textman
+
/ Topic > On Philosophers & Theologians /
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.theology /
/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion / 17Apr2002 /
.
"Always be prepared to make a defense to
any one who calls you to account for the
hope that is in you..." (1Pet3:15/RSV).
.
Dear Cyber-Saints, if we have a duty as believers to prepare ourselves to "make a defense to anyone" by giving an account of our hope and faith and love, should we not endeavor to make our defense of the Faith the very best that it can be? Should we not be the best possible apologists and defenders that we can be? Should we not pay heed to those who are better skilled at defending and accounting than we? ... Surely we should do all these things to the utmost of our ability. And if we wish to make our defense as rational and as convincing to pagans and atheists and agnostics as it is possible for it to be, so that it will be at least partially intelligible to those who know not the Lord or the Spirit or the Word, then we must order our thinking and theology so as to allow the Philosopher his rightful voice, and Philosophy its rightful place in our reading and interpretation of the sacred scriptures.
.
If we cast out the philosopher to make room for the impressively self-assured theologian, then our most basic tools and methods of interpretation will suffer accordingly, to the end that we will be unable to provide any sort of sensible, or even faithful, apology unto the service of truth. The first principles of any acceptable hermeneutics must therefore rest secure in the conviction that (as a matter of practical method and logical procedure) philosophy must always have primacy over theology; ie. at least during the initial stages of study. Thus we cannot begin with all truth already contained in neatly arranged rows and columns standing ever-ready to volley upon the foolish heads of all those who dare to disagree with us. Rather, we must let truth be always bigger than our puny minds and hearts can contain. That way, we are always motivated to search. Seek and ye shall find.
.
So we cannot hold 'the Truth' as if in a bag. We cannot retain it, or bind it up in pleasing doctrines and formulas that must never be questioned. But truth is elusive and slippery, and not so easy to ensnare and domesticate. Truth always calls us forward, and never propels us from behind. It is the goal of all our apologies and defenses. It is not our possession to be guarded and protected from those who would take it away and destroy it. But to continue the search, to continue the inquiry, to ask the questions that need to be asked; these are the things that philosophy can bring to the Faith. Philosophy does not, and cannot, serve some higher theology, as if she were some sort of handmaiden to the glorious and mighty theologians. Rather, philosophy serves always and only the truth of things; and in so doing serves the Lord according to the will of God.
.
With all this in mind, let me ask the sober bible-student some simple questions that ought to be easily answered: Who is the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century? Which book is his finest contribution to the philosophical enterprise as such? And what is its value to believers today? Do his books, and his philosophy, have any relevance to our duty to prepare ourselves? What is/was the impact of this philosopher upon the Faith, and on how it is presented to others? And finally, what is the potential of his philosophy for the way we think about the Faith, and upon the way we read the scriptures? ... If you cannot answer even one of these questions, then you should perhaps consider yourself somewhat deficient in your ability to "make a defense to anyone" ... ?
.
- the almost Socratic one - textman ;><
x
+
/ Topic > Re: On Philosophers & Theologians-2 /
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.theology /
/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion / 18Apr2002 /
.
> On April17 Ross wrote: textman, I agree with you that
> philosophy must serve a critical role in our pursuit of
> truth, whether it be religious truth or any other sort of
> truth. However, as I'm sure your aware, many people of
> faith believe that they already have a handle on truth
> through a particular revelation.
