One of my all time favorite books, which is really just a 60 or so page pamphlet, is Jonathan Edward's book, The End For Which God Created the World. This book explains the big picture behind what Christianity (and reality as a whole) is all about. It's all about God and everything that's true about God. Creation is the expression of and the means through which God expresses his glory, and his glory consists in everything that's true about him.
There are two parts to the book/pamphlet. In the first part, Edwards gives a philosophical argument for God making himself the chief end in everything he does. In the second part, he gives Biblical arguments for the same thing. The Biblical case consists of copious citations of God doing this or that for his name's sake or for himself or for his own glory, etc. The philosophical case rests on the premise that God is "infinitely the greatest and best of beings," and everything else follows from that--that to be good is to value that which is most valuable, and to value God's divine attributes is to love the exercise and expression of those attributes, etc.
This book/pamphlets sheds light on almost any other theological or apologetic topic. It explains why there is evil, why God saves some and not others, why God requires worship, whether this make him an egomaniac, why God didn't do this or that some other way, why God's sovereignty is so exhaustive, how and why everything has a purpose, what that purpose is, why we should obey God, what the ultimate goal in morality is, etc.
So I highly recommend reading this book/pamphlet. It's only 60 pages, but it could shed a lot of light on a lot of different things. This is the big picture. This is the answer to, "What is the meaning of life?"
4 comments:
How does it deal with the fundamental circularity that usually beset such accounts, as indicated by the Euthyphro dilemma? Also, would it survive the Panglossian satire? I could read it, but you're so good at synopsis... :-)
Edwards doesn't address those issues. The philosophical part of the books begins with the assumption that God is the greatest being and that he created the world, so it's not addressed to an atheist audience at all.
Hi Sam,
I was wondering whether one can both affirm the Kalam and Edwards´ reason for God´s creation (or any other reason). My reasoning: Kalam presupposes libertarian free will, which as you have demonstrated, renders the agent´s decision arbitrary/blind chance/random. Now Edwards claims God created the world for a purpose/reason. If Kalam says the creation is for no reason and Edwards´s claims there is a reason, we have contradiction. Either take the Kalam and reject any reason why God created the universe, or pick some reason and reject the Kalam. How would you respond?
Best Regards,
Ville
Hi Ville,
Libertarian free will only comes into the Kalam when arguing for the personhood of the cause. One could affirm the Kalam without using that argument. I also think it's possible to run a similar arguing by using the compatibilist notion of free will, but I'm not 100% confident in that argument.
Sam
Post a Comment