Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Scripturalism’ Category

Ham vs. The Science Guy

Posted in Scripturalism on February 5, 2014| 6 Comments »

While listening to the Ken Ham, Bill Nye evolution debate tonight, I was reminded of something a Latin professor told my class many years ago. He related to us a story about a Harvard classics professor, who, so the story went, would make the same statement to his incoming class of hot-shot graduate students, “You may have small opinions,” he would say to them, “tenuously held.” The professor, it seems, sought to disabuse his students of the notion that they were in the business of discovering truth. At the end of the day, the most even a brilliant scholar could claim for his conclusions was that they were his opinions. They were not truth.

This bothered me a bit at the time. “Is there any hope at all of discovering truth,” I thought to myself. In retrospect, I realize the wisdom of the Harvard professor. Indeed, he was right. Classics does not furnish us with truth. But this is not a shortcoming unique to that field. All other secular academic disciplines fail in the very same way, including, though this is hard for may to believe, science.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

A Christian View of Men and Things No. 11: Ch. 2, An Appraisal

Posted in A Christian View of Men and Things, Scripturalism on February 3, 2014| 2 Comments »

Summary: There is abundant evidence, at least in the eyes of some observers, that Western civilization is undergoing a collapse. In fact, it already may have collapsed. That war, brutality, coercion, and immorality are on the rise is not in dispute. But what are we to make of this? Some view these as signs of civilizational collapse; others take them as evidence of progress. Who is right? The answer must be found in the more foundational philosophical discipline of ethics.

What is it that makes for a great writer or thinker? One could spend a great deal of time arguing this question. Many would hold the test of time to be an important criterion. Does an author’s work remain relevant ten, twenty or a hundred years after publication, or does time, like an ever rolling stream, bear all its import away? By this standard alone, the work of Gordon Clark achieves greatness. Reading through this section of chapter 2, the relevance of Clark’s work to our current day situation in the West is obvious. In his 2005 forward to the Trinity Foundation edition of A Christian View of Men and Things (CVMT), John Robbins observed, “Although it is now more than fifty years old, A Christian View of Men and Things is as timely as it was in 1952 [the year CVMT was first published], perhaps even more timely, for the crisis of our age has deepened, and the solution to that crisis has not changed.”

In Chapter 2 of CVMT under the heading “An Appraisal”, Clark walks the reader through contemporary evidence for the collapse of civilization. Working in ascending order from the most specific to the most general, Clark discusses the increase in war, brutality, coercion and immorality evident in the US and throughout the West. The timing of his remarks is worth noting, for Clark wrote CVMT in the early 1950s. a period many Americans fondly recall as a sort of Father-Knows-Best golden age of American civilization. A time when you could leave your house unlocked and not worry. A time when abortion was illegal. A time before anyone had ever heard of school shootings, LSD or the sexual revolution. In other words, the good old days.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

CVMT No.10: Ch.2, Spengler and Toynbee

Posted in A Christian View of Men and Things, Scripturalism on January 6, 2014| 2 Comments »

Summary:

Clark examines the ideas of two famous and influential 20th Century historians, Arnold Spengler and Arnold Toynbee. Spengler likened civilizations to biological organisms. Just as living creatures are born, grow mature, decline and die, so too do civilizations. He believed that events in the history of one civilization could be seen as contemporaneous to events in another civilization due to their occurring at the same point the their respective societies’ lifecycles. Further, Spengler was a determinist. He held that the West – as with all civilizations – would decline and die. Nothing can be done to prevent this.

Arnold Toynbee attempted to sound a more optimistic tone. He rejected Spengler’s biological analogy and claimed that, while, yes, 25 of 26 civilizations have collapsed, this does not imply that the West is fated to follow their fate.

Did either one of these noted scholars prove his point, or is the jury still out? Given their methods, could either one of them have managed to prove his point? These are questions to ask while reading Clark’s analysis of their writings.

