15. The Rationale of Believing in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead

                                                                         We shall end this Study with a reminder that to appreciate this conclusion, we have to keep in mind the points we have already discussed in the previous Posts. However, the crucial point that influences to a large extent our understanding of the resurrection of Jesus is the depth of consciousness we have developed through our life. Have we a normally grown consciousness as we age through the years, or is it blocked and maimed by our one-sided involvements in the world? If a person considers himself or herself as part of this world to such a degree that there is no essential difference between animals and the humans, consciousness too will remain restricted purely to the material realm of this world. Such a person is not in a position to understand any higher truth that demands refined consciousness reaching out to the spiritual level of reality. To take in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, one needs openness not only to the temporal, physical and material reality, but also to the eternal, non-physical and the spiritual dimension. Only such people are eligible to receive the gift of faith from God that is an essential constituent of our belief in the resurrection.
                                                                        It comes down to the question of our state of being that determines our capacity to receive anything new including the revelation from God of which the resurrection of Jesus from the dead takes pride of place. It does not mean that it depends on us whether we receive the grace of God in the form of the gift of faith, but only that we need the minimum requirement of readiness to receive it. It is like accepting the invitation to the wedding feast where everything is ready where the minimum requirement of wedding dress is taken for granted. The quality of our consciousness is the wedding dress required from our part to enter the reception chamber to enjoy the feast. Is our consciousness clouded, darkened or blocked when confronted with this grand invitation? Being immersed in this material world, if we are not attentive, it is easy to be mesmerized by the display of this world where our consciousness and conscience are forced to be submerged under vanities. The rationale of our belief is to be gathered from the particular language-game we play through the religious language we engage in as we have seen in the previous Posts.
                                                                        Here we shall inquire into the role of our consciousness in believing what we believe and its rationality. The modernist position on consciousness influenced many thinkers in dealing with the question of the resurrection of Jesus. The Catholic Church described and condemned the modernist view on the resurrection of Christ in the decree "Lamentabili" in its 36th and 37th propositions. The 36th proposition reads: "The Resurrection of our Savior is not a fact of the historical order, but a fact of the purely supernatural order neither proved nor provable, which Christian consciousness has little by little inferred from other facts". This condemnation is directly against the position of Alfred Loisy, a former catholic priest, in his books"Autour d'un Petit Livre", pp. viii, 120-121, 169 and "L'Evangile et L'Eglise", pp.74-78, 120-121, 171 constituting the modernist position. If the Resurrection were merely a historical fact pertaining only to the confines of this world, it would not be any better than the raising of Lazarus, the daughter of Jairus or the son of the widow of Nain. They were meant to die again without being absorbed by the power of the Holy Spirit as in the case of Jesus Christ who could become the living Spirit dispensing salvation to those who believe in him. The proof for the historicity of the Resurrection is provided by the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection that has been amply treated by innumerable scholars, which need not be repeated here. 
                                                                      The crux of the problem with Resurrection is in the trans-historical and eternal component of the reality of Resurrection. Here the role of consciousness comes into play. The modernists insist on the gradual inference of the fact of resurrection by the  Christian consciousness  from other facts. Which are these facts?They think that the Old Testament prophecies and the expectation of their fulfillment resulted in the Christian belief in the Resurrection. The main argument against this view is that what really happened in the Resurrection was beyond all expectations that even the Apostles themselves were perplexed about and could not bring themselves to believe. This is in the context of the fact that the Apostles and the closest disciples of Jesus were specially trained to believe in him through a period of almost 3 years. So, how did the Apostles and the disciples were able to finally believe in the Resurrection?
                                                                      This was not possible without a complete revolution in their personal lives for which Jesus prepared them. The Good News proclaimed by Jesus to repent because the Kingdom of God is at hand conveyed the message of a total conversion from our old ways to new ones embodied in his person and realized in the Resurrection. Without such a total change of our inner self and consequent perspectives, nothing of eternal value could be understood by us, let alone appropriated! Such a well prepared ground is watered by God sending His Spirit into us causing faith in the Resurrection as well as all matters pertaining to the eternal.
Unscientific? Do not forget to refresh oneself with our previous Posts treating about language-games and the role of Metaphysics as the tacit foundation of Physics. When speaking of Metaphysics, one has to be cautious, especially because Wittgenstein himself whose philosophical method we uphold, was himself skeptical about it. Of course, Wittgenstein had in mind the empiricism of David Hume and John Locke as well as the rationalism of Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant. When he spoke of the aim of Philosophy as bringing back the metaphysical use of language to our ordinary use, he had them in mind besides others with similar tendencies. However, Wittgenstein paved the way for the legitimate use of religious language through the notion of "language-games" whereby grammar tells us what anything is with a reference to theology as grammar. Besides, in the strictly logical treatment of language in his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", Wittgenstein left open the possibility of the "mystical" that was succinctly expressed in the last proposition of the book:"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent". Each science and branch of knowledge has meaning only within its own language-game and this applies to empirical sciences as well as Philosophy and Theology.
Therefore, no science can sit in judgment on religious language and vice-versa, if one wants to avoid the pathetic situation of a sitting duck before the hunter in the form of Logic that governs all branches of knowledge. Or shall we say that the rigid materialist inevitably saws off the branch on which he is seated? He thinks that he is defending reason, science and truth and yet ends up with destroying them without a trace of remorse, may be because he does it in good faith! 

