Extreme Apologetic Approaches
From the apostle Paul at the Areopagus to William Lane Craig, Christians have defended their faith using many tactics. This defense of the faith is commonly called apologetics. However, as with many other issues, Christians have not always agreed about the proper method of apologetics. I have always been aware of this to some degree, but have never questioned my apologetic approach or compared it to recent Christian philosophers. This post will look at two common, and what I believe to be, extreme views of apologetics.
Natural theology is the attempt to prove, by way of reason, God’s existence and His attributes. Natural theology reigned supreme in the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. You may be familiar with Aquinas (considered the greatest philosopher and theologian of the Middle Ages) and his five proofs for the existence of God using natural theology. Colin Brown, author of Philosophy & The Christian Faith, summarizes natural theology as a two-step process. First, philosophy forms the foundation. Then Christianity is introduced.
In natural theology, there is total neutral ground. The Christian and the non-Christian can reason together with no differences in their worldviews because philosophy is the groundwork, not the Bible. Although Christianity is not contrary to logic, and I believe it is logical, one must admit that natural theology does not lead to the God of the Bible. Cornelius Van Til was opposed to natural theology, he felt “natural theology lead to the idea of an impersonal first cause which falls short of the living God of the Bible and experience” (Brown, 246).
While natural theology sees the playing field of interaction between Christians and non-Christians as all encompassing, some apologists believe there is no overlap. That is, a Christian worldview and a non-Christian worldview must totally oppose one another. Cornelius Van Til was a Calvinist who believed everyone, deep down inside, already knew that God exists, they knew that they are sinners, and they knew that they should repent of their sins (The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel, 5).
Interestingly enough, it was not only theological conservatives who took this approach. Karl Barth also did not believe in natural theology, but for different reasons. His view of God as utterly transcendent (meaning out of this world) made Him believe that nothing – NOTHING - in this world can point us directly to God. Not even the Bible points directly to God, but we should read it to go beyond it to get to God. Consider this quote:
“The knowledge of God occurs in the fulfillment of the revelation of His Word by the Holy Spirit, and therefore in the reality and with the necessity of Faith and its obedience. Its content is the existence of Him whom we must fear above all things because we may love Him above all things; who remains a mystery to us because He Himself has made Himself so clear and certain to us” (Church Dogmatics).
So the only way we know of God is through an interaction with God. Giving someone a logical proof does no good because that person must have a personal interaction with God. Even when God reveals Himself to an individual, our knowledge of God is still extremely limited.
Today there are Christians who are opposed to the use of reason (outside of the Bible) to explain anything about God. There is a saying by some Christians, who I radically disagree with, who believe “faith is the enemy of reason.”
Natural theology and the apologetic approach of Barth or Van Til stand in direct opposition to one another. So for Christians today, what do they do? Is there any point of neutrality between the Christian and the non-Christian? Is neutrality absolute? I believe both of these views are extremes and the truth lies between them. In my next post I will explore an apologetic that lies between these extremes.
For Further Reading:
Philosophy & The Christian Faith by Colin Brown
The Consequences of Ideas by R.C. Sproul
Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas
The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel by Cornelius Van Til
Church Dogmatics by Karl Barth
Posts
“While natural theology sees the playing field of interaction between Christians and non-Christians as all encompassing, some apologists believe there is no overlap. That is, a Christian worldview and a non-Christian worldview must totally oppose one another.”
Can you clarify this a little? It sounds like even though natural theology allows Christians and non-Christians to discuss God on an even playing field, it does assert that the worldviews of Christians and non-Christians must totally oppose one another. Am I reading it right? If so, I don’t see how point A leads to point B. If I am incorrect, please correct me.
I’m sorry the statment is not clear. The first sentence you quote contains both the extreem views. The second sentence is a statment about the Van Til, or Barth approach.
Van Til believed that every fact, every truth, points at the non-Christian saying “you are a sinner, you know it, you know there is a God, repent and belive.” This view believes that there can be no “neutral ground” for the Christian and non-Christian. For some who hold this view, just quoting scripture is all that is needed.
For natural theology, on the other hand, there is a lot of neutral ground. In fact, natural theology will use only presuppositions that the non-Christian can agree with. So the use of scripture is out of the question.
Points clarified. thanks.
brad
good post about two different approaches agreeing about us needing to “presuppose”.
i think that barth is shunned too quickly however by the reformed tradition. i have to admit, i have only read snippets and quotations and summaries, but from what i have read, i think he was a lot more thoughtful than those who followed him. as is often the case. ie calvin was more balanced than many calvinists are today. and i shrink from “calvinism” today for so many of those reasons.
however, i think really life is a combination of barth/van til. ie we can pt to a “first cause” or “prime mover” or whatever phrase we choose from aquinas, but they are meaningless. and in reality we cant truly even “prove” these things. we can make educated guesses about the first cause, etc. but as kierkegaard said, we can learn all the knowledge of the universe and without passion, it is meaningless.
in this, i think we need to realize that reason and passion need to be one. we cannot have one without the other. because proof of God by reason leads to making a god of Reason. and on the other hand, obeying authority without reason is making a god out of Authority. so in both, we both must be made whole. reason and authority come together in Scripture. but this isnt because we can “prove” Scripture is God’s Word, but because we can make educated decisions that it is and truly believe it. and we can continue to make educated decisions as to how to interpret it as well. thus, reason and authority must go hand in hand.
what do you think?
peter
Peter-
Thanks for your imput. This post was acutally not written by Brad (see post “A New Chapter for Confessions of a Seminarian).
