Advice to Christian Philosophers...

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

…is a marvelous essay written by Alvin Plantinga, which can be found here:

calvin.edu/academic/philosop … ophers.pdf

Here is an important excerpt.

“So the Christian philosopher has his own topics and projects to think about: and when he thinks about the topics of current concern in the broader philosophical world, he will think about them in his own way, which may be a different way. He may have to reject certain currently fashionable assumptions about the philosophic enterprise- he may have to reject widely accepted assumptions as to what are the proper starting points and procedures for philosophical endeavor. And- and this is crucually important- the Christian philosopher has a perfect right to the point of view and prephilosophical assumptions is brings to philosophic work; the fact that these are not widely shared outside the Christian or theistic community is interesting but fundamentally irrelevant. I can best explain what I mean by way of example; so I shall descend from the level of lofty geenrality to specific examples.”

[examples follow]

Several points here: In case you didn’t know, Christian philosophy exists. As a Christian, philosophy is not against you, it’s your best briefly. Another point, is just what he says above- don’t feel you have to do things exactly the same as the atheists. Most importantly, there is more for you to do in the world of philosophy than defend your religion- and you don’t have to pretend you have no religion when you’re doing those other things.
If anyone wants to discuss this excerpt, or something else from the essay itself, I’d love to.

2

Makes alot of sense in many ways. Some ways I tend to think our theology and defense can be discussed on an atheistic level because this is the only way to reach some, and as Paul says he must become all things to reach all people, implies sometimes you have to get on their level to win a soul to Christ.

"If you can make any religion look idiotic, chances are, you haven’t understood that religion. You can’t take treasured beliefs from the past and mock them.

After I spoke at Brigham Young University, a well-groomed student came to me and said, “Dr. Zacharias, you didn’t directly attack Mormonism. Was there a reason?”

“Of course,” I said. "I was assigned a subject on which to speak, and the subject was getting to the truth: Who is Jesus? I lectured on that.

“If I had been asked to deal with the differences between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity, I would have done so. But I still would have done so graciously.”

“I just want to thank you for that approach,” he said. “Two weeks ago there was a man on campus who came on his own invitation and started crying down hellfire and brimstone. He was escorted off campus.”

The old Indian proverb holds true: Once you’ve cut off a person’s nose, there’s no point giving him a rose to smell. We tend to think being kind and listening to the opposition implies we have sacrificed the message. But we need to learn how to handle critique, how to address an antagonist. Even while you wrestle with the ideas of an opponent, you must keep the dignity of the opponent intact."

This is from Ravi Zacharias homepage. rzim.org

I like what little he discusses here because I have been seing this problem lately on campus. It was very sad…, in a way my heart went out the preacher, and in another I was upset at his approach.

He came to the center of our college campus, and started preaching hellfire and brimstone to people, he kept preaching and preaching, soon people were protesting, yellow out ridiculously irrelevant things like “pop tarts!” and whatever other random things people could think of… You know, if we can’t get down to the level of whoever we’re talking to, we can’t get them to listen, and we cant’ do our job.

3

club29

Oh, I agree with that. My point in this thread was to assert that while there’s nothing wrong with out-foxing atheist arguments, and otherwise trying to educate the heathens (or ‘win souls for Christ’, as you say), there’s actually much more to do besides that. There’s plenty of good philosophy a Christian can do for other Christians, that doesn’t involve addressing the idea of whether or not Christianity is true or believable.

4

Oh I agree fully there. That’s mainly what my Uncle Ken Keathley specializes in, more of theology and less apologetics, even though he can put up a good defense from all he’s read. He’s even written a book if you look his name up you can find it I think… Anyway I agree with you there, for the most part, we can’t turn a atheist Christian, but we can plant the seed and clear up common misconceptions, which I feel is needed with all the straw men arguments that are being superimposed on our society today.

5

Even outside of theology, a philosopher can handle the big questions like epistemology, ethics, free-will, and so on, from a Christian perspective, using Christian principals in their work.

6

What do you think about secularization? And along with that comes satirical mockerys like “The church of the flying spaghetti monster” who actually are about 5 min away on my campus passing out satirical tracks at this moment…only one person has tried to stop it…not sure how good of a job he’s doing, he did dress up as a ninja, so I guess he wouldn’t be noticed?? Anyway it seems a shame Secularization is being superimposed on this generation. Our ideas our being shut out because we are not taking an atheistic stance… whether ours make more sense or not… and this is really heart breaking to see, but I think it just proves our creator that much more. I do see this being tied in with what you’re talking about however, and I’m not sure why our side can’t be taught either as long as it staying within certain boundaries…

7

Ucci -

I was tempted to make this point earlier, but knew you’d get around to it. Since Descartes, at least, until the 20th century (call it 300 years), this has probably been the greater part of philosophical activity, broadly speaking. The Christian view has, at least, been overtly encompassed by most writers during that time, if only to refute it.

8

Club29

Mostly I think ‘Who Cares’? The secular world has their philosophy to do, and we have ours. Is secularism a dragon for the Christian philosopher to slay? No more or less than free will is a dragon for the determinist, and so on. Again, I think combating whatever anti-Christian sentiment out there is a good thing, sure. My point in this thread, though, is to say that it’s not the only thing a Christian philosopher has to do. Atheist philosophers have managed to find a lot better things to do with their time than defeat theism over and over- ask a few, they’ll tell you.

Yes, atheistic philosophers are going to disagree with your ideas that contradict atheism. What I’m saying is, be a philosopher that isn’t an atheist. Do what they all do. Write a book, teach a class, whatever. If the only thing you do with philosopher is defend Christianity, you’re denying the Christian world AND the non-Christian world some of the benefits that may come from a uniquely theistic outlook.

faust:

Yes, indeed!

9

Ucci, I have few questions. By saying Christian philosopher, are you not restricting yourself within the Christian framework? If, say for example, your framework is not accurate, then would it not mean your whole philosophy based on that framework be incorrect? Or even is it possible to philosophisize if you already have rock solid answers given by your religion? Pardon me if they are naive questions.

Philosopher:
A person who seeks reason and truth by thinking and meditation

Christian:
Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

I believe in the following statement which is the reason why I ask you those questions:
“Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.”

10

robo-sapien

By calling myself a Christian philosopher, I am[i] identifying [/i]my framework, as one might identify themselves as a communist philosopher or a determinist philosopher.

Probably. For example, if God doesn’t exist, then anything I base on the belief that He does will un-justified, and probably false.

An attitude of honest curiousity is always appreciated. Ironically, what I’m talking about in this thread is sort of the opposite of the point you bring up here. What I’m saying is that Christian philosophers (especially Christians on this board) are spending too much time defending their answers, or probing them to see if they are rock solid. There is a time and a place for that, but there is also a time and a place for taking Christianity for granted as true, and going on to discuss Christian-influenced ethics, Christian-influenced metaphysics, and so on. After all, what is the use of a foundation if you’re never going to build on it?

11

Ucci - I have would like to lend some general support to your position here, because I think that Robo’s questions are a bit naive.

Philosophy’s goals can be defined many ways. I’m going to toss some in here.

It can be said that the goal of the philosopher is to know his assumptions. Even mathematics has an assumptive basis. The work of a philosophical mathematician, of a philosopher of mathematics, is to find the smallest number of assumptions possible, and simply to be aware of them. All philosophers use assumptions. If some of them are “Christian” ones, that philosopher is not necessarily less a philosopher because of them. He is, however, one that I would disagree with.

The goal of a philosopher is not to be as openminded as possible - if anything, it is the opposite. No good philosopher has made no decisions. Philosophy seeks basic values, and if a philosopher cannot eventually decide on something, he will never develop a point of view, a set of values, a perspective. He just won’t get very far. No good philosopher has ever neglected to make some decisions about something. Openmindedness itself is a kindergarten view of philosophy.

Philosophers do, in fact, answer questions. About what is possible given certain assumptions. About what is not possible given certain assumptions. That’s philosophy in a nutshell. Neither philosophy nor religion can be boiled down to a cute homily.

There is, indeed, a time to dig in your heels and stop defending. You can only go so far. I have recently been on a thread wherein I actually agreed with the position of someone who thought himself an adversary. The only difference between us is that he was upset about it, and I was not. You have to separate positions from attitudes about them. Some of the disagreements on this board are only that. And that’s when the urine starts to flow.

It’s fun to take on all comers, but sometimes you just have to fold your arms and stand firm.

12

I’d like to point out that there’s a lot of historical basis for what faust is saying here about open-mindedness. If you are open-minded about everything, you are virtually guarenteed to die unknown and unremembered by society at large. If you name anybody important, who’s influence has outlived their mortal coil, it is virtually guarenteed that they took a firm stand about some important matter, in opposition to a well-known stand that disagreed. So, even if you disagree with faust about the purpose of philosophy, there’s an argument to appeal to your own selfish nature. :slight_smile:

13

“The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

Chesterton, who else!? Sorry if his quotes are getting over used but I love them.

The one on my signature is pretty funny I thought too lol.

14

Hi Ucci,
Obviously, I do not agree with what Faust was saying. He is comparing both the non-religious philosopher’s and the Christian philosopher’s assumptions on the same level. It is like me saying that the candle at my table and the sun both are similar because they both give light. The Christian philosopher’s assumptions require a giant leap of faith while a non-religious philosopher’s assumptions, as Faust said, will be minimal and require less or no faith.

I agree with what you said about openmindedness that if you do not stand for or against something, you would not be remembered or become famous. But is it the purpose of philosophy? For me (and I am sure for so many here), the purpose of philosophy is to find the truth, get rid of delusions etc., but to become famous or to be remembered would be the last thing to worry about.

I still could not understand how one can philosophize within a religious framework (I really want to understand, may be some examples might help me). I think the problem is we are not meaning the same things when we say Christian. And I know that you are not a typical Christian I meet on the street. I am understanding a Christian is one who follows the Bible as word of god and there is nothing to debate or question what is said in the Bible. If someone knows all the answers (from the Bible) and confidently believes that they are true (becuase it is the word of the god), then what is there to philosophize? For example, when we talk about homosexuality, a true philosopher might try to understand homosexuality without attaching any moral values to it but a Christian (who believes that the Bible as the word of god) will state that it is wrong and case closed. I know I am oversimplifying. May be you can help me to understand. (I started reading the PDF file from the link you posted, but I haven’t finished it yet).

Thanks

15

Would beliefs qualify as something solid? Should it be really solid or is it enough if you ‘believe’ that it is solid?

16

Chesterton was quite the rogue sage of his day. Much of his wisdom is still frightenely relevant in todays age of existential relativism.

Many people who have an open mind, allow people to pour whatever garbage in they want to. That’s the wonderful danger of relativism. But any tech knows, GIGO. Garbage in/Garbage out. In other words, when an “open minded” relativist leaning individual comes upon someones spewed garbage they absorb it without criticism, then use said garbage in the same spewed fashion to criticize the foundations of society that matter.

It’s important to remember that you are dealing with garbage and nothing substantial. IMO, being open minded is the LARGEST problem any modern philosopher faces.

17

I think you are making an assumption that open-mindedness means absorbing everything without criticism. Open-mindedness is willing to listen to or wanting to explore other options but not accepting everything without criticism.

Even to identify a garbage as garbage, one has to first consider it as an option before dismissing it as garbage by criticism.

However, this sounds interesting for me and you, Ucci and Faust all seem to agree on this. I will think more about this.

18

robo-sapien

Well, by definition, an assumption is an assumption- it’s not like there’s some assumptions that have really good evidence backing them up or something. But still, there are criterion…

What assumptions do non-religious philosopher’s make, do you think, and what makes them superior?

I could argue that any philosopher you read who influences your thought process must have been concerned at least a little about being remembered, or you would never have read him- but in essence, I don’t disagree with you on this.

Well, the first step to understanding how it can happen, is to acknowledge that it is happening. Faust gave the example of Descartes. He was a Christian, and more than a little influential. That essay I posted that you said you’re reading through? That guy is a Christian. Christian philosophy is very real, and the ‘pros’ do it on a level outside of arguing over whether or not God exists. If you want examples, I can refer you to half a dozen philosophers other than Plantinga, you can also read some of the threads I’ve started recently on the Philosophy section.

Well, hopefully you’re understanding of what a Christian is (or at least, what they CAN be) will grow a little as a result of this thread. I think you and I have discussed before that a big part of our disagreement is due to the sorts of religious people you have chosen to expose yourself to.

As you begin to read Christian philosophers, the first thing you'll notice is that they operate on the same level of professionalism and scholastic achievement as regular philosophers.  The second thing you'll notice is that they disagree with each other as often as regular philosophers, too.  For example, you raised the issue of homosexuality. There are Christians who feel that homosexuality is wrong and should be punished, who feel that it's wrong and should not be punished, who feel that it's not wrong at all, and those who feel that there's no way to know if it's really wrong or not.  There's no real way for me to explain to you why Christians are able to disagree with each other about stuff- the reasons for the disagreements are the same as the disagreements themselves.
19

Here’s an essay about Linda Zagzebski’s Divine Motivation Theory. I’ve just recently heard of her, but I’ll definately be looking to read as much of her as I can. It’s a great example of philosophy using a theistic framework to develop theories that aren’t purely about religion.

ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1921

20

I don’t believe this was directly related to beliefs for the most part. I think he’s mainly talking about those who always keep a open mind so they never grasp anything, and they don’t realize the object of having an open mind is to find something solid to keep instead of rendering it all unsolid, which in extreme fashion will never allow you to keep any findings, and you’ve just defeated your whole purpose of having an open mind.