# Does the Bible refute 'modern' philosophies?



## Tim (Feb 6, 2009)

I am looking for Bible passages that might allude to philosophical schools of thought. Because “there is nothing new under the sun”, may we not see a statement against rationalism or positivism or humanism in the Bible?


----------



## discipulo (Feb 6, 2009)

Thank you Tim, this thread and the one you just posted on the greatest Christian Thinkers, are very good, challenging and refreshing !

Looking forward to hear great inputs on both


----------



## Rangerus (Feb 6, 2009)

we might start here:

Romans 1:28 ESV And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 ESV (11) Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,


----------



## Tim (Feb 6, 2009)

Rangerus said:


> we might start here:
> 
> Romans 1:28 ESV And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
> 
> 2 Thessalonians 2:11 ESV (11) Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,



Okay, good suggestions. I think what you are getting at is that the consistent emergence (and re-emergence) of non-Christian philosophies are the result of God's judgment upon people who reject Him.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 6, 2009)

I always thought that Genesis 3 was a good place to start, especially verse 6:



> And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.



There you see the roots of empiricism and its version of rationalism get its start.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 6, 2009)

victorbravo said:


> I always thought that Genesis 3 was a good place to start, especially verse 6:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One can also see the roots of narcicisim.


----------



## steven-nemes (Feb 6, 2009)

Give an example of a modern philosophy and one of its basic tenets.


----------



## Grymir (Feb 7, 2009)

Here's one of my favorite verses that I ponder on...

Col 2:8 - Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Notice it isn't saying philosophy is bad. But philosophy after the traditions of men, and especially after the rudiments of the world. I think this is referencing basing a philosophy based on the particulars and then trying to figure out what the universals are. That is one of the problems of modern philosophy. Instead of the sciences coming from philosophy which comes from theology (the ultimate universal), modern philosophy come from the sciences, then tries to form (figure out) what the universals are. 

Consider the 'sciences' trying to figure out the origins of the universe, and especially evolution. It's something that is not repeatable, nor based on observation. It's really a matter of history. Science is practicing 'vain deceit', and especially 'tradition of men' when it comes to evolution.

Not after Christ includes the Bible. Which is a universal that comes to us from outside our space time continuum. Which is how philosophy should be done. Moving from the universals to the particulars.

BTW - Most modern philosophy is junk. They spend all their time haggling about epistemology, and making the quest for universals moot. But that's another story.


----------



## Tim (Feb 7, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Give an example of a modern philosophy and one of its basic tenets.



Okay, this from Wikipedia:

*Positivism* is a philosophy which holds that the only authentic knowledge is that based on actual sense experience. 

So, my question would be, is there a passage in scripture that explicitly and directly refutes this notion?

Perhaps this?

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things *not seen*.

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 08:44:46 EST-----

Here are some more schools of thought from Wikipedia:

Realism and nominalism
Rationalism and empiricism
Skepticism
Idealism
Pragmatism
Phenomenology
Existentialism
Structuralism and post-structuralism


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 7, 2009)

I know that you're looking for specific verses to refute specific philosophies, Tim. But I can't get past the fact that the Bible is ultimate truth, and by its very nature will refute certain aspects of man-made schools of thought. Other philosophies may interesect Scriptural truth at certain points, but ultimately they are pseudo-truths or shadows of truth, rather than truth itself. If a certain philosophy agrees with the Bible, then it's legit to the degree that it squares with Scripture. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be taken seriously. 

One of the things that led Augustine to saving faith was that none of the Greek and Roman philosophers had any mention of God in their writings. Even before Augustine was a Christian, he believed that God was supremely good and sovereign, and he couldn't believe any teaching that wasn't derived from Him. 

I guess my point is that rather than finding Scriptures to refute philosophies, find the points where philosophies agree with Scripture. In those points the philosophies can be considered true and valid, and the rest can be discarded.


----------



## Tim (Feb 7, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I know that you're looking for specific verses to refute specific philosophies, Tim. But I can't get past the fact that the Bible is ultimate truth, and by its very nature will refute certain aspects of man-made schools of thought. Other philosophies may interesect Scriptural truth at certain points, but ultimately they are pseudo-truths or shadows od truth, rather than truth itself. If a certain philosophy agrees with the Bible, then it's legit to the degree that it squares with Scripture. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be taken seriously.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I guess my point is that rather than finding Scriptures to refute philosophies, find the points where philosophies agree with Scripture. In those points the philosophies can be considered true and valid, and the rest can be discarded.



Sure.

