Feeds:
Posts
Comments

CVMT No.8: Ch.2, Karl Marx

November 18, 2013 by Steve Matthews

Summary:

Although the study of history is currently a matter of great interest, such was not always the case. The ancient Greeks showed little interest in the subject. Writing in the early nineteenth century, G.W.F. Hegel stimulated modern interest in the subject. Karl Marx, one of Hegel’s students, developed a system of dialectical materialism in which the notion of class struggle took center stage. The fundamental proposition of Marxism is that the mode of economic production at a given time is the basis for the political and intellectual history of the era. Clark casts doubt on this assertion by pointing out that, while the economic organization of most nations until very recently have been largely similar (most have been agricultural economies), the intellectual history of these nations have differed significantly.

The German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Frederich Hegel (1770-1831) is best known today for his dialectic. For Hegel, the world – ideas, religion, the arts,, the sciences, the economy, institutions, society itself (most of my discussion of Hegel is taken from The Story of Thought by Bryan Magee, pp.158-163) – was in a constant state of flux or change. This change did not occur randomly, but was the result of the dialectical process or simply the dialectic. The dialectic took place in three stages: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The first stage, thesis, is the initial state of affairs in a particular field. This state of affairs always provokes a reaction, which Hegel termed the antithesis. The conflict between the two views then resolves itself in synthesis, which as the name suggests, is a new state of affairs that combines elements of the prior thesis and antithesis. The synthesis then becomes the new thesis, which provokes a further antithesis resulting in still another synthesis, and so on and so forth. This three stage process is sometimes referred to as a triad.

Karl Marx, the best known student of Hegel, took the Hegelian dialectic and applied it to economics. In Marx, the conflict between the haves and the have nots was substituted for the thesis and antithesis of ideas in Hegel. Hence the term “dialectical materialism” referenced by Clark on page 35, paragraph 2.

Clark, quoting Frederick Engles, provides for us the fundamental proposition of Marxism,

“In every historical epoch the prevailing mode of economic exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained the political and intellectual history of that epoch.”

Clark proceeds to cast doubt Marxism by attacking this claim on its own terms. This is a type of argument known as ad hominem, Latin for “to the man.” Ad hominem is not so uncommon a term as to appear completely foreign to many people, but the sense in which I’m using it may seem a bit unusual to some. Usually when we hear the term ad hominem, the word is used in the sense of “personal attack,” where one man seeks to undermine the credibility of another’s argument by means of character assassination. This tactic is more accurately called an ad hominem abusive argument and is considered an informal logical fallacy.

Ad hominem in the sense Clark uses it is no fallacy, but an effective means of refuting an opponent’s position. Clark does is to assumes the Marxists’ premise on history and then demonstrates that their conclusions do not follow from it. Clark writes,

“in fact, until the recent past all countries have been mainly agricultural, and the methods have been basically the same; yet the intellectual histories of China, Persia, Russia, and France show much greater difference than the Marxist theory would lead one to expect”…

Perhaps Marx could defend his position by showing that the method of welding in Russia differs from the American method, and that Russian welding causes atheism, while American welding allows the churches considerable freedom” (CVMT, pp. 36, 37).

Clark ends this section by crediting Marx with at least recognizing the problem of history and making an attempt to solve it.

 

 


 

Posted in A Christian View of Men and Things | Leave a Comment »

Obamacare Ad Nauseum

November 14, 2013 by Steve Matthews

I’ve gotten to the point where I can scarcely go to the workplace refrigerator to get my lunch. I dread opening the break room doors, for behind them horror awaits. Vile. Unspeakable. I’m referring, of course, to CCN’s incessant, breathless, blow-by-blow coverage of the Obamacare website mess.