14. Meanings of Words as their Use in language (Contd)

                                                                                   The task of Philosophy is not to advance any complex or hidden theories, as sometimes is done in metaphysics, that underlie the surface features of language. The correct method would be to assemble reminders of how we actually use language in our everyday life  that does not look for anything beneath the surface of language. However," 'Essence' is expressed by grammar" (P.I., para.371) and "Grammar tells what kind of object anything is. (Theology as grammar)". (P.I., Para. 373).
                                                  What Wittgenstein means by grammar is the "depth grammar" of language and not the "surface grammar" we learn in school grammar classes. "Depth grammar is employed in language-games and like any game we play, language-games too have rules. These rules are not strict boundaries, but overlapping and fluid ones. "Rule" and "agreement" are related to one another like cousins. Similarly, the uses of "rule" and that of "same" are interwoven as in the use of "proposition" and the use of "true". The tendency to create an ideal language is fraught with danger as our ordinary language is perfectly in order as it is. The consequence of this insight was that his own "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and the "Principia Mathematica" of Bertrand Russell fell by the wayside. G. E. Moore's "Philosophy of Common Sense" had to beat a fast retreat on epistemological grounds. The "depth grammar' of our language governs our use of words and to look for a "perfect' and "idealistic" use of words is nothing but a mirage.
                                                  " 'But the words, significantly uttered,have after all not only a surface, but also the dimension of depth' ". (P.I., para. 594). This depth in the form of a deeper meaning one may have in one's mind is not what is meant by depth grammar. In search of meaning of words, the context of each speaker's description of his or her 'meaning' of some expression reveals 'depth grammar'. Wittgenstein investigates 'meaning' from different directions through concepts of 'family resemblances' of 'meaning', 'understanding', 'thinking', 'intending' and similar concepts. "...When we mean something, it is like going up to someone"..." we go up to the thing we mean" (P.I., para. 455). Here we have a reference to 'intentionality' treated in P.I. from para. 428 to para. 465. 'Intentionality' is crucial in understanding how language is connected to reality. When a person actually uses words, depth grammar reveals whatever it is that accompanies those words. 'Meaning' encompasses the subjective-human aspects and pin-pointing meaning at the same time brings out the 'deep meaning' enmeshed in the 'depth grammar'. We refer to the surrounding circumstances and relationships that accompany our language use through depth grammar.It is rooted in a whole set of activities into which language is woven,derived from 'forms of life' of the subject or the subjects involved. 
                                                         'Surface grammar' is about words and their syntactic features, whereas 'depth grammar' is about the way an expression is used and refers to its semantic character. While the 'surface grammar' remains the same in various uses, 'depth grammar' is context-sensitive and varies due to change of contexts and is constituted by rules of language-games. The connection between 'doing' and 'meaning' constitutes language-games. Depth grammar only describes and in no way explains the use of signs (See P.I., para. 496). The wrong notions of 'understanding', 'thinking', 'meaning', 'intending' etc. as mental processes are demolished by a grammatical investigation of the words 'reading' and 'understanding'. We do not base our criteria for determining if someone has understood something or is reading something on inner states or processes, but on their external actions. There are no absolute rules or fundamental justification for following rules the way we do as our shared participation in certain forms of life is enough justification.
                                                          With these glimpses of "Meanings of Words as their Use in Language" as practiced in Linguistic Analysis by the Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, we shall proceed to the last Post of this Study connecting them to the meaningfulness of the expression "Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead".     

