Reply to Michael

Michael, thanks for your reply to my post on Benatar's book and the theodicy problem.
(see: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1524200697985398755&postID=
8936657446179280985)

I do not think God is "bound" by the rules of logic. We, however, are insofar as we wish to think and speak intelligibly. Likewise, God is not "bound" by the rules of grammar, even though there are limits to what can be meaningfully said about God.

The rules of logic do not determine what can be, but rather what can be thought, just as the rules of grammar do not determine what can exist, but rather what can be said. C.S. Lewis once said that meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning just by having "God can ..." added to them.

To say that God "cannot" "create a creature that would both (a) love him freely and (b) would never use that freedom to choose evil", is not to say anything about what God can or cannot do, but rather to point out that attributing both a and b to God just makes no sense - just as it makes no sense to say that God can create a square circle, or that Zeus can rooba chaga rid-grf.

As far as "the old problem of whether God could create a rock so big that he could not move it" is concerned, I accept the very simple solution offered by Gijsbert van den Brink in his book Almighty God (in my view, an excellent analysis of divine omnipotence, both theologically and philosophically): God can create such a rock, and if God were to do so, that would be the end of God's omnipotence - God could omnipotently choose to not be omnipotent any longer. Yet, as long as God is capable of doing this but chooses not to, God remains omnipotent.

The "old problem" is only a problem if one is committed to the claim that God is NECESSARILY omnipotent, but why should one be committed to this claim?

Geen God of God-geen?

Geen God of God-geen?

(KKNK- Oop Gesprek, 1 April 2007)

Dr. Gerrit Brand

Boekeredakteur: Die Burger

gbrand@dieburger.com

In die vierde eeu n.C. het ’n hewige storm onder Christene losgebars oor die Griekse letter iota, oftewel ι . . .

So begin die lesing wat ek onlangs op die KKNK gegee het in 'n paneelbespreking waaraan George Claassen en Dirk Louw ook deelgeneem het. Die volledige teks van my lesing, asook Claassen en Louw s'n, kan by http://dieburgerblogs.mweb.co.za/ViewBlog.aspx?blogid=48 gelees word.

Gerrit

Afrikaans 'n Afrika-taal? / Afrikaans an African language?

(Scroll down for English)

Tom MacLachlan skryf onlangs op LitNet (www.litnet.co.za) dat Afrikaans beslis nié 'n Afrika-taal is nie: "Essentially ... Afrikaans remains a West Germanic language. To change its linguistic-genealogical classification to an African language (whatever that may be), would be the same as saying that SA English is an African language, or Australian English is an Aboriginal language, or West Indian English is an Amerindian language."

Neville Alexander redeneer altyd dat, aangesien Afrikaans in Afrika gestandardiseer is, dit wel 'n Afrika-taal is. Daarmee ontken hy nie dat dit 'n Germaanse taal is nie.

Die probleem met taalklassifikasie in Suid-Afrika is dat die term "Bantoe-tale", wat oral anders in die wêreld gebruik word om die familie waartoe onder meer ons Nguni- en Sotho-tale behoort aan te dui, om die een of ander rede nie polities korrek geag word nie. Nou word die woord "Afrika-tale" in die plek daarvan gebruik. Laasgenoemde term sou egter nuttig kan wees om, na Alexander se voorbeeld, tale aan te dui wat in Afrika beslag gekry het - of meer spesifiek: wat in Afrika gestandardiseer is. Dit sou dan ook byvoorbeeld Zwahili en Nama kan insluit - tale wat nie as Bantoe-tale gereken word nie.

Hoekom is "Bantoe" taboe? Sommige mense sê omdat dié term deur die apartheidsregime gebruik is. Maar hoekom is "swart" dan in orde; dis ook onder apartheid gebruik? En die gunstelingterm, deesdae, om dieselfde groep mense mee aan te dui, "African", het sterk koloniale papiere. Om die waarheid te sê, die begrip "Afrika", wat deel van die verbinding "Afrika-tale" vorm, is self 'n Westerse skepping. Die eerste groep mense in die geskiedenis wat hulle met verwysing na dié begrip, eerder as byvoorbeeld stamverwantskap, geïdentifiseer het, was die Afrikaners, soos Hermann Giliomee onlangs weer uitgewys het. "Afrikaner" het destyds op vrygestelde slawe of mense van gemengde afkoms gedui, en nié op daardie groep wat later "swartes", "bantoes" of "Afrikane" genoem is nie.

Ek dink ons allergie vir die woord "bantoe" is 'n simptoom van parogialisme. Ons kyk nie verder as ons eie onlangse geskiedenis nie. Dit sou veel beter wees om gewoon in pas met die res van die wêreld weer dié woord te begin gebruik. Die woord kom immers uit die betrokke tale self: In Zoeloe en die ander Nguni-tale beteken "bantu" gewoon "mense" (die meervoud van "muntu", "mens"). In die Sotho en Tswana is dit amper dieselfde: "batho" (enkelvoud: "motho"). Insgelyks in Venda: "vathu" (enkelvoud: "muthu"). En dieselfde geld die meeste van die ander tale wat deel van dié familie is. Wat dié tale saambind is nie hul geografiese ligging nie, want dit deel hulle met Afrikaans, Engels, Arabies en nog vele meer. Dis eerder hul eie morfologiese en grammatikale kenmerke, waarvan die gebruik van woorde soos "muntu" en "motho" 'n voorbeeld is. "Bantoe" is 'n Bantoe-woord; teenoor "Afrika" wat 'n Europese woord is! Die benaming "Bantoe-tale" maak dus gewoon logies sin.

Mense wat wel Afrikaans 'n Afrika-taal noem, maar wat die term "Bantoe-tale" wil vermy, gebruik dan dikwels, in plaas van laasgenoemde, die term "inheemse Afrika-tale". Ek het my ook al hieraan skuldig gemaak. Die veronderstelling hier is dat Afrikaans 'n Afrika-taal is, maar nie inheems nie. Self meen ek dat die gebruik van die begrip "inheems" met verwysing na groepe mense of hul tale nie 'n gesonde praktyk is nie. Alle mense behoort tot dieselfde spesie en dié spesie is oral in die wêreld inheems. Die Boyarins het 'n keer in 'n insigryke artikel daarop gewys dat as die Jode inheems aan Palestina is, die Palestyne nie 'n land het nie, en omgekeerd; daarom verwerp hulle die term en pleit vir 'n "diasporiese bewussyn". Iets soortgelyks geld ook in Suid-Afrika: Die aanspraak op inheemsheid is altyd ook miskenning van ander se reg op dieselfde dinge as jyself. Geen taal in Suid-Afrika is meer inheems as 'n ander nie, net soos geen van dié tale soogdiere of reptiele is nie.

Ek moet dus met Tom verskil: Afrikaans is die enigste taal met die woord "Afrika" in sy naam. Dit ís 'n Germaanse taal, maar ook 'n Afrika-taal - saam met die Bantoe-tale en tale soos Zwahili en Nama.

Gerrit Brand

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Tom MacLachlan recently wrote on LitNet (www.litnet.co.za) that Afrikaans is most certainly not an African language: "Essentially ... Afrikaans remains a West Germanic language. To change its linguistic-genealogical classification to an African language (whatever that may be), would be the same as saying that SA English is an African language, or Australian English is an Aboriginal language, or West Indian English is an Amerindian language."

Neville Alexander always argues that, since Afrikaans was standardised in Africa, it is indeed an African language. In saying this, he does not deny that it is a Germanic language.

The problem with language classification in South Africa is that the term "Bantu languages", which is used everywhere else in the world to designate the family to which our Nguni and Sotho languages, among others, belong, is viewed, for some reason, as politically incorrect. Thus the word "African languages" is used in its place. The latter term could, however, be useful for referring, in accordance with Alexander's example, to languages that came into being in Africa - or more specifically: that were standardised in Africa. It could then include, say, Swahili or Nama - languages that are not regarded as Bantu languages.

Why is "Bantu" taboo? Some people say it is because this term was used by the apartheid regime. But why is "black" then OK; it was also used under apartheid? And the favourite term these days to designate the same group of people, "African", has solid colonial credentials. In fact, the concept of "Africa", which forms part of "African languages", is itself a Western creation. The first group of people in history to identify themselves with reference to this concept, rather tham, say, tribal allegiance, was the Afrikaner, as Hermann Giliomee has recently again pointed out. At the time, "Afrikaner" referred to freed slaves or people of mixed parentage, and not to the group that was later called "black", "Bantu" or "African".

I think our allergy to to word "Bantu" is a symptom of parochialism. We don't look beyond our own recent history. It would be much better to simply use the term again in step with the rest of the world. After all, the word comes from the languages in question: In Zulu and the other Nguni languages "bantu" means "people" (plural for "muntu", "person"). In Sotho and Tswana it is nearly the same: "batho" (singular: "motho"). As it is in Venda: "vathu" (singular: "muthu"). And the same goes for nearly every other language that is a member of this family. What binds these languages together is not their geographical location, for they share that with Afrikaans, English, Arabic and many other tongues. Rather, it is their morphological and grammatical features, of which the use of words like "muntu" and "motho" is an example. "Bantu" is a Bantu word; as opposed to "Africa", which is a Western word! The name "Bantu languages" thus simply makes logical sense.

People who do call Afrikaans an African language, but who want to avoid the term "Bantu languages", often then use, instead of the latter, the term "indigenous African languages". I have also been guilty of this. The presupposition here is that Afrikaans, though an African language, is not indigenous. personally I think that the use of the term "indigenous" with reference to groups of people and their languages is an odious practice. All people belong to the same species and this species is indigenous all over the world. The Boyarins once pointed out, in an insightful article, that if the Jews were indigenous, the Palestinians would be without a home, and vice versa; therefore they reject the term and plead for a "diasporic consciousness". Something similar applies also to South Africa: The claim to indigenousness is always also a denial of others' right to the same things as oneself. No language in South Africa is more indigenous than another, just as none of these languages is either a mammal or a reptile.

I must therefore disagree with Tom: Afrikaans is the only language with the word "Africa" in its name. It is a germanic language, but also an African language - together with the Bantu language and languages like Swahili and Nama.

Gerrit Brand