Although not exaclty how I would put it, I think this quote of yours captures what I was try to say in this post: “proof of God by reason leads to making a god of Reason. and on the other hand, obeying authority without reason is making a god out of Authority” Both of these views are flawed, and a middle ground needs to be sought.
This site talks a lot about truth and love needing to go together. I think a big part of passion is love. The divorce of the heart from the head is not a healthy one. As with many dichotomies, reason and heart (or passion) do come together in Christianity. This makes sense. For reason is to decipher truth, shouldn’t our passion follow what it points to?
Josh-
This is Chuck Beem from MoBap! How’d you meet Brad, btw? We went to high school together. Small world.
I’m not quite sure where you’re tracking with this post. On the one hand, I certainly reject Aquinas’ natural theology because it does not account the destructive nature of sin in relation to humanity. However, Van Tillian presuppositionalism is not my slice of pie either. I cannot agree with the idea that we cannot ever ‘think God’s thought’s after Him’ (i.e., our knowedge in analogous to God’s). Rather, I fall more into the presuppositionalism of someone like Gordon Clark. Robert Reymond puts it well when he says that
“God is rationalÖ[and] this means that he thinks and speaks in a way that indicates the laws of logicÖare laws of thought original with and intrinsic to himself” (109, S.T.)
Really, I guess I am more ‘extreme’ than Van Til or Barth in that I would start with Scripture. Van Til gave creedence to the usefulness of some of the classical proofs for the existence of God (I think the ontological argument was one he admitted to; not 100% positive.) More modern Van Tillians, especially guys like Greg Bahnsen (who developed the teleological argument) and John Frame, will use proofs. While I’ll read them and can admire them and learn from them, I shy away from these types of proofs.
That was a bit long winded.
Chuck
I have not read a lot of Barth or Van Til (in fact I had never heard of Van Til until I began researching for this post). From my understanding of Barth, he would disagree with the statement, “God is rational [and] this means that he thinks and speaks in a way that indicates the laws of logic are laws of thought original with and intrinsic to himself” (Robert Reymond 109, S.T.). The neo-orthodoxy of Barth believed that scripture and logic are fallible and do not point directly to God.
The purpose of this post was to show two totally different approaches to apologetics, and to invite readers to hear a more likely third option next week when I post again. I have seen both of these approaches in action. There was a church sign that read “Faith is the enemy of Reason” last year in St. Louis, and a student in Philosophy of Religion class with me said that there was no need to look into logic when talking with non-believers. He believed we should just quote scripture until the Holy Spirit works on them.
On the other hand, there are many who try to make Christianity stand up to the standards set by Modernism. I once held to this. I thought we could answer the question “does the Christian God exist” with absolute certainty. Although we can answer in the affirmative with some certainty, there is room for doubt that should be allowed.
Thanks for the comments, and I’m going to look into some of the people you wrote about for the next post.
Interesting post, I’m looking forward to the next one. I’m the odd fellow who considers himself Barthian but has a great fondness for Aquinas and works from more than a few Thomistic assumptions.
I think the thing with Natural Theology is that Aquinas, Bonaventure and the like would not have seen it as standing alone (unlike some later people did). Aquinas usually makes his arguments using reason, but will occasionally appeal to the Magisterium of the Church.
I do not think Barth would not say that logic is totally fallible (although anything done with a human mind is), but rather regardless of logic’s fallibility, one can never reason the existence of a person. Barth actually viewed the Christian faith as a rational position (c.f. what I wrote here: http://asisaid.com/journal/article/940.html). The only way to know a person is through relationship; the only way to know a Person who can will Himself undetectable is through His revealing Himself. This is not far off from Calvin’s doctrine on Scripture in the Institutes, where he suggests that the authentication of Scripture comes from the Spirit.
“The only way to know a person is through relationship; the only way to know a Person who can will Himself undetectable is through His revealing Himself.”
I agree with this whole heartedly. Yet at the same time we must be careful to define our words. Neo-orthodoxyhas been accused of claiming to hold to a doctrine while redefining it (such as inspiration of scripture). Therefore I will explain what I mean by God revealing Himself so we do not fall into a fallacy of vaugness.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teacing, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…”
(2 Timothy 3:16)
“For although they (Gentiles) knew God…” (Romans 1:21)
I believe God reveals Himself primarily through scripture, but we can see Him in nature as well. If scripture is breathed out by God, it cannot be fallible. God has revealed Himself both in nature and scripture, and no further revelation is needed.
This is one of my favorite topics.
Barth’s view of Scripture is *the* stumbling block for Evangelical adoption of Neo-Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, I think two points suffice to make it somewhat less problematic for Evangelical tastes. First, for all practical purposes inerrancy cannot be discussed (since we do not have the original autographs), so as you say we are talking about infallibility. I think it would not be too much of a stretch to say Barth’s modus operandi worked within the framework of “infallible (or at least authoritative) in matters of faith and doctrine,” that is, he anchored his theology to the Bible, rather than liberalism’s attempts to extract meaning out of the Bible. The whole issue of Scripture and meaning (which I have been blogging on lately) gets even murkier when we really consider the extent to which we can (or perhaps more properly, cannot) pull together the signs and what they point to in any form of communication; communication is inherently subjective and terribly hard to link to meaning.