13. Meanings of Words as their Use in Language (Contd)

                                                       How does a word signify something? The most natural and easiest way would be to affix a sign on to the object signified by the word. If the sign for slab is affixed on the slab, on being shown the sign 'slab', the assistant can bring it to the mason. The function of a name is similar to this and the name is used to mean the object designated, without the object itself being its meaning. If the object designated were its meaning, the word 'Paul' would have no meaning when the person represented by the word dies. Moreover one and the same word 'Bank', for example, could not be used to mean more than one object, which is not the case.  
                                                     From Augustine's description of teaching language by pointing to objects and uttering names, it would appear that we teach meanings of words by pointing to the objects that they name. We go wrong if we take such connection between word and thing is the fundamental relationship fixing language to the world. The reason is that this relationship can be seen only after a great deal of language use is in place, which Wittgenstein calls its depth grammar, about which we shall see in the next Post. When we discuss the meaning of a word as its use in language, the definitions and fixed boundaries of rules that govern its use may be thought of as binding on our mind. But, this is not the case as we can see how, for example, we use a word like 'game' without strictly bound rules and fixed boundaries. Various uses of the word 'game' are based on similarities akin to those among various members of a family called family resemblances without strict definitions and setting up of boundaries. Words are not bounded by any rigidity, but are flexible enough to be used in various contexts with different meanings as there are no sharp boundaries that determine their uses and consequently their meanings. Wittgenstein terms this kind of use of language as "language-games".
                                                    Language-games are understood in comparison with the games we usually play. Is there any one thing that is common in the games we play the absence of which will edge anyone of the games out? It would seem that there must be something common  in all of them in order to merit the name of 'game'. This is the consequence of our thinking without looking. The importance of observation and "seeing" should not be diminished by our "thinking". Instead of any one thing common to all games and language-games, similarities and family relationships should serve as reasons for bringing them under the tag of games and language-games. This is what we do in everyday use of language and no one has any complaint about 'inexactness' in our use of words. If anyone has a complaint, he or she owes us a definition of 'exactness'!  "What we are destroying is nothing but houses of cards and we are clearing up the ground of language on which they stand" (Philosophical Investigations, paragraph no. 118. Hereafter, P.I., para. no.).
                                                 If our ordinary language is too coarse and material for what we want to say,
'how is another one to be constructed' with what we have? (See P.I., para.no. 120). Meaning is not something other than the word. "Here the word, there the meaning. The money, and the cow that you can buy with it. (But contrast: money, and its use)". (P.I., para. no. 120)."Every sign 'by itself' seems dead. 'What' gives it life? In use it is 'alive'. Is life breathed into it there? Or is the 'use' its life?" (P,I,, para.no. 432). A sign is alive in its use. A language-game is understood when we understand the rules that constitute it. Rules are conventions or customs in contexts and their observance consists in ways of doing things or living. That is why we cannot understand a language-game without understanding a form of life. And words in language are signs to be used by us. How? We shall see it in the next Post. (To be Contd).

