolute, or that the pursuit of wealth is the ultimate goal of rationality, when the reason for doing so would be based on human opinions that are aggregately inconsistent?
Similiarly, over time, scientific fact and human feelings diverge. To use the example of human rights again, such 'absolutes' are actually modern phenomena. Meanwhile, facts such as the flatness of the world, the centrality of the Earth in the universe, the perfect circularity of the orbits of perfect spherical orbs, have been refuted and replaced by new 'facts'. How can we say that our current beliefs are somehow sacrosanct? All that we can say is what we infer from experience: and experience dictates that we currently hold to be true will also be refuted.
What is the answer to this diarrhea of truth? Man's wisdom will only get so far. Is it that we have currently reached an 'apex' of truth, as every generation false believes? No. Mankind cannot reach truth by itself, and as soon as it rejected 'religion' in either its sentiments or logical structures, it rejected truth - not because religion is truth, but because it flushed the baby with the bath water. By all means reject religious structures, but only for the reason that they are as man-made, and therefore as flawed, as any other earthly system. But do not reject God, for in Him, all things hold together.
There is God, and He is truth. Nobody reaches that truth without going through Christ. All other roads lead to destruction.
First, humans all over the world, at any given point in time, disagree both in what is logical and what 'feels good' or 'feels right'. For example, if you ask an American about human rights, you will get a very different reponse than if you asked a Chinese person. If you ask an Indonesian tribesman how important is the pursuit of money and wealth, again you would get a different answer than from an American. So how can we say that human rights are absolute, or that the pursuit of wealth is the ultimate goal of rationality, when the reason for doing so would be based on human opinions that are aggregately inconsistent?
Similiarly, over time, scientific fact and human feelings diverge. To use the example of human rights again, such 'absolutes' are actually modern phenomena. Meanwhile, facts such as the flatness of the world, the centrality of the Earth in the universe, the perfect circularity of the orbits of perfect spherical orbs, have been refuted and replaced by new 'facts'. How can we say that our current beliefs are somehow sacrosanct? All that we can say is what we infer from experience: and experience dictates that we currently hold to be true will also be refuted.
What is the answer to this diarrhea of truth? Man's wisdom will only get so far. Is it that we have currently reached an 'apex' of truth, as every generation false believes? No. Mankind cannot reach truth by itself, and as soon as it rejected 'religion' in either its sentiments or logical structures, it rejected truth - not because religion is truth, but because it flushed the baby with the bath water. By all means reject religious structures, but only for the reason that they are as man-made, and therefore as flawed, as any other earthly system. But do not reject God, for in Him, all things hold together.
There is God, and He is truth. Nobody reaches that truth without going through Christ. All other roads lead to destruction.
Monday 2 August 2010
Re: Rationality Versus Feeling
PS: In a recent discussion with a friend, we mused that there were two types of Christian: the 'happy clappers' (i.e. those who disproportionately stress the Holy Spirit above biblical teaching) and the 'Bible nerds' (i.e. those who disproportionately stress analytical rigour over the Holy Spirit). Why this needless division? To either prioritise the good feeling that the Holy Spirit imparts, or the logical stability that the Bible confers, is to focus on earthly wisdom and desire.
These two ways of living can be reconciled if the Word of God is both the inspiration for divine knowledge and the source of holy sentiment. Consider tongues. In the Bible, the first example of tongues being spoken on a wide scale occured at Pentecost. Was this a random, feel-good orgy of mumbo jumbo, as is sometimes the case at modern processions where tongues are spoken? No. Tongues were used for a specific purpose, which was so that the diversity of languages present at the meeting could all understand Peter's sermon. Paul in his letters outlines very specific guidelines for the instrumentalisation of tongues, as a gift to be used in order to communicate God's wisdom to the masses, and not simply as a means of getting one's 'Holy Spirit fix' in some hypnotic and incomprehensible high.