What I am trying to get at is if we see a major human endeavor (arts, science, etc.) that is based on a particular philosophy, and we know the central tenet of that philosophy and why it is wrong, we can:

1) be on the look out for conclusions that may therefore be erroneous;
2) argue for the correct conclusion from the true Biblical framework.

You are right that the entire Scriptural system is really what we need to understand, but sometimes, we are given little passages that do well on their own (while not forgetting the rest of Scripture).


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Feb 7, 2009)

A wonderful book related to this topic is K. Scott Oliphint's The Battle Belongs to the Lord. 



Grymir said:


> BTW - Most modern philosophy is junk. They spend all their time haggling about epistemology, and making the quest for universals moot. But that's another story.



Are we using "modern philosophy" to mean contemporary philosophy, or the modern period or stream of thought including Descartes, Locke, Kant, and the like? In either case I'd like to hear this story (i.e., why you think it is junk and what that means).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 7, 2009)

All modern philosophies that we encounter in the marketplace today fall under a broad category of post-Kantianism. Fundamentally, they deny that God can be known, that God can intrude into secular history, or that we can know anything about God from the things made.

The entire Scriptures are an anthesis of these ideas. 

On the Revelation of God in nature:

Psalm 19:1-4 - The heavens _declare_ the glory of God...
Psalm 104:24 - The Lord's works are _manifold_
Romans 1:20 - God's glory is _clearly perceived_ from the things made.

On God's ability to communicate with man:

Gen 1:28-30 - From the beginning, God is revealed as _speaking_ and able to communicate with His creatures

Gen 3 - Even after the Fall, God is able to communicate with His creatures.

The entire OT Scriptures are filled with: "And the Word of the Lord came to..."

As for God's ability to "intrude" into nature:

Gen 1-2: He creates the heavens and the earth and all living creatures
Gen 3: He re-organizes the universe by the Word of its Curse placing it under subjection in hope for the revealing of the sons of God (Rom 8:20-21)

And, of course, lest we forget, the Incarnation of the Son of God is the ultimate refutation of modern philosophy for God became flesh and dwelt among us.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 7, 2009)

I just thought of one example.

The atheistic nihilistic philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, had one central theme on his thoughts, Eternal Recurrence.

It is hard to understand how he reconciled Eternal Recurrence or Eternal Return with his denial of a rational explanation to existence and the death of theism of any kind. (I abstain from writing his blasphemous and famous phrase by saying that it is Nietzsche who is dead).

But the consequences of this thought are so spread and so common today, in popular and evil spirituality, in science, in economy, in history, that this is one of the most influential theories on world vision.

It also has roots on ancient Egypt, Greece, Persian Civilizations, as in Zoroastrism (Zarathustra of Nietzsche is Zoroaster), Hinduism, Buddhism. 

Basically it means things of each and all natures are going in cycles or loops, that are self existing and will continue without ceasing, without beginning or end.

Astronomy puts the possibility of a Universe in expansion reaching a balance and contracting till it becomes an «egg of condensed energy» equal to the one prior to the big bang.

Every decade Reincarnation becomes popular and talks on past lives, mediums and spiritism while Buddhist and Hindu notions surface the news and bookshelves. New Age is an old thing. 

etc.

But the God in His Word tells us that there is a beginning and in the beginning God created (bara) all there is. 

Only He is Self Sufficient, Self Existing and Eternal.

_By faith we understand that the universe was created by the Word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible._ Hebrews 11:3

God also tells us there is no reincarnation, but resurrection, and each person’s life has an end and will then meet the Creator. 

_And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment._ Hebrews 9:29

And the word and history are also not loopping endlessly but converging into an end set by God.

_For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead. _Acts 17:31 

Jesus is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.


----------



## Grymir (Feb 7, 2009)

CatechumenPatrick said:


> A wonderful book related to this topic is K. Scott Oliphint's The Battle Belongs to the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi! My introduction to philosophy was at first Ayn Rand and Augustine. Then I read Plato and Aristotle. My pastor at the time had a PhD in philosophy, so he took an interest in me and guided my studies. We had many discussions over ultimate reality (He being Arminian and me becoming Calvinist at the time). Those discussions were the stuff of legend in the Socratic dialog method. Very black and white and this is what it is. Debunking evolution was the first step in applying the Bible (as the source of true universals) to the particulars.

When I got to college, I had to read Kant, Hume, Berkley, Descartes and Spinoza. These were the 'modern' philosophers that I've studied extensively. Here's where my diagnosis comes in. I thought that the spend all their writings dealing with sense perception and the questioning of how can we really know anything. The separation of the nominal from the phenomenal (the supernatural realm from the natural realm) is a big problem. The analytical/apriori truth was another issue I saw. They spent all of their time dealing with these issues, instead the philosophy of the 'big picture' like the older ones did. 

Ayn Rand was is the bright spot of 'modern' philosophical times. Take for example her statement "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." This correlates to "whatever is, is." Objective reality exists. The moderns deny the basic reliability of sense perception. And use exceptions to explain the norm, like the famous oar in water illustration to show that we can't know for certainty. When in fact, that illustration shows that we can come to the truth because we know that that oar's illusion is made by the refracting properties of water. 

The moderns spend time on statements like "since we are within our space-time continuum, how can we say anything about it since we are within it and unable to look at it from the outside?" Take for example gravity. Some would say that gravity isn't a real force, but as we tried to explain the phenomenon, that we, in our words, made gravity to explain it, and that gravity isn't what is. 

Now, something to keep in mind, is that when the 'modern' try to go from the particulars to the universals, they forget that the laws of the universe are 'created' laws. Since the physical laws of the universe were created by God, and just exist in our space-time continuum, basing one's philosophy on them to explain ultimate reality can be misleading. Hence I ponder on the statement about God sending them strong delusion so that they will believe the lie. The Bible comes from outside of our space-time continuum. God was an observer of our creation, and tell us what happened. When the scientists look to the 'the rudiments of the world' instead of God, the delusion sets in.

This isn't a exhaustive analysis, but just a brief introduction the subject.

Enjoy! Grymir


----------



## discipulo (Feb 7, 2009)

Grymir said:


> Ayn Rand was is the bright spot of 'modern' philosophical times. Take for example her statement "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." This correlates to "whatever is, is."



Hi Grymir, I have the idea that Ayn Rand monumental novel Atlas Shrugged, suggests society is ruled on background by a powerful elite, along the way she focus objectivism on market economy and politics.

Her work is very quoted by the Conspiracy Theorists, a bit like Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope.

Is there any truth in that assessment?


----------



## Grymir (Feb 7, 2009)

discipulo said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > Ayn Rand was is the bright spot of 'modern' philosophical times. Take for example her statement "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." This correlates to "whatever is, is."
> ...



Not really. Here's a quote from Wikipedia -

Her political philosophy, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasizes individualism, limited government, and the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property. She promoted the concept of the hero standing against the mob, amid derisive depictions of trade unions, socialism, and egalitarianism, arguing that rational self-interest, properly understood, is the true standard of morality and that altruism is profoundly immoral."

She taught limited government, and the free-will association of the masses. By altruism she meant the liberal mind set that we have to help our brother out. As in welfare and all the government hand outs. These things are better left to the individual.

Her books portrayed a powerful ruling elite, and her hero's were those who went against such and the stuggles they had. Her characters were moved by the philosophy that they had, and their dialoge reflected this.

"The individual "must exist for his own sake," she wrote in 1962, "neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

More from Wikipedia - "She supported laissez-faire capitalism, holding that the sole function of government ought to be the protection of individual rights, including property rights."

As far as being quoted by people, she didn't like libertarianism, but they use her material and her view of government.

Sorry to be so brief, but I've got grandkids over and have to go play!


----------



## Tim (Feb 9, 2009)

Grymir said:


> [...]Those discussions were the stuff of legend in the Socratic dialog method.[...]



Where can I find more about this method?


----------



## Grymir (Feb 9, 2009)

To learn about the Socratic dialog method, you have to read Plato. That's the best way. But let me break it down a little bit.

When I was a fresh convert, I used to go around and 'Pontificate' as that Pastor told me. But what he taught me was the fine art of asking questions with the intent to lead somebody somewhere. You ask a question with the intent to get that person to think about what they think, and get them to open up. But with the intent to lead the answers they give to the conclusion that you want them to have, or where they need to be. People responded better to this method than what I had been doing. It gets them to open up, think a little, and talk.

I was becoming a Calvinist, and he was an Arminian. But he did have a PhD in philosophy, and there we agreed. And as one of the few people who didn't give him the Pastor treatment, we were able to really exchange ideas and hammer out some deep ideas.


----------



## Jon Lake (Feb 10, 2009)

In general a harder question than it may seem, even the most VILE Philosophers who made great sport of slandering God, sometimes "slipped up" and would write something not in conflict with Scripture or Natural Revelation. In this sense God's Word obliterates the lies, the truths, even if they are few would remain in that God would uphold all "true" truths.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Feb 10, 2009)

Grymir said:


> Hi! My introduction to philosophy was at first Ayn Rand and Augustine. Then I read Plato and Aristotle. My pastor at the time had a PhD in philosophy, so he took an interest in me and guided my studies. We had many discussions over ultimate reality (He being Arminian and me becoming Calvinist at the time). Those discussions were the stuff of legend in the Socratic dialog method. Very black and white and this is what it is. Debunking evolution was the first step in applying the Bible (as the source of true universals) to the particulars.
> 
> When I got to college, I had to read Kant, Hume, Berkley, Descartes and Spinoza. These were the 'modern' philosophers that I've studied extensively. Here's where my diagnosis comes in. I thought that the spend all their writings dealing with sense perception and the questioning of how can we really know anything. The separation of the nominal from the phenomenal (the supernatural realm from the natural realm) is a big problem. The analytical/apriori truth was another issue I saw. They spent all of their time dealing with these issues, instead the philosophy of the 'big picture' like the older ones did.
> 
> ...



Some brief suggestions:
We should not, of course, ignore modern philosophy (or insert any non-Christian worldview), but learn it, glean it of truth, and seek to refute it in light of God's Word. Yet we should also seek to avoid oversimplifying and underestimating any thinker or period in philosophy, as, unfortunately, Reformed (and non-Reformed) theologians have too often done. In our humbler moments, I think we would have to admit that non-Christian philosophers are much smarter than we Christians. We are not Christians, after all, because we are smarter, as if we knew their systems of philosophy better than they (say, Kant), and see the obvious faults they did not (and we do so only in light of a foreign, external Word being applied by an alien Spirit!). Philosophers resist reduction into simple refutations and simple summaries. I think we also have to admit that non-Christian worldviews are in some ways more complex than our worldview. Inevitably, non-Christian philosophies have to be more complicated, because (I take it) the non-Christian philosopher needs something strong, defensible and rigorous to hope and believe in. It is much easier to suppress the knowledge of God, reassuring oneself that He does not really exist, when one has an intellectually impressive system of philosophy. Yet there is much truth in those systems, even the likes of Kant's. Isn't it true that if we take revelation out of the picture, putting God (if "He" even exists at all) into the realm of the unknowable unchanging, unable to break into this phenomenal world, then we are left in Kant's transcendental idealism in order to avoid a radical scepticism? In any case, "junk" though modern philosophy may be, it is one of the main worldviews that God has ordained his church to face in the world, so we best take it as serious as we can.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 10, 2009)

victorbravo said:


> I always thought that Genesis 3 was a good place to start, especially verse 6:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yea, hath God said?

-----Added 2/10/2009 at 12:57:09 EST-----



Tim said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > [...]Those discussions were the stuff of legend in the Socratic dialog method.[...]
> ...



One way is to sit in on a law school class (if possible) in which the Socratic method is employed. The teacher basically asks questions related to the case at hand and the students try their hand at answering him. Sometimes the entire period (or almost all of it) will be spent with the professor asking question after question. It was the traditional method of legal education for many years, although I think some schools may have modified or discontinued it. The professor asks questions and if nobody volunteers he will start calling on people to answer. Some would call on the students in a predictable pattern (like going down the row), others would call on students randomly, which tended to keep the students on their toes.


----------



## Tim (Feb 11, 2009)

I read half of 'Meno' by Plato last night. An interesting read into the Socratic method of questioning.

-----Added 2/11/2009 at 03:16:06 EST-----

It was translated into English, of course.


----------



## Theogenes (Feb 11, 2009)

Tim,
I highly recommend reading Gordon Clark's books. In many of them he refutes modern philosophies from a biblcal perspective. Check out the Trinity Foundation for those books:Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology.

Jim


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 11, 2009)

While there are aspects of "modern philosophy" (whatever that is) that are bad, it is sometimes naieve to think there is a category called "biblical thought"; or more specifically, many of us, yea even the inheritors of Van Til, approach the bible _nuda scriptura_ as though it were some pristine deposit waiting to be accessed. 

We often fail to realize that we assume the philosophical air of our generation. Lesslie Newbigin and James K A Smith scored huge points when they said that when the gospel goes to a certain culture, it often takes on certain aspects of that culture. that isn't necessarily bad (though it can be). 

For example, if you would have asked Boethius if his neo-platonic philosophy was consistent with the Bible, he would have laughed at you (of course he thought he was biblical). If you would have asked St Thomas if his combination of neo-platonism and Aristoteliansim were faithful to the Scriptures, he would have answered yes. If you would have asked the WCF guys if their presuppositions were biblically consistent, you get the point.

The most dangerous thing I have ever done theologically was to take Van Til's presuppositional internal analysis, often applied to "unbiblical thought," and applied it to my Reformed thought.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 11, 2009)

Pilgrim said:


> Some would call on the students in a predictable pattern (like going down the row), others would call on students randomly, which tended to keep the students on their toes.



Or best of all, the professor who calls on one student and questions him for an entire hour and a half. I had several of those guys. And none of them used the random approach. It was all premeditated--they'd try to find the one student who was least prepared. 

I still recall the first time it happened. 8:30 A.M., I hadn't had any coffee. I'm fumbling for my case book and wondering what I did with my pen, and I hear the dreaded words: "Mr. Bottomly. . . . can you tell me if a springing executory interest is an incorporeal hereditament or a covenant running with the land?" (He pronounced "land" as "lawwnd.") The guy is a top legal scholar in Roman law, history of the Common Law, and Constitutional law, and some 18 years after that searing experience, is a good friend.


----------



## Zenas (Feb 11, 2009)

Oh yeah. I know what you're talking about Mr. Vic. I have a patented plan for reducing the probability of that happening though.

I raise my hand and give very detailed, exact, and correct answers several times at the beginning of the class. When the professor starts getting into more difficult things later in the class, he won't call on me randomly because I already spoke. I also left no open ends on my answers to facilitate discussion, which they usually want. Also, when they are looking to nail an unprepared student at the beginning of class, I'm the guy that's _always_ prepared, even if I don't look like it.

I've avoided land mines pretty successfully this way, except last year in Con Law. I got schooled with a 5 to 6 part compound question to which I couldn't even formulate an "I don't know" to respond.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 11, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Oh yeah. I know what you're talking about Mr. Vic. I have a patented plan for reducing the probability of that happening though.
> 
> I raise my hand and give very detailed, exact, and correct answers several times at the beginning of the class. When the professor starts getting into more difficult things later in the class, he won't call on me randomly because I already spoke. I also left no open ends on my answers to facilitate discussion, which they usually want. Also, when they are looking to nail an unprepared student at the beginning of class, I'm the guy that's _always_ prepared, even if I don't look like it.
> 
> I've avoided land mines pretty successfully this way, except last year in Con Law. I got schooled with a 5 to 6 part compound question to which I couldn't even formulate an "I don't know" to respond.



What gets me are the policy and theory-oriented questions. Preparation doesn't help much, and lack of preparation doesn't hurt a lot. I've had to accept the fact that I will occasionally (or maybe frequently) look dumb in class. 

Also, I think a lot of professors have good ideas in mind and they think it is beneficial to have us stumble around and piece the ideas together through vague hints. My bankruptcy professor, Elizabeth Warren, did a lot of this kind of questioning. In the law school parody last year, someone portrayed her Socratic method as, "I'm thinking of a number between one and ten. Ms. Brown, what is that number?" My contracts professor was also fond of questions like, "I've thought of a brilliant theory that would integrate the holdings in _Alaska Packers_, _Batsakis_, and _Groves_. Please tell me what that theory is, Ms. B."


----------



## Grymir (Feb 11, 2009)

CatechumenPatrick said:


> Some brief suggestions:
> We should not, of course, ignore modern philosophy (or insert any non-Christian worldview), but learn it, glean it of truth, and seek to refute it in light of God's Word. Yet we should also seek to avoid oversimplifying and underestimating any thinker or period in philosophy, as, unfortunately, Reformed (and non-Reformed) theologians have too often done. In our humbler moments, I think we would have to admit that non-Christian philosophers are much smarter than we Christians. We are not Christians, after all, because we are smarter, as if we knew their systems of philosophy better than they (say, Kant), and see the obvious faults they did not (and we do so only in light of a foreign, external Word being applied by an alien Spirit!). Philosophers resist reduction into simple refutations and simple summaries. I think we also have to admit that non-Christian worldviews are in some ways more complex than our worldview. Inevitably, non-Christian philosophies have to be more complicated, because (I take it) the non-Christian philosopher needs something strong, defensible and rigorous to hope and believe in. It is much easier to suppress the knowledge of God, reassuring oneself that He does not really exist, when one has an intellectually impressive system of philosophy. Yet there is much truth in those systems, even the likes of Kant's. Isn't it true that if we take revelation out of the picture, putting God (if "He" even exists at all) into the realm of the unknowable unchanging, unable to break into this phenomenal world, then we are left in Kant's transcendental idealism in order to avoid a radical scepticism? In any case, "junk" though modern philosophy may be, it is one of the main worldviews that God has ordained his church to face in the world, so we best take it as serious as we can.



Of course, my analysis is about where modern philosophy has gone astray from the ideals of what philosophy is supposed to be. Moderns may be more complex in the the verbage that they use, and how grand their ideas sound, but they are a smokescreen. They get hung up in epistemology. So in reality they are a dumbed down system of knowledge. And lose themselves in a circle wondering how we can know anything. 

There's nothing wrong with so-called 'oversimplification'. Especially when a person has read them, as I have, and is able to give an accurate analysis. And just because there is 'truth' in them doesn't make them good, and they need to be refuted head on. No grey, no middle ground.

My wife loves splashing around in the bathwater looking for the baby, but it drives me nuts. I say throw the bathwater out with the baby. I once asked her what the baby would look like when she found it. She said "I don't know, but I'll know it when I find it!" *

Grey thinking is a product of the dialectical method of knowledge, as opposed to the black and white thinking, that the great philosophers used. There are good modern philosophers out there, but they are ignored or marginalized by the intelligentsia of today. Look at the Scottish School of Common Sense, or Ayn Rand for some good examples.

Now, all this is said because we Christians should be speaking of philosophies as philosophers. An active shaper of the trends. Showing the flaws, and putting forth better ideas. 

Anyway, there it is. May our thoughts reflect the truth and change the world.


* - My Wife put forth this statement and gave me her blessings to use it.


----------



## steven-nemes (Feb 11, 2009)

Bahnsen said in _Always Ready_ that there are some philosophical riches to be found in the book of Proverbs... I agree...


----------



## Grymir (Feb 11, 2009)

Oh yeah, the whole introduction is a philosophical statement about the love of wisdom (which is what philosophy is) and some epistemological basics. I'd forgotten about it.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Feb 12, 2009)

> There's nothing wrong with so-called 'oversimplification'. Especially when a person has read them, as I have, and is able to give an accurate analysis.
> 
> Grey thinking is a product of the dialectical method of knowledge, as opposed to the black and white thinking, that the great philosophers used. There are good modern philosophers out there, but they are ignored or marginalized by the intelligentsia of today. Look at the Scottish School of Common Sense, or Ayn Rand for some good examples.




Oversimplification may be useful pedagogically, or it may have powerful rhetorical effect. However, oversimplification usually refers to straw-man arguments and caricatures, or un-scholarly, prideful, sloppey, unfair treatment of another's works or thought. Hence the "over" simplification. 
Also, I have no idea what you mean be "grey" thinking versus "black and white" and I am not sure which philosophers are great in this sense. Enlighten me/us?
Also, have you read Oliphint's critique of common sense philosophy in his book _Reasons {for Faith}_?


----------



## Grymir (Feb 12, 2009)

Hi Patrick! 



CatechumenPatrick said:


> However, oversimplification usually refers to straw-man arguments and caricatures, or un-scholarly, prideful, sloppey, unfair treatment of another's works or thought. Hence the "over" simplification.



That's good. I agree with that. That's not oversimplification, but just wrong. 



> Also, I have no idea what you mean be "grey" thinking versus "black and white" and I am not sure which philosophers are great in this sense. Enlighten me/us?



Grey thinking usually follows the Hegelian Dialectical thinking. Usually when you hear statements like "well, it has some truth in it" (Used when a person is trying to say that we should follow a particular philosophy, or say that a philosopher is good, even though it was just shown to them that the basic premises are seriously flawed), or "we need to find the common ground", or "we need to reach across the aisle and reach a bi-partisan solution" you know you're dealing with grey thinking. It's the compromise in the realm of thought. It's the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis. Black and White thinking is that it's either right or wrong. Pure and simple. You don't compromise with something that is wrong. 



> Also, have you read Oliphint's critique of common sense philosophy in his book _Reasons {for Faith}_?



No I haven't. I was using that as an example of recent streams of philosophy that could do good to the realm of philosophy. And by philosophy, I'm talking about philosophy qua philosophy. In the intellectual realm. But the schools of today (both High School and College, and Pop-Philosophy) ignore or marginalize them. 

One of the ideas I used in college with my philosophy instructors was to give them philosophy grounded in the word of God, without any reference to the Bible. They were extreme liberals, and my method worked wonders. One of them knew that I was a Christian, and he gave me the highest compliment I'd gotten. He said that I had the most logically consistent world view he'd ever seen.


----------



## steven-nemes (Feb 12, 2009)

What is, basically, Common Sense school of philosophy and the objection against it?