Secondly, and this is where I think Calvin too is helpful, is that no one is going to read the Bible without God’s influence and come to know God. Really, Barth’s view of Scripture as a witness pointing to God’s sole Revelation (Jesus) is really just a different view of the Reformed idea of salvation. Inasmuch as we cannot “make a decision for Christ,” it would seem that the real act of understanding the Bible comes not from the text itself, but rather God’s continuous breathing of inspiration through the text to the individual (part of election).
All this said, my main comment I meant to make (but it was too late in the evening to make it clearly) is that I think neither Aquinas nor Barth are the extremes. The cited example of the person who says “faith is the enemy of reason” is much more extreme than Barth; likewise the Deists (of old and their ilk of present day) are much more extreme on Aquinas’s side.
I think our beliefs on inspiration are different, and I agree that this is the “stumbling block for Evangelical adoption of Neo-Orthodoxy.” Note that Paul writes to Timothy “all scripture is breathed out by God,” not “God breaths out inspiration from scripture.”
I much appreciate your comments, and I am glad to have a neo-orthodox thinker clearifying Barth. I agree that Barth would not agree with the few Christians who say faith and reaon are opposed to each other, and I am not surprised you don’t feel Barth is an extreem. However, I am surprised you will not consider Aquinas an extreem after reading your post “Nein or Nature and Grace?” Here is a quote from it:
“…objective proofs of God all fail to prove anything anyway (something I’ll deal in another piece I’ll probably post next week). The ontological, teleological, axiological and cosmological arguments can all be torn apart, and, indeed, are, by Kant, Hume and Kierkegaard, among others. “
Thanks, Josh. I should clarify that I’m not saying Paul says “God breaths out inspiration from scripture,” rather I think that is a logical extension. My point of contention is before we even get to the consideration of the errorless quality of Scripture, we already reach the stumbling block of language itself, which can easily hinder us from getting to the real meaning of anything. Contextualizing Scripture helps quite a bit, but a couple of twenty first century guys cannot really read as first century people, we can only come close. I think the heart of Christianity is in God’s presence in and around us; God provides the context, but because He provides context to His Word, I’m not saying we are free to read the Bible however we please. I’m somewhere between Barth and Calvin on the issue, which is why I bring up Calvin as well. The thing is, even if the Bible could be proven without a doubt to be totally inerrant in things natural (it cannot be proven inerrant concerning God, unless we can also prove God), I don’t think it could by itself convince anyone of the Gospel, do you? My feeling is generally simply that the point is moot (if you’re not already tiring of hearing Barthianisms :), here’s what I said on that: http://asisaid.com/journal/article/1221.html). I guess I’ve seen enough non-believers read the Bible and say, “huh, that’s… interesting,” to figure there is more going on than an intellectual process when someone reads the Bible and comes to Christ. I think Scripture supports the idea of election quite well.
Concerning Aquinas, as I said, I think the Deists are the extreme. While I’m Barthian, as I said, I have Thomistic sympathies and can argue as a Thomist. Heh. Even St. Anselm is more extreme — he believes one can prove God using reason alone (the Ontological argument). Thomas rejects the Ontological argument prior to the Five Ways (see ST 1.2.1 Objection 2 and Reply to Obj. 2). Thomas argues from a posteriori, which is less extreme than a priori argument of Anselm, Descartes, etc. In ST 1.2.2., he states, “The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles.” Reason to Thomas is not able to understand everything, but rather lay a foundation that will not be later denied by articles of faith. Thomas is the great synthesizer, and as in other areas, he synthesizes Reason and Faith; that is, they work together, but one cannot get to God through reason alone (Bonaventure’s Bonaventure’s Itinerarium is helpful in visualizing this combination).
I’m not sure, I’m just thinking since Aquinas does see a vital place for faith, he isn’t terribly extreme. Perhaps I’m missing the direction you are coming from?
I think we have gotten off the direction I was aiming for in the post. I was hoping to position two different approaches to apologetics, each with their own merit but incomplete. I would not say that these two views are total contradictions, but they do seem to rub each other the wrong way.
In the post I was trying to get at two different apologetic approaches more than explain comprehensively the views on apologetics of Aquinas or Barth. Indeed a dissertation would hardly be enough on the issue for either one. At the same time, I do not want to portray an inaccurate view of these two men so your critique is noted.
Certainly; it is hard to summarize either of these two who happen to be some of the most long winded theologians of all time. I’ll look forward to seeing where you go from here.
You guys are way over my head… hahaha, I’m glad you both know what you are talking about!
But I too, am looking forward to the next post!
Peter,
Why does “proof of God by reason make a god of reason”? Do you mean that if you rely only on reason for your understanding of God, you make a god of reason? That would make sense. I guess I just want to clarify, you are not saying that if you try to reach out to people with reason you make a god of reason, are you?