Similiarly, Jesus tells us that Love fulfills the law. So what is the point of academic rigour, even of God's word, if we are unable to live lives of Love? For this reason Paul tells the Church (see scriptural appendix) that he communicates to them through his actions, and intentionally avoids intellectual constructions, so that they can see the Word for what it really is - not a logical curiousum, but the ultimate reality.
John 6:63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." Emotions without the Spirit will die with the flesh; logic without the Spirit will lead to dead-end conclusions.
These two ways of living can be reconciled if the Word of God is both the inspiration for divine knowledge and the source of holy sentiment. Consider tongues. In the Bible, the first example of tongues being spoken on a wide scale occured at Pentecost. Was this a random, feel-good orgy of mumbo jumbo, as is sometimes the case at modern processions where tongues are spoken? No. Tongues were used for a specific purpose, which was so that the diversity of languages present at the meeting could all understand Peter's sermon. Paul in his letters outlines very specific guidelines for the instrumentalisation of tongues, as a gift to be used in order to communicate God's wisdom to the masses, and not simply as a means of getting one's 'Holy Spirit fix' in some hypnotic and incomprehensible high.
Similiarly, Jesus tells us that Love fulfills the law. So what is the point of academic rigour, even of God's word, if we are unable to live lives of Love? For this reason Paul tells the Church (see scriptural appendix) that he communicates to them through his actions, and intentionally avoids intellectual constructions, so that they can see the Word for what it really is - not a logical curiousum, but the ultimate reality.
John 6:63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." Emotions without the Spirit will die with the flesh; logic without the Spirit will lead to dead-end conclusions.
Re: Rationality Versus Feeling - Relevant Literature
Ecclesiastes:
And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also is striving after wind. Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain. So I turned to consider wisdom, madness and folly; for what will the man do who will come after the king except what has already been done? And I saw that wisdom excels folly as light excels darkness. The wise man's eyes are in his head, but the fool walks in darkness And yet I know that one fate befalls them both. Then I said to myself, "As is the fate of the fool, it will also befall me Why then have I been extremely wise?" So I said to myself, "This too is vanity." For there is no lasting remembrance of the wise man as with the fool, inasmuch as in the coming days all will be forgotten And how the wise man and the fool alike die! So I hated life, for the work which had been done under the sun was grievous to me; because everything is futility and striving after wind.
James:
But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him...Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.
Galations:
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these...those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
Romans:
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
1 Corinthians:
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption...And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God...my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
Proverbs 2:
1My son, if you will receive my words
And treasure my commandments within you,
2Make your ear attentive to wisdom,
Incline your heart to understanding;
3For if you cry for discernment,
Lift your voice for understanding;
4If you seek her as silver
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
5Then you will discern the fear of the LORD
And discover the knowledge of God.
For the LORD gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
7He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
He is a shield to those who walk in integrity,
8Guarding the paths of justice,
And He preserves the way of His godly ones.
9Then you will discern righteousness and justice
And equity and every good course.
10For wisdom will enter your heart
And knowledge will be pleasant to your soul;
11Discretion will guard you,
Understanding will watch over you,
12To deliver you from the way of evil,
From the man who speaks perverse things;
13From those who leave the paths of uprightness
To walk in the ways of darkness;
14Who delight in doing evil
And rejoice in the perversity of evil;
15Whose paths are crooked,
And who are devious in their ways;
16To deliver you from the strange woman [often a metaphor for earthly wisdom],
From the adulteress who flatters with her words;
17That leaves the companion of her youth
And forgets the covenant of her God;
18For her house sinks down to death
And her tracks lead to the dead;
19None who go to her return again,
Nor do they reach the paths of life.
20So you will walk in the way of good men
And keep to the paths of the righteous.
21For the upright will live in the land
And the blameless will remain in it;
22But the wicked will be cut off from the land
And the treacherous will be uprooted from it.
