Reflections on Biblical and
Christian Philosophy

Musings

Introduction and explanation.  My mind is the only one that I have ever experienced!  Obvious, huh.   Well, yes, but my mind is also always associating, reasoning, connecting, analyzing, and concluding (at least somewhat temporarily).  A new connection, reason, or conclusion will come to me, as I read, meditate, engage in conversation, take a shower, or even while jogging.  For a long time, I wrote these out in longhand, filling page after page.  But then, I mused, what are computers for, if not to muse more concretely and extensively.  And, then, what are webpages for, but to post such musings for others to see.

Now, this posting is profoundly both good and bad.  It is good, if these musings, turn out to be true, meaningful, coherent, and useful.  However, musings are just that, musings.  So, I post these with some fear and trepidation.  They may be wrong! But, likely they are not totally wrong.    I may change my mind in the future!  (Not likely, at least completely, as I usually have it mostly right the first time.)  I may modify them in the future with better explanation or understanding.  (I may never even look at them again.)

So, read the following in that light, even as I muse that Augustine said that we only discover what we already know, and it is Christ Himself who is the teacher.  (See his De Magistro.)  But, as is the goal of this site and all that I do, test everything with Scripture.  If you do not test in this way, then you are guilty, also.

Musings differs from Ed's Penseés in that the latter is (I hope) better thought out.

If you want to respond or want to know when these are posted, let me know.

========================================================================

Index of Subject Matter

The "real" is in the function of the cosmos!  April 9, 2010

Solipism Is A Major Problem!  April 3, 2010

Determinism: Is it self-refuting when stated by one who believes it?

God as unchanging and truth that varies from person to person (subjectively conditional)

Biblical authority ... what analogy?

The idea of university started with the idea of di-versity

The idea of university found in the 66 books of the agreed-upon Bible

Exclusive beliefs vs. being simply irrational  January 9, 2010

How can the universe be both lawful and irrational?  January 9, 2010

Being and becoming... the not yet becoming the already.  February 6, 2010

God's Common Grace Masks the Complexity of Language.  February 7, 2010  

Does the success of philosophers have to do with the confusion of their work?  February 7, 2010

Ad hominem arguments are “murder intended.” February 12, 2010

Authority and Epistemology March 13, 2010

Faith and Reason March 13, 2010

Operationalism and functionalism as the method of The Creation Mandate April 21, 2010 

Christ as Mediator ... the Word as mediator.  June 13, 2010

Only God can make communication possible.  June 13, 2010

Eureka!  Six Creation Days. June 15, 2010

Solipsism Is A Major Problem for Philosophy.  The difficulty of solipsism, the belief that only my mind exists, is one of the great problems in philosophy that seems virtually to be ignored.  But without Special Revelation from a Mind that knows all other minds (and in fact, created them), how do we know that other minds exist?  We don't!  I know of no other way to be certain that other minds exist, except by probability, and that way is fraught with landmines.

Determinism: Is it self-refuting when stated by one who believes it? (Ronald Nash, Faith and Reason, 53-54) That is, if I am determined or pre-determined to believe in determinism, then my stating that fact has no significance.  I agree—if we leave God out.  But in Biblical philosophy, God cannot be left out.  It is clear from Scripture that God does predestine (pre-determine) all things; even the words that I choose here to refute the refutation of determinism.  It is God that causes me to believe in determinism (predestination in Biblical language).  He is the Determiner. 

Now, what is the reason for me to try to convince you that I am right, or you to convince me that I am wrong?  This process is also a part of God’s predestination.  At this point the idea that I am a robot is usually brought up.  Well, a robot is not self-conscious!  Thus, while I may be predestined to think and act, I am conscious that God has predetermined everything.  I am  watching the Great Drama by the Greatest Producer and Director, and I am in the cast from birth to death.  I do not know what is exactly my part, nor my speaking lines, but I will know as I get there.  How exciting!

God as unchanging and truth that varies from person to person (subjectively conditional).  If there is indeed a subjective-objective encounter, that is, a person with his own experience and learned knowledge, and that knowledge varies from person to person, then all knowledge of Scripture is therefore different.  “David was King of Israel” is different in my understanding from that of another Christian, because what I know of David as King of Israel is different from that other Christian.  There is the fact of David’s kingship as simply stated in that simple sentence—objectively it can convey all that God understands of his kingship, but I cannot know it as God knows it.  The simple statement, “David was King of Israel,” is true for all those who believe it, but that statement in the whole of a person’s knowledge is different.  God, however, knows everything about that statement immediately and necessarily.  So, truth within a person can be only partial, and even change, but as he understands Scripture, what he knows about that statement is true.