----------



## Grymir (Feb 12, 2009)

Hi Steven!

Here's a couple of links - 

Scottish Philosophy in the 19th Century (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This one above is from Stanford, and give a good history of it, and some of the interactions with the philosophers that held sway in the day.

The following from the Catholic Encyclopedia is also a good summary -

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Philosophy of Common Sense

The following is from MSN's encarta lists some of the objections - 

Common-Sense School - MSN Encarta


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Feb 13, 2009)

Grymir said:


> Grey thinking usually follows the Hegelian Dialectical thinking. Usually when you hear statements like "well, it has some truth in it" (Used when a person is trying to say that we should follow a particular philosophy, or say that a philosopher is good, even though it was just shown to them that the basic premises are seriously flawed), or "we need to find the common ground", or "we need to reach across the aisle and reach a bi-partisan solution" you know you're dealing with grey thinking. It's the compromise in the realm of thought. It's the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis. Black and White thinking is that it's either right or wrong. Pure and simple. You don't compromise with something that is wrong.



Sorry, I'm still confused. Are you saying that philosophers, or systems or theories in philosophy, are only either true or false? Does a philosophy that rests on false "basic premises" have no value or no truth insights? Is this category of grey-thinking that you link to hegelian thinking even useful? For example, say you were conversing with a philosophy undergraduate who goes to your church, who happened to recently study Quine with much interest and some agreement. He tells you Christian philosophers and theologians could learn a few (true) things from Quine's thought. Are you going to say to this Christian student that 1) there's nothing true in Quine because his "basic premises" are false, and 2) this type of thinking is compromising, and smacks of hegelian dialectic?


----------



## Grymir (Feb 14, 2009)

Hi Patrick!

I just poured myself some Starbucks and am ready to answer. Just one question before I do. I noticed on your information page that debating is one of your interests. Is your statement about being confused for real? or is it like a statement that the detective Colombo would use to trap a suspect? (Which is an excellent debating tactic BTW). Only because it affects how I answer. For example, the question about the student studying Quine. I would sit down with him and we would talk about Quine. Since he's studying Quine, we would have to really analyze and take apart his philosophy.

Now to the next. I'm a master of black and white thinking, but in the right way. Your answer to me is an good example of black and white thinking of the false dichotomy informal fallacy or sometimes akin to the horns of a dilemma. (With a debater, this can be a ploy, and I'm working off the assumption that it is). For example, take your statement - "Are you saying that philosophers, or systems or theories in philosophy, are only either true or false? Does a philosophy that rests on false "basic premises" have no value or no truth insights?" 

1. Your question of a philosophy being *only* true or false. That's the horns of a dilemma. No philosophy is 100% perfect or 100% false. And no, I don't say that.

2a. Yes, any philosophy (or anything) that is built on false premises is false. That's a given. Now, does that mean that people don't follow it and reject it? No way. Look at evolution for example. Does that also mean that we shouldn't study it? Of course we should study it. How else are we gonna know how to show its errors, or defend the truth?

2b. Now to the $20,000 question. You ask if there is value or truth insights in a philosophy that rests on false basic premises. How does one define 'value' or 'truth insights'? If it's false, it still has truth insights. Falsity is still a 'truth value'. 

Now back to our student of philosophy. With him, I would sit down and dissect Quine's teachings. He's a student, so he has to study Quine, regardless of how accurate his philosophy is. I had to study the 'Moderns' for school. I then had to articulate what they taught accurately. Of course then I could give my brilliant analysis about their flaws, usually done one-on-one with the teacher.

Now when I'm teaching class, that's different. I do summarize the moderns accurately and sound more like I do when I post on this thread. Just because there is truth in the systems of philosophy, does that mean that that particular system is the best place to learn of that specific 'truth' or 'value'? For example, even Satanism has an element of truth, but would it not be better to learn that truth from a Biblical perspective? Especially when I'm instructing people that will never pick-up a philosophy book. They are fascinated to find out that what people think actually comes from philosophy. When I read the following to my class, you should see their eyes light up and their minds start to 'get it' -

"Now some of you might say, as many people do: "Aw, I never think in such abstract terms--I want to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems--what do I need philosophy for?" My answer is: In order to be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems--i.e., in order to be able to live on earth. 

You might claim-as most people do--that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? "Don't be so sure--nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: "This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. You got that from Plato. Or: "That was a rotten thing to do, but it's only human, nobody is perfect in this world." You got that from Augustine. Or: "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." You got it from William James. Or: "I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does." You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: "Act first, think afterward"? They got it from John Dewey. 

Some people might answer: "Sure, I've said those things at different times, but I don't have to believe that stuff all of the time. It may have been true yesterday, but it's not true today." They got it from Hegel. They might say: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." They got it from a very little mind, Emerson. They might say: "But can't one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according to the expediency of the moment?" They got it from Richard Nixon--who got it from William James. " - taken from Ayn Rand "Philosophy, who needs it?" Gifts of Speech - Ayn Rand


Anyway, there it is. Truth is what corresponds to reality. Till next time!


----------



## Iconoclast (Feb 14, 2009)

Tim said:


> I am looking for Bible passages that might allude to philosophical schools of thought. Because “there is nothing new under the sun”, may we not see a statement against rationalism or positivism or humanism in the Bible?



All of 1Cor 1:17-to the end of 1cor2


> 19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
> 
> 20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
> 
> 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.





> 1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
> 
> 2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
> 
> ...


God has set aside all human philosophy, for the hidden wisdom.
Man alienated from God always goes down a futile "philosophical"
path-


> 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.




Paul instructs Timothy-


> 20O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
> 
> 21Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.





> 20O Timotheus, the thing entrusted guard thou, avoiding the profane vain-words and opposition of the falsely-named knowledge,
> 
> 21which certain professing -- concerning the faith did swerve; the grace [is] with you. Amen.


This would cover many of todays new age ideas, like the gnostics sought to disrupt the work of God.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Feb 14, 2009)

Hey Tim, thanks for responding.
I do love to debate, and I realize that “playing the fool” can be a manipulative debate tactic, but I assure you I was honestly confused. In fact, I love to debate because I am usually confused, and debate seems one of the best remedies. For some reason (maybe you feel this way too after studying philosophy), talking to another person often feels (for me) like learning another language, and languages are my worst subject. 


Grymir said:


> Hi Patrick!
> 
> 1. Your question of a philosophy being *only* true or false. That's the horns of a dilemma. No philosophy is 100% perfect or 100% false. And no, I don't say that.


That makes sense. I just took your earlier comments about people who say things like “well, it has some truth in it,” which is grey thinking akin to Hegelian dialectic (which presumably is a neon sign flashing “Bad! Avoid!”), as meaning that we shouldn’t at all think like that, but only in black and white, 100% true or 100% false, types of categories. 


Grymir said:


> 2b. Now to the $20,000 question. You ask if there is value or truth insights in a philosophy that rests on false basic premises. How does one define 'value' or 'truth insights'? If it's false, it still has truth insights. Falsity is still a 'truth value'.


I guess what I said was unclear. For one, I meant “true insights” rather than “truth insights”! So by “value” I mean useful for the Christian’s worldview, in some way helpful beyond just another non-Christian target to destroy in argument. And by “true insights” I mean containing true propositions or true theories. For example, true empirical statements in the work of Darwin, or true philosophical claims in Plato. 


Grymir said:


> Of course then I could give my brilliant analysis about their flaws, usually done one-on-one with the teacher.


Just to point out (as you helpfully did for me above), this comment and others previous may be taken as somewhat prideful. I am sure your analysis of non-Christian philosophies was/is brilliant, and I am sure you are a “master of black and white thinking, but in the right way,” and so on, but maybe such things are better left demonstrated and not stated? I know among Christians we get much more leeway in our speech, as we can talk about “destroying their arguments” and knowing that we were right in any given debate, but such talk still can run the risk of pride, perhaps. At least, it may inadvertently make some listeners overconfident, quick to debate but slow to study. 


Grymir said:


> Have you ever thought or said the following? "Don't be so sure--nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: "This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. You got that from Plato. Or: "That was a rotten thing to do, but it's only human, nobody is perfect in this world." You got that from Augustine. Or: "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." You got it from William James. Or: "I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does." You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: "Act first, think afterward"? They got it from John Dewey.


Obviously it is very helpful to know the history of certain ideas that profoundly affect our society, but telling someone “you got that from…” might not be too helpful. Most people don’t literally get their ideas from, say, Descartes or Kant—such figures just happen to be some of the main proponents of our society’s watered-down philosophies. And it also runs the risk of responding to the sound of words that we associate with some mostly false philosopher, and thus dismissing the words without responding to their meaning and context. “Sounds like Hegel, must be Hegelian, must be false” (or even “probably” for “must”) just won’t convince any non-Christian, and won’t help any Christian discern the truth, I think. 

One last question. Do you still teach phillosophy at your church? In any case, how do other Christians who do not know much about philosophy respond when you talk about it? Do they tend to be hostile, or dismissive?


----------