12. Meanings of Words as their Use in Language

                                                            Ludwig Wittgenstein starts his book "Philosophical Investigations" with a quotation from St. Augustine's Confessions, I, 8 that is a description of how children learn language. It is, however, the description of a primitive form of language mainly concerned with naming things around us. Children learn language by naming things by pointing to them and saying their names. It is to be noted here that children learn language not by explanations, but by training in use of language,which has far-reaching consequences in understanding the use of language for conveying meanings. This way language and its use and meaning are being ingrained in children that stand as the foundation for their life-long employment of words meaningfully. One has to keep in mind, however, that meanings are not attached to words like labels nor are the things themselves referred to by the words their meanings. If it were so, we would not have been able to use the same word for many things and many words for the same thing.
                                                           Augustine used single words and mostly nouns to explain how the children learn language. However, single words can be used to convey meanings which are complex, if one is trained for it. Examples are how construction workers act correctly on hearing the words like "slab", "pillar". "concrete" etc. by bringing them to the masons and other builders. They know the meanings of those words by correctly reacting to them by carrying those objects to the persons concerned and that means that they know how to use those words under the circumstances. This presupposes a particular kind of training and with a different type of training, results could have been different even if in both cases the method of ostensive teaching was followed. Ostensive teaching is the method used for teaching children the names of things as we have seen above. The reason for this anomaly is that pointing to a thing can mean different things in different situations and circumstances of persons and therefore previous training is a necessity for capturing the right meanings of words. It is immaterial what kind of an image is evoked in one's mind in hearing a word as it does not influence its meaning since meaning is determined by its correct use seen in appropriate actions. Words and their meanings are not isolated parts, but are connected to the whole web of language just as a brake is set up by connecting up rod and lever within a mechanism. In isolation from the mechanism, it is not even a lever, let alone a brake-lever.
                                                         As the child's language is expanded to include not only simple nouns, but also words like "there", "this" and numerals etc., the training methods also are expanded. One may think of words like tools in a tool box: hammer. pliers, a saw, a screw-driver, a ruler, a glue-pot, glue, nails, screws etc. Although all of them are called tools, their functions differ and just so the functions of words are diverse. However, in the case of words, their uniform appearance confuses us as their application is not presented to us clearly, especially in Philosophy! Compare words to the handles looking more or less alike in the cabin of a locomotive. The handle of a crank can be moved continuously (regulating the opening of a valve); the handle of a switch has only two effective positions, either on or off; if the handle of a brake-lever is pulled harder, the harder it brakes and the handle of a pump that has an effect only when it is moved to and fro. The words in language too have diverse uses though they look alike or even the same words may be used differently for different purposes. There is no one element in common in the use of  those tools and this is true of the words we use in language too. Therefore, it is essential for our understanding to know how words signify something in our language before declaring the meaninglessness of any expression in language.
                                                        Some might wonder what is the connection between this kind of analysis of language and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, our original theme. The connection has to be seen in the contexts of claims by anyone extolling the merits of scientific language as against that of religious language. Our endeavor is to show that scientific language cannot be sealed up in an ivory tower in the face of acute logical observations about the way our language functions that is applicable to scientific language as well as religious language and any employment of words with meaning anywhere. (To be Contd).  

11. The Problem of Communication

                                                              Do we succeed in communicating our ideas to others in such a way that they capture the real meaning of what we say instead of misunderstanding it? This is a problem even in our ordinary communication of everyday life and is all the more so in specialized fields of knowledge. This problem is multiplied in religious, ethical, moral etc. fields where we do not have direct perceptions of realities we talk about. We have already seen in the previous Posts the roles played by belief, knowledge and faith in our everyday life and how they influence our life. However, the problems with communication of realities pertaining to this world and the world beyond this visible one are not the same. The former are handled by empirical sciences like Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. that are amenable to verification through experiments and explanations to prove the theories, axioms, hypotheses etc. advanced by them. On the contrary, the latter (the invisible world) is discussed by Metaphysics, Theology etc. using our Reason with Logic in the case of Metaphysics and Revelation from God and Logic in the case of Theology. Anyone who is attracted solely to this material world and its values will root for merely 'scientific knowledge' and disregard other types as mere myth and fantasy. They think that they can opt for the superior value of 'scientific knowledge' without realizing that their scientific view of the world cannot support itself without the tacit support of Metaphysics underlying their conception of the Universe through the science of Physics.
                                                           Why do we say that Physics needs the tact support of Metaphysics in order to make sense of scientific discoveries? Nothing can be known without the observer effect affecting our knowledge, which means that the observer or the one who knows is part and parcel of what is known as is shown by the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg and discoveries in Quantum Physics. Albert Einstein's Relativity Principle in its second postulate reinforces the same role of the observer in defining Time and Space that results in our understanding of the speed of light as constant. Therefore, our science is one of how we experience the universe and not the universe "in itself" to say something about which we need Metaphysics. Even the speed of light is defined as constant relative to us as a result of how we experience the universe. In this effort of scientific inquiries, the role of Metaphysics is not visible just like in a study of a river, the river bed does not come to the fore unless and until the bed is shifted from under the river! Is it logical to deny the existence of the river bed because it does not enter into consideration in a study of the river? Is the study of the river more valuable than the one about river beds with the label "unscientific" just because the latter did not enter into the study of the former? 
                                                           Our problems of communication arise from meaningless words, unsubstantiated experiences, misunderstandings, muddled language etc. that can be corrected only through a clear view of how our language, whichever one we happen to use, actually works. This task is undertaken by the Philosophy of language that has many versions and applications. The Linguistic Analysis of our ordinary language as practiced by the great Philosopher of the 20th century, Ludwig Wittgenstein, should be of immense help if it is rightly understood. His method of analysis demolished many of the traditional ways of doing Philosophy and Theology opening new vistas that might help us to see things in new ways. Old ways of doing Philosophy and Theology need a complete revolution so that new insights can take hold of our life and turn it around. We shall see a few glimpses of his thought in the coming Posts as far it goes to enlighten us on the meaningfulness of religious language like the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