And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also is striving after wind. Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain. So I turned to consider wisdom, madness and folly; for what will the man do who will come after the king except what has already been done? And I saw that wisdom excels folly as light excels darkness. The wise man's eyes are in his head, but the fool walks in darkness And yet I know that one fate befalls them both. Then I said to myself, "As is the fate of the fool, it will also befall me Why then have I been extremely wise?" So I said to myself, "This too is vanity." For there is no lasting remembrance of the wise man as with the fool, inasmuch as in the coming days all will be forgotten And how the wise man and the fool alike die! So I hated life, for the work which had been done under the sun was grievous to me; because everything is futility and striving after wind.
James:
But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him...Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.
Galations:
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these...those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
Romans:
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
1 Corinthians:
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption...And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God...my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
Proverbs 2:
1My son, if you will receive my words
And treasure my commandments within you,
2Make your ear attentive to wisdom,
Incline your heart to understanding;
3For if you cry for discernment,
Lift your voice for understanding;
4If you seek her as silver
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
5Then you will discern the fear of the LORD
And discover the knowledge of God.
For the LORD gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
7He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
He is a shield to those who walk in integrity,
8Guarding the paths of justice,
And He preserves the way of His godly ones.
9Then you will discern righteousness and justice
And equity and every good course.
10For wisdom will enter your heart
And knowledge will be pleasant to your soul;
11Discretion will guard you,
Understanding will watch over you,
12To deliver you from the way of evil,
From the man who speaks perverse things;
13From those who leave the paths of uprightness
To walk in the ways of darkness;
14Who delight in doing evil
And rejoice in the perversity of evil;
15Whose paths are crooked,
And who are devious in their ways;
16To deliver you from the strange woman [often a metaphor for earthly wisdom],
From the adulteress who flatters with her words;
17That leaves the companion of her youth
And forgets the covenant of her God;
18For her house sinks down to death
And her tracks lead to the dead;
19None who go to her return again,
Nor do they reach the paths of life.
20So you will walk in the way of good men
And keep to the paths of the righteous.
21For the upright will live in the land
And the blameless will remain in it;
22But the wicked will be cut off from the land
And the treacherous will be uprooted from it.
Sunday 1 August 2010
Rationality Versus Feeling: A False Dichotomy
Personality tests often draw an absolute distinction between ‘feelers’ and ‘thinkers’, respectively relying on sentiment and logic to make decisions. This dichotomy pervades our perceptions of people, and indeed, of truth. We would like to think that what is logical and what feels good coalesce, but alas, this is seldom the case: think of addictions that are satisfying but are irrational, or medicine that is logical but is uncomfortable. This blog argues that this is a false dichotomy, if we accept that truth is from God.
People label themselves and others as either logical or as instinctive. However, even with regard to earthly matters, is this really a valid division? It is possible to construct logical arguments around any earthly desire, even to the point of self-deception. Conversely, logic often satisfies a human desire for self-sufficiency. Consciously or subconsciously, we are often selective in what we choose to factor into our logical analyses (the criteria based on our desires), or on what we choose to identify as our true reason for doing something. In social science, ‘retrospective inconsistency’ involves a survey respondent giving contradictory responses to the same question at different points in time. For example, a citizen may cite peer pressure as their motivation to vote immediately proceeding their action, but a decade later will invent (consciously or not) an impetus of social responsibility. Logic and desires are not completely distinct, and moreover, they can be mutually reinforcing.
This combination is often employed to satisfy the actions of the self, without recourse to external input. However, Ecclesiastes tells us that earthly wisdom leads only to grief. Moreover, Proverbs talks of the seduction of earthly wisdom in the guise of a female adultress, whose trail leads to death (see posts on Sheol). Moreover, we see from the story of Nebuchannezar whose disobedience led to a loss of wisdom, and similiarly from Adam and Eve, that human desires, because they are also subjected to the Divine Law, in fact diminish even earthly wisdom. The first point, therefore, is that we pursue earthly wisdom and desires rather than Godly wisdom and Godly desires, and this is an unsustainable position with an inaccessible goal, because anything good on Earth is only a shadow of greater things Above. The metaphor of a shadow is useful: not only it is a mere representation of something more real, more multi-dimensional and more vibrant, it is an epi-phenomena of that something: it is intrinsically dependent on its source, and cannot in itself be captured.
