withallyourmind.net

I just wanted to add another link to a great website I recently came across. The website is run by Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, and has three pretty impressive free resources. First, there is a theology program that has free online courses in basic systematic theology. Next, there is a weekly ‘Theology Unplugged’ podcast that addresses the theological issues of our day (I see the most recent is by Francis Beckwith on how evangelicals should engage Catholics). Finally, they have a ‘Converse with Scholars’ program that appears to be a live topical chat with prominent Christian scholars about various issues (recent guests have included Paul Copan, JP Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, and William Lane Craig).

The URL is http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/

A few weeks ago I mentioned that one of the best Christian philosophers of our time has a new website, Reasonable Faith. There are now available on his website excellent podcasts. Defenders is Dr. Craig’s Sunday school class on Christian doctrine and apologetics. Reasonable Faith is a conversational program dealing with the most important apologetic questions of our day.

An argument for the existence of God can be found on YouTube here. It is a well-presented, almost 10 minute long production which argues for God’s existence on the basis of an inference to the best explanation. The video examines five facts and asserts that the existence of a God like the the Christian God makes the most sense of those facts. It is worth a watch.

In A Meaningful World, Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt, take a look at the arts and sciences and find in them evidence that our universe is full of meaning rather than pointless as the modern materialists and atheists would have us to believe. In Chapter 5, they examine the mathematical enterprise of geometry and Euclid, the “Shakespeare” of math. The following anecdote is offered:

After having learned the first geometrical theorem, a pupil inquired of Euclid, “But what shall I get by learning these things?” Euclid called one of his slaves. “Give him a coin,” Euclid ordered, “since he must make a gain out of what he learns.” Unfortunately, we do not have recorded what effect Euclid’s stinging words had upon the student, so we do not know whether the student blushed from embarrassment or was simply stunned by incomprehension. Either way, the point of Euclid’s remark is that the study of geometry is intrisically good and needs no further justification. While it may have practical uses, these are accidental to its true merit, the peculiarly human joy of gaining knowledge about mathematical things.”

As the authors point out, the utilitarian approach to knowledge is not confined to the past. Often we hear young, short-sighted, students complain that they will never use a particular bit of learning, or that it will never help them get a good-paying job. There is, however, a great capacity in humanity to joy in learning and knowing for its own sake. It is this excitement of knowing and learning that has driven man’s great accomplishments and achievements in the arts and sciences.

The authors argue that this phenomenon cannot adequately be accounted for on a Darwinian basis:

The Darwinian account of the development of human intelligence does not explain the extraordinary intellectual gap between the capacity to reason geometrically in regard to mere survival, the far more extraordinary capacity entailed in purely theoretical geometry such as that taught in Euclid’s Elements, or even more, in the kind of mathematics used in contemporary physics. To image that Darwinian selection mechanisms could have seized upon a series of small but immediately beneficial genetic variations to produce a species capable of producing a Newton or an Einstein works no better than explaining Shakespeare by such means. “We have certain skills - for example, we can jump streams and catch falling apples - which are necessary for getting by in the world,” notes physicist Paul Davies, “but, why is it that we also have the ability to discern, for example, what’s going on inside atoms or inside black holes? These are completely outside the domain of everyday experience…not at all necessary for good Darwinian survival.”

A Meaningful World argues that mathematics, as well as other areas of learning and knowlege, provides powerful evidence for a universe full of meaning and purpose. A universe which seems to be strangely designed, not only full of meaning, but also strangely made in such a way that we can comprehend and understand it. Not only that, but we seem to be strangely designed to desire and take great joy in discovering the truths of nature. Wiker and Witt state:

The more we uncover, the more it looks like there is a conspiracy of order, an idea that allows us to see the genius of Euclid in a different light. He becomes not the founder of geometry, the great master, but an apprentice hurrying after the true Master, the first Geometer, whose work is bright with clarity - rich and strange and elegant, surprising and delighting us with its unexpected harmonies - and all of it oddly fitted to the human mind and imagination.

I am presently listening to a group of lectures called Abraham Lincoln: In His Own Words, by professor David Zarefsky. In these lectures, Dr. Zarefsky takes a look at the rhetoric of Abraham Lincoln (Rhetoric used not in the negative sense we so often hear today). The past few lectures I’ve heard cover the series of debates in 1858 between Lincoln and Stephen A Douglas for the Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate. The sixth of the seven debates was held in Quincy. The full debate can be read here.

The subject that occupied center stage throughout the debates regarded the institution of slavery. Lincoln continued to develop his argument throughout the several debates until, at Quincy, he makes clear the dinstinction between his stance on slavery and that of Douglas. Here is Lincoln’s stance in his own words:

I suggest that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest terms, is no other than the difference between the men who think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican party think it wrong-we think it is a moral, a social and a political wrong. We think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it. We have a due regard to the actual presence of it amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the Constitutional obligations thrown about it.

Lincoln classifies slavery as a moral wrong. His opposition to the practice is own the basis of morality. The immorality of slavery seems rather obvious to most modern westerners. It was not always the case. Here is Douglas’ stance on the issue in his own words:

He tells you that I will not argue the question whether slavery is right or wrong. I tell you why I will not do it. I hold that under the Constitution of the United States, each State of this Union has a right to do as it pleases on the subject of slavery. In Illinois we have exercised that sovereign right by prohibiting slavery within our own limits. I approve of that line of policy. We have performed our whole duty in Illinois. We have gone as far as we have a right to go under the Constitution of our common country. It is none of our business whether slavery exists in Missouri or not. Missouri is a sovereign State of this Union, and has the same right to decide the slavery question for herself that Illinois has to decide it for herself.

The analogy between the issue of slavery and that of abortion was all too obvious to me as I read the debate. One could almost substitute the word abortion for every time the word slavery is used and it would almost describe the pro-life and pro-choice positions on abortion which we find today. I point this out because while it seems obvious to us today that Douglas was wrong, it was not so obvious in 1858. Douglas talked as if the slave was a non-entity. The rights or feelings of the slave was not a consideration. Slavery was a matter of personal choice (or at least state choice) and Douglas, nor anyone else, had the right to interfere with the right of some to own slaves.

I can only hope, and I do believe, that eventually we will look back on the abortion issue and see that it was obvious all along that abortion is a moral wrong. If it is a moral wrong, the position of those who wish to maintain the right of women to have abortions is just as untenable and unpalatable and immoral as that of Stephen A. Douglas on slavery.

Dr. Frank Beckwith has resigned as president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) as a result of his decision to rejoin the Roman Catholic Church (HT: Between Two Worlds). Here are several pertinent links on the controversy:

Dr. Beckwith’s explanation of his actions are found here.
The ETS statement concerning Beckwith’s resignation is here.
A David Neff interview with Beckwith can be found here.
A Christianity Today article by Collin Hansen on the issue is here.

Beckwith’s actions have caused a flurry of reaction, ranging from “Welcome Home” from Catholics to shame, shock, and disappointment from Protestants. Dr. Beckwith has been a well-respected philosopher and Christian scholar for some time. A discussion of the relationship between Catholicism and Protestant faiths is always complex and often full of emotion. While some of the issues are rather clear cut, it seems not all are. A positive that will hopefully come from this development will be a reexamination of the issues which divide Catholics and Protestants.

One of the most discussed issues has to do with the respective views on the innerancy and authority of Scripture. All members of the ETS must be able to affirm a doctrinal statement which contains the following phrase: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” Dr. Beckwith stated that he would have no problem affirming this statement. The ETS statement on this controversy has this to say regarding the stance of Catholicism on scriptural authority:

Confessional Catholicism, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church’s declarations from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, sets forth a more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation.