Josh,
Although, I’d like to know more about your thinking so that we don’t talk past each other, I can’t resist weighing in on this discussion. I’ll have to agree with Timothy that Aquinas is not the extreme.
Aquinas expressly rejected the view you described. If you want I’ll dig up the citations for this, but he said that we cannot rely only on reason, but that we need revelation because if we rely only on reason only a few would reach the truth, only after a very long period of time (i.e. centuries) and with a great admixture of error. It may have been in the same place (or perhaps another) where he list numerous things such as human fallibility, self-interest, and the fact that God is beyond our understanding that inhibit any attempt to do what you describe.
Someone said that Aquinas sometimes appealed to scripture. This is bit of an understatement. I have not gone through and checked this, but I doubt you would find a “question” in the Summa Theologica where scripture is not quoted—you might not even be able to find many such “articles”.
Further, Aquinas made an exception to the rules of logic for appeals to scripture. Argumentum ad verecundiam, or “appeal to reverence” is a logical fallacy. Thus if I say, “World War II never happened because my professor said so”, I have committed the fallacy of “appeal to reverence.” So then, it would seem that appeal to scripture would be an Argumentum ad verecundiam. “On the contrary” [I couldn’t resist that] Aquinas said that not only is appeal to scripture not fallacious, it is the highest form of proof.
BUT, you have to keep in mind that Aquinas lived in a Christian culture. He would not have said this were he talking to a philosophy professor at a modern university. Nor would he have said it to the audience Paul spoke to in—you guys probably know chapter and verse of where he spoke to the Greeks about the unknown god. If we appeal only to scripture, how are we going to convince someone who does not believe in scripture or does not believe in our interpretation of scripture? (This is a rhetorical question, because I know you want to find middle ground between extreme views). If we are supposed to just quote scripture until the holy spirit moves people, what’s the point? If God has to do it anyway, why speak?
That being said, I do think that the Holy Spirit has to work on people, but there is a role for reason. For one, even if I cannot convert my philosophy professor, if I can defend my faith even in his boxing ring where no scripture is allowed, I will prevent other souls from being led astray. Further, you can convert your philosophy professor sometimes.
At any rate, I think you will find that the middle view you suggest is actually Aquinas’ view.
“Really, Barth’s view of Scripture as a witness pointing to God’s sole Revelation (Jesus) is really just a different view of the Reformed idea of salvation. Inasmuch as we cannot “make a decision for Christ,” it would seem that the real act of understanding the Bible comes not from the text itself, but rather God’s continuous breathing of inspiration through the text to the individual (part of election).”
This is where I begin to take issue with Barth. What do we mean when we speak of ‘understanding the Bible’? Are we referring to mere intellectual understanding of what the Bible describes as true? Or am I to assume that ‘understanding’ is equivalent to ‘faith in’? Because the two are not synonymous. Someone can fully understand the Bible as a system of thought and still think it’s a load of crap.
Civis-
I am aware Aquinas viewed scripture as necessary, and he is certainly right. My point was not to character Aquinas’ ideas as wrong, but to give two opposing views on apologetics. In order to do so, I used Aquinas as an example. It may well be I should have used someone else as the example. There are some evidentailsts who believe they can prove God’s existence and His attributes apart from scripture (Gielsler and Sproul would be two examples), but would hold that scripture is totally necessary. The evidentalist argues first for the existence of God, on “neutral” ground, and once that is established will move into more and more tenants of Christianity until the gospel is outlined.
The question is whether a Christian should use scripture apologetics, not whether scripture is necessary.
I’m finally diving into The Universe Next Door. Thus far, I’m liking it more than How Should We Then Live? I realize that the two books have different purposes; I’m just talking about the quality of writing. Schaeffer’s style, the way he puts words together, the “music” of his words, is more enjoyable than Sire. Sire writes more in a stream of consciousness. He has clear bullet points, but then he launches into his string of reflections. But, as of the end of chapter two (“A Universe Charged with the Grandeur of God: Christian Theism”) I prefer Sire because he uses concrete examples. I am of the opinion that a good writer will, where possible, give three concrete details for each point he makes. A number of people say that Schaeffer is difficult to read. It is not so much that his thought is difficult to grasp as that he has a tendency to make assertions without any development or support.
Let me tell you my ideal study plan. Whether I can find the time to see this through is highly questionable, but this is what I would like to do in a perfect world:
To take another example, it seems clear to me that there will be a greater difference in the way we live between those who do or do not believe in free will and someone who does not than between someone who believes in linear as opposed to cyclical time.
1) Read the main “worldview” books [Please tell me what I need to add to this list]:
The Universe Next Door
How Now Should We Live?
The God who is There
Blah Blah Blah by Bayard Taylor
????? by Abraham Kuyper [somebody give me a title please]
2) For each book/author make an outline with:
a) One to two paragraph bio of author
b) Brief summary of each chapter
c) Brief commentary-praise-and-criticism of each chapter
d) Note what worldview enthusiasts think about the book (That would be you bloggers)
e) Survey of reviews it has received
f) Write my own little review of the book
3) Write a big fat “survey/review of the worldview literature.”
When I’m finished, I’ll stick it somewhere on the web. I have a website, but—in case you haven’t figured this out yet—I’m not much of a computer person. I’m waiting for one of my friends to feel sorry for me and help me set things up correctly.