This “truth” also seems relevant to the philosophical idea that finite truth is morally wrong in itself.  In fact, we can never know truth the way that God does.  “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” declares that a regenerate person can know the truth.  Thus, partial truth is truth, as it is consistent with Scripture.  That is why the only truth that we can know is Scripture.  Since Scripture was written by God, He knew the “whole truth,” as he wrote it (and still does).  Thus, the only knowledge of which we can have certainty as truth is Scripture.  I know that “David was King of Israel” because it stands in the omniscience of God’s knowledge.  I can only know that Socrates was a man because it was stated by finite men.  Even they cannot know the omniscience of that statement.  Now, that knowledge (and all empirical knowledge) is certainly useful for one’s experience on earth, but it is conditional truth or practical truth, not God’s truth.  Or, perhaps, we can use the philosophical language of “matters of fact,” “statements of fact,” or even “self-evident facts,” but they are not truth.

Biblical authority… what analogy?  Looking through “the lens of Scripture” (Calvin and Belangia).  As “an anchor,” Ed.  Scripture must be the ultimate reference… authority.  We must foremost determine what it says or does not say on a subject.  Maybe there is no adequate analogy.  “Hovering authority” … picturing the Book above the morass of human opinion?  “Background reference?” “The filtering grid.”  “The small gauge sieve" through which all which all opinion must be forced.”  What about "the rock to which we are anchored?"  We could not drift very far if we are moored to the Rock of Ages! What do readers suggest?

The idea of university in the Scholastics had one major flaw: they developed di-versity instead.  Aquinas believed that the cosmological argument proved God’s existence, that some theology (natural theology) was possible without Revelation, and that the empirical method was valid.  Thus, the unifying nature of knowledge never had a chance… it was di-vided from the beginning of modern scholarship and thinking.  And, this di-versity continues to this day, even among Bible-believing, evangelical Christians with such phrases as “all truth is God’s truth” and How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It” (an address given by J. P. Moreland at the Evangelical Society Meeting in 2007). 

In reality, only the Reformed community has the theology that would ground a true uni-versity of knowledge, but they have their own divisions in their battles over their own side issues.  (See John Frame, Machens' Warrior Children.)  One of these battles is over the very philosophy that would make uni-versity possible—that of Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, and Gordon Clark.

Bible-believing Christians have at least narrowed the search for a university to one source: the 66 books of the Bible.  All non-Biblical philosophies and religions can do is point out the flaws in each other’s systems.  Meanwhile, evangelical Christians have at least narrowed their source to the 66 books of the Bible.  Whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, those who actually believe the Bible have agreed upon those 66 books.  While they differ greatly in their interpretations of these books, nevertheless they are consulting the same source.  This unity is cause for great celebration.  If indeed the laws of logic are true, these 66 books are true, and the Holy Spirit is directing the inquiry, then an increasing unity in Christendom is inescapable.  

What about the Quran for Muslims and the Old Testament for the Jews?  The Quran is demonstrably a weak and false derivative of the Bible without coherence of text or its history.  Its culture has proven the disastrous inferences from its falsehoods.  The Old Testament is true enough, but incomplete without the Jews’ Messiah and the clarity that He would bring for them.  Their own narrowness and blindness caused them to miss His coming.

On being narrowly exclusive in one’s beliefs vs. holding inconsistent positions.  Critics of Biblical Christianity often say that it is narrowly exclusive.  “Everyone ought to be more ‘inclusive’ or ‘pluralistic.’”*  But Alvin Plantinga directs us to an unavoidable problem.  Either we become narrowly exclusive or we accept beliefs that are incompatible, inconsistent, and incoherent.  (“A Defense of Religious Exclusivism, in Thomas D. Senor [Ed.], The Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith, 201-205) Which is preferable: to hold to beliefs that are coherent, a well-defined system, or to believe in incompatibilities and violations of the law of noncontradiction?  The answers seem obvious.

Further, if one believes in everything (pluralism), then how can one be passionate about anything.  The only consistent (coherent) attitude about pluralism is “ho-hum,” anything goes.  Who could really want that kind of life?  Practically, no one does because anyone will always get passionate about “some thing” that they believe!

*One wonders from where this “ought” comes.

How can the universe be both rational and irrational?  How can the universe be “lawful” (that is, consist of inductive laws), and yet those laws not apply anywhere in the universe?  How can the universe exist if it is now running down?  How can imperfection begin in the first place?  Does not the presence of imperfection require perfection?   This conclusion was that of Descartes.  No thing that a man creates is perfect, yet it is functional … highly functional.  Eventually, it will wear out and break … be no longer functional.  Functionality does not require perfection, only a state in which its imperfection will not destroy itself for some useful period of time.  