And the more I hear it, the more I think this may be a blessing in disguise for the medical socialists. The enormous website fail has given them the opportunity to redirect the conversation, so that now everyone is abuzz about how to fix healthcare.gov instead of how shut it down forever. It would seem the Obama folks have taken to heart Rahm Emanuel’s saying, never let a good disaster go to waste.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a Comment »

A King’s Faith

November 11, 2013 by Steve Matthews

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?
Continue Reading »

Posted in Scripturalism | 2 Comments »

Martin Luther on Quantitative Easing

September 26, 2013 by Steve Matthews

Monetary policy was briefly in the news last week when Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the much anticipated tapering of the Fed’s $85 billion monthly purchase of Treasuries and Mortgage Backed Securities would, in fact, not take place. For those who aren’t enthralled by monetary policy talk, in layman’s terms the US central bank decided that its policy of counterfeiting – know as Quantitative Easing – at the rate of $1 trillion per year is such a fabulous idea that it couldn’t let the party to stop.

Of course, modern central bankers Ben Bernanke’s and Alan Greenspan’s ilk didn’t invent the art of defrauding people through monetary debasement, they’re just better at it than folks were in the old days. Martin Luther in his commentary on Romans 2:2,3 had this to say about the counterfeiters of his time,

Today we may apply the Apostle’s words first to those (rulers) who without cogent cause inflict exorbitant taxes upon the people, or by changing and devaluating the currency, rob them, while at the same time they accuse their subjects of being greedy and avaricious.

Something tells me Brother Martin wouldn’t have received a warm welcome from the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee or, for that matter, the faculty of most any modern economics department.

 

Posted in Economics | 2 Comments »

Lookin’ For Truth In All the Wrong Places

August 18, 2013 by Steve Matthews

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.
Continue Reading »

Posted in Economics, Scripturalism | 1 Comment »

Louis Brandeis, Insight from 1928

August 10, 2013 by Steve Matthews

This evening I happened across a quote from Louis Brandeis’ 1928 dissent in the Olmstead case. It was very well written and prompted me to read further. Not being a legal scholar, I’d heard of the Olmstead case, but didn’t know much in the way of detail about it. So I googled it and did a little reading.

It turns out that the case was about a bootlegger Roy Olmstead – these were the days of prohibition – who was arrested and convicted largely on evidence gained by federal agents wiretapping his phones – yes, they were already old pros at this sort of thing as far back as 1920s – and appealed his conviction by claiming that his Fourth and Fifth Amendments rights were violated by the wiretapping.

If you’re wondering how the case turned out, the short answer is that Olmstead lost the case and his conviction was upheld. In writing the dissent, Judge Brandeis proved himself not only a defender of liberty, but also a man possessed of no little insight. Consider this,

“Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet. Moreover, ‘in the application of a Constitution, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be.’ The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire tapping. Ways may someday be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions.”

Is that insight, or what? After observing the daily, Constitution shredding enormities committed by the NSA, the TSA and the rest of the agency alphabet soup of government agencies, I feel a tip of the cap is due the good judge for his impressive call. If only he were not so right.

 


 

Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

No Creature Hidden From His Sight

July 8, 2013 by Steve Matthews

And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and naked to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account. –

Heb.4:13

Several passages in Scripture speak of God’s omnipresence and his omniscience. At least some of them do so in the context of God’s judgment. The above passage is one such. Another is Jeremiah 23:24, which reads, ” ‘Can anyone hide himself in secret places, So I shall not see him?” says the Lord; “Do I not fill heaven and earth?’ says the Lord.” Not only does God see all things and know all things, but as our omnipotent creator he has the right and power to judge all things. These three attributes of God – his omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence – are both a cause for men to fear, and, for the Christian at least, a cause of great comfort. King David, who was given the choice of punishment at the hands of his enemies or at the hands of God, expressed no doubt which he preferred, “Please let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for His mercies are great; but do not let me fall into the hand of man” (2Sam. 24:14).

And because omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence are attributes of the true God, it should come as no surprise that false Gods, those who seek to imitate and usurp his rightful authority, seek to claim them for themselves. One such false god, one such idol, is the state. The state or ruler deified is hardly something new. Many ancient nations revered their leaders as gods. The pharaohs claimed to be gods. The degenerate Roman Caesars held likewise. The pope claims to rule in the place of God, and some zealous Romanists have even addressed the pope as God. In more recent times, German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel famously referred to the state as, “God walking on earth.” Economist Ludwig Von Mises coined, or at least made popular, the term “statolatry” to describe this flawed view of government.