I have a couple questions for discussion. I realize that it is too much to ask one person to address all of the questions below, but my hope is that between my blogging friends I could find someone who is interested in each. If nobody comments on one of them, I may ask it again later:
1) What is the purpose of studying worldviews? What should I look to get out of it?
2) Sire says, “The gap left by the loss of a center to life is like a chasm in the heart of a child whose father has died. How those who no longer believe in God wish that something could fill the void.” But people who share Sire’s worldview have the same void. In fact, I think it would not be a stretch to say that people who share Sire’s worldview generally have a greater void than atheists and agnostics.
3) Does anybody know what Sire means by saying that man is “self transcendent”?
4) Is it true what Schaeffer and Sire say, that the world has no moral absolutes?
5) On the eighth page of Chapter 2 [middle of page 28 in the 3rd edition] Sire says “[W]e participate in part in a transcendence over our environment. Except at the very extremes of existence…a person is not forced to any necessary reaction.” This is a statement against determinism and in support of free will [the question of free will is a “family dispute”]. Even if you believe in free will (which I do), do you think he overstates the point? Are our reactions really so radically free? Aren’t there a number of things that inhibit our free will?
6) Does Sire say that good is good because God says it is good or says it is good because it is good or neither? I’m not real sure how Sire comes down on this. This is something important to answer because it would have a huge impact on one’s worldview. Just reading what he says, it would appear that he thinks good is good because God says so, which is problematic.
7) Is it possible that there may be less of a difference between someone with a Catholic worldview and someone with a materialistic worldview than between a Catholic and one who believes in Sola Fide and predestination?
I’ve listed these questions on my blog so feel free to discuss here or there or both. This blog would have a more protestant audience whereas mine would be virtually all Catholic.
I’m finally diving into The Universe Next Door. Thus far, I’m liking it more than How Should We Then Live? I realize that the two books have different purposes; I’m just talking about the quality of writing. Schaeffer’s style, the way he puts words together, the “music” of his words, is more enjoyable than Sire. Sire writes more in a stream of consciousness. He has clear bullet points, but then he launches into his string of reflections. But, as of the end of chapter two (“A Universe Charged with the Grandeur of God: Christian Theism”) I prefer Sire because he uses concrete examples. I am of the opinion that a good writer will, where possible, give three concrete details for each point he makes. A number of people say that Schaeffer is difficult to read. It is not so much that his thought is difficult to grasp as that he has a tendency to make assertions without any development or support.
Let me tell you my ideal study plan. Whether I can find the time to see this through is highly questionable, but this is what I would like to do in a perfect world:
1) Read the main “worldview” books [Please tell me what I need to add to this list]:
The Universe Next Door
How Now Should We Live?
The God who is There
Blah Blah Blah by Bayard Taylor
????? by Abraham Kuyper [somebody give me a title please]
2) For each book/author make an outline with:
a) One to two paragraph bio of author
b) Brief summary of each chapter
c) Brief commentary-praise-and-criticism of each chapter
d) Note what worldview enthusiasts think about the book (That would be you bloggers)
e) Survey of reviews it has received
f) Write my own little review of the book
3) Write a big fat “survey/review of the worldview literature.”
When I’m finished, I’ll stick it somewhere on the web. I have a website, but—in case you haven’t figured this out yet—I’m not much of a computer person. I’m waiting for one of my friends to feel sorry for me and help me set things up correctly.
I have a couple questions for discussion. I realize that it is too much to ask one person to address all of the questions below, but my hope is that between my blogging friends I could find someone who is interested in each. If nobody comments on one of them, I may ask it again later:
To take another example, it seems clear to me that there will be a greater difference in the way we live between those who do or do not believe in free will and someone who does not than between someone who believes in linear as opposed to cyclical time.
1) What is the purpose of studying worldviews? What should I look to get out of it?
2) Sire says, “The gap left by the loss of a center to life is like a chasm in the heart of a child whose father has died. How those who no longer believe in God wish that something could fill the void.” But people who share Sire’s worldview have the same void. In fact, I think it would not be a stretch to say that people who share Sire’s worldview generally have a greater void than atheists and agnostics.
3) Does anybody know what Sire means by saying that man is “self transcendent”?
4) Is it true what Schaeffer and Sire say, that the world has no moral absolutes?
5) On the eighth page of Chapter 2 [middle of page 28 in the 3rd edition] Sire says “[W]e participate in part in a transcendence over our environment. Except at the very extremes of existence…a person is not forced to any necessary reaction.” This is a statement against determinism and in support of free will [the question of free will is a “family dispute”]. Even if you believe in free will (which I do), do you think he overstates the point? Are our reactions really so radically free? Aren’t there a number of things that inhibit our free will?
6) Does Sire say that good is good because God says it is good or says it is good because it is good or neither? I’m not real sure how Sire comes down on this. This is something important to answer because it would have a huge impact on one’s worldview. Just reading what he says, it would appear that he thinks good is good because God says so, which is problematic.
7) Is it possible that there may be less of a difference between someone with a Catholic worldview and someone with a materialistic worldview than between a Catholic and one who believes in Sola Fide and predestination?