Does an imperfect universe imply that at one time it was perfect?  No, but the existence of the universe for 6000 to 14 billion years requires a degree of precision that is almost infinitely beyond the ability of humans.  The Creator was incredibly precise … at the least.

Or, He created perfection which has since been altered in some way … the Fall.  The Big Bang is not an option.  The bigger the bang, the bigger the destruction.  There is no way … no way … that a Big Bang could have created a zillion atoms and molecules, as well as one organized solar system.  That possibility requires a faith that exceeds comprehension!  

Being and becoming... the already and the not yet.  How is it that a person "is," and yet "not is" what he will be?  I was once a little boy, trying to catch tadpoles in a muddy creek.  Now I have completed a medical and writing career, but still have 10-20 years left, q.v.  Who am I?  We forget that God is not subject to time.  For Him, all history is now.  He sees us in our totality ... our completed lives as a composite.  We do not have this perspective.  Then, in a real sense we are becoming what we are ... as He sees us.  So, actually the phrase "the already and the not yet" is backwards.  It should be "the already is the becoming of the not yet."  "Already" cannot exist until we have drawn our last breath, and even then the "already" will include our eternal destinies.  The real mystery is how does God keeps one mind separate from another, since the spiritual is the substratum of the physical, and we are able to make the transition from our earthly, bodily existence into our eternal existence with our minds intact and whole ... He preserves that which has "become" now and forevermore!

God's Common Grace in Language.  Language seems simple.  I talk to you, you understand me, and vice-versa.  I talk to a group, and they mostly understand me.  I write a book, and most people understand it.  Communication in language works!  (Most of the time ... that is not to say that misunderstanding do not occur.)  But the simple act of communication masks its extreme complexity.  The differences in opinion over methods and grounding of epistemology define the complexity.  Philosophy of language, philology, and analytic philosophy add further dimensions of complexity.  Words are made of individual symbols (letters).  Each word is a symbol of something simple, like dog or cat, or something much more complex, like logic and mathematics.  Further, it is impossible fully to translate one language into another, e.g., Greek and Hebrew into English.  (Thus, preachers go to seminar to learn these languages.)  Formal logic is the most precise method of reasoning, but it depends upon words and definitions and copulas to make propositions.

How many have considered that the seeming simplicity of language and communication is one of the great, perhaps the greatest, manifestation of God's common grace to all men.  I say, "common grace," because most communications between believer and unbeliever are effective, yet their worldviews (properly understood) are "light and darkness" and "truth and foolishness."  If God did not give the human race the innate structure and faculty to manipulate language, no communication would ever take place.  One might be able to make the case that communication is more complex than cells, tissues, organs, and physical bodies!  Yet, we take it for granted, and when misunderstandings occur, we wonder why.  Let us praise God that He has given us the wonderful gift of language that allows one mind to communicate with other minds, and with His Great Mind.

Does the success of philosophers depend upon the confusion of their writings?  It almost seems that those philosophers who have achieved fame and study for the past 400 years have been those who are most loquacious, vague, and even confused in their writings.  Hegel dominated the 19th century and seemed to vary his definitions from context to context to the extent that his followers split into right and left groups after his death—how much more confused can that situation be?  Kant will make your head spin, trying to following the difference between intuition, understanding, judgment, inference, and antinomy.  Then, there is the early and later Wittgenstein—will the real one please grow up and be definite?  And, on and on.  Before you react, just consider whether there might be some truth to my view.

Ad hominem arguments are “murder intended.”  Jesus said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22).  When a person resorts to an ad hominem argument, he has essentially said, “I cannot answer your argument.  Therefore, I will kill you!”  “All who hate me, love death” (Proverbs 8:36).  “The fool who has said in his heart, ‘There is no God,’” has already rejected the highest reason for morality.  Why not kill all those with whom he disagrees!

Authority and epistemology.  Epistemology is simply subjectivism—what an individual believes is true.  Philosophers can discuss all the various pathways and pre-conditioned concepts that are possible for knowledge.  They can give profound and detailed arguments why this or that approach is or is not “proper.”  But the individual himself has veto power by the simple statement, “I do not believe what you are saying.”  The argument is over.  Done!  Complete! Ended!  

How can this be?  How can a person, especially a simple lay person, reject my carefully reasoned arguments?  They can do so simply because they are their own final authority to what they believe is true.  This conclusion is unavoidable and inescapable.  How else can the confirmed atheist reject God and His Word, as together, they form the most logical and evidential source of knowledge available to mankind.  By comparison, all other philosophies are just facile attempts to provide meaning and direction for human lives.

God demonstrates this fact in his division of mankind into two, and only two, groups: the unregenerate