Helseth, "Right Reason" and the Princeton Mind

[py3ak]

I finished Paul Kjoss Helseth's "Right Reason" and the Princeton Mind today and wanted to get some input on it from others.

On the one hand, I thought the goal of defending the Princetonians by and large from the charge of rationalism was valuable and thoroughly executed. On the other, it seemed like he accepted the charge of rationalism as justly pertaining to Scottish Common Sense Realism and to Scholasticism, and I'm not quite sure that's necessary.

On the third hand, it is important to resist postconservative denials of our access to objective truth because "truth" is constructed in a community. On the fourth hand, it seems rather a waste of time to argue with people like that. They are refuted by the observation that they themselves don't believe it except when it's convenient for them, and because they seem to deny the possibility of God effectively communicating through revelation (which is a hairsbreadth away from denying revelation anyway).

I am aware that the book has been discussed before:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...e-princeton-mind-by-Paul-kjoss-helseth.71130/

"Right reason" and the Princeton mind

Has anyone here read Paul Kjoss Helseth's book, "Right reason" and the Princeton mind: an unorthodox proposal (P&R, 2010)? This book is one I really should have got to earlier, but I have only just commenced reading it. The basic thesis sounds reasonable enough, and I was encouraged that the...

www.puritanboard.com

Those previous discussions don't seem to touch on the anti-postconservative polemic which seems to me like the driving motivation behind the book.

 

[jwright82]

I finished Paul Kjoss Helseth's "Right Reason" and the Princeton Mind today and wanted to get some input on it from others.

On the one hand, I thought the goal of defending the Princetonians by and large from the charge of rationalism was valuable and thoroughly executed. On the other, it seemed like he accepted the charge of rationalism as justly pertaining to Scottish Common Sense Realism and to Scholasticism, and I'm not quite sure that's necessary.

On the third hand, it is important to resist postconservative denials of our access to objective truth because "truth" is constructed in a community. On the fourth hand, it seems rather a waste of time to argue with people like that. They are refuted by the observation that they themselves don't believe it except when it's convenient for them, and because they seem to deny the possibility of God effectively communicating through revelation (which is a hairsbreadth away from denying revelation anyway).

I am aware that the book has been discussed before:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...e-princeton-mind-by-Paul-kjoss-helseth.71130/

"Right reason" and the Princeton mind

Has anyone here read Paul Kjoss Helseth's book, "Right reason" and the Princeton mind: an unorthodox proposal (P&R, 2010)? This book is one I really should have got to earlier, but I have only just commenced reading it. The basic thesis sounds reasonable enough, and I was encouraged that the...

www.puritanboard.com

Those previous discussions don't seem to touch on the anti-postconservative polemic which seems to me like the driving motivation behind the book.

He actually published an article on this in "Reclaiming the Center" and other books. I for one found them fascinating. But the articles I read were all against postconservative evangelicals, basically emerging church types. I think personally that his work is good historical work but my questions would be more philosophical if I remember correctly. Ill have to find them and remember but I for one loved the essays. I'll look and see if I can find it.
I do remember his essays standing out as not like the rest. In being historical and not completely philosophical. Let you know tomorrow. Or the next day I work funny hours tomorrow.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think Helseth often gets much correct, but there is this tendency in conservative Reformed and evangelical circles to see reason as "the bad guy," or at least like a stray dog.

 

[jwright82]

I finished Paul Kjoss Helseth's "Right Reason" and the Princeton Mind today and wanted to get some input on it from others.

On the one hand, I thought the goal of defending the Princetonians by and large from the charge of rationalism was valuable and thoroughly executed. On the other, it seemed like he accepted the charge of rationalism as justly pertaining to Scottish Common Sense Realism and to Scholasticism, and I'm not quite sure that's necessary.

On the third hand, it is important to resist postconservative denials of our access to objective truth because "truth" is constructed in a community. On the fourth hand, it seems rather a waste of time to argue with people like that. They are refuted by the observation that they themselves don't believe it except when it's convenient for them, and because they seem to deny the possibility of God effectively communicating through revelation (which is a hairsbreadth away from denying revelation anyway).

I am aware that the book has been discussed before:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...e-princeton-mind-by-Paul-kjoss-helseth.71130/

"Right reason" and the Princeton mind

Has anyone here read Paul Kjoss Helseth's book, "Right reason" and the Princeton mind: an unorthodox proposal (P&R, 2010)? This book is one I really should have got to earlier, but I have only just commenced reading it. The basic thesis sounds reasonable enough, and I was encouraged that the...

www.puritanboard.com

Those previous discussions don't seem to touch on the anti-postconservative polemic which seems to me like the driving motivation behind the book.