I’ve listed these questions on my blog so feel free to discuss here or there or both. This blog would have a more protestant audience whereas mine would be virtually all Catholic.
Civis-
You may want to grab a 4th edition of Universe Next Door. It was put out in 2005, 3rd edition went out in the mid 90s, and Sire has revamped his definition in this new version. I will be reading it in a few weeks for class.
Darn,
I wish I would have known that. Oh well.
MORE THOUGHTS:
I think all of my questions above center around the purpose of studying worldviews and whether Sire and Schaeffer’s approach is the right way of going about it. It seems to me that the aim of both men is two-fold: 1) They want to be prophets 2) they want to steer others into becoming prophets. A prophet is a person who reads the signs of the times and is able to see where things are going and to warn people. A prophet is the “watchman” in the passage from Ezekiel quoted in the last chapter of How Should We Then Live [see Ezekiel 33:1-19]. I think you will agree that this is their purpose.
To be a prophet, a person must understand the times, must see what is happening, how people are going astray. The “understanding” and the “how” are key. I’m thinking that maybe these worldviews are but a façade. Or perhaps in a few instances they are actually believed by a small handful of eggheads, but not by the people we meet on the street.
Consider the following passage from the first chapter of How Should We Then Live:
“People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By Presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic worldview, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth in the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions.”
This is the passage that piqued my interest and got me reading on this subject. If you recall, the first question I asked you was, if this passage is true, why is there such a disconnect between people’s words/creeds and the way they live.
As Ron on UNIVERSITAS VERITAS said in A post on creationism “The scientist who is devoted to this position [scientific rationalism] will proclaim it loudly in books and seminars but when he gets home at night he acts as if it were not true. He treats his wife and family with love. He expects people to be responsible and he has no problem with criminals being punished, particularly if the crime was against them!”
Thus it seems to me that these classifications of Christian, deist, naturalist, nihilist etc. may not be useful for our purposes of understanding the world around us. If what Ron said above about the scientist is true why study these worldviews?
Something else that makes me question these categories lies in the approach of many modern philosophers. What I’m about to say here may apply to Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, the New Age and Post Modernism. Notice how ancient and medieval thinkers were in search of truth. Not all of them, but it was the general trend. Look at the great Greek Philosophers and playwrights, the stoics, Augustine, Aquinas et al. They looked around and observed reality, the Christians also took in what they knew from revelation, and sought to build their philosophy based upon what is true, what is, reality. For these men, it would be fitting to understand them based on the worldview they professed. This is because their professed worldview was a result of their search, their contemplation of reality etc.
Now consider the trend of the modern philosophers (Let’s say post-renaissance thinkers). You will notice that very often, their professed worldview is not the way they think the world works, but is a justification for what they (or their patrons) want the world to be like or for what they want to do or for how they want the world to be organized. Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan wasn’t based on reality, it was merely a fiction created to justify monarchy. Conversely, John Locke’s state of nature had not basis in history, but was a justification for political power without God. Likewise for recent feminist theory et al.
So to understand these modern thinkers it seems to me you have to pay attention not to what they say, but to why they say it. This is true not only of prominent thinkers but everyday individuals. Let me give you a couple of examples that actually happened (both to the same bishop):
A priest (who was from another dioceses and whom the bishop had never met before) came up to him after a lecture and said that he was very troubled by the fact that there were so many people who were poor and hungry in the world and the church had so much wealth, gold chalices etc. The bishop, recalling that the first person who made this sort of objection was Judas Iscariot who had been stealing money from the disciple’s common purse, said without hesitation “How much did you steal?” After a couple of denials, the priest admitted he had been stealing money from his parish. On another occasion a woman said she left the church for theological reasons. After a few questions the bishop could see that the woman knew nothing of theology. He then said bluntly, “You didn’t leave the church for theological reasons. You left because you had an abortion.” Again the bishop was right.
This bishop wasn’t clairvoyant. He understood people, and he understood that you have to look not so much at what people say as why they say it.
So, I am thinking, maybe these worldviews are merely a façade. Maybe they are a façade even for some who have a “biblical” worldview.
In what I said in #2, #7 and #8 above, I am not trying to pit one Christian against another. What I am saying is that if we understand the way people tick, it seems that there is a broad range and perhaps even more divergent views as to how the world works and how we should approach life within Christianity than there is between some Christians and some non-Christians. And what I am talking about here is not necessarily doctrinal or theological, but our nuts and bolts way of putting one foot in front of the other, the way we take part in a conversations with a friend or an enemy, the way we make sense out of what happens to us from moment to moment.
But then I start thinking that Schaeffer is right in what I quoted above, but maybe the deist/ naturalist/ nihilist/ etc. just isn’t the right set of categories. Maybe these are academic schools of thought by which a small handful of eggheads may try to pattern their lives. In reality though, maybe the real worldviews are a different set of notions, notions that are not held within these neat categories but permeate into them all. Perhaps these philosophies are red-herrings. Perhaps they are traps that lay in waiting for a handful of educated men, but for the mass of people, the devil has something more subtle, but that leads just as surely to death—perhaps more surely since they are harder to see.
Or, maybe Schaeffer/Sire are right, maybe they have the right set of categories, but they just need to go deeper. Maybe these worldviews need to unpacked a bit more.