But even if we could have all the things of the world, what good would it be if we forfeited our soul? And this is the second point: by pursuing earthly objects, not only will we most likely burn out before obtaining those objects, but we also forego those greater things from Above. Both wisdom and desire are discussed at length in the Bible. The distinction, however, is not between what is rational and irrational, but rather, what is earthly and what is Divine. With regard to desires, we are told to ‘delight ourselves in the Lord’ by the Psalmist and elsewhere by the Apostle Paul not to yield to ‘earthly desires’. With regard to wisdom, we are warned by Solomon in Ecclesiastes that the wisdom of man is ‘meaningless’ and ‘striving after wind’, and that by Paul, Peter and James that we have ‘the mind of Christ’, a kind of ‘secret knowledge’ of the mysteries of existence that is imparted to us by God. See forthcoming appendix for relevant scriptures relating to each case. In much of the highlighted passages, earthly wisdom/desires are in direct conflict with heavenly wisdom/desires, even to the point where James calls earthly wisdom 'demonic' and Paul makes claims of having a dual personality!
A common criticism often levelled at Christianity is the following conundrum: if God is both omnipotent and all-loving, why does evil happen? I would propose that the secret is in the meaning of ‘love’ – it involves both choice, which inevitably can have negative consequences when the wrong choice is made, and discipline, which will often have uncomfortable ramifications in the short-run. Human aspirations often seek to avoid discomfort, and rational calculations are made to this end. But the amount of times that I have heard people say “if I hadn’t have been through that experience, I wouldn’t be who I am today”, or similar, convinces me that part of the Christian walk is to surrender those intuitions to Him. Indeeed, see scriptural appendix for Paul's take on living with 'the mind of Christ': sacrificing our humanity for the sake of something greater.
If we accept that God is omniscient and all-loving, then really it is rational to allow him to take the reigns. If this means communication through ‘feelings’ or ‘intuitions’, then certainly it is rational to consider those messages, even if they contradict our earthly wisdom. Proverbs, conversely, teaches us some basic ways to apply our God-given rationality. Hence, both rationality and the 'sixth sense' are gifts from God, and as we are created in His image, they are fundamental components of our existence. However, because of sin, these mechanisms can be corrupted. The human brain is capable of greater capacity and deeper thought; indeed, human beings only employ a fraction of their cerebrum at any given time. Conversely, the seemingly supernatural and prophetic perceptions of those who are stripped of other senses (such as blind people) show that human intuition is also a largely untapped resource. Sin has imposed limitations on our human capabilities, and part of the Christian life is allow God to do what we cannot. What God desires of us is always what is best for us, whether or not we know it at the time. Therefore, we cannot evaluate his plans based on logic, because our information is limited, or on feelings, because our desires are tainted.
The arbitrariness of our logic and our feelings can easily find root in our sinful nature, as Paul's shizophrenia explicitly reveals; much better that we choose to anchor it on God’s heavenly authority. I would say that from experience, yielding to God’s plan, whilst frustratingly irrational at the time, will be retrospectively the optimal path, even to attain our earthly desires. Ironically, therefore, even a selfish, rational individual would best achieve their aim through their system of logic by yielding to God's plan. So even earthly systems are subjected to God's authority: "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).