I remember now what your asking about. Postconservative evangelicals blame Old Princeton for a narrow view of inerrancy. Because they're "postmodern" they reject "reason" for being responsible for so many ills in society. Old Princeton is an example of enlightenment worship of "reason".
That part of his work is to counteract their critique in that they didn't just worship reason through common sense realism but had a healthy view of sin which makes them actually not enlightenment bound. Is that what your asking about?
Basically they think we wouldn't have such a strict and rigid view of inerrancy if we didn't follow Old Princeton who is of course just inseparable from the Enlightenment and we all know how bad that was. They might as well have been responsible for slavery, the Holocaust, murdering Native Americans, etc.
And now conservative Evangelicals are dragging their corpse along to defend inerrancy and punishing "innocent" evangelicals who just want to ask questions about it. It doesn't make sense to them but they're "just innocently asking honest questions" and being "smacked down".
But if we "conservatives" would just see that inerrancy was invented by Old Princeton who basically got it from the Enlightenment (not scripture, because Jesus said to love everyone). We could all just get along. You will forgive me for my tongue in cheek reaction, I've read so many of these people their "wokeness" gets to me.

 

[jwright82]

I think Helseth often gets much correct, but there is this tendency in conservative Reformed and evangelical circles to see reason as "the bad guy," or at least like a stray dog.

I completely agree. I haven't read this book but as I said in my original post I have read much shorter versions of it in a few essays. He seems to be pretty right. I do think this book will cause us all to reexamine Old Princeton. Have you read this book Jacob?

 

[RamistThomist]

I completely agree. I haven't read this book but as I said in my original post I have read much shorter versions of it in a few essays. He seems to be pretty right. I do think this book will cause us all to reexamine Old Princeton. Have you read this book Jacob?

No

 

[py3ak]

I appreciated the book, and I got it and read it because I read a brilliant article by Helseth in another publication.

I'm wondering if the defense of conservative evangelicals against the charge of rationalism could have been slightly differently argued. He defended Princeton, in effect, by saying their Reformed views were not overwhelmed by Scottish Common Sense Realism. But are Reid and McCosh themselves properly rationalists?

I also thought he was maybe too charitable to the postconservative evangelicals. When I argue with someone, I presume that they are sincere in considering my point of view as well as in presenting their own side. But it seems to me that the very concept of sincerity is imperiled by constructivist views of truth.

 

[jwright82]

I appreciated the book, and I got it and read it because I read a brilliant article by Helseth in another publication.

I'm wondering if the defense of conservative evangelicals against the charge of rationalism could have been slightly differently argued. He defended Princeton, in effect, by saying their Reformed views were not overwhelmed by Scottish Common Sense Realism. But are Reid and McCosh themselves properly rationalists?

I also thought he was maybe too charitable to the postconservative evangelicals. When I argue with someone, I presume that they are sincere in considering my point of view as well as in presenting their own side. But it seems to me that the very concept of sincerity is imperiled by constructivist views of truth.

Found one book "Reclaiming The Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation In Postmodern Times", Helseth's essay is entitled "Are Postconservative Evangelicals Fundamentalists? Postconservative Evangelicalism, Old Princeton, And The Rise Of Neo-Fundamentalism". Outside the internet this is the only published material I have on what is probably in the book.
I don't think the Common Sense Realists could necessarily be Rationalist if you compare them to Descartes. But Postconservative evangelicals mean Rationalist in a different way. If you claim certainty your a Rationalist. By that standard sure they were, anyone could be.
The argument he's making, which I assume is a larger more in-depth one than my one article, is to challenge that view of Old Princeton not just against postconservatives but also against Reformed/Evangelicals who hold to it as well.
In that case the argument would be similar but different. Bahnsen's famous article comparing Machen to Van Til goes over this.
So for me the most fascinating thing about this book would not be against postconservatives, which the snake is already dead intellectually and somewhat faux pa but the poison is running its course through the Church, its how we Reformed reassess Old Princeton now.
Now how do we reassess Van Til's critique of Old Princeton given him studying under the influence of Warfield and Machen's, the common sense realist, decision to boldly go after Van Til to hire him? Why?
The sincerity question it seems to me is they come from what I would call a late Postmodernism so inerrancy can be seen as totalitarian in nature. "I'm a Bible believing Christian who has an error proof word of God that says women can't be officers in the church and so I'll beat and punish anyone who disagrees with me with my Bible."
They want us to lay down inerrancy so they can be part of the club too (be sincere), but we all know what happens then look at the PCUSA. They're not sincere. Their constructivist view of Truth makes "truth" a communal thing but that requires everyone in the community to have a voice. This is what is tearing Evangelicalism apart. How many Evangelicals argue that Theistic Evolutionists, women/gay pastors, etc should be Evangelicals too. It's not that their view of truth is the problem (per se) it's that it is a tool to getting what they want.

 

[py3ak]

Thanks, James, I appreciate the analysis and insight.

On how we evaluate Old Princeton, I am not prepared to say too much. I love J.W. Alexander, B.B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen's writings, and am increasing in my familiarity with some of the other figures. I appreciate Charles Hodge, but some of his statements strike me as odd and indefensible. I've blamed that on American idiosyncrasy and romanticism. On another thread about the book Rev. Winzer identified an inductivist approach as giving orthodox theology an impossible task, and that makes a lot of sense to me.

I agree with your take on those so-called evangelicals who adopt a constructivist idea of truth. Whatever the intellectual origins are, in actuality it seems like a rationalization, ironically enough, of the real attitude: "what do I have to say to get you to do what I want?" (HT: Michael Malice)