10. What is Consciousness?

                                                                       As human beings we are conscious and it is evident, for instance, when we have pain and pleasure. But this is the case with the animals too and we have to admit that they too are conscious. Some would ascribe consciousness even to plants and inanimate things too including the whole universe. Of course, they would mean it in different senses other than we understand it in the humans where our prototype of consciousness has its home. Accordingly, even the animals have consciousness to a lesser degree than in the humans and any other understanding and ascription of consciousness even to mere material things is far removed from the prototype itself. Here is a case, one could say, that an idea dies the death of a thousand qualifications so much so that the original is scarcely discernible at the end. What is more, some would like to argue that even machines with artificial intelligence could one day said to be conscious like the humans. Here we have to remember that the humans are able to transcend this world and even transcend themselves culminating in conscience that opens to a larger reality. Any machine with artificial intelligence, but without the ability of self-transcendence culminating in conscience, cannot be said to be similar to the conscious human beings. We shall, therefore, look at the human consciousness and its implications for our general welfare in our life.
                                                                    If it is admitted that animals are our closest allies in the matter of consciousness, it is imperative to see what is unique in human consciousness. If not, the humans will be considered as just a little more evolved animals and nothing more. We have no problem with the theory of evolution, even though there are unsolved problems in the theory itself, to see it as a particular mode of creation of everything by God. It is like the case of the Big Bang theory, which some believe is incompatible with the belief in the creation of the universe by God. The ultimate reason for our conviction that God is the creator, in spite of many theories challenging it, is that God is not bound to any particular mode of creation, but can use various models as He pleases. God is Spirit and is Consciousness Itself encompassing the whole universe and the humans are at the pinnacle of the pyramid of creation by virtue of the high level of consciousness unseen anywhere else in creation except in spirits without bodies or the angels and the devils. The humans are constituted as spirits in bodies and what we call souls are nothing but spirits in bodies. Our souls exist by participation in the Infinite Consciousness that is God Himself by virtue of direct creation by God, whereas our bodies could be the end product of a gradual evolution. The Genesis account of creation of the humans supports this view from the description that God formed man out of the dust from the ground and breathed life into his nostrils. This life is a participation in the very life of God designated as soul by us.
                                                        The humans being composed of both body and soul, our consciousness has to do justice both to the body and to the soul. There should be a proper balance so that finer realities of life do not escape us. If we are too engrossed in the bodily aspects of our consciousness, we shall not be able to capture its deeper and nicer side for which the faculties of our soul should be developed. In daily life we are at the mercy of our mind that is but a web of soul's faculties like intellect,  will and reason on one side and the five sense faculties of sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste controlled by our brain on the other. Our consciousness may be numbed by excessive indulgence of our senses without any control and we shall become aliens to higher truths like the resurrection from the dead. Since our consciousness plays a crucial role in whatever we perceive and this is a scientific fact proved by the theory of relativity and Quantum physics, we have to allow our consciousness to be polished and adorned to be open to truths beyond the confines of this material world. For this we don't have to run away from the world and its normal pleasures, but be detached from them, even as we use them, in order not be enslaved by them. Thus being free in spirit, we are well on our way to understand sublime truths like the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. How do we communicate this deep truth to others as it is meant to touch the innermost core of their being?                                                                    

9. The Physical and the Non-Physical

                                                                      How do we know that there is anything beyond the physical universe, under study by various empirical sciences, called the non-physical? If there is any claim for the existence of anything non-physical how do we come to know the same, which is obviously beyond the realm of the physical world? This very vital question can be answered only if those interested in it have an open mind without any preconceived notions of the nature of reality. Can anyone be that open so as to have, so to say, a blank mind as all of us are at various stages of our life with multiple experiences and ideas gained through them? What we have to do at the beginning of our investigations is to bracket them all for the duration of our investigations so that an unbiased mind can look and see what is involved.
                                                                      The various empirical sciences like physics, chemistry, biology and any other that deals with this physical world uses the principle of causality as the means to inquire into the depths of reality. This investigation from effects to their causes reaches a point where the first cause that starts the process cannot be located, since everything must have a cause. Many scientists fail to realize the logically impossible situation where a closed system of causality is unable to cross over its own limits and locate the beginning of the process of cause and effect.The solution to their dilemma lies in the recognition that their principle of causality is valid only in the material physical world they are engaged in and not to any other dimension of reality. As they are bound up with the physical aspect of reality, they cannot have an overview of the entire spectrum of possible reality that may exist over and above the material, physical
world.
                                                                     As the scientific method is applicable only to this physical universe and is restricted by the principle of causality that cannot go over the limit of this universe and yet we yearn to know about the beginning of everything, our sole refuge is philosophy. Logic is the stronghold of Philosophy, although it is also applied in Empirical Sciences as well as in Mathematics in their restricted fields. The first principle in Philosophy for explanations or justifications is the Principle of Sufficient Reason that states: Everything that is or exists should have a reason either in itself or outside of it. An existence that has reason in itself and does not depend on the reasons from outside of itself is supported by the prime principles of identity and contradiction or non-contradiction. These two principles underlie a statement like "I AM WHO AM" (See Exodus, 3:14). Anything that has a reason outside itself is governed by the Principle of Causality. Everything that exists in the order of cause and effect is ruled by the Principle of Causality that says that every effect must have a cause outside of itself. This Principle is used by the Empirical Sciences in their investigations and they cannot go beyond the last cause or causes in the empirical order and are handicapped to say anything about the absolute beginning of everything. Here Philosophy comes to our aid with the Principle of Sufficient Reason that can go beyond the Principle of Causality used by the scientific method.This Principle asks for a reason in itself in cases where there cannot be a reason from outside itself, because an infinite regress does not help explain even the Principle of Causality. For the same reason, there cannot be many beings as the ultimate one, but only one. As it has no reason or cause outside of itself, its essence and existence cannot be separate, but identical. Its essence must be its existence and that means that it cannot not exist and that is the Necessary Being whom we call God. 
                                                                 This being the case with our capacity to know things, the fact that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead has elements both physical and non-physical need not baffle us in any way. If it does in anyone's case, that is only because he or she is blindly addicted to the scientific method that is restricted to the merely physical. The scientific method has its uses in its proper field of this physical universe and even in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, the historical and physical elements have been subjected to innumerable scientific studies. Such studies have to stop at the physical level leaving to faith of the believers the transcendental aspect of the reality of resurrection. If the reality of the resurrection of Jesus were restricted to this world alone without any reference to the world to come, it would be of not much consequence to us. Now, to insist, without any reason, that there is nothing beyond this physical universe is most illogical, unwarranted, unscientific and reprehensible. The scientific method sees everything as an object of investigation even in the case of the subject who investigates and does not bother about the world of consciousness that makes every investigation possible in the first place. It is not negligence, but incapacity of the scientific method, where Philosophy is able to make contributions. In the case of resurrection, the role of consciousness is supreme that cannot be touched by the scientific method that includes the neurological, psychological, etc., studies of the mind