Philosophy and Christianity
We want to know the truth. Every person does. It is a fundamental human drive that has given rise to centuries of philosophical enquiry and the mind-boggling cinematography of The Matrix and What Dreams May Come. The questions have remained the same in the core: What is real? How do we know? Does history have any meaning? What is a human? What are good and bad?
Christians go to the Bible for answers to these questions, realizing that our knowledge is so utterly limited by our own sphere of existence, that we must look outside of ourselves to find the truth. We are mocked by rationalistic philosophers who maintain that truth can be known, or better known, by beginning with ourselves, that is, what we can logically deduce concerning us and our world. But the ridicule is most unfounded, for the answers the Bible gives to these questions are far superior to the answers the non-Christian philosophers provide, and further the answers of Scripture provide a powerful framework for the interpretation of reality, that actually fits reality as we experience it. Non-Christian philosophical grids are cheap imitations for the truth. They might hint at it, or perhaps even illustrate it, but always fall short.
Philosophy, or the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, works together beautifully with Christian theology when, and only when, we begin with the revelation of God, for philosophy does indeed ask the right questions. One area of commonality that the Christian should have with Postmodern or relativistic philosophers is that of reducing the amount of truth that we can obtain on our own. Often Christians are belted with the charge that we think we know it all, or that we arrogantly hold to a myth, when nothing could be further from correct for a biblical Christian. It is the emphatic claim that we know nothing truly, and certainly not the most important things, apart from help, and the help comes in the form of revelation. We know nothing about answering these questions properly apart from what God has communicated to us about them (Heb. 1:1-3). That is why when we feel that we are right, it is not because we believe we are right on our own, but because God is right and we have heard from Him. “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
Christians go to the Bible for answers to these questions, realizing that our knowledge is so utterly limited by our own sphere of existence, that we must look outside of ourselves to find the truth. We are mocked by rationalistic philosophers who maintain that truth can be known, or better known, by beginning with ourselves, that is, what we can logically deduce concerning us and our world. But the ridicule is most unfounded, for the answers the Bible gives to these questions are far superior to the answers the non-Christian philosophers provide, and further the answers of Scripture provide a powerful framework for the interpretation of reality, that actually fits reality as we experience it. Non-Christian philosophical grids are cheap imitations for the truth. They might hint at it, or perhaps even illustrate it, but always fall short.
Philosophy, or the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, works together beautifully with Christian theology when, and only when, we begin with the revelation of God, for philosophy does indeed ask the right questions. One area of commonality that the Christian should have with Postmodern or relativistic philosophers is that of reducing the amount of truth that we can obtain on our own. Often Christians are belted with the charge that we think we know it all, or that we arrogantly hold to a myth, when nothing could be further from correct for a biblical Christian. It is the emphatic claim that we know nothing truly, and certainly not the most important things, apart from help, and the help comes in the form of revelation. We know nothing about answering these questions properly apart from what God has communicated to us about them (Heb. 1:1-3). That is why when we feel that we are right, it is not because we believe we are right on our own, but because God is right and we have heard from Him. “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
11 Comments:
We are right about God.
And because of God, we are right.
So we are right about God.
And because of God, we are right.
So we are right about God.
And because of God, we are right.
So we are right about God.
And because of God, we are right.
So we are right about God.
And because of God, we are right.
So we are right about God...
It saddens me that our first comment from a reader was this...:( Just for the record, I'll respond by stating the obvious which this person is missing, namely, everybody starts with some axiom, some foundation. It is not unreasonable to start with the Scriptures, since there is abundant evidence that the bible is trustworthy.
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=666 For example.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on this kind of issue-it is good to see a blog that does not reduce itself to the straw-men typically dealt with when this comes up.
I have found it productive to look at non-Christian philosophy from the Aquinian view of "all truth is God's truth." If Kant or Aristotle hit on something true, it is because it aligns with the way God structured the created order.
Phil, agreed. And granted there must be some degree of built-in reason that allows us to know that truth. Romans 1 seems to indicate this. But that knowledge is limited at best because of sin (Romans 3), thus only when the Holy Spirit regenerates a heart and sends a person to the Scripture, can the deeper truths of salvation be seen with clarity.
Further, the Scripture then becomes the canon or standard by which we measure other "truths" to see if they are indeed true.
There is also abundant evidence that the bible is untrustworthy.
http://dim.com/~randl/tcont.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/1/1boobo91.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5195/bible.html
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/errors.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm
Because your starting axiom is not provable to be true, your subsequent statements about "being right" are unfounded.
1 Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
1 Cor 2:15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,...
ALL of the Bible is about JESUS.
All belief systems start with some type of unprovable starting axiom. Descartes is case in point, "I think therefore I am." Unprovable, but at least it is a starting place. This anonymous commenter also has an unprovable starting axiom. What it is depends on his belief system.
If you have to start somewhere, and wherever you start can be tested, there is no better place to start than Scripture. All of these websites listed offer problems that are more than sufficiently refuted by leading apologists, if people would take the time to make the comparisons.
Study this website for example: http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties.htm
I have no 'belief system'. I believe things, but I do not do so in a systematic manner. I do so based on their believability.
As such, I lack a 'base axiom'. Or rather, I may have one, but I have not yet identified it.
It is for this reason that I find statements like: "I know the truth about God." surprising. You have indicated that your starting premise is one that cannot be proven to be true. Therefore (using simple mathematics), any subsequent premise based on the frist is at a minimum: unproveable (questionable).
It would be more logical to say: "I may or may not know the truth about God" based on your axiom.
anonymous said:
"I have no 'belief system'. I believe things, but I do not do so in a systematic manner. I do so based on their believability.
Well, systems come in degrees of systemization and consistency. If you have a collection of beliefs (which you admit) that you believe to be logically consistent, then by definition you have a system of beliefs. What's more, you indicate that you do in fact have a system of beliefs when you say that you base your beliefs on the "believability." But, what counts as believable to a person is relative to his system of beliefs! You do, I presume, have some criterion by which you judge a particular proposition to be believable--but that criterion, if it is to have any rational support for you, must in turn be based on and/or consistent with other things you already believe.
To avoid further semantic arguments, I looked up the definition for "belief system" or "system of beliefs" and found none. So, I pose this one:
An organized or established procedure for evaluating the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence - derived from:
System: An organized or established procedure (from Merriam-Webster)
Belief: Conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence (from Merriam-Webster)
So, I can now say with confidence, that I do not have an organized or established procedure for evaluating the truth, etc...
A lot of the time I use instict, sometimes I don't. Sometimes it depends on who it is, sometimes it doesn't. Point is, I do not know in advance how I will judge the believability of a given statement, therefore: no system exists. I agree that belief systems do exist, I just don't have one.
This is about the last comment.You say that you have no belief system,but agree that belief systems do exist.Well,if you can agree that belief systems do exist,then you can see that you do believe in something.What,I don't know.All I know is that we don't have to see that something is "believable" in order to believe it.Take Jesus,we have not ever seen Him,because it was before our time,but,if we have faith we don't look for evidence,or proof.We just simply believe it to be true.God is full of truth,and He will answer our questions.That is where faith comes in.Faith and belief go hand in hand with the Christian.Faith is the belief in things unseen.I ask you this,do you have to see proof or evidence when a friend tells you that they are going somewhere or doing something?If you have to see proof that your friend is doing what they say,then I would have a hard time being a friend to you.You do not always have to see point-blank evidence that something is true or fact.You also say that sometimes you use your instinct,and sometimes you don't.Well,if you know you have an instinct,then you believe in that.So,you actually do believe in something.Also,when you looked up the definition of belief system,in Webster's,that was your way of evaluating the truth.If there was a definition,you would have believed it.So,my point to you is,you do believe in something,and the fact that you came to this blog shows that you are searching for bigger truth.You are in a Christian site,so please take that to heart.This comment of mine on this blog,is a few months later then when you originally wrote in,but if you read this,please consider accepting that you do believe in something.
Post a Comment
<< Home