aldenswan.com

In keeping with my series of posts dealing with epistemology and worldview, BarryA over at Uncommon Descent has - almost as if on cue - written an excellent piece discussing how both Theists and materialists rely on a combination of faith and reason.  He makes a number of points that I had planned on making in upcoming posts, so rather than duplicate efforts, I will direct you over there to read the full article.  I will revisit these points in a future post.  Just to whet your appetite:

Materialist believe that a real world exists outside of themselves and that they have trustworthy perceptions of this real world from their senses. Surprise. Those two beliefs are not based upon any evidence. Materialists hold the beliefs based on pure faith, a frequently unacknowledged faith to be sure, but faith nevertheless.

If we accept the rules of basic logic (which is itself a presupposition), we have to agree that when it comes to accepting either evidence or the methodology for evaluating evidence, we eventually come to a point where we must take a leap to faith (or at least, a leap to presupposition). At this point, the materialist typically calls the philosopher names and walks away.  But, I think the arguments tha BarryA makes are valid; either we must agree that we lack evidence for materialistic presuppositions, or else we must call into question logic itself, at which point modernism and all that comes with it implodes.

Once again, isn’t epistemology fun?

I used to be from Minnesota. I probably shouldn’t admit that, but I do… However, I don’t think I ever voted there (maybe once?), so I guess I don’t feel responsible for Minnesota politics.

I happened to catch Jesse “the Body” Ventura on Larry King a moment ago. Apparently he’s not running for Minnesota State Senator, but he’s leading Al Franken, who really is running.  What a weird state.  Of course, I can’t imagine Al Franken as a serious politician, even in Minnesota. Even after Jesse Ventura. Or after Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale.  Of course, I live in Oregon, so I can’t brag. We’re so lazy here that we all mail in our ballots days early, just so we can stop paying attention to the political ads.

I did think Ventura was kind of a kick as governor, especially as he wasn’t my governor. However, hearing him on Larry King tonite reminded me of just how ignorant the man really is. It’s kind of funny that he says what he thinks, but then you realize that this is what he really thinks! He was making fun of Bush praying before his decision to to into Iraq.  I don’t know that Bush ever said that God told him to invade Iraq, only that he had prayed about it. I appreciate that - I don’t for a moment think that it was an easy call for Bush, and those who do think that are just plain idiots. No one makes a decision like that - even from a career standpoint - without giving it a lot of thought, and often, prayer.

Ventura, though, is too smart for that, saying that in his nearly 57 years, God has never spoken to him. As my favorite rabbit would say, “what a maroon.” Jesse, you may have never spoken to God, but if you’ve never heard Him speak (in the land of 10,000 lakes, yet!), you just weren’t listening.

He did make one sensible comment though:

“I think that bodes very badly for the Democrats in the fact that you have an unpopular president, a more unpopular Congress and a senator in lockstep with this president and now you have a third party candidate who hasn’t announced and you have fallen behind him. I think the Democrats are in some serious trouble.”

But, today is apparently the last day to file, and it appears that Franken’s lack of success has awakened hope in a number of would-be contenders.  So who will it be?  Another pro wrestler?  Another comedian?  Maybe a real politician who wants withdraw yesterday from Iraq and raise taxes??  Or, perhaps a retired hockey player whose campaign will focus on bringing pro hockey back to the Gopher State? I think he’d get my vote.

Ah, but it’s all good fun, as they say…

In my last post I briefly discussed the origins of modern epistemology (that area of philosophy concerned with what we know and how we know that we know what we know), for the purpose of providing some background to discuss modern Christian epistemology and post-modern epistemology.

Recently I received an e-mail which linked to recent articles appearing on Christianity Today online, with the subject line, “Apologetics makes a comeback…”  Apologetics historically is the systematic defense of Christianity. The Apostle Paul is considered the first Christian apologist, first using the word apologia as recorded in Acts 26:2. At its most basic, apologetics is providing the basis for your faith; however, under modernism, apologetics has often come to mean the systematic proof of Christianity. Modern apologetics includes philosophical arguments relying heavily on Aristotelian logic, as well as scientific and historical arguments. With modern apologetics, reason tends to reign supreme - even more so than with much of modern materialism.

As with its arch-rival, philosophical materialism, modern Christianity (especially evangelicalism) has been to some extent running scared from the West’s newest worldview, postmodernism. Postmodernism started as an architectural style, a move away from modernism’s boxy steel & glass that now dominates our cities’ skylines, and philosophers began using the term. Philosophically, it is very hard to define, other than that it is a purported deconstruction, critique and rejection of many of the failures of modernism. In some ways, it is not a philosophy so much as a non-philosophy. However, the major issue with regard to Christianity has been the tendency to reject the notion that anyone can claim any hold on truth. Truth claims are seen as methods of control (which often they are; no one has either the ability to know what is true or the right to enforce that view on others. We all choose our own paths, our own truths, blah, blah, blah.

So, when Christianity Today starts publishing “apologetics isn’t dead” articles, what’s behind it is this fear that postmodernsm will put modern apologetics out of business.  However, CT’s article A New Day for Apologetics quotes author Lee Strobel:

“It wasn’t too many years ago that scholars were writing off apologetics because we live in a postmodern world where young people are not supposed to be interested in things like the historical Jesus,” Strobel says. “The biggest shock is that among people who communicated to me that they had found faith in Christ through apologetics, the single biggest group was 16- to 24-year-olds.”

A 2nd CT article turned out to be an interview with an old friend of mine, Mark Mittelberg, who has recently published a book entitled Choosing Your Faith: In a World of Spiritual Options (Tyndale, 2008). This book - while I admit I haven’t even seen a copy yet - is a bit different than some of the older apologetic books, as it is focused on evaluating truth claims in a culture where truth seems to be up for grabs. Mark says,

I would urge my fellow believers to not let go of one of the most important things God has given us: logic, evidence, old-fashioned apologetics, which Jesus often appealed to when he was questioned. He would say, “Don’t just listen to my words, but look at my works, look at my miracles, look at the fact that I am fulfilling the roles of the Messiah in the prophecies. Look to the fact that I will rise from the dead.” And then to Thomas the doubter, he said, “Look at the holes in my hands and in my side. Look at me; it’s Jesus.” Over and over he pointed to the facts, the evidence, as did the apostles and other writers of Scripture. I’m not saying it’s the only approach; I’m just saying it’s an important approach that we need to use well…

If we can call this The New Apologetics, it seems that besides offering logical evidence for Christianity, it is also to an extent an apologetic for modernism; saying, “don’t give up on logic, reason and evidence.” Here, oddly enough, even The New Atheists would be in agreement, but disagree as to what constitutes evidence. However, even at modernism’s peak (the pre-Vietnam era), there were many for whom logic, reason and evidence simply weren’t enough.

So, in the early 21st Century, we are told on one hand that we are living without a doubt in a postmodern culture. On the other hand, interest in science, technology and apologetics seems as strong, if not stronger, than ever. What gives?

Stay tuned for the possible answer to this question, and more …