I am inclined to write “a balance must be struck”, but this would obviously contradict my argument – there is no balance, because there is no distinction. If there is a balance, it is intrinsically contained in God's Divine Being. Arisotlean 'Ethics' that attempt to arbitrate a human balance between extremes will always fall short for this reason: they take as granted that there are two extremes in the first place. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: the Word was with God in the beginning. PURSUE GOD, AND THE REST WILL FOLLOW. Interestingly, the word ‘logos’, hear meaning word, is the root our word ‘logic’. The Hebrews saw God as a mysterious force to be accessed by ritual and emotion. The Greeks, however, saw God as the ultimate rational force, the possessor of divine knowledge based on perfect and timeless information. In the Word of God, the two coexist and even complement each other. For this reason, when a Christian says ‘I have a word from God’, what they mean is that God has imparted a piece of divine knowledge to them, that is infinitely rational, perhaps through an emotional stimulus. 'Words', as we know them, occupy either space (if they are written), or time (if they are spoken). But God is timeless and omnipresent, and so His Word is clearly above our earthly laws.
If you find yourself in a maze, it would be convenient to have direction from somebody with a top-down view of the situation, who could guide you to the exit; especially one who loves you and wishes you to be free. Without this direction, it may seem rational simply to follow your compass (a 'moral compass', perhaps?). This strategy, however, would lead to a dead-end. The friend looking down may advise that you back-track in order to conjoin the appropriate path. This seems irrational, based on your own desire to go in a certain direction, but at the same time, you know that it is rational on a 'higher level' because it is actually more conducive to the fulfillment of what your real desire is - to get out of the maze. Earthly wisdom and desires lead us further into the maze (see my posts on 'Sheol' to see how the lure of earthly wisdom and earthly desires lead to sup-optimal existence, which interesingly, often takes the visual form of an inescapable labyrinth).
I would posit that in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve walked with God, what was desirable and what was rational were one and the same, because the Law of Love reigned supreme. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Through Christ, we can return to this state by living with the Holy Spirit (see relevant literature).
However, we will also suffer from Paul's internal tension between flesh and spirit. The key to Christian maturity is to distinguish between the two at every decision point, and crucially, to act accordingly. Often, our desires will deceive us, and we can use our biblical analysis to refute those desires, as Jesus did when He was tempted in the desert. At other times, what will seem rational will not coalesce with what we feel to be right; biblical examples abound, such as Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his son Isaac, or Jonah feeling led to travel to Nineveh. And crucially, notice the inevitability of the final outcome: Abraham's obedience was rewarded, and Isaac was spared. Jonah ended up in Nineveh whether he liked it or not, but because of his initial disobedience, had to undergo a period of correction in the belly of a whale. This is another Sheol, and comparable to that period of 40 years when the Isralites had to wander in the desert for 40 years, after rationally calculating, on the basis of the sentiment of fear, that they could not defeat the inhabitants of the Promised Land, contrary to God's direction. And yet, ultimately God's promise remained. It is better to seize the promise as soon as possible, and to concomittantly obey his instruction immediately, for although God will not revoke it, the discipline and regret that accompany the 'second chance' are not worthwhile. It is the equivalent of taking a 'sunken hit' on an investment opportunity - nothing is gained, but something is lost. Although at the time, taking the leap of faith seems uncertain, it is actually far more secured than the uncertainty that accompanies the chaos that exists without God's divine order (see posts on 'Divine Order').
Seek first His kingdom, and we will find that we are acting both rationally and in accordance with what we desire. If, however, we take those earthly gifts to be the object of our efforts, then we will be dissatisfied. Not only do we place the wrong target in our sights, but we pursue those desires in irrational ways, if left to our own devices. Our own devices are limited; those of God are not.
People label themselves and others as either logical or as instinctive. However, even with regard to earthly matters, is this really a valid division? It is possible to construct logical arguments around any earthly desire, even to the point of self-deception. Conversely, logic often satisfies a human desire for self-sufficiency. Consciously or subconsciously, we are often selective in what we choose to factor into our logical analyses (the criteria based on our desires), or on what we choose to identify as our true reason for doing something. In social science, ‘retrospective inconsistency’ involves a survey respondent giving contradictory responses to the same question at different points in time. For example, a citizen may cite peer pressure as their motivation to vote immediately proceeding their action, but a decade later will invent (consciously or not) an impetus of social responsibility. Logic and desires are not completely distinct, and moreover, they can be mutually reinforcing.
This combination is often employed to satisfy the actions of the self, without recourse to external input. However, Ecclesiastes tells us that earthly wisdom leads only to grief. Moreover, Proverbs talks of the seduction of earthly wisdom in the guise of a female adultress, whose trail leads to death (see posts on Sheol). Moreover, we see from the story of Nebuchannezar whose disobedience led to a loss of wisdom, and similiarly from Adam and Eve, that human desires, because they are also subjected to the Divine Law, in fact diminish even earthly wisdom. The first point, therefore, is that we pursue earthly wisdom and desires rather than Godly wisdom and Godly desires, and this is an unsustainable position with an inaccessible goal, because anything good on Earth is only a shadow of greater things Above. The metaphor of a shadow is useful: not only it is a mere representation of something more real, more multi-dimensional and more vibrant, it is an epi-phenomena of that something: it is intrinsically dependent on its source, and cannot in itself be captured.
But even if we could have all the things of the world, what good would it be if we forfeited our soul? And this is the second point: by pursuing earthly objects, not only will we most likely burn out before obtaining those objects, but we also forego those greater things from Above. Both wisdom and desire are discussed at length in the Bible. The distinction, however, is not between what is rational and irrational, but rather, what is earthly and what is Divine. With regard to desires, we are told to ‘delight ourselves in the Lord’ by the Psalmist and elsewhere by the Apostle Paul not to yield to ‘earthly desires’. With regard to wisdom, we are warned by Solomon in Ecclesiastes that the wisdom of man is ‘meaningless’ and ‘striving after wind’, and that by Paul, Peter and James that we have ‘the mind of Christ’, a kind of ‘secret knowledge’ of the mysteries of existence that is imparted to us by God. See forthcoming appendix for relevant scriptures relating to each case. In much of the highlighted passages, earthly wisdom/desires are in direct conflict with heavenly wisdom/desires, even to the point where James calls earthly wisdom 'demonic' and Paul makes claims of having a dual personality!
A common criticism often levelled at Christianity is the following conundrum: if God is both omnipotent and all-loving, why does evil happen? I would propose that the secret is in the meaning of ‘love’ – it involves both choice, which inevitably can have negative consequences when the wrong choice is made, and discipline, which will often have uncomfortable ramifications in the short-run. Human aspirations often seek to avoid discomfort, and rational calculations are made to this end. But the amount of times that I have heard people say “if I hadn’t have been through that experience, I wouldn’t be who I am today”, or similar, convinces me that part of the Christian walk is to surrender those intuitions to Him. Indeeed, see scriptural appendix for Paul's take on living with 'the mind of Christ': sacrificing our humanity for the sake of something greater.
If we accept that God is omniscient and all-loving, then really it is rational to allow him to take the reigns. If this means communication through ‘feelings’ or ‘intuitions’, then certainly it is rational to consider those messages, even if they contradict our earthly wisdom. Proverbs, conversely, teaches us some basic ways to apply our God-given rationality. Hence, both rationality and the 'sixth sense' are gifts from God, and as we are created in His image, they are fundamental components of our existence. However, because of sin, these mechanisms can be corrupted. The human brain is capable of greater capacity and deeper thought; indeed, human beings only employ a fraction of their cerebrum at any given time. Conversely, the seemingly supernatural and prophetic perceptions of those who are stripped of other senses (such as blind people) show that human intuition is also a largely untapped resource. Sin has imposed limitations on our human capabilities, and part of the Christian life is allow God to do what we cannot. What God desires of us is always what is best for us, whether or not we know it at the time. Therefore, we cannot evaluate his plans based on logic, because our information is limited, or on feelings, because our desires are tainted.
The arbitrariness of our logic and our feelings can easily find root in our sinful nature, as Paul's shizophrenia explicitly reveals; much better that we choose to anchor it on God’s heavenly authority. I would say that from experience, yielding to God’s plan, whilst frustratingly irrational at the time, will be retrospectively the optimal path, even to attain our earthly desires. Ironically, therefore, even a selfish, rational individual would best achieve their aim through their system of logic by yielding to God's plan. So even earthly systems are subjected to God's authority: "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).
I am inclined to write “a balance must be struck”, but this would obviously contradict my argument – there is no balance, because there is no distinction. If there is a balance, it is intrinsically contained in God's Divine Being. Arisotlean 'Ethics' that attempt to arbitrate a human balance between extremes will always fall short for this reason: they take as granted that there are two extremes in the first place. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: the Word was with God in the beginning. PURSUE GOD, AND THE REST WILL FOLLOW. Interestingly, the word ‘logos’, hear meaning word, is the root our word ‘logic’. The Hebrews saw God as a mysterious force to be accessed by ritual and emotion. The Greeks, however, saw God as the ultimate rational force, the possessor of divine knowledge based on perfect and timeless information. In the Word of God, the two coexist and even complement each other. For this reason, when a Christian says ‘I have a word from God’, what they mean is that God has imparted a piece of divine knowledge to them, that is infinitely rational, perhaps through an emotional stimulus. 'Words', as we know them, occupy either space (if they are written), or time (if they are spoken). But God is timeless and omnipresent, and so His Word is clearly above our earthly laws.
If you find yourself in a maze, it would be convenient to have direction from somebody with a top-down view of the situation, who could guide you to the exit; especially one who loves you and wishes you to be free. Without this direction, it may seem rational simply to follow your compass (a 'moral compass', perhaps?). This strategy, however, would lead to a dead-end. The friend looking down may advise that you back-track in order to conjoin the appropriate path. This seems irrational, based on your own desire to go in a certain direction, but at the same time, you know that it is rational on a 'higher level' because it is actually more conducive to the fulfillment of what your real desire is - to get out of the maze. Earthly wisdom and desires lead us further into the maze (see my posts on 'Sheol' to see how the lure of earthly wisdom and earthly desires lead to sup-optimal existence, which interesingly, often takes the visual form of an inescapable labyrinth).
I would posit that in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve walked with God, what was desirable and what was rational were one and the same, because the Law of Love reigned supreme. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Through Christ, we can return to this state by living with the Holy Spirit (see relevant literature).
However, we will also suffer from Paul's internal tension between flesh and spirit. The key to Christian maturity is to distinguish between the two at every decision point, and crucially, to act accordingly. Often, our desires will deceive us, and we can use our biblical analysis to refute those desires, as Jesus did when He was tempted in the desert. At other times, what will seem rational will not coalesce with what we feel to be right; biblical examples abound, such as Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his son Isaac, or Jonah feeling led to travel to Nineveh. And crucially, notice the inevitability of the final outcome: Abraham's obedience was rewarded, and Isaac was spared. Jonah ended up in Nineveh whether he liked it or not, but because of his initial disobedience, had to undergo a period of correction in the belly of a whale. This is another Sheol, and comparable to that period of 40 years when the Isralites had to wander in the desert for 40 years, after rationally calculating, on the basis of the sentiment of fear, that they could not defeat the inhabitants of the Promised Land, contrary to God's direction. And yet, ultimately God's promise remained. It is better to seize the promise as soon as possible, and to concomittantly obey his instruction immediately, for although God will not revoke it, the discipline and regret that accompany the 'second chance' are not worthwhile. It is the equivalent of taking a 'sunken hit' on an investment opportunity - nothing is gained, but something is lost. Although at the time, taking the leap of faith seems uncertain, it is actually far more secured than the uncertainty that accompanies the chaos that exists without God's divine order (see posts on 'Divine Order').
Seek first His kingdom, and we will find that we are acting both rationally and in accordance with what we desire. If, however, we take those earthly gifts to be the object of our efforts, then we will be dissatisfied. Not only do we place the wrong target in our sights, but we pursue those desires in irrational ways, if left to our own devices. Our own devices are limited; those of God are not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)