I mention these things, because I can’t help but see the rise of the modern surveillance state as the outworking of Hegel’s deluded notions about government. If the state truly is God walking on earth, then it follows that any limits placed on its ability to see, hear, know and act are not only an affront to the government, but even rise to the level of blasphemy. This is essentially the message of the Obama administration, which when confronted about its unconstitutional, immoral spying, retorts that we should all just get over it already and trust them, doubting nothing. It’s all for our own good, don’t you see? Absolutely nothing should be hidden from the sight of federal snoops. If you’re not doing something wrong, you have nothing to worry about, or so goes the argument.

What is equally bad, or perhaps even worse, is the reaction of mainstream pundits both left and right. Not only do they fail to rebuke an out-of-control federal government for its many breeches of the Fourth Amendment, but they actually seem to go out of their way to provide intellectual cover for these activities. One example comes to mind from Fox News. In discussing the revelation that the USPS images every piece of mail passing through the postal system, and that there is no limit to how long these images are stored, commentator Charles Krauthammer dismissed any concerns with a rhetorical waive of the hand by noting that hardly anyone sends letters anymore. Nothing to see here folks, move along… I mean, thank goodness our emails, texts messages, internet searches and phone conversations are safe from the government snoops, otherwise we’d have nowhere to turn for privacy.

Despite what the ACLU would have us believe, Christianity is not the enemy of personal liberty, but the best friend it ever had. The whole idea of limited government has its roots in the Bible. This can be seen from many passages in the Old and New Testaments, from Samuel’s warnings to Israel about the behavior of future Israelite kings to the strict limitations placed on government by Paul in Romans 13. Bob Dylan made a good point in his song “You Gotta Serve Somebody,” for serve we all must. Americans can either repent and serve the Lord in freedom, or continue on their current path enslaved to the state. I’d like to think we’d make the right choice, but I’m not terribly optimistic.

 

 



 

Posted in Politics, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Rebellion in the PCA

March 19, 2012 by Steve Matthews

PCA Teaching Elder David Wegener has written a powerful piece against evangelical feminism that recently was posted on the Aquila Report. In it, he takes to task PCA church officers who continually violate the norms of the Scripture and the PCA’s BCO in order to push for women deacons.

One interesting observation Wegener makes is that the conflict over women in the deaconate is not an exegetical issue, but rather a cultural one. Wegener writes,

“Does anyone really think this issue is about what Scripture actually says? Would that it were true. Why is it that men all over the PCA are bringing up this topic at this particular moment in history? Might it have something to do with the air we breathe every day?

Women run for president and vice-president; they serve as CEOs and they are our supervisors and bosses, our teachers and principals and cell group leaders and spiritual directors.”

I’m not sure if I would go so far as to say that there is no doubt about what the Scriptures say on the subject of women deacons. The irrationalism that is so popular even in supposedly conservative circles has engendered a great deal of confusion in the churches about simple, basic doctrines. But on the other hand, Evangelical churches long ago ceased to heed Paul’s warning against conforming to the world and have instead pursued a policy of echoing the secular culture, just thirty or forty years late. Arguing for women deacons is simply another example of this trend.

I especially liked Wegener’s implication that the Bible’s teaching on the role of women extends beyond matters of church government, but instead speaks about their role in family and society as well. I’ve read articles by men who strongly oppose women ministers and deacons while at the same time thinking that Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann would make a great president. You’d think they’d notice the contradiction, but then again, nonsense has come.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

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

March 5, 2012 by Steve Matthews

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).
Continue Reading »

Posted in A Christian View of Men and Things, Scripturalism | 4 Comments »

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

February 20, 2012 by Steve Matthews

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?
Continue Reading »

Posted in A Christian View of Men and Things, Scripturalism | 7 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »