Redeeming Philosophy E-Book

Vern S. Poythress

• Herausgeber: Crossway
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2014

Beschreibung

Who am I? Why am I here? Where do I find meaning? Life is full of big questions. The study of philosophy seeks answers to such questions. In his latest book, prolific author Vern Poythress investigates the foundations and limitations of Western philosophy, sketching a distinctly Christian approach to answering basic questions about the nature of humanity, the existence of God, the search for meaning, and the basis for morality. For Christians eager to engage with the timeless philosophical issues that have perplexed men and women for millennia, this is the place to begin.

Leseprobe

Other Crossway Books by Vern S. Poythress

Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach

In the Beginning Was the Word: Language—A God-Centered Approach

Redeeming Sociology: A God-Centered Approach

Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible

Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization

Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought

Chance and the Sovereignty of God: A God-Centered Approach to Probability and Random Events

REDEEMING PHILOSOPHY

A God-Centered Approach to the Big Questions

VERN S. POYTHRESS

Redeeming Philosophy: A God-Centered Approach to the Big Questions

Copyright © 2014 by Vern S. Poythress

Published by Crossway

1300 Crescent Street

Wheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided for by USA copyright law.

Cover design: Erik Maldre

First printing 2014

Printed in the United States of America

Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway. 2011 Text Edition. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

All emphases in Scripture quotations have been added by the author.

Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-4335-3946-6PDF ISBN: 978-1-4335-3947-3Mobipocket ISBN: 978-1-4335-3948-0ePub ISBN: 978-1-4335-3949-7

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Poythress, Vern S.

   Redeeming philosophy : a God-centered approach to the big questions / Vern S. Poythress.

        1 online resource

   Includes bibliographical references and index.

   Description based on print version record and CIP data provided by publisher; resource not viewed.

   ISBN 978-1-4335-3947-3 (pdf) – ISBN 978-1-4335-3948-0 (mobi) – ISBN 978-1-4335-3949-7 (epub) – ISBN 978-1-4335-3946-6 (tp)

   1. Christian philosophy. I. Title.

BR100

261.5'1—dc23            2014022730

Crossway is a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

To John Frame,my teacher, colleague, and friend

Contents

PART 1Basic Issues in Exploring Big Questions  1  The Big Questions about Life  2  The Bible as a Resource  3  Opposite Approaches to PhilosophyPART 2Metaphysics: What Is There?  4  Inadequate Philosophies  5  Christian MetaphysicsPART 3Perspectives  6  Introducing Perspectives  7  Multiperspectivalism  8  Perspectives on God  9  Perspectives on the World10  Perspectives through Language11  Implications for TheologyPART 4Examples of Metaphysical Analysis12  Metaphysics of an Apple13  Metaphysics of Walking14  Metaphysics of a Bookmark15  Perspectives in CombinationPART 5Other Subdivisions of Philosophy16  Ethics17  Epistemology18  The Soul, the Mind, and Psychology19  Logic20  Aesthetics21  Specialized Branches of PhilosophyPART 6Interacting with Defective Philosophies22  The Challenge of Philosophies23  Immanuel Kant24  Edmund Husserl25  Analytic PhilosophyConclusionAppendix A: Cosmonomic PhilosophyAppendix B: Perspectives on the TrinityAppendix C: The Structure of a BookmarkBibliographyGeneral IndexScripture Index

PART 1

Basic Issues in Exploring Big Questions

1

The Big Questions about Life

Life has big questions: Who are we as human beings? What is unique about being human? Does our existence have a purpose, and does the world have a purpose? How should we conduct our lives? What are moral standards, and where do they come from? Why does anything exist? What is the nature of the world? How do we know anything? Is there a God? Are there many gods? Is there an afterlife? What is it like?

In the history of the Western world, philosophers have sought to explore some of these big questions about the nature of the world. The word philosophy comes from the Greek word philosophia, which means “love of wisdom.” Philosophers seek wisdom, especially wisdom about the big questions.1

Clusters of Big Questions

Philosophers have considered a whole host of big questions. Over the centuries, philosophy has developed a considerable number of subdisciplines that focus on a smaller set of questions. Three of the main subdivisions are metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophical ethics. (Later, we will briefly consider some other subdivisions as well.)2

Metaphysics studies questions about existence: Why does anything exist? And what is the nature of what exists? Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge: What is knowledge? How do we come to know what we know? When can we be sure that we know something (rather than having a mistaken belief)? Philosophical ethics studies issues of right and wrong: What are moral standards? Are they universal? Where do they come from?

Why worry about such questions? Do they matter? Questions about ethics matter because right and wrong affect the well-being of humankind. Is murder wrong? Is theft wrong? Is lying wrong? If so, why? If not, how do we prevent social relations from disintegrating into continual fights? Are moral standards absolute, or do they vary with culture? And how do we find out what is right and wrong? Ethical questions clearly affect how we conduct our lives, and how our lives harmonize or clash with the lives of others.

What about the other two subdivisions of philosophy, namely, metaphysics and epistemology? Do they matter? Or are these two areas only matters of academic interest, without significant impact on ordinary living? Metaphysics considers questions about what exists. That includes the question of God. Does God exist? If he does, what kind of God is he? Does he hold us morally accountable? Our answers can make a big difference.

Metaphysics and epistemology, as they are traditionally studied, can seem like formidable subjects. If ordinary people begin reading some of the more technical discussions in metaphysics, they may find their interest lagging and even disappearing. The discussions may seem to them distant or irrelevant or hard to understand. But some of the issues are relevant. As we indicated, the question of God makes a big difference. And even answers to more specialized questions can influence our view of the world as a whole. So it is worthwhile to consider how this area affects our view of the world and our view of life.

To illustrate, let us consider one kind of metaphysics that has an influence in our day. In the Western world many people among the intelligentsia think that the world consists in matter and motion and energy. According to this view, more complex things, like rocks and trees, animals and people, are built up from complex arrangements and interactions of matter. But the ultimate nature of the world is material. This view is called materialism. It is one kind of metaphysical position, that is, one view concerning the ultimate nature of things. Philosophers have debated metaphysics for centuries, and materialism in one form or another has been one of the options offered in debate ever since the time of the ancient Greeks.

Does this position make any difference? It does, because when it is held consistently, it tells us about ourselves. It says that each of us is a complex arrangement of atoms in motion. Any personal significance that we want to have, we must invent for ourselves, because the universe as a whole has no purpose. The universe just is. It is matter in motion.

That is a grim picture. And while some people endeavor to follow materialism consistently, others find pure materialism forbidding in its bleakness. With one part of their mind, they may believe that matter and motion are at the foundation of it all, but they endeavor to add extra layers of personal significance on top of the foundational layer. Both the people who follow materialism consistently and the people who add extra layers are thinking metaphysically. Both have beliefs about the ultimate nature of the world. The people who add extra layers are implying that these layers do exist within a total metaphysical picture of the nature of things. But are they right to add the extra layers? Hard-nosed materialists might accuse them of living lives of illusion and refusing to face reality.

People who believe in God have yet another form of metaphysical belief. They are saying that matter and motion are not everything. They believe that God exists, and that God created matter and motion—and extra layers as well. They would say that the materialists are ignoring many dimensions of reality, including God himself. And they would say that when people add layers of their own choosing, they are missing God’s way and God’s meanings by trying to substitute their own notions.

Many other people do not think about metaphysics explicitly. They do not worry about it, but just go about living their lives. Still, they are often influenced, even heavily influenced, by metaphysical views that are “in the air,” that hover around as part of the intellectual atmosphere of the modern world. Many people who have not thought through the philosophy of materialism are influenced by materialism, particularly as it takes shape among people who interpret the theory of evolution as a form of materialistic philosophy.3

Ties through Epistemology

Finally, what about epistemology? Epistemology studies how we come to know things. This subdivision of philosophy might seem to be the least relevant. But it has ties with the other two. People disagree about metaphysics—whether God exists, whether everything can be reduced to matter and motion, whether as persons we survive bodily death. The disagreements lead to asking questions about knowledge, such as, how do we know whether matter is the ultimate nature of the world? And how do we know whether God exists?

Some people worry that maybe we can never know. Some currents within postmodern thought have become radically skeptical. They suggest that we cannot know what is true, but must endeavor to creep along with whatever appears to work best for us.

Moral standards have similar ties with epistemology. Even if absolute moral standards exist, can we know that they exist, and can we know what they are? How do we know?

In fact, then, questions about how we come to know things interact with the questions about metaphysics and ethics. For example, let us suppose that Sue becomes skeptical in her reflections about knowledge. She may decide that she cannot know the answers to basic questions in metaphysics and ethics. She tells herself that she might as well stop longing for what she can never have. So her epistemological position, namely skepticism, has caused her to give up thinking about metaphysics and ethics.

Suppose, on the other hand, that she has robust confidence in human reason, and she thinks that reason is the main source for knowledge. She may believe that rational reflection or Platonic dialogue can give her the metaphysical and ethical answers that she seeks. She may also hope that rational reflection can clarify the nature of moral standards. In taking this view about the central role of reason in epistemology, she has already tacitly assumed that moral standards are basically rational in character. And the metaphysical nature of the world must be rational in character in order to be accessible through her use of reason. Thus her views of epistemology have affected her expectations about morality and metaphysics.

Or suppose that she thinks that repeated experience, sense experience, is the main source of knowledge. Then she will in some ways treat sense experience as if it were the ultimate metaphysical basis for the world—maybe not the world as it actually is, but the world as she perceives it.

Ties through Metaphysics

Conversely, answers to metaphysical questions have an influence on epistemology and ethics. Suppose that Sue has found what she considers to be fundamental answers about the nature of the world. The world includes her, so she has also arrived at some answers about her own nature as a human being. With answers of this kind, she has come a long way toward answering how she as a human being can interact with the world in such a way that she can obtain knowledge.

For example, if Sue believes, as a metaphysical truth, that God exists, she can reason that God made both her and the world around her, and that God has equipped her with an ability to know this world, because he has given her a mind and has created an intrinsic harmony between her and the world. Or suppose that she has reached materialist conclusions about the nature of the world. She will probably believe that she is a product of purposeless Darwinian evolution. Evolution has equipped her with ability to survive, and ability to know is a subcomponent of the more fundamental ability to survive.

Sue’s metaphysical views also have implications for ethics. If she believes that God exists, she can easily conclude that God is the ultimate source for moral standards. If she is a materialist Darwinist, she may conclude that morality is a psychic illusion to restrain us from destroying one another and terminating the race.

Subdivisions of Philosophy as Perspectives

In fact, we can treat metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics as subdivisions that offer perspectives on one another.4 For example, let us start with metaphysics. Metaphysics answers questions about what exists. A thorough set of answers would include answers about whether knowledge exists and what is its nature. So metaphysics in an expansive sense includes epistemology as a subdivision. Likewise, metaphysics should include answers about whether moral standards exist. If they do, it should specify what relation they have to us as humans who exist. And so metaphysics should actually include answers to ethical questions. Thus, when we use the term metaphysics expansively and let it answer all kinds of questions about existence, it becomes a perspective that includes within it the other two subdivisions, epistemology and ethics.

We may also see epistemology as a perspective on the other two subdivisions. If epistemology deals with what we know, it also deals with what we know about the nature of things, and thus includes metaphysics. It includes what we know about moral standards and ethics, and so it includes ethics.

Finally, we can treat ethics as a perspective on the other two subdivisions. Ethics includes questions about what we ought to believe. What we ought to believe about the nature of things is metaphysics. What we ought to believe about knowledge is epistemology. We cannot really make progress in either metaphysics or epistemology without standards for how we ought to proceed in examining these subdivisions. And the standards are ethical standards. Conversely, we cannot make progress in ethics without some sense of how we would come to know moral standards. And this process of coming to knowledge is the domain of epistemology.

Thus all three subdivisions—metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics—offer perspectives on one another. In many respects they presuppose one another. Though we may temporarily focus on only one subdivision within philosophy, the others lurk in the background. Tentative answers about ethics guide what we do in metaphysics and epistemology. Similarly, answers in metaphysics influence epistemology and ethics, and answers in epistemology influence metaphysics and ethics.

In one book we cannot cover all three of these big areas equally. So in the bulk of our discussion we will focus on metaphysics. But we acknowledge the influences of the two other subdivisions on our work.5 In addition, what we say in the area of metaphysics has fruitful implications in epistemology, ethics, and still other subdivisions of philosophy. By working on one area more thoroughly, I hope to give readers a good idea of what it would be like to work out the other areas as well. And when we have finished our reflections on metaphysics, we can also call attention to excellent resources that already exist in epistemology and ethics—as well as other philosophical subjects.

_____________________

1 In the twentieth century a tradition of analytic philosophy arose that has focused on analyzing fundamental concepts (like the concept of “good” or the concept of “science”) and on analyzing key uses of language in various fields. Some of its practitioners are suspicious of human ability to find answers to “big” questions. Our focus on the big questions leaves these practitioners to one side. See Norman Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 14–17; Vern S. Poythress, Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), appendix F2.

2 See part 5. Ethics can be seen as part of a larger subdivision, the theory of value (axiology), which includes aesthetics and political philosophy.

3 On the distinction between evolution as a narrow theory about biological development and evolution as a form of materialistic philosophy, see Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), 80–81, and chaps. 18–19.

4 See John M. Frame, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology: Spiritual Warfare in the Life of the Mind (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, forthcoming), chap. 1; title subject to change.

5 For epistemology, see John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1987); for ethics, see Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008).

2

The Bible as a Resource

We want to explore how to obtain answers about the nature of things. But our answers will differ from most of the history of philosophy, because we are seeking answers from the Bible, rather than just trying to reason things out. The Bible’s teaching has implications for how we answer big questions.

Why should we listen to the Bible more than any other book? The Bible claims to be the very word of God addressed to us. It makes a most weighty claim. But should we believe it? In our day skeptical voices rise up. We cannot possibly consider all the skeptical questions without a long detour, which would result in another book. I prefer to direct readers to existing works that address the questions of skeptics.1 Whether or not you accept that the Bible is the word of God, I invite you to see how the Bible supplies answers to big questions.

Summary of Biblical Teaching

When we listen to the Bible, we find out many things. Here we can only summarize a few of the most central teachings. The Bible indicates that there is one God, who created the whole world, including us as human beings. But our first parents rebelled against him. Since then, we have all been deep in rebellion, and it takes God to come and rescue us. At the heart of God’s plan for rescue is Jesus Christ. God the Father sent Christ into the world to rescue us from sin and rebellion and their consequences. Christ accomplished his work on earth, died for our sins, and rose from the dead. He now reigns in heaven until the future time when he will inaugurate a new heaven and a new earth, free from sin and its effects (Rev. 21:1).

According to the Bible, Christ is the only Redeemer, and he is the source of redemption for everyone who trusts in him. He accomplished our redemption when he died on the cross and was raised on the third day to new life (Rom. 4:25). On the cross he bore the punishment for our rebellion against God (1 Pet. 2:24) and so accomplished for us reconciliation to God. What he accomplished, he then applies to us as individuals and as a community (the church). Christ sends the Holy Spirit to work a transformation in us. He also instructs us through the Bible, which was written under the inspiration and power of the Holy Spirit, so that it is his word.2

The Bible calls on us to place our faith in Christ in order to be saved from God’s judgment on our rebellion (Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9–10). It tells us to follow Jesus Christ, to become his disciples, and to submit to his teaching. (We must leave to books on theology a more extended summary of biblical teaching.)3

Following Christ means paying attention to what he says in the Bible. When we follow its teaching, it transforms our thinking: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). This transformation means that our thinking is redeemed, including our thinking about the big questions. Thus, we can say that philosophy is supposed to be redeemed as we receive Christ’s instruction and follow his ways.

But not everyone believes that Jesus Christ is the only Savior and that the Bible’s teaching is true and can be trusted. If we do not trust what the Bible says, what is the alternative? Some people follow other religions. Some people try to reason things out on their own. This latter course is the predominant one in Western philosophy. Before we try to answer some of the big questions, we should understand the major differences between the Bible and Western philosophy. But these differences offer us a vast subject and could consume a whole book. We will have to simplify and confine ourselves to a few basic points.4

Philosophers Searching in Autonomy

The history of Western philosophy goes back to Greece, and especially to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Prior to these three men there were still earlier philosophers: Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, the Sophists, and others. The ancient Greek philosophers varied from one another in their views, but they all sought to obtain wisdom about the nature of the world. In this search, they used human reason, but they did not turn to the special divine revelation in the Bible. They wanted to think things through, and they wanted their reasoning to be independent of God or gods. This desire for independence can be called autonomy, which means self-law. The Greek philosophers sought to use reason as its own law and guide, independent of God.5

They did so partly because Greek culture as a whole was confused about divinity. The Greeks were polytheists, believing in many gods. They thought of Zeus as the supreme god, or the father of the gods, but Zeus was still limited in relation to the other gods. None of these gods could be trusted. So, if a person sought to arrive at rock-bottom truth, what resources did he have except his own wits?

Human Beings Knowing God

We can understand why the ancient philosophers gave up on the Greek gods, because these gods were morally unworthy of their allegiance. But the Bible has something more to say. Romans 1:20–23 indicates that all human beings know God:

For his [God’s] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Human beings know God by virtue of creation. But they suppress the knowledge. They turn to “images,” that is, idols. That is what happened in ancient Greece.

When Christ came into the world, he came to redeem people from all their sins, including the sins of serving idols instead of God and the sins of suppressing the truth about God. If we want deliverance, we need to come to him.

The Bible’s Role

When Christ works a change in us through the Holy Spirit, we come to believe and understand the Bible better and better. From the Bible, we learn that God created human beings in a state of goodness or innocence (Genesis 1–2). Human beings were not always suppressing the truth and rebelling against God and trying to escape from his lordship.

Even while human beings were innocent, God intended that they should not live independently of him. He created us to have communion with him. He spoke to human beings in Genesis 1:28–30 and 2:16–17. His speeches revealed who he was, and also what were his standards for human actions. He told Adam not to eat from the one special tree in the garden of Eden, the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:17). God also indicated in summary form the tasks in which human beings were to engage (Gen. 1:28–30). God intended that human thinking should pay attention to, digest, and honor what he said in verbal communication.

The first communication was oral. But later God wrote the Ten Commandments in written form (Ex. 24:12; Deut. 5:22). He then commissioned Moses to write much more (Deut. 31:24–26). This early writing was the first portion of a written canon, or standard, that was to guide and instruct the people who belonged to God. The Bible is the canon in completed form.6 Much more could be said, but we need not pursue the details. As the book of God’s instruction, the Bible provides important answers for human living and human significance.

_____________________

1 See Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton, 2008).

2 Whole books take up the discussion of the nature of the Bible. For arguments that the Bible is God’s word in written form, see especially John Murray, “The Attestation of Scripture,” in The Infallible Word, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse and Paul Woolley (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1946), 1–54; Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967); John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010).

3 See John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006).

4 An introduction to the history of philosophy from a Christian point of view can be found in W. Andrew Hoffecker, ed., Revolutions in Worldview: Understanding the Flow of Western Thought (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2007). For a more thorough account, see John M. Frame, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology: Spiritual Warfare in the Life of the Mind (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, forthcoming), title subject to change.

5 See John Frame, “Greeks Bearing Gifts,” in Hoffecker, Revolutions in Worldview, 6–7.

6 For further information, see, for example, Herman Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1988); Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012).

3

Opposite Approaches to Philosophy

We can see a pronounced difference between the way most philosophers have chosen to pursue wisdom and the way we are proposing. In fact, there are several notable points of difference.

Antithesis

First, there is a difference in the heart. The Bible indicates that Christ sends the Holy Spirit to give his chosen people “a new heart” (Ezek. 36:26). As a result, they desire to obey God rather than rebel against him as they did before. They find themselves loving God and understanding and loving what the Bible says rather than feeling that it makes no sense or that its ideas are distasteful to them. God has brought about a fundamental change, a change from heart-level rebellion against God and desire for independence from God to heart-level love for God.

Sometimes people use the expression born again to describe a subjective experience of change or renewal. And indeed the Holy Spirit does work renewal (John 3:3–8). But his renewal goes deeper than what we can see or feel. Moreover, people may have religious experiences of change that still fall short of the spiritual renewal that the Bible describes. The Bible is talking about the real change that the Holy Spirit works in a person’s heart, not just good feelings or a vague religious experience. Not everyone who claims to have been born again really has been, in the biblical sense. The people who are born again are also called regenerate (a virtual synonym for born again).

Regenerate people are different from unregenerate people. The difference is fundamental rather than superficial. The one person loves God, while the other is still in rebellion. The one desires to submit to what God says in the Bible, while the other does not. The one desires to obey God, while the other does not. The one believes in Christ for salvation, while the other does not. I will accordingly call the unregenerate people unbelievers, meaning that they do not believe in Christ. But they nevertheless believe in something—whether another religion, or naturalism, or atheism, or maybe just themselves. There is a radical antithesis or contrast between the two types of people. And this antithesis affects how they think and how they reason, because the one person wants to do his thinking in submission to God, and the other does not.

This antithesis is real, but it is combined with inconsistencies and practical failings on both sides. Within this life, regenerate people or believers are not completely free from sin. And the sins that remain include intellectual sins. Neither their thinking nor their attitudes nor their behavior is consistently righteous.

Conversely, unbelievers are not consistent with their heart-level commitment against God. They are still made in the image of God, and God still showers good gifts on them, including intellectual gifts. They are not as bad as they could be, while believers are not as good as they could be. In fact, some unbelievers may be very moral and admirable people, from the standpoint of their outward behavior. They may be gracious in speech and upright in action. But their good actions are still contaminated with self-love. Their underlying motive is still corrupt. At heart, they are not serving God but serving themselves—perhaps their pride, perhaps their reputation, perhaps their comfort (e.g., they may want a comfortable conscience).

Except in the medieval period, most Western philosophers have not been thoroughly committed Christians who were trying to “take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). Some may have called themselves Christian. But our discussion of regeneration makes it clear that true Christianity, which means following Christ as Lord, is not merely a matter of giving oneself the name Christian or undergoing the Christian rite of baptism. True Christianity starts with the work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s heart.

So the products of philosophers’ thinking are mixed. There are some positive insights even from non-Christian philosophers, because they enjoy good gifts from God. They still live in God’s world, and they cannot escape the fact that they are made in the image of God. They want to be autonomous, but they cannot succeed, because they are continuously dependent on God. Theirs is a would-be autonomy, a striving for independence that is continually frustrated by the presence of God.

The good products from non-Christians are sometimes called products from common grace. The products come from grace because all of us are guilty of sin and rebellion, and we do not deserve the good things that we receive from God. The word common is used to indicate that God distributes these gifts both to believers and to unbelievers:

For he [God] makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matt. 5:45)

Yet he [God] did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness. (Acts 14:17)

We can see that God’s common grace includes in principle not only physical gifts like sending rain, but also intellectual gifts. God has given to some people keen insights about the world. So unbelieving philosophy contains good insights. Conversely, philosophers who are Christians produce reflections that are inevitably mixed, because Christians are not yet sinless.

Submission to God’s Communication in the Bible

A second major difference between the two types of people is that believers and unbelievers differ in their use of the Bible. Believers are ready to receive its instruction with faith. Unbelievers are not. Again, there are mixtures. Believers may be beset by doubts. Or they may sinfully resist a particular teaching of the Bible for a while, because it is distasteful to them. Unbelievers may see some attractive things in the Bible that they are willing to accept.

But there is still a principial difference. At the root, their attitudes are different. Believers acknowledge that their own hearts and their thinking need redemption from sin and from a desire to be autonomous and to be their own god. They have repudiated the practice of simply following the inclinations of their own minds and lording it over the Bible whenever they wish. They realize that they need the Bible’s instruction, and that God has designed the Bible to be a means by which their hearts and minds are progressively renewed. Unbelievers, by contrast, believe that their thinking is already basically all right. They think that they do not need to submit to the Bible. They want to make up their own minds independently of the Bible—they want autonomy.

Normality or Abnormality of Human Thinking

Believers think that the present state of affairs, including the state of human minds, is abnormal. It is ruined by the fall into sin, and the effects of sin. Unbelievers, by contrast, think that the present state of the human mind is normal.

These differences affect philosophy. It has become virtually a ground rule for the practice of philosophy in the Western world that one must not appeal to the Bible—or any other religious source, for that matter—for authority. One must appeal only to reason. In my opinion, that ground rule exhibits disastrous rebellion against the God of the universe. God’s will is that we should use the Bible. We are already rebelling if we imply that we know better and refuse to use his guidance.

Tactics in Discussion with Unbelievers

Philosophers who are Christians might say in reply that in their own thinking they want to submit to God, but they are not appealing to the Bible when they do philosophy because other people, who are non-Christians, are participating in the conversation.

This situation needs sorting out. We can indeed distinguish short-range tactics for communication from the totality of what we are thinking. But when we engage in conversations with unbelievers, we need to beware of falling into the error of assuming that we are all thinking alike. We are not. The ground rules are different for Christians, because we are under the lordship of Christ. We are never “off duty.” Everything we say or think ought to be serving him. We are not religiously neutral part of the time. And neither are unbelievers.

If we know that we are not thinking alike, it makes good sense, somewhere along the line, to make known the differences in the process of our conversation, lest our dialogue partners misunderstand us. In other words, as opportunity affords, we had better talk about the difference that Christ makes in our thinking. And if he makes no difference, we had better go back to consider what Romans 12:2 says about the transformation of our minds.

In addition, if we are concerned for unbelievers as whole people and not just narrowly worried about debating points, we should try to think about how we can explain to them that they will never come to know the truth rightly without communion with God. We should say that such renewed communion comes through Christ. We should indicate the Christ of whom we speak is the Christ who is described in the Bible and who reveals himself in the Bible. So the Bible ought to come into the discussion as we try to rescue unbelieving philosophers from their suppression of the truth and their rebellion against God.

Just continuing the conversation using reason alone can easily be taken by unbelievers to imply that reason is all right when it is autonomous, when we are not listening to the Bible. We risk conveying a false impression.

The tradition of presuppositional apologetics, as expounded by Cornelius Van Til, has been particularly helpful to me in understanding these points, and I commend it to those who want to know how to conduct conversations with unbelievers.1 We cannot pursue every dimension of these apologetic challenges in this book. But I want to make a basic point. Whether we are followers of Christ matters. The orientation of our hearts matters. It matters whether we listen to the Bible. It matters whether we make known our commitments. It matters whether we think of reason as operating autonomously.

We may say it another way. Suppose a Christian wants to participate in a philosophical dialogue in a modern context. He needs to consider two issues. First, he needs to ask whether the ground rules of the discussion in philosophy forbid him from reasoning the way he is committed to reasoning, that is, with God speaking in Scripture as his instructor and guide. Second, he should ask whether he ought not first to take some time and use the Bible to find answers to the big questions that the philosophers raise. Only after he has attained some clarity in his own mind—and purity of thinking in communion with the purity of God—is he in a reasonable position to engage in dialogue without compromising his beliefs by falling into the same pattern of autonomous reasoning that the ground rules try to force upon him.

Seeking Answers

Other books in the tradition of presuppositional apologetics have dealt extensively with how we conduct discussions with unbelievers of various kinds. We are not going to go over that ground again here. Rather, we want to seek clarity of mind for ourselves as believers. We want to employ the full resources of the Bible to seek knowledge. The Bible itself encourages a search that seeks God and his instruction, rather than following an autonomous route:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. (Ps. 111:10)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;

fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Prov. 1:7)

Unbelievers may think we are fools, because to them it seems as if they can find wisdom only in autonomy. They do not trust God’s word in the Bible, and so they are not confident that we are growing in wisdom rather than forsaking it. In fact, we seem to them to be forsaking it in the very process of submitting without question to what the Bible says. They will say that we are “uncritical” and “dogmatic.” But of course they in turn are uncritical and dogmatic about their commitment to autonomy. Let us not be discouraged by criticisms that already presuppose a way of life opposite to what we have found in Christ.

This book, then, is written primarily for Christians. We want to see what the Bible teaches and where God leads us with his teaching, rather than endlessly debating our basic commitments in comparison with the basic commitments of non-Christians. If you are not a Christian, you are still welcome to read, of course. You may learn about what it is like to be a Christian in the pursuit of wisdom. And along the way you may find individual insights that you like, as well as others that you do not like. It may be that God will confront you along the way, and you will be changed. But I am not writing primarily with the non-Christian reader in view, and we are going to pursue truth on the basis of Christian presuppositions, which at points are very different from the usual ways of the world.

Are We Fit to Tackle the Big Questions?

Philosophers have been debating the big questions for centuries. For the most part, the debates continue. Individual philosophers may have their own convictions. But in most cases there is no consensus. And given the number of centuries that have passed, there is little hope of consensus. (One exception is the area of logic, where there appears to be a good amount of agreement.) Given the difficulties, can we as Christians hope to make a contribution? Would it not be presumptuous for an ordinary Christian to try to outdo centuries of philosophy, conducted by some of the brightest minds in the Western world?

It would be presumptuous if a Christian proceeded to work by the same ground rules as everyone else. But we do not have the same ground rules. We can go and study the Bible.

I believe that the time is ripe for Christians to do significant rethinking of philosophy—a redemption of philosophy, if you will. In the last few decades a number of Christians who are professional philosophers and apologists have called for a distinctively Christian approach to doing philosophy.2 But more remains to be done.

In 1987 John Frame already indicated the direction to take when he briefly discussed philosophy in his work The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. There he says:

It is difficult for me to draw any sharp distinction between a Christian theology and a Christian philosophy. Philosophy generally is understood as an attempt to understand the world in its broadest, most general features. It includes metaphysics, or ontology (the study of being, of what “is”), epistemology (the study of knowing), and the theory of values (ethics, aesthetics, etc.). If one seeks to develop a truly Christian philosophy, he will certainly be doing so under the authority of Scripture and thus will be applying Scripture to philosophical questions. As such, he would be doing theology, according to our definition. Christian philosophy, then, is a subdivision of theology. Furthermore, since philosophy is concerned with reality in a broad, comprehensive sense, it may well take it as its task to “apply the Word of God to all areas of life.” That definition makes philosophy identical with, not a subdivision of, theology.3

John Frame goes on to indicate that there might still be a difference in focus. A philosopher might focus more on revelation from God through nature, while the theologian focuses more on the special revelation in Scripture. Yet each should take account of both kinds of revelation. There is no sharp distinction between Christian philosophy and Christian theology.

This striking overlap implies that the Bible has a lot to say that is pertinent to the questions that philosophers have traditionally asked. The main problem is that many philosophers are not paying attention! Or, rather, it may be that they have ceased paying attention because they do not have confidence in what the Bible says.

Inconsistencies among Christians

Now let us return to the issue of inconsistencies. Christians, we have said, are inconsistent at times with their most basic commitments. This principle applies to me as I write this book. I still struggle with sins, some of which are subtle and some of which I am not aware of. These can affect my thinking as well as my heart and my behavior. So, though the Bible is the infallible word of God, my thoughts are not. Like all human products, what I write needs to be weighed and sifted.

Ideally, the weighing and sifting take place through comparison with the Bible as our standard for evaluation (Acts 17:11). I hope to make progress because I am listening to the Bible. But I also endeavor to build on the insights and gifts of believers living around me, as well as those from previous generations. I pay attention to unbelievers as well, because they have received insights through common grace. If I do well, those who read this book may continue to build on and improve what I have done. They can thus move beyond it. And if they find errors or flaws, they should avoid them as they make further advances. That is how the Lord continues to bless his people through the generations.

_____________________

1 See, for example, John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994); Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed., ed. William Edgar (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003); Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4th ed., ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008). One can find a very accessible, simple introduction in Richard L. Pratt, Every Thought Captive: A Study Manual for the Defense of Christian Truth (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1979).

2 Among Christian philosophers Alvin C. Plantinga is prominent, and after him, Nicholas Wolterstorff. Others include William Lane Craig, Norman L. Geisler, J. P. Moreland, Paul Helm, Garrett J. DeWeese, K. Scott Oliphint, William Edgar, Al Wolters, David K. Naugle, Esther L. Meek, Steven Cowan, and James Spiegel. Still others are too numerous to mention.

3 John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1987), 85.

PART 2

Metaphysics: What Is There?