Question for Logicians

Hey readers, quick question.  I am familiar with logic (the discipline, of course), but I was wondering if there was an “official” informal fallacy that deals specifically with the tone with which an argument is verbally stated.  Just curious.

Zizioulas on General Revelation

In the previous post I argued that for John Zizioulas, doctrine is formed in the context of the church.  Thus, forming doctrine has social and experiential dimensions.  For Zizioulas the fruits of biblical interpretation & cultural analysis is subjugated under the experience of the community of faith.  It is helpful to further explore the roots of this “ecclesial epistemology” by unpacking how Zizioulas conceives of how one possesses knowledge of God. 

There is no such thing as “general revelation” for Zizioulas.  Knowledge of this “common” sort is only possible with “things,” which can be understood by identifying what they are on the basis of how we relate to it & on the basis of attributes that are given in the context of time and space.  We relate to a thing in three interrelated ways: (1) We first rule out all that an object can’t be, & (2) subsequently say what it is, (3) describing it by attributing to it different characteristics.  We know what a table is, Zizioulas illustrates, by relating it to ourselves, defining it by what it is not, followed by identifying what it actually is on the basis of it’s characteristics.   

The problem Zizioulas sees is that such a procedure, while helpful with a “thing” like a table, cannot be applied to a “person,” which God is.  The above criteria all fail when trying to understand God because:

(1) the method of negation is untenable when applied to God because it presupposes either a prior or concurrent context.  For the God who created ex Nihilo, this creates obvious problems.

(2) In connection with (1), it is clear that this negation and subsequent identification requires God to be within space and time.  While not all theologians would find this unacceptable, Zizioulas does.  God exists outside of space and time and so

(3) any abstract attribute, when applied to God, inevitably involves another attempt to build the Tower of Babel.  If an attribute comes from our experience, Zizioulas argues, then we violate the transcendence of God.

So then any knowledge has to come from God, from revelation.  Thus for Zizioulas, where God reveals himself is where knowledge is found.  In Zizioulas’ thinking the location is limited to the church.  What this knowledge is will be explored subsequently.

Some Goodies

Here are some recent resources:

• Ben mentions a lecture of Oliver O’Donovan.
• Chris links to a free Zizek book.

While i haven’t engaged either scholar yet, i am aware of their current relevance, and thought some who darken the doors of ATP might find these beneficial.  Enjoy!

For a Laugh

I thought this was funny:

I am not sure if he is going for satire, but i found his take to be a humorous indictment of our isolation that is perpetuated by, among many things, blogs {gasp!}.

A Call for Papers

I have the honor of planning and leading this year’s Western Fellowship of Scholars and Professors conference.  My former professor, who founded the conference, is on sabbatical, and he graciously asked me to step in.  Here is some info on the general flavor of the conference:

• The purpose of the Western Fellowship of Professors and Scholars is to promote the renewal of evangelical faith and life through scholarly research, reflection, and discussion.
• Papers should deal with issues of interest to Christian scholarship.  They may be in one of the traditional fields of theology, Bible, Christian history, practical theology, world religions, etc., or they may be interdisciplinary, showing the contribution of other areas of learning to Christian concerns.
• Papers that are exploratory, experimental or provisional are welcome.  This forum may be used to present papers that will be revised later for other publication or presentation.
• It is preferred that papers conform to the topic (see below), but since the goal of WFPS is to promote research, papers outside the topic are welcome.
• It is recommended that papers dealing with biblical or theological topics conform to the SBL Style Guide.  Papers in other fields may follow the style guidelines appropriate to those fields.
• One’s paper will be put on the WFPS site, unless the author prefers otherwise.  All rights to the paper will still be the author’s.

This year’s topic is: “The Globalization of Christianity and its Implications for the Church.”  The conference is October 3rd-4th in Manhattan Ks, at Manhattan Christian College.  The cost for attending is $30 (hotel not included).  If you have any interest in attending, please comment and i will send you the necessary registration materials.  Also, if you merely want more info, let me know.  Hope to see you there!

Descartes, Postmodernity, & the Return of ATP

 

The title says it all.  I have been absent from this blog for nearly a month.  I don’t think i want to quit for good, but since i have gotten out of the habit, it will take some work to get really rolling again.  I have a ton on my plate, including a conference i’m essentially organizing by myself, doing master’s work, ministry, and have a family.  I hope to call for papers through this website, so stay tuned.  For tonight, here is a post i wrote on another blog, and i think that it has some cool thoughts (even if some of the work is a bit sloppy): 

In class tonight my professor made an interesting observation regarding the “postmodern movement.”  His point was that postmodernism isn’t necessarily a “shift” but rather a strain, albeit a radical one, within modernity.

 

To illustrate this point he pointed us to one of Johnny-Dee’s favorite philosophers, Rene Descartes.  Descartes is widely believed to have ushered in the enlightenment/modernity with his famous rationalistic approach to understand reality.  He attemped to raze his entire belief system down in order to begin again on a sure foundation.  His famous dictum “I think, therefore i am,” came in part from the belief he had found an undeniably certain foundation to begin on, that of the belief that he couldn’t refute the fact that he was a thinking creature.  From this basic belief Descartes built from the ground up (hence his association with strong foundationalist epistemology).

While my professor readily affirmed that the postmodern person would find Descartes trust in his reason to find truth seriously misguided and naive at best, the postmodern actually bases this critique on the father of the Enlightenment’s methodology. 

Like Descartes, the consistent postmodern person use a “methodology of doubt” when evaluating truth.  That is to say that Descartes and the postmodern believe that it is doubtful whether anything their beliefs are true or can be justified. 

Their is an obvious difference between the two when it comes to applying this methodology.  Descartes answer is to begin again, hopeful that through reason he can find “something to believe in.”  The postmodern however takes this methodology to its extreme conclusion, believing that ultimately nothing, not even reason can save them from drowning in relativism. 

So while there are differences in application, the method in both camps is (roughly) the same.  Maybe the postmodern is more consistent, or maybe too cynical.  So while in some ways “postmodernism” is different in how it understands epistemology than modernity, they both are branches growing off the trunk of skepticism that fueled the “age of reason.”  So really instead of being a completely new monster or “shift,” maybe it is just a further outgrowth of the ideals of modernity.  It is, as it were, modernity on crack.

I’m sure many will disagree with my professor’s assessment.  This was only a comment he in passing; i’m sure he has much more to say than this.  I for one see alot of truth in what he says.  Any thoughts?

A Troubling Realization

A while back several people suggested to me that the study of philosophy was much more academically rigorous than the study of theology.  This wasn’t the first time such a suggestion had been made to me, but for some reason this particular instance really bothered me. 

Part of the reason undoubtedly was that these individuals had received graduate degrees in both theology and philosophy, so i couldn’t write this suggestion off as mere ignorance.  Arrogant maybe, but not ignorant.  Another reason why this bugged me was that it seems like most of the Christian philosophers in training saw theology as “helpful,” but not foundational (for lack of a better word at the moment) for their work. 

I’m sure that this second reason betrays my conceit that theology is a nobler discipline than philosophy.  Like many fathers in the church, i want to see philosophy as the handmaiden of theology.  Like Karl Barth once remarked, theology is the “queen of the sciences.”  While i’m not disparaging the importance or the necessity of Christian philosophy, if we are to be true to our beliefs it seems like we must affirm the primacy of theology.

Even though i may tend towards arrogance or snobbery, i get annoyed when i sense that theology is being supplanted by philosophy in the realm of Christian academia.  I think that to a degree i have a legitimate gripe.  However, i fear that at least part, if not most of, the reason for my frustration is that it is true.  It does seem like they have to work a lot harder than i do.  This was quite a troubling realization.  In a sense, it is convicting for me.  Although i refuse to make a “new year’s resolution,” i do want to hold myself to the highest possible standard in my academic pursuits so that i actually live out what i profess to believe, that theology is the queen of the sciences, and to do theological work well requires the utmost effort on my part.

Reorienting Certainty

 

In Paul Tillich’s book of meditations entitled The New Being, he has a meditation dealing with the nature of certainty (pgs 75-78).

To put his point succinctly, Christians can only be certain about the Gospel, and not about the individual hues that color their understanding of that Gospel.  Tillich warns us to guard against making the Gospel we confess dependent on our own understandings.  He points to Paul’s comment in the letter to the Galatians, that “even if we . . . should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you (emphasis mine) . . . ”  For Tillich even Paul didn’t place his certainty in his own experiences.  Paul believed he could come to teach a distorted Gospel.

Tillich encourages his hearers to realize that the Gospel is more than just us comprehending or taking hold of God; rather, it is also (and for Tillich ultimately) about God knowing and taking hold of us.  Tillich’s sentiments here were published in the 50’s, but seem prophetic today in our post(or hyper)modern culture.   Most of us today realize that we cannot get completely outside of the various contexts in which our beliefs were formed.  Thus, as Tillich points out, our hope cannot be ultimately found in our understanding of God or what He has done for us, but in the fact that He has said “yes” to us in His Son.

I think that this is the essence of what Tillich is saying; I’m not sure that I’m completely agreeing with Him.  Any thoughts?

Free Audio Apologetics Course

If anyone is interested in apologetics, then i recommend that you check here, where you can listen to nearly an entire apologetics course by Douglas Groothuis, with many lectures included study notes and references to other pertinent sources.  Enjoy!

[HT: SP]

Philosophy and Theology

 

In my most recent post on Tillich’s doctrine of God, one of my undergrad professors made a concise and insightful comment regarding the relationship between philosophy and theology.  I thought that it was so good it deserved a separate post.  Regarding using philosophy in theological work he writes:

As for alien philosophy: If we want to communicate with our contemporaries, we can’t help using the philosophical categories and presuppositions we share with them. The danger of Tillich’s method of correlation is compromise. The danger of rejecting the method of correlation is irrelevance.

I think that there are some serious things in this statement for prospective theologians (like myself) to think about.  One has to admit that in America at least, Tillich was a “popular” theologian in the mainstream culture.  However, i think the cost was too great in his work. 

So, does abandoning the method of correlation used by Tillich doom one to relevance only in academic ivory towers (or blogs)?  Must we engage philosophy, and how do we do so?

Contemporary European views of God (2): Paul Tillich on Theological Method

As Veli-Matti Karkkainen (hereafter VMK) has pointed out, Tillich and Karl Barth have at least one thing in common.  They were both trained in the classical, Harnackian liberal school of theology.  However, from their similar backgrounds come very different understandings of God and how to do theology.  While Barth viewed God as the “wholly other,” the God who stands in radical transcendence over and against culture, Tillich worked for “correlation, if not synthesis,” between the modern world and Christian Theology (130).

Before we begin to delve into Tillich’s Doctrine of God, it will be beneficial to look a bit at his unique methodology.  There are two main assumptions that undergird Tillich’s work:

1.  There is some common ground between the Christian message and the modern world.  To quote Tillich “Philosophy formulates the questions implied in human existence, and theology formulates the answers implied in divine self-manifestation under the guidance of the questions implied in human existence (130-131).”  VMK sums up Tillich’s view of faith and reason by stating that for Tillich “reason does not resist revelation but rather asks for it; revelation entails the reintegration of reason (131).

2.  Tillich subscribes to the view that sees ontology as the gateway to the notion of God.  Continuing the long tradition that includes Augustine, Anselm, and Descartes, Tillich sees the question of being and its counter part “non-being” as the question for the modern person (131)  Finally, it should be noted that Tillich didn’t believe such a focus would provide the final answers to the modern man’s questions.  Despite that belief, Tillich still valued ontology, and philosophy in general, because of the questions it poses for Christian theology (131). 

These two assumptions end up playing out in how Tillich forms his theology in the following ways:

1.  According to Tillich, theology should be apologetic.  Tillich isn’t referring to proofs for God existence or objective values, but rather that the Christian faith should be presented in a way that modern people can understand it and find it helpful for their needs.  This more “user-friendly’ approach would have been scandalous to someone like Karl Barth, but for Tillich this is a simply a natural outgrowth of his belief that the Gospel and modern culture aren’t mutually exclusive systems or categories.  For Tillich the gap between Christian faith and modern reason isn’t very far at all.  In fact, Tillich would argue that setting the two in opposition to each other is detrimental to the theological task.  Point #2 below describes his view of how faith and reason work together.

2.  Tillich sought to bring together (“Correlate”) theological truth with contemporary philosophical or cultural questions.*  Tillich’s conviction regarding modern culture’s compatibility with theological truth is what drove him to focus on ontology.  This was because, as stated earlier, that Tillich viewed being and the threat of non-being, and a way to overcome non-being, as the central concerns for modern man.  Modern secular men and women, according to Tillich, are constantly filled with anxiety over the prospect of non-being, and are hoping to find a way to overcome it.  To put the matter succinctly, people are afraid of dying, and answering how such fears of the reality of death can be overcome is the central question theology is to be occupied by (Wikipedia, Tillich, VMK 131).

With this foundation in place, we are ready to explore Tillich’s distinct views regarding God.    Clear as mud?

*From Pocket Dictionary of Theology

Doing Theology with a Philosopher

 

Recently i have been talking with one of the best philosophers today, Alan Rhoda.  We have been discussing how God relates within Himself as Triune, and the implications of this topic for understanding God’s relationship to time. 

I have been very excited to participate in a such a discussion with such a brilliant mind.  Recently he posted about our exchange that started in  the comments section of one of his earliest posts.  To be honest i’m flattered to see him give my thoughts some earnest consideration.  He has been very gracious.

So i would encourage you to head over to his blog for two reasons: 1) To get a chance to talk with such a sharp guy.  I’ve found it very beneficial to talk with him, because he is a very precise communicator.  He is indirectly showing me the value of philosophy, particularly logic, for doing theology.  2) After reading his analysis of my thoughts (which he words better than i do), please chime in.  Be forewarned, if you don’t buy into a more “social” understanding of the Trinity, you will probably disagree with me.  I haven’t completely formulated my response, but i’m cooking one up, to either be responded to in his comments or to post on here. 

N.T. Wright on the Appeal of Fundamentalism

N.T. Wright, in his recent work The Last Word, has what to me is a keen insight regarding the appeal for many of Fundamentalism.  Wright contends that the reason Fundamentalism has such appeal for many is due to the (understandable) amount of fear and uncertainty that the “postmodern” world has produced.  As Wright puts it:

“Thus understanding the world, understanding reality, and understanding myself all threaten to collapse into a morass, a smog of unknowing, of not even knowing what ‘knowing’ itself might mean (9).”

Wright contends that this “uncertainty in turn, of course, begets a new and anxious eagerness for certainty: hence the appeal of Fundamentalism . . . (9).”  What i find interesting about this observation is tht Wright thus argues that Fundamentalism isn’t a “return” to an archaic way of thinking as much as it is an offspring of the modern mind (eg “reading the Bible within the grid of a quasi- or pseudoscientific quest for ‘objective truth [10]).'”

What i appreciate about Wright’s analysis is that it situates the rise of Fundamentalism within the context of Modern/Postmodern developments.  I think that many believe that Fundamentalists are those who simply never “got with the times (eg embracing the modern world).”  I think the strength of Wright’s analysis is that he shows how the very climate we live in today is what generated such an approach to the world, Scripture, God, etc etc.

I think such an understanding should help us be more sympathetic towards our Fundamentalist brethren.  Beneath the (apparent or perceived) inflexibility and arrogance stands people frightened and intimidated by the prospects of living in the times that we do, wrestling with uncertainty and fear.  For them they take comfort in their “objective knowledge” of the Scripture, and hence also God’s mind. 

Now i know that my initial reaction to this line of thinking is to attack it and denounce it, but when looking at what lies beneath the surface of their views i can see that i’m guilty of doing the same thing, although it isn’t with a literal interpretation of the Bible.  I think that we all want to believe in something (or someone).  It is how we are wired.  I think that we must always bear this in mind when dealing with our Fundamentalist brethren.  They are on the same journey we’re on, trying to deal with the same issues we are.  They may be handling it poorly, but are we not hypocritical when we denounce their methodology and views in a triumphant manner, talking as if we are certain of their ignorance and hypocrisy? 

This is not to say that we can’t disagree with them.  However, all i’m saying is that we need to practice the same humility and sense of the difficulty of living in the modern world as we wish that they would.  May not by “thinking ourselves wise, we become fools.”  My prayer is that somehow we could learn to be empathic when interacting with them, and who knows they may actually teach us (me) a thing or two. 

The President Steps Down

In what was quite a surprise for many, the president on the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) has resigned.  The President, noted philosopher and theologian Francis Beckwith, stepped down after (re?)joining the Roman Catholic church.  He writes for a group blog, and has posted about this decision and subsequent stepping down as presidentof the ETS.

While i may not agree with Beckwith, i certainly wish him well.  Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of this situation is the uncharitable way man y protestants have handled it.  I pray for the best for Mr. Beckwith, and that he may continue to serve our Lord with joy.

(HT: Aaron)

Update:  The ETS executive committee has released its official statement regarding Beckwith’s resignation.

(HT: SP)

Moreland on Anxiety, Depression, and Meditation Pt 2

JP Moreland recently finished his two part series on how to deal with depression and anxiety as they relate to obsessive thinking. 

The idea that the heart “has a brain” is pretty radical, but i must say that i am encouraged by Moreland’s willingness to share his personal pain and how he found peace.  Also, Morelands cares deeply about having a well-formed Christian mind, so i doubt he made this up for the heck of it. 

I hope that it is a blessing to you.