Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts

September 29, 2016

Biblical objections to philosophy?

"Still Life with Bible" by Vincent van Gogh (1885)
APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, September 29, 2016

Biblical objections to philosophy? 

Let's examine four “biblical” objections to Christian philosophy. We'll see that they fail.

Objection 1: Colossians 2:8: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”

Reply: The focus here is philosophy that's hostile to truth. Christ is the Truth and Logos, and the Logos is the Word/ Rational Foundation of the universe. This verse doesn’t preclude philosophy founded on Christ.

Objection 2: Philosophy emphasizes reason, but the Fall makes human minds incapable of knowing truth via reason.

Reply: This exaggerates the Fall's effects.

Philosopher J. P. Moreland: “The fall damaged but did not destroy the image of God in us. Our reasoning abilities are affected but not eliminated. This can be seen in the fact that the writers of Scripture often appeal to the minds of unbelievers by citing evidence on behalf of their claims, using logical inferences in building their case, and speaking in the language and thought forms of those outside the faith.”

Objection 3: Isn't Paul against philosophy, in Corinthians?

1 Cor. 1:20-21: “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”

1 Cor. 2:1-5: “I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.... My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.”

Reply: Context is needed.

Moreland: “if [this passage] is an indictment against argumentation and philosophical reason, then it contradicts Paul's own practices in Acts and his explicit appeal to argument and evidence on behalf of the resurrection.... The passage is better seen as a condemnation of the false, prideful use of reason, not of reason itself....”

Moreland adds: “The passage may also be a condemnation of Greek rhetoric. Greek orators prided themselves in possessing ‘persuasive words of wisdom,’ and it was their practice to persuade a crowd of any side on an issue for the right price. They did not base their persuasion on rational considerations, but on speaking ability, thus bypassing issues of substance. Paul is most likely contrasting himself with Greek rhetoricians.”

Moreland adds: “Paul could also be making the claim that the content of the gospel cannot be deduced from some set of first principles by pure reason. Thus, the gospel of salvation could never have been discovered by philosophy, but had to be revealed by the biblical God who acts in history. So the passage may be showing the inadequacy of pure reason to deduce the gospel, not its inability to argue for the truth.”

Objection 4: Reason judges God.

Reply: Nope.

Philosopher Tim McGrew: “Though the Bible offers us salutary warnings about the dangers of an overweening confidence in our own intellectual abilities or the scope of our knowledge, neither Scripture nor a sound systematic theology affords the slightest ground for despising reason itself. And this is as it should be. For without reason, we would be at a loss to adjudicate the competing claims of proposed revelations.”

McGrew adds: “Even to talk of adjudicating such claims is to run afoul of some theological critics who object that it is blasphemous to speak of judging the Word of God when we should rather say that the Word judges us. But this is at best a mere play on words. When we are rightly persuaded that a revelation has come from God, we are indeed in no position to pass judgment on the Almighty.”

Biblical, Christ-centred philosophy? Yes! Amen!

“Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” – C.S. Lewis

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College.

For further reading:

  • J. P. Moreland, "Philosophy," in Opening the American Mind: The Integration of Biblical Truth in the Curriculum of the University, edited by W. David Beck (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991).
  • Timothy McGrew, "Convergence: Philosophy Confirms Christianity," EPS Article Library, Evangelical Philosophical Society (2016).

September 14, 2016

What is Philosophy?

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, September 15, 2016

What is philosophy?

Philosophy is a discipline of inquiry that deals with, as a couple philosophers title their introductory textbook, Questions that Matter.  To better understand these questions, the authors look at (1) the etymology of “philosophy,” (2) the fields of philosophy, plus (3) the heart/ core of philosophy.

(1) Etymology is the study of the origin and development of individual words.

The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek philo, which means loving or love, and from the Greek sophia, which means wise or wisdom. The original meaning of philosophy is the love or pursuit of wisdom. (Of course, the foolishness of some philosophers may make us question this!)

(2) The fields of philosophy include metaphysics, epistemology, value theory, logic, and various “second-order” inquiries.

Metaphysics is the study or theory of fundamental reality. Questions asked are: What is ultimately real? Does God or gods exist? Or is reality ultimately physical?

Epistemology asks: What is knowledge? Does knowledge come only through our five senses, or can we know without the senses? Does our mind or language or cultural perspective shape or block knowledge of the real? Can truth be known? What is truth?

Value theory studies ethics and aesthetics. What is right and good? Is morality merely subjective or a construct of culture (which varies), or are there real universal moral principles and values which stand in judgment of our feelings and culture? Is beauty just what I like or what my group likes, or is there an objective standard of beauty?

Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning. What are the standards of a good argument (of the premise-conclusion sort) and what constitutes a fallacious argument?

Second-order inquires involve thinking critically about the concepts, methods, and assumptions used in other (first-order) fields of study. These inquiries are typically labeled “philosophy of ______ [fill in blank with a first-order field of study].”

For example, philosophy of science (where science is a first-order discipline) examines the assumptions of science: e.g., existence of a world external to the mind, reliability of our senses, uniformity of nature for inductive inference, applicability of logic and mathematics to the world, adequacy of language to communicate truth about the world.  It also asks: What is science? Are all observations contentiously theory-laden? Can intelligent design be a legitimate hypothesis in science?

Another example of a second-order inquiry is philosophy of history. Is history cyclic, repeating itself over and over, forever? Or is it a "one-shot" deal? Is there a purpose to history (e.g., it's a theatre in which God redeems fallen creatures) or is history purposeless (i.e., a mere accident and ultimately absurd)? Can the study of history be objective, or does it always reflect the historian's biases so accurate knowledge of the past can't be gotten?

Another second-order inquiry: philosophy of religion. Is the concept of God logically coherent? What about the concept of Incarnation? Or reincarnation? What is the relationship between faith and reason? Are there good arguments for God's existence, or is subjective experience the only evidence for God?  Does evil show that a good God doesn't exist? How do we arbitrate between competing religious truth-claims? Is there good evidence for believing Jesus' resurrection actually occurred? Or should we believe Islam's claim to the contrary?

(3) The heart/ core of philosophy is that it's a rational and critical enterprise. It's rational in the sense that it appeals to reason and evidence: reasonable beliefs are not arbitrary because they're connected to evidence logically (i.e., via truth-functional/ truth-conducive reasoning). It's critical in the sense that analysis and evaluation of all matters of belief and conduct is emphasized: assumptions, truth claims, and the logic of arguments are always assessed. Mere assertion of opinion is not enough.

So, what is philosophy? Here's a helpful working definition from the previously-mentioned philosophy textbook: “Philosophy is the attempt to think rationally and critically about the most important questions.”


(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College.)


Food for additional thought: Biblical objections to philosophy?

March 16, 2016

God's Not Dead

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, March 17, 2016

God's Not Dead

I am a Christian with three degrees in philosophy—BA, MA, PhD—so sometimes I'm asked what I think of the 2014 film God's Not Dead.

This movie is about a Christian student taking a philosophy course at a secular university with an atheist professor who requires the class to sign a sheet saying "God is dead." Spoiler alert: the student refuses and after some setbacks successfully argues that God exists.

Although there are cheesy parts, I liked the movie. I found it refreshing to hear the student actually present some good arguments for God's existence. (I confess: the student's appeal to Oxford philosopher of science John Lennox sealed the deal for me! Lennox's work in Christian apologetics and the interface between science and faith is excellent.)

The part of the film that wasn't true to life (at least my life as a philosophy student) was the professor's explicit requirement of students to declare God's non-existence to pass his course.

It isn't totally far-fetched, though. When I was an undergraduate student, my philosophy of religion professor (an atheist) began the semester saying, "I don't give a tinker's damn about God's existence!"  And he went on to present many, many strong arguments against God's existence.

Significantly, though, he allowed those (few) of us who disagreed to argue our case (but we had to work hard, probably much harder than the rest of the class). Happily, at the end of the semester this professor recommended me for graduate studies in philosophy.

I had a similar experience as a doctoral student when my ethics professor (an atheist) told students that "theological ethics is fundamentally impossible." But he gave me an A for a paper in which I argued to the contrary.

Generally my experience as a student was that philosophy professors (mostly atheists) valued good arguments.

Still, it's important to realize that God's Not Dead gets some not unrealistic traction in its professor's requirement to sign the God-is-dead sheet. How so? Because the general intellectual milieu I experienced in the study of philosophy was strongly stacked against the Christian believer.

The implicit assumption and general consensus of the intellectual milieu in secular academia was (is) that arguments favouring the Christian God and Christian ethics fail. The sustained cumulative effect of this intellectual milieu subtly served (serves) to overwhelm and push students to go with the flow and absorb/ passively accept (i.e., "sign on" to) the God-is-dead position.

Here are a few generally-assumed-to-be-true and/or strongly-argued-for theses I had to deal with as a philosophy student who wanted to remain true to the God who is revealed in Jesus:
  • Arguments for God's existence fail.
  • Evil and suffering show God doesn't exist (or make it highly probable God doesn't exist).
  • God is a logically incoherent concept (thus can't be true).
  • Incarnation is a logically incoherent concept (thus can't be true).
  • Reports concerning Jesus' resurrection are not reasonable to believe (because miracles are maximally improbable).
  • God is irrelevant to ethics.
  • Real/ objective moral values are illusory (ethics are mere agreements or what's useful).
  • Human life isn't sacred (when asked what to do with the starving, one ethics professor answered "let them starve"; and some philosophers say the unborn child has the worth of a squirrel).
  • Most forms of sexual behaviour are okay if consensual.
Much more could be said. My point is that the philosophical challenges were huge, sometimes overwhelming.

Here's my advice for Christian young people who wish to study philosophy.

Pray for wisdom.

Live pure.

Seek truth.

Study logic and critical thinking (master these, yet remain humble).

Get understanding (even if this means doing extra work, taking extra time, costing more money).

Also, read Christian thinkers who specialize in philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, Christian apologetics, and ethics. For starters, read the works of Paul Copan, William Lane Craig, Douglas Groothuis, Gary Habermas, John Lennox, Michael Licona, Sean McDowell, Stephen C. Meyer, J. P. Moreland.

A new film—God's Not Dead 2—is being released this April. Also read Rice Broock's book Man, Myth, Messiah: The Evidence Behind God's Not Dead 2.


(Hendrik van der Breggen teaches philosophy at Providence University College.  Hendrik's PhD dissertation is titled "Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science". The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)