.
textman replies: Quite right, sir. And this is where many confusions seem to have their beginnings. Revealed truth usually includes not just the inspired scriptures themselves, but all the doctrines and supposedly implied teachings that are contained therein. Thus when things like confessions, creeds, and various doctrines and dogmas assume the authority of revealed truth (whether this is admitted or not) you end up with a situation where 'revealed truth' comes into conflict with other sorts of truth. The great creation-vs-evolution debate is a good example of this popular (and highly debatable) conflict of truths. In my view, this whole debate is a colossal bore precisely because of this gross misunderstanding that some kinds of truth out-rank others. This is sheer nonsense. Theology cannot legitimately decree in advance what can and cannot be true or real. The whole-truth (ie. the sum total of all reality) reveals itself to our minds always in the same way (ie. slowly and gradually and only partially). If truth is eternally in process (say towards the Absolute), then what we know and what we don't know are forever in flux (and always subject to the limitations of duration), and even the truths of revelation are subject to re-examination and re-assessment that CAN lead to a better and fuller understanding. Even revealed truth is subject to the same dialectical process that (over the last century or so) has so dramatically transformed the nature and appearance of philosophy.
.
> These people use philosophy not as a means to find truth
> (which is the real purpose of philosophical analysis and
> inquiry), but rather as a set of rules to add sophistication
> and legitimacy to their apologetic. In my view, this sort
> of endeavor is pretty pathetic. -- Ross
.
I tend to agree. As far as theology and Christian apologetics are concerned, philosophy can be reduced to a simple tool useful for making Christian doctrines and arguments appear valid by applying a thin coating of reason. Philosophy is thus nothing more than yet another technique in the theologians methodological toolbox. This is what is meant by the saying that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology: philosophy, like an old worn-out ho, services theology. Like you, I think that this approach to faith, history, and bible is pathetic; chiefly because philosophy is more than just the application of logic and critical thinking. Philosophy, when it is allowed its full scope, involves a wholistic approach to reality that tends to bring order out of chaos, simplicity out of complexity, and unity to a bewildering variety of disconnected truths. There can be no conflicts and contradictions between revealed truth and supposedly unrevealed truth. There are only good ideas and bad ones. Theology will always be at odds with reality, but philosophy can and should combine what is true in the Faith with what is true in science, art, religion, politics, ethics, economics, etc. Philosophy is neither the slave nor the enemy of Faith, but it must certainly be a very active partner in any quest to understand and explain the Faith (and its history and scriptures).
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On April 17 harambee wrote: You don't have to be well-studied
> to make a good defense to someone, just observant and thoughtful.
.
But that's only the first half of it, harambee. Then you have
to say, and explain, what you observe.
.
> A defense can be functional rather than intellectual.
.
4X: love can't be explained, but it can be felt and shown.
.
> In fact, the number of people you could defend to
> with philosophical terminology and arguments is
> probably rather limited.
.
I'm not sure I quite agree with you on that one, harambee. Jargon aside, the use of philosophy by believers can be both destructive (eg. of sloppy thinking) and constructive (eg. integrating knowledge gained from various specialized disciplines within the biblical sciences). So if philosophy is essentially the art of thinking clearly about anything and everything, then a rational description of the Faith (which is, in part, the goal of both philosophy and history) will make a fundamental appeal to all serious-minded people, regardless of whether or not they are believers.
.
> Most people would rather have some practical argument for a
> practical theology (which they would likely not even call
> theology). Part of a good defense is having the conversation
> at the level of both conversants. And I didn't need to read
> Hegel to know that.
.
I agree we need to seek a level of common ground where all participants are equal, and where all can have their say, and expect to be understood. If Hegel can help us to appreciate that all things are marching along just so on the way to bigger and better things, then he has surely made a useful and practical contribution to our common theology and apologetics.
.
So then the usual apologetics from the scribes and pharisees and churches fails to convince those not already convinced because the primacy of theology (in their methods and outlook) seems to render them incapable of making a full and effective use of philosophy. Surely the value of philosophy extends beyond its utility in providing many arguments for theologians to toss about. If philosophy is an attitude, a seeking for things, a never-ending struggle against over-simplification on the one side, and obscurity on the other, then all of that is lost the instant any theologian barges in to assume command of the mission. How about this for a proposal: suppose we study the scriptures from philosophy first, and *then* theology can get to work on the results. This way we have a clearly defined division of labor between philosophical analysis and theological speculation.
.
Any takers?
.
- one who redefines the labor-pool - teextman ;>
x
+
/ Topic > Re: On Philosophers & Theologians-3 /
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.theology /
/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion / 18Apr2002 /
.
> On 18Apr Pilgrimagain wrote: interesting that no one has
> offered up any opinions on philosophers and their writings.
.
tx: Another sign that believers don't take philosophy seriously.
.
> Let me start by putting Heidegger forward along with his
> introduction to Metaphysics.
.
Yuch!
.
> I'm not an expert,
.
experts bite!
.
> (my major was history and my minors were art and philosophy)
.
history and philosophy -> two sides of the same coin.
.
> but I think that one can not deny the importance of
> Heidegger in the 20th century, especially in regards
> to his contribution to the understanding of metaphysics
> and ontology. -- Peace, Pilgrim
.
Hey Pilgrim, I am more than happy to deny the importance of
Heidegger in the 20th century. Firstly, his influence is chiefly felt
by way of being filtered through the existentialists. Nobody else
actually reads that monster he wrote. I certainly haven't. Have you?
As for metaphysics and ontology, I find these fields of inquiry to
be about as relevant as epistemology (theory of knowledge); which
is to say, very little (if at all). I am also happy to report that the
bulk of progress in 20th century philosophy seems to be to the
end of making metaphysics more or less obsolete. Thank the Lord
for that development! Nothing could be more confusing than
applying metaphysics to the serious study of scripture.
.
- one who disallows nonsense - textman ;>
x
+
/ Topic > Re: On Philosophers & Theologians-4 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.theology / 19Apr2002 /
/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
> On 19April Ross wrote: textman, I'm a little surprised about
> your attitude towards philosophy. Philosophical inquiry is
> extraordinarily important and essential.
.
textman say: I agree with you almost %100, friend Ross; and
I'm sure that my previous posts above will bear this out.
.
> Did you read the newspaper today?
.
I try not to. Those damn rags are far too hard on trees!
.
> Do you believe what you read?
.
I am generally rather skeptical when it comes to the Media.
.
> Why? Reflection on this is epistemology?
.
Yeah?
.
> Do you believe the God exists?
.
Sure: the First Source and Center, the Creator of All,
the Almighty, the Father of Lights, etc
.
> Why? That's ontology.
.
Cosmology, mythology, and theology are also ontology?
.
> Do you think minds other than yours exist?
.
I should hope so. It's a basic assumption in both
psychology and sociology.
.
> Why? Ontology/metaphysics.
.
Let me get this straight; so Descartes' famous "I think,
therefore I am" is not merely an elementary fact of life
and logic, but it is *also* ontology and metaphysics?
.
> In terms of metaphysics being demolished in the 20th
> century, I suppose you're referring to logical positivism
.
Only in part.
.
> which essentially maintains that if a proposition
> cannot be verified it is nonsense.
.
It's a good general rule, but can't always be effectively
used; especially as regards various faith statements. :)
.
> This not only includes most metaphysical propositions, but,
> interestingly, their own proposition. So you see, logical
> positivism collapsed under its own weight because it
> could never verify its verification principle!!
.
hahaha ... Now that's funny :D This is called chasing
your tail round and round. And it's something else that
philosophers and theologians have in common. There's a
lesson to be learned here; and that lesson is that too
much pure logic is both counter-productive and dangerous!
.
> Metaphysics is alive and well.
.
Metaphysics and theology are both still alive, to be sure
(for they have much in common, it seems), but I'm none too
sure about that being-well part. Surely you're not suggesting
that metaphysics and theology are better off than logical
positivism just because they tend to ignore basic questions
of validity and verification?
.
> You should try reading some process philosophy. David Ray
> Griffin gives an accessible intro to this field. - Ross
.
I'm going to try and find it at amazon.com. Wish me luck!
.
- the book-hunter stalketh the elusive prey - textman ;>
x
+
/ Topic > Re: On Philosophers & Theologians-5 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.theology / 22Apr2002 /
/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
> On 19Apr Pilgrimagain wrote: I also think that you brush
> aside metaphysics and ontology too quickly. Anytime you
> wonder about the nature of God and the causes of creation
> you have engaged in those two things.
.
Well then, Pilgrimagain, it would appear that metaphysics and
ontology are woven into and throughout *some* of the questions
in my field of inquiry, such that they are dealt with
automatically, and perhaps even subconsciously, so that I
already know both fields (apparently) and therefore do not
need to read any of Griffin's books. Whew! That'll save a
few bucks there!
.
> I have read "An Introduction to Metaphysics" and found it
> fascinating. You say you have not, if you have not, then
> how can you dismiss it so quickly? -- Pilgrim
.
I have never even heard of this book 'An Intro to M'
until you mentioned it just now, so obviously I have
no specific opinions or thoughts about it. :)
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
.
> On 19Apr Knightowl wrote: I would not say that philosophy
> should have primacy over theology.
.
textman replies: Hi, Knightowl. I firmly believe this is a
rather serious error on your part. Especially if you are at
all concerned about reading the scriptures correctly.
.
> In fact, I regard the self-revelation of God as the proper
> foundation for all intellectual inquiry.
.
All intellectual inquiry of a distinctly theological nature!
.
> "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge."
.
Shouldn't that be:
'The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom'?
.
"And he said to man, 'The fear of the Lord - that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.'" -- Job 28:28
.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who
follow his precepts have good understanding." -- Psalm 111:10
.
So I guess that wisdom and good understanding are things that
are not exactly identical with knowledge. Thus the wisdom of
the Word is greater than the knowledge of the philosophers.
.
> As for 20th Century philosophers, I would say that W.V.O.
> Quine, Thomas Kuhn, and Michael Polanyi all made important
> contributions. And Ludwig Wittgenstein, of course.
> "Doubt itself rests only on that which is beyond doubt."
> -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
.
Wittgenstein is only partly correct. What he should have
said was 'Doubt itself rests only on that which is beyond
doubt, and beyond logic.'
.
>> tx: Surely you're not suggesting that metaphysics and
>> theology are better off than logical positivism just
>> because they tend to ignore basic questions of validity
>> and verification?
.
> Logical positivism ignores basic questions of justification.
> Logical positivism is self-defeating. And even if it were
> not, it could not establish, for example, the validity of
> induction. Positivism is irrational.
.
I understand, Knightowl, and I tend to agree with your
assessment. Indeed, I'm almost tempted to say that logical
positivism is a good example of what happens when philosophy
and theology go astray. Or get carried away with the glory of
their own reasonings. This happens in the biblical sciences
too, of course; and the result is a general wandering away
from the known facts (namely, the early Greek texts) in order
to scale the heights of fanciful speculation. Among the
textual-critics this has led to a great deal of misdirection
and empty talk about the so-called Q document.
.
I suspect that there is also a lot of empty talk in certain
corners of the philosophy departments. Correct me if I'm out
of line here. Thing is I couldn't find Griffin's 'Introduction
to Metaphysics', so maybe you guys can summarize the chief
ideas for me? But I did find something even more interesting:
a book entitled 'Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics'
by some frenchie. I already can't wait to bite that dog. It
looks like a very yummy morsel indeed!
.
- the book-hunter awaits its arrival - textman ;>
.
P.S. F.Bacon sayeth that "a little philosophy inclineth man's
mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds
about to religion."
x
+
/ Topic > Re: On Philosophers & Theologians-6 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.theology / 25Apr2002 /
/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /"For to one is given by the Spirit the word of> On 22Apr Knightowl wrote: Proverbs 1:7
wisdom; to another the word of knowledge
by the same Spirit" (1Cor.12:8).
> The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
> Fools despise wisdom and instruction.
> Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive
> through philosophy and empty deception, according to the
> tradition of men, according to the elementary principles
> of the world, rather than according to Christ.
> Romans 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor
> Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their
> speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 2 Corinthians 10:5 We are destroying speculations and every
> lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we
> are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ
.
textman replies: Knightowl, I tend to agree with Paul and Proverbs, but only up to a point. Not all philosophy is "raised up against the knowledge of God", just as not all philosophy is empty deception, and so it would be both premature and unfair to claim (on the strength of these bible-bytes) that philosophy is contrary to faith, or that there is no room for philosophy in the life of faith. In fact, philosophy is a necessary part of our faith; since without it there would be nothing left to anchor our theology to reality (and you know where that leads). The greatest Christian thinkers have always understood that philosophy can be used to build up OR tear down. Origen and Aquinas are but two heroes of the Faith that have made productive use of philosophical thought. There are many others even today who do likewise. Philosophers don't despise wisdom and instruction, but those who despise philosophy despise the truth and the search for truth. If the Faith has a valid claim on the truth, then philosophy can help us to convince unbelievers of this validity, just as it can help us to set forth the Faith in a rational and coherent manner. There is such a thing as bad philosophy, to be sure, but there is also such a thing as bad-faith.
.
In the sixth century a man named Boethius published a book
(originally in Latin) called 'The Consolation of Philosophy'
which became a best-seller some three centuries later, and
has remained a Christian classic ever since. It is a dialogue
between Philosophy and Boethius wherein the former lady tries
to console the unhappy prisoner. Must reading for fundies!
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 23Apr Pilgrimagain wrote: very pertinent quotes.
> Textman, I am sorry, I had thought you were refering to
> "Intro to Metaphysics" when you refered to Heideggers
> writing in an earlier post. My apologies. -- Pilgrim
.
tx: No problem, Pilgrim. These things happen ...
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
>>> Knightowl previously wrote: I would not say that
>>> philosophy should have primacy over theology.
.
>> textman replied: Hi, Knightowl. I firmly believe this is a
>> rather serious error on your part. Especially if you are at
>> all concerned about reading the scriptures correctly.
.
> On 24Apr Knightowl wrote: How so?
.
textman answers: I only mean that when it comes to studying the Word, I've found that theology tends to confuse rather than to clarify. 4X: A strong belief in the inerrancy of the scriptures tends to deny any suggestion that this or that verse or verses were added decades after the original autograph was written. Such a theological point of view involves assumptions about the nature of the texts that cannot accept that some verses were put there (4X) to attribute authorship to someone other than the actual author (eg. the final verses of Hebrews were placed there in order to give the impression that it was written by Paul; which, of course, it was not).
.
>>> In fact, I regard the self-revelation of God as the
>>> proper foundation for all intellectual inquiry.
.
>> All intellectual inquiry of a distinctly theological nature!
.
> What then would be the proper foundation for
> "non-theological" questions?
.
Philosophy or history or science; depending on the specific
nature of the question at hand.
.
>>> "Doubt itself rests only on that which is beyond doubt."
>>> ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
.
>> Wittgenstein is only partly correct. What he should have
>> said was 'Doubt itself rests only on that which is beyond
>> doubt, and beyond logic.'
.
> What do you mean "beyond logic"?
.
Only that doubt is often based on things that are ultimately irrational, and therefore beyond logic. 4X: the current rejection of the prophets is often based on ignorance (as to what true Christian prophecy is about), or fear (of being wrong regarding important matters of faith), or on arrogance and vanity (eg. we don't need no prophet to tell us the truth since we already know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so get lost).
.
> Wittgenstein's argument was that in order to call a judgment
> into doubt, one must have some firm ground of certainty from
> which question that judgment. OTOH, if one tried to doubt
> everything he would never get as far as doubting anything.
> This paradox is true because an intelligible doubt requires
> that one not doubt the meaning of the words or concepts that
> go into the doubt. Wittgenstein, like the other philosophers
> I have mentioned above, thus undermined the idea of a
> presuppositionless or autonomous rationality.
.
An "autonomous rationality"? Sounds rather unlikely alright.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 24Apr Ross wrote: textman, I didn't say that David Ray
> Griffin wrote a book called "Introduction to Metaphysics".
> I said that he wrote on process philosophy. -- Ross
.
Roger that, Ross. My mistake; I mixed up two different posts.
It would also explain why I failed to find the book (ie. it
was never written). :)
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 24Apr Pilgrimagain asketh: Is process philosophy related
> to Whitehead and process theology?
.
Process philosophy and process theology are related, I should think, but Alfred North Whitehead is more a philosopher than a theologian. His basic idea or vision is that reality (and God as well) is in an ongoing organic process of becoming. His major book on the subject is called 'Process and Reality', and this is just the sort of book that gives philosophy a bad name. One edition even admits in its preface that it is "highly technical and far from easy to understand". If any philosopher must load his books down with unintelligible jargon, then obviously he's doing something wrong.
.
- the almost becoming one - textman ;><
x
+
ON THE NECESSARY PRIMACY OF THE LOGOS
.
/ Topic > Re: On Philosophers & Theologians-7 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.theology / 29Apr2002 /
/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
"In every age there is a new development of truth, a message of God
to the people of that generation. The old truths are all essential; new
truth is not independent of the old, but an unfolding of it. It is only as
the old truths are understood that we can comprehend the new. When
Christ desired to open to His disciples the truth of His resurrection,
He began 'at Moses and all the prophets' and 'expounded unto them
in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself.'"
-- Christ's Object Lessons, p. 127
.
>>> On 25Apr Knightowl wrote: Proverbs 1:7 <snip quote>
>>> Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive
>>> through philosophy and empty deception, according to the
>>> tradition of men, according to the elementary principles
>>> of the world, rather than according to Christ.
>>> Romans 1:21 <snip quote>
>>> 2 Corinthians 10:5 <snip quote>
.
>> Textman replied: Knightowl, I tend to agree with Paul and
>> Proverbs, but only up to a point. Not all philosophy is
>> "raised up against the knowledge of God", just as not all
>> philosophy is empty deception, and so it would be both
>> premature and unfair to claim (on the strength of these
>> bible-bytes) that philosophy is contrary to faith, or that
>> there is no room for philosophy in the life of faith.
.
> Knightowl answered: You have misunderstood my position, and
> Paul's. Philosophy which is based on "the tradition of men"
> or on "elementary principles" or anything other than Christ
> is "empty deception." Indeed, philosophy which does not
> acknowledge God at the outset is "foolish" and vain. This
> fact in no way implies that knowledge is impossible or that
> philosophy is pointless. On the contrary, the fear of the
> LORD, the knowledge of God is the foundation of all rational
> thought, since in Christ "are hidden all the treasures of
> wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3)."
.
the textman sayeth: Any philosophy which does acknowledge God at the outset would not be true philosophy, but only some fraudulent species of theology. Philosophy cannot begin with faith as its foundation; it can only begin with "the elementary principles of the world". These elementary principles of logic and rational method are ultimately derived from God by way of the spark of that universal Logos that enlightens every mortal human mind. So in that sense all knowledge derives from the elementary principles of the world, which in turn derive from God through the creative activities of his Word. The recognition of all this would surely strengthen any theology, but it need not be (and perhaps should not be) explicitly assumed by all forms of science, history, and philosophy in order to be valid.
.
>>> <snip> What then would be the proper foundation
>>> for "non-theological" questions?
.
>> Philosophy or history or science; depending on
>> the specific nature of the question at hand.
.
> But what are the proper foundations for philosophy, history,
> and science? I would say the self-revelation of God is that
> proper foundation, the "beginning of knowledge."
.
I would say that the natural unfolding of the Logos within and throughout all creation is the proper foundation for all philosophy, history, and science, and that the self-revelation of God as such is the specific concern of religion and theology (in the most general sense). Any other approach is not only confusing, but highly irrational as well.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
.
> On 27Apr Knightowl wrote: So you think that through "empty
> & deceptive philosophy" you can come to a knowledge of God?
.
tx: No indeed. It is not the business of philosophy to come to
a knowledge of God. It is the business of philosophy to seek
out the truth of things, and to attempt a coherent description
of life, the universe, and everything (in whole or in part).
.
> Then why does the Bible teach that the fear of the LORD
> is the beginning of wisdom?
.
Because it means that the fear of the LORD is the *beginning* of wisdom; as in *not* the middle of wisdom, as in *not* the end of wisdom (which is love for the Lord). Somewhere in the middle there is plenty of room for the knowledge to be gained through science, and for the knowledge and wisdom to be earned through history and philosophy. No one can simply say that ALL philosophy is empty and deceptive, or that all knowledge is mere vanity, and just leave it at that (as if nothing more need be said about it). We're talking about a package deal here. If you dismiss philosophy as worthless or useless than you are also automatically implying that science and history are ALSO worthless and useless (ie. if they do not affirm the Creator at the outset). So unless you are willing to renounce all value in all three of these closely-related endeavors, I suggest you reconsider your untenable interpretation of the Apostle.
.
And what is your position again? In another post you
say that it is the one derived from Bishop Augustine?
.
> Philosophy rooted in the knowledge of God is not foolish.
.
No indeed. This is because philosophy rooted in the knowledge of God is not philosophy at all, but rather theology. I think that this is source of all of these disagreements between you and the rest of us. Me and the good fellas here understand the necessity of making a clear distinction between philosophy and theology, but your view seems to be that any brand or flavor of philosophy that is not at once (and always) theology is thereby worthless. Consider the consequences of this position. It means that logic (without which no rational thinking or techniques can proceed) has no value. It means that mathematics (the only truly universal language) should be discarded. Have you asked yourself how we shall accomplish anything lasting and worthwhile without constant recourse to the basic non-theological thoughts and methods of philosophy?
.
> All other philosophy is, in the sense that it
> cannot justify its claims.
.
Logic, mathematics, science, history, and philosophy do not need to justify their claims and methods by recourse to faith, religion, or theology. Your position seems to require that all art, history, science, culture, literature, and thought must fall under the domain of theology (which alone can determine and judge a thing's value and/or intellectual status). I think I can say that everyone here would regard such a broad scope for theology as unacceptable and fundamentally irrational. Yet you seem to believe that this view is supported by the scriptures? Paul had good reason *in his day* to disregard philosophy, but you have no such firm foundations.
.
> Denial of God leads to radical skepticism about
> all knowledge claims. <snip>
.
That is perhaps true, but it is not necessary for any rational philosophy to affirm a denial of God. Of course, some religions and philosophies go to the other extreme and identify all reality directly with the being and nature of God. But philosophy is (or should be) more concerned with the stuff and substance of reality (including the various facts and processes of the ordered cosmos) than with unperceived transcendent realms that (by definition) lay beyond the boundaries of our meager human perception.
.
> There are within Christian thought not two but three
> different attitudes towards Faith & Reason:
> * Fideism: Faith and Reason are essentially disjoint.
> * Thomism: True Faith is based on Reason.
> * Augustinianism: True Reason rests on a foundation
> of True Faith.
> Enlightenment prejudices have largely overshadowed my
> position (the last) and so fideists accuse me of Thomism
> while Thomists accuse me of fideism. Both, of course, are
> wrong.
.
On 26Apr textman replied: I agree with Thomas Aquinas: True
Faith is based on Reason. And the justification for this view
rests on the affirmation of the creative activities of the
Universal Logos (see John's Prologue). It is also supported by
the knowledge that the entire course of human history can be
understood as a process of ever-increasing rationalization
within all areas of human life (including faith).
.
- the semi-rationalized one - textman ;;>
.
P.S. That's it for me, folks! Chao for now ...
x