Does the Bible refute 'modern' philosophies?

[Grymir]

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]

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]

Hi Patrick!

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]

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

 

[Grymir]

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]

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]

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]

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.

3And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?