Finally, Clark offers his opinion on the state of the West today. Although he expresses disagreement with Spengler and Toynbee on several points, he is in agreement with them in this: the West is in the midst of a decline.

“It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine,” or so went the refrain of a popular 80’s song by R.E.M. Armageddon, at least in my experience, is, and has been for some time, big business. In fact, I don’t ever recall a time when I’ve not been regaled with some end-of-the-world scenario or another. As a boy, I recall watching The Late Grate Planet Earth in a darkened church basement. The mushroom cloud at the end tends to leave a big impression on a 10 year old. The Planet of the Apes featured a famous scene with the Statue of Liberty half buried in the sand. Mel Gibson first gained international fame as an actor in Mad Max where he played a lawman in post-nuclear holocaust Australia. More recently, the financial crisis of 2008 has spawned a “prepper” movement, whose members, believing that society is on the verge of a major breakdown, seek to mitigate the effects of the coming collapse by making ready ahead of time. Dystopian films and TV shows enjoy great popularity with audiences.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

CVMT No.9: Ch.2, The Philosophy of Progress

Posted in Scripturalism, tagged on December 2, 2013| 2 Comments »

Summary:

This section breaks down into four main headings.

    I. The origins of the debate over progress (37).

    II. A historical sketch of the development of the idea of progress (37-39).

    III. A discussion of the main elements of the philosophy of progress (39-40).

    IV. A review of the main arguments used to establish progress as a law of history (40-41).

Years ago during a freshman level history class in college, a professor of mine made the point that the ancient Greeks had a cyclical view of history. For them, history was just a repetition of the same cycles over and over, much like the seasons. At the time, I thought it was among the most foolish things I’d ever heard. I was thoroughly steeped in the idea of history as progress. These many years later, I still don’t agree with the cyclical view, though I can at least understand why an intelligent person might take that position.

Of course, the Bible teaches that history will have an end, and that end was declared by God before the creation of the world. History, far from being a random series of events, has a purpose, which will culminate when Christ returns to judge the world in righteousness. In that sense the idea of progress in history is perfectly consonant with Christianity. But this is not the type of progress Clark has in view in this section. The philosophy of progress discussed here is of the purely secular sort.

The progress discussed here is the secular view. Clark argues that the Middle Ages, focused as they were on contemplation, showed little interest in worldly progress. This changed with the coming of such thinkers as Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes and Baruch Spinoza.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Capitalism in His Crosshairs

Posted in Economics, Roman Catholicism, Scripturalism on November 27, 2013| 1 Comment »

“Pope Francis attacks ‘tyranny’ of unfettered capitalism, ‘idolatory (sic) of money,’ ” blared the CNBC headline. “Really,” I thought to myself, “I bet he’s Catholic too.” The new pontiff has wasted no time in leveling his guns at capitalism. Not that that’s any big surprise. As John Robbins documented in his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania, Popes have explicitly railed against capitalism, the economics of the Bible, for over 100 years.

Even a cursory review of the exhortation shows the Pope has roughly the same view of economics as the Occupy Wall Street crowd: the 1% have enriched themselves at the expense of the 99% and the free market is to blame. Writes the Pope,

“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

Of course as a Scripturalist, I prefer to make my appeals to the Word of God, not to “the facts,” but even at that, the Pope’s words fail the test of history. It was capitalism – an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production – not the socialism of the Roman Catholic Church State, that brought a previously unknown level of prosperity to common people in the nations touched by the Reformation.

The Pope continues his attack on free markets and free men by linking capitalism to contemporary economic problems.

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules.

Now far be it from me to defend the current financial system. It’s an ongoing disaster chock full of bailouts, Quantitative Easing, theft (but I repeat myself), and market manipulation, all rigged for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. But what it isn’t is capitalism. The Wall Street folks rescued from bankruptcy n 2008, were saved not by capitalism – capitalism would have seen their assets liquidated and their offices closed – but by massive government intervention in the economy. The very sort of thing the Occupy Wall Streeters, the Pope and other socialists seem to think is the cure for what ails us.

Read Full Post »

A King’s Faith

Posted in Scripturalism on November 11, 2013| 2 Comments »

He trusted in the LORD God of Israel. – 2 Kings 18:5

As a long time history buff, the historical writings of the Old Testament have always had immediate appeal to me. In the Pentateuch, God gave us doctrine. In the historical books, he shows the practice, or non-practice as the case may be, of that doctrine by the children of Israel.  Reading through the books of Kings and Chronicles one finds example after example of kings either acting in faith or rejecting God and going their own way. And as readers, were not left to interpret the examples on our own, but God provides a summary commentary on the lives of the kings, passing judgment on their thoughts and their actions.

A review of the Bible’s commentary on the lives of the kings of Israel and Judah reveals that a distressingly high percentage of these rules not only lacked faith, but were actively evil in their doings. Among the most damning of these commentaries was that on the life of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat. Now Jehoshaphat was one of Judah’s best kings, but his son was an appalling individual. Of Jehoram it was said, “He was thirty-two years old when he became king. He reigned in Jerusalem eight years and, to no one’s sorrow, departed. However they buried him in the City of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.” (2 Chron. 21:20). How would you like that as your epitaph?
(more…)

Read Full Post »

Lookin’ For Truth In All the Wrong Places

Posted in Economics, Scripturalism on August 18, 2013| 1 Comment »

This evening I came across an article on Zero Hedge titled Why Isn’t There A Demonstrably Correct Economic Theory?
Now that’s a good question. Secular thinkers since the time of Aristotle have pondered the problems of economics, and some folks have gotten wise to the fact that they have little in the way of answers.

The post begins,

“My wife has asked me a ‘simple’ question that I cannot answer. After 2000 years, why do we not know which economic theory is correct: Keynesian or Hayek-Friedman? Surely, there is a demonstrably, statistically correct answer.”

Now this is an interesting way of framing the issue. The quote begins with a question asking why we do not know which two economic theories is correct and ends with an expectation that the matter can be decided on the basis of statistical – i.e. empirical – proof.

There are, of course, far more than two schools of thought on matters economic. The mention of Keynesian and Hayek-Friedman economics – Hayek and Friedman are really quite different, Hayek was a rationalist from the Austrian school whereas Friedman was a Chicago school empiricist, they do not represent a single school of thought – is just a small sampling of the universe of secular economic schools of thought. The author himself concedes this by throwing in the name of Karl Marx. That doesn’t complete the list either, but for the sake of space, let’s leave it at that.
(more…)

Read Full Post »

CVMT No.7: Ch.2, Philosophy of History

Posted in A Christian View of Men and Things, Scripturalism on March 5, 2012| 4 Comments »

Summary:
Because it presents problems that we cannot ignore, history is a good place to start the study of philosophy. For example, in the aftermath of World War II different groups advanced radically different ideas about how to handle Germany. Some advocated severe sanctions, others held that a prosperous Germany was necessary for European stability. Both sides claimed that the lessons of history supported them. Who was right? How do we know? This leads us to the general problem of history: what law of history will allow us to understand the past and make some reasonable guess about the course of future events? In light of the stakes involved, this is not a small question.

It may seem odd to some people to think that philosophy has anything to do with history. Isn’t history simply a matter of accurately recording events that took place in a “Just the facts, ma’am” sort of way? At first blush this sounds plausible, at least until we consider the problem of recording all the information about even a single event. A witness recounting the events of a bank robbery to the police may report what the robber or robbers looked like, the time of day the robbery took place, whether they used a gun, the license plate of the getaway car etc., but even the best eyewitness possessed of a photographic memory would not report everything about the scene of the robbery. While he would report those things pertinent to catching the robbers, he likely would omit mentioning the color of the bank’s wallpaper or the brand of chewing gum he was using at the time. In short, the eyewitness would select the information he reports to the police. And just as a witness must select the details he reports to the police, so too must a historian choose what events to discuss and what events to omit. John Robbins made this point in his forward to Clark’s Historiography, Secular and Religious when he wrote,

“Every historian must make a selection and construct a narrative based on many principles, some of which he may not even be aware.” (p. ix)

Even the writers of inspired Scripture were not immune from the necessity of selection. In his Gospel account the Apostle John wrote, “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the would itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).
(more…)

Read Full Post »

CVMT No. 6: Ch. 1 Introduction, Method: Choice

Posted in A Christian View of Men and Things, Scripturalism on February 20, 2012| 7 Comments »

Section Summary: In light of the fact that there may be multiple, plausible philosophical systems and that limited time and energy make it difficult for us to adequately assess them, we may wish to suspend making a judgment about which one is true and use out time for something that appears to promise greater rewards. But avoiding choice is not so easy as it may seem, for the decision not to make a choice is itself a choice. The choice to believe in Christianity may expose one to ridicule from those who hold that the Christian worldview is fraught with difficulties, but secular philosophies have significant problems of their own. Further, if Christianity offers answers to important philosophical questions where secular worldviews fail, and if it does so within a coherent, non contradictory system, there is no logical reason to deny Christians the use of their more promising first principle.

In the prior section of A Christian View of Men and Things Chapter 1, Clark discussed the place of axioms within the context of a philosophical system. Axioms, he told us, are unproven first principles that stand at the beginning of all philosophies. By definition it is impossible to prove an axiom. If an axiom could be proven, it would no longer be an axiom. For whatever argument was used to prove it, that argument would then be the axiom. But while axioms cannot be proven, they can be tested. If it can be shown that an axiom logically implies contradictory ideas, that axiom has failed the test of the coherence theory of truth and may be rejected.

Clark now raises the question, what would happen if, after applying the coherence theory of truth test, we are left with multiple, incompatible philosophical systems? How, then, do we decide which one is right? Do we even have to make a choice? Wouldn’t it be easier to simple let well enough alone and get about the business of life?
(more…)

Read Full Post »

CVMT No. 5: Ch.1 Introduction, Method: The Law of Contradiction

Posted in A Christian View of Men and Things, Scripturalism on February 7, 2012| 6 Comments »

Section Summary: 1) The traditional first step for establishing a theistic worldview, proving the existence of God, has been a failure. The various proofs offered by philosophers and theologians are invalid. 2) All systems of thought are built on first principles called axioms. These principles are unproven and by definition unprovable. 3) But while axioms themselves cannot be refuted or established, they can be tested. For example, skepticism is a view based on the axiom that truth is unknowable. But when skeptics assert that nothing can be demonstrated, they themselves are claiming to know that knowledge is impossible. Therefore, skepticism is absurd. It refutes itself. Man must know truth. 4) From this it follows that if a proposition – a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence – or philosophical system claims to show that knowledge is impossible, or if it can proven that a system is self-contradictory, we safely can reject that proposition or philosophical system as false. 5) The view that a philosophical system can be rejected if it is inconsistent with itself is an application of the coherence theory of truth, which states that a true philosophical system must be non-contradictory.

In this section, Clark mentions two important choices facing those who wish to establish a theistic worldview: 1) where to start and 2) what method to use. For many, the seeming best to start a defense of theism is to prove that God exists. “If we can just prove to the world that God exists,” they reason, “then people will be ready to hear the Gospel.” This isn’t a new idea. Anselm and Aquinas both labored under this idea and both developed intricate arguments to prove to unbelievers that God exists. What may come as a surprise many is that the first attempt to prove the existence of God was not made by a Christian theologian. Aquinas based his proof for the existence of God on a proof first articulated by the pagan Greek philosopher Aristotle. Clark refers to Anselm’s argument as the ontological argument for the existence of God and Aquinas’ as the cosmological argument. Although a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of Clark’s comments and this post, a few comments on these two methods are in order.
(more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »