Does the Bible refute 'modern' philosophies?

[Tim]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

One can also see the roots of narcicisim.

 

[steven-nemes]

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

 

[Grymir]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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).

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]

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]

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?

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]

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

Where can I find more about this method?

 

[Grymir]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

Yea, hath God said?

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

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

Where can I find more about this 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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