Specifically, it posits a larger canon of Scripture than that recognized by evangelical Protestants, including in its canon several writings from the Apocrypha. It also extends the quality of infallibility to certain expressions of church dogma issued by the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church), as well as certain pronouncements of the pope, which are delivered ex cathedra, such as doctrines about the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary.

We recognize the right of Roman Catholic theologians to do their theological work on the basis of all the authorities they consider to be revelatory and infallible, even as we wholeheartedly affirm the distinctive contribution and convictional necessity of the work of the Evangelical Theological Society on the basis of the “Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety” as “the Word of God written and . . . inerrant.”

This controversy may help us better understand both the distinctives of Protestants and Catholics, as well as the doctrinal beliefs which they hold in common.

Craig and Moreland provides several reasons a Christian should study philosophy in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview:

1. To aid in the task of apologetics: I Pet 3:15 tells his readers to “… always (be) prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” Apologetics involves defending the Christian faith by use of reason and rational argumentation. Jude also admonishes his readers “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” The apostles often used philosophical reasoning to challenge others to accept Christ (See especially Acts 17).

2. To aid in the task of polemics: Polemics differs from apologetics in that it involves the criticism and refutation of non-Christian worldviews. For example, the modern view of man is that he is a purely physical entity, a complex machine constiting only of physical things. The Scripture teaches that we are more than matter. The study of philosophy aids one in his attempt to “… destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God. (2 Cor 10:5).

3. To worship and love God with our minds: Matthew 22:37 - “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Philosophy is an expression of the image of God in us. God is a rational being who has made us like him in this respect. Philosophical reflection about the important issues in life honors God.

4. To assist us in our theology: Philosophy has been called the handmaid to theology and helps us clarify many concepts in systematic theology.

5. To aid us in proper understanding of issues not explicitly addressed in Scripture. Many modern ethical issues (especially in bioethics) are not explicitly addressed in the Bible. Does that mean they are morally neutral? Of course not. Philosophy helps us to conceptualize and analyze particular cases and apply to them appropriate biblical teaching.

6. To facilitate the spiritual discipline of study. The very act of studying can bring about change in us. Specifically, Craig and Moreland claim:

The discipline of study also aids in the development of certain virtues and values; for example, a desire for truth, honesty with data, openness to criticism, self-reflection and an ability to get along nondefensively with those who differ with one.

Although study is not unique to the field of philosophy, the philosophical approach and subject matter are central to all other areas of study.

7. To enhance the boldness and self-confidence of the Christian community in general.

8. To help one develop an integrated Christian worldview. To integrate is to blend or form into a whole. Most Christians have a compartmentalized life. They think like a Christian in church, and like a non-Christian in the world. The study of philosophy will assist one in developing a cohesive and consistent view of the world.

Finally, I leave you with the words of C. S. Lewis from The Weight of Glory:

… to be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defence but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.

In my last post I commented on the typical reaction one receives on the subject of studying philosophy as a Christian. At best, one is usually urged to “be very careful” and at worst (and not all that rarely) one is treated as if he is dabbling in the occult, or as if she is well on the way to committing the unpardonable sin. Why is philosophy thus viewed by Christians? And is this view warranted?

In order to answer this question, one must first attempt to define philosophy. The etymology of the word suggests a definition. It is derived from two Greek words, philein, “to love”, and sophia, “wisdom”. So, to be a philosopher one should be a lover of wisdom. So far, so good for the Christian. Proverbs 16:16 proclaims:

How much better to get wisdom than gold!To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.

J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig (Two of the most highly regarded Christian philosophers [not an oxymoron] today), in their excellent book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview offer the following definition:

Then, philosophy is the attempt to think hard about life, the world as a whole and the things that matter most in order to secure knowledge and wisdom about these matters. Accordingly, philosophy may be defined as the attempt to think rationally and critically about life’s most important questions in order to obtain knowledge and wisdom about them.

This again seems to represent a worthwhile and honorable goal to which a Christian might and should aspire. So, why the resistance to the studying philosophy? I think there are several misguided conceptions regarding such a pursuit. Before evaluating such misconceptions, it is important to realize that everyone does philosophy everyday. If you consider important questions like - 1) How can I know that God exists? 2) How can I know if an action is right or wrong ( or are there objective moral truths at all)? 3) What is my purpose in life (or is there a purpose to life)? 4) How can I trust my senses? - and on and on, you are doing philosophy. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Christians don’t do it very well. Studying philosophy enables one to think well about these issues.

Philosophy may be thought of as a toolbox within which one finds the tools for proper thinking. Now, I admit, it can be dangerous to think. But it is far more dangerous to think without the proper tools. It is important not to mistake the tools of thinking for the conclusions which some have erroneously reached using those tools. A contractor with all the best tools can still build a substandard edifice, but that does not mean we recommend that contractors avoid the tools! So what about Colossians 2:8, which I brought up in my last post?

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. (NIV)

Many have interpreted this verse to mean that a Christian should avoid philosophy, but that is not Paul’s point at all. Paul is not critical of philosophy, only a certain kind of philosophy. One cannot avoid philosophy. Everytime she thinks about an issue she uses the tools of thought. In fact, if one does not study philosophy, how can one know the difference in “good” philosophy and “bad.” The kind of philosophy Paul warns the Colossians about is that kind which is based on the godless principles of the world. Christians have for too long vacated the realm of public thought and opinion, leaving it in the hands of godless philosophers who hope to shape society and even the church according to principles other than on Christ. To fulfill God’s command, Christians must learn to think correctly in order to examine the materialistic philosophical conclusions of the secular world. In so doing, the follower of Christ may reveal the error which dominates so much of current philosophical thought and be able to rationally defend the Christian faith.

I Pet 3:15 (NIV) Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

I will continue these thoughts, but I end today’s post with a quote from John Wesley addressing the clergy:

Ought not a Minister to have, First a good understanding, a clear apprehension, a sound judgment, and a capacity of reasoning with some closeness… Is not some acquaintenance with what has been termed the second part of logic, (metaphysics), if not so necessary as [logic itself], yet highly expedient? Should not a Minister be acquainted with at least the general grounds of natural philosophy?

I am the very proud father of the other half of this blog (the less active contributing part who I hope will be contributing much more). Jeremy recently updated the readers of this blog with the news of his graduation from Florida State University (Summa Cum Laude with honors, by the way) with a major in philosophy and a minor in music. He will soon be moving to the left coast to attend graduate school at the University of California Berkeley. Being the proud father that I am, I often tell friends, Christian and non-Christian, that He will be studying to obtain a PhD in philosophy. One might think, from the reactions I receive, that he was studying to be a serial-killer or something!

Philosophy!?!? What is he thinking? And why are you so proud of that as a father? Poor philosophers are always misunderstood. A secular co-worker’s incredulity was derived from purely economic considerations. From his standpoint, it is a waste of an awful lot of money to study philosophy with the hope of very little financial remuneration in the long term. I guess the Almighty Dollar is the ultimate measure by which we judge the worthiness of any endeavor. It seems obvious to me that there are other worthwhile pursuits in life than to be independently wealthy.

From Christians, I often receive looks of consternation and concern. “Oh my! You’re letting him study what?!” Philosophy, in the opinion of most average church-goers, is placed right up there with other sins like adultery and gluttony. Why would a Christian want to do philosophy? Well… that is a very good question and one I intend to attempt to answer over the next couple of posts. Not only would Christians want to study philosophy, but I believe they should study philosophy!

I set up my next post with a few scriptural insights:

Colossians 2:8 (NIV) “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”

Colossians 1:20 (NIV) “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”

Matthew 22:37 (ESV) And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”

I Peter 3:15 (ESV) “But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”