I am wondering if the real difference is more subtle than the categories in The Universe Next Door. There is a saying, “The Devil’s in the details”. A slight mistake in judgment can have enormous consequences down the road. And Satan has something for you at every turn. Notice that nothing is purely evil. Every act has some good in some way. And Satan does not tempt us to go pure evil, he tempts us to do something that is good but a limited good, a good that is done in our way and not in Gods way, not in the way that will lead to our true and full good but in a way that destroys another good.
The Pharisees strained the gnat and swallowed the camel. Is it also possible to strain the camel but still drink poisoned water?
Civis-
I like what you’re doing with the reading, really evaluating it. I only have time to comment briefly. I think your question of why there is a disconnet between people’s beliefs and actions is a good one. It is a question of hypocracy, isn’t it? There are sometimes inconsitancies within a given worldview, and thus the worldview must be critiqued or abandoned. Asking if the worldview enables one to function is a good question.
I love what you said about the old philsophers, “their professed worldview was a result of their search, their contemplation of reality etc.” This is why we study philosophy, so that we might arrive and know. It is true that with modern philosophers you have to pay attention to why they say what they say. However this is true for everyone. What we say is important, but so are the reasons behind why we say it. I don’t think these two are mutually exculisive. Furthermore, we must ask that “why” question of ourselves and our beliefs as well.
P.S.- is this up somewhere on your blog? I’d love to get this discussion out in the open so we can share it with everyone.
Thanks for your response and your compliments. As far as “really evaluating”, what I’m trying to do is follow the “trivium” and master what the authors are saying (grammar), then try to apply it in a systematic manner (logic) before learning to defend it (rhetoric).
RE “is this up somewhere on your blog?”: these questions are listed on my most recent post. I hope I can get more people weighing in there or here on your blog–or anywhere. I’m afraid that I’ll be done with all of these books before I can get people motivated to start “unpacking” what these authors are saying.
A lot of my questions are things I’m just pondering, but there is one thing I really could use some help on: What in the world are Schaffer and Sire talking about with all of this “universals” and “particulars” talk? It is not making sense to me at all. Are they refering to what Hume called the “Is-ought” problem? If I could get only one question answered, it would be that one.
chuckchuck, you said:
“This is where I begin to take issue with Barth. What do we mean when we speak of ‘understanding the Bible’? Are we referring to mere intellectual understanding of what the Bible describes as true? Or am I to assume that ‘understanding’ is equivalent to ‘faith in’? Because the two are not synonymous. Someone can fully understand the Bible as a system of thought and still think it’s a load of crap.”
I think I would say both some parts of the intellectual understanding, *as well as* saving faith in the Bible are within the realm of my use of the word understanding. You cannot fully understand the Bible outside of a relationship with God, I would assert, because the Bible is written within a framework that necessitates such. The text is written for instruction, but it is also written to the faith community. Phenomenological research often allows for “close to the real thing” understanding of systems without actually making a judgment of truth on that system or being within the system, but I would assert it is never entirely the same as belonging within the system. That is, I would assert no one can fully understand the Bible intellectually outside of belief in the content of the Bible.
Actually, part of my assertion as a New Historicist, with strong Deconstructionist tendencies these days, is that we never fully understand any text. We approximate meaning to the extent that it is a useful pursuit to attempt to understand a text, but we never fully understand it. The special hope related to the Bible, however, is that it is not merely a dead document written 2,000+ years ago, but something through which God’s Spirit continues to work.
Timothy,
I’ll pray that you grow out of your “strong Deconstructionist tendencies.” Are they teaching that crap at your seminary? Deconstruction is one of the more silly trends in recent years and is old news even in leftist circles. Frankly I’m shocked that a person who belives in a Bible based view of Christianity would give it a second thought. Words mean things. If you don’t belive that, why are you posting on this blog? I will admit that some people speak and write without saying anything comprehensible because they hide behind long words repesenting amorphous concepts:
“Long words go rattling by us like long railway trains. We know they are carrying thousands who are too tired or too indolent to walk and think for themselves. It is a good exercise to try for once in a way to express any opinion one holds in words of one syllable. If you say “The social utility
of the indeterminate sentence is recognized by all criminologists as a part of our sociological evolution towards a more humane and scientific view of punishment,” you can go on talking like that for hours with hardly a
movement of the gray matter inside your skull. But if you begin “I wish Jones to go to gaol and Brown to say when Jones shall come out,” you will discover, with a thrill of horror, that you are obliged to think. The long
words are not the hard words, it is the short words that are hard. There is much more metaphysical subtlety in the word “damn” than in the word “degeneration.”
All that aside, you have a good point RE how outsiders won’t have the understanding of an insider. That is generally true. But would you agree that there are many cases where an outside can understand things better than an insider?
Civis, no they aren’t teaching deconstructionism at the seminary. My deconstructionist tendencies (and, more importantly, my New Historicist viewpoint in general) come from my undergrad training in literature, philosophy and religion, combined with my own study. Nevertheless, I have talked to a seminary professor here about deconstruction, and he agreed that it does provide some useful insights on the natural interpretation of the Bible sans the Holy Spirit. I could try to put that in one syllable words, but probably not this late in the evening. I think it recognizes a vital truth about language: it is subjective (if that is even a helpful word to use) and constantly slipping from its meaning.
I think there are definitely times when the outsiders understand things better. The Church can (and is) delusional about many things. I don’t think they can understand the truths of Scripture better, by and large, although they may even be able to see some parts of the Bible with fresh clarity free from over familiarity.
Just a little clarification: this is where I see the payoff of New Historicism over pure Deconstructionism. You and I can understand each others words within the framework of communication in which we are presently situated. But we cannot understand each other’s words perfectly, because our interpretation is based not on reading entirely objective objects, but rather subjective symbols which are assigned objects and can lose those objects. Part of my framework does not overlap with your framework and very well may alter my understanding of your words.
Words are not intrinsically meaningful, though they are made to mean something. The word ship does not mean “ship,” as it were, but rather points to the thing we call ship (I’m using an idea from C.S. Lewis here). But it is rather hard to define that completely concretely. And that’s an easy word to hammer down compared to one like “religion” or “faith.”
Timothy,
You have studied Deconstruction and New Historicism more than I have, so you will probably think that my objection is silly, but it seems to me that the fact that you are making this argument in and of itself refutes Deconstruction. It is only because words do have meaning that you can make your argument, and the fact that you make the argument tells me you must not have much faith in the idea.
There is no doubt that words can be misconstrued and a given sentence can be taken in more than one sense. The words, “Timothy, you have an excellent way of expressing yourself.” Can be taken in more than one way. It’s what logicians call (if I’m not mistaken) the fallacy of accent. Can we decipher the meaning of every sentence ever spoken or written? No, there are passage from ancient writers the meaning of which we will never know due to changes in language, culture, or inartful expression on the part of the original speaker/writer. This is why it is important for us to not use slang and colloquialisms if we want the next generation to understand us. This is why, when we have a serious discussion we define our terms.
Deconstruction, IMHO takes this kernel of truth and uses it as an attack on language. If I didn’t think that Deconstruction is just a fad—a fad which has in fact pretty much passed the way of the do do—I would say that it is a more dangerous attack on language than that of Goebbels’s propaganda tactics and Hitler’s burning of books.
When I was in college, my greatest ally in combating wacky professors’ ideas was the library. The answer to nonsense I heard in class was in the library. Whether it be history, philosophy, the social sciences—it doesn’t matter—the library is full of truth. I recall walking out of the library one night, and with a rush realizing the truth of the statement someone (I think it was one of Hitler’s German enemies) said: “The truth is in the libraries.”
People who hate the truth attack and/or abuse language, because they know “the pen is mightier than the sword.” It’s why we in America believe in free speech, because words are in fact so powerful, that tyranny cannot exist where it is exercised. Edmund Burke said “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” All good men have to do is to speak, and evil runs for cover.
I don’t think you hate truth, so it would be a shame if the one place this silly idea takes root is in the minds of people like yourself.
Civis, it is an old custom on the Internet that the first person to invoke Hitler in any sense forfeits a discussion (see Godwin’s Law). But, be that as it may, I have no objection to continue.
No, they aren’t silly at all. I made many of the same objections. I use the word “tendencies” deliberately. I am not a deconstructionist. Nevertheless, deconstruction helpfully informs my thinking. Note that deconstruction does not reject the existence of meaning, but rather insists that meaning is endlessly deferred. What I find most particularly helpful about deconstruction is its honesty: it deconstructs itself. What it reminds us to do is constantly check and deconstruct our interpretive frameworks. Our frameworks are _always_ fallible and subjective (I use that word hesitantly, as I am dubious about the modernist dichotomy of objective-subjective).
New Historicism is less drastic than its parent, and really isn’t a fad as far as I can tell. It has been the ruling school of literary criticism for a good while now. It roots itself in a more historical/grammatical framework, however it is honest (and informed by deconstruction) in that interpretation is a quest to near the truth, not reach it. History grounds interpretation, but what grounds history if not interpretation?
This is not a denial of truth, but rather an acceptance of our limitations in reaching it. In the case of the Bible, though, it is a denial of nothing, for we are not merely dealing with a dead book to which we merely hope to use our human faculties to absorb.
Timothy,
Sorry for the reductio ad Hitlerum. It’s a cheap way to get people’s attention :). I have to say, your comments are very intelligent and you appear to be well-read. Most all I’m impressed with the calmness with which you have handled my blasts. I just looked at your blog and left a message regarding natural law.
All,
I’m getting ahead of myself, but I think once I’m done with worldview (well that will never be complete I don’t suppose), I’m thinking about doing a serious study of natural law and am looking for fellow travelers.
I may make one stop on the way to the natural law pilgrimage and read up on liberal arts and try to improve my ability to learn.
I need to go dig up the quote, but St. Thomas Aquinas said somewhere that constant study can become mind numbing, but conversation renews one’s mind and refreshes him to hit the books anew. Of course he said it better, so I need to go find that quote.
Civis, thank you! And, please don’t worry about the reductio ad hitlerum. I replied about natural law over on your comment on my site.
I’m not sure about that quote from Thomas, but it certainly sounds true! Good discussing with you.
“A soft answer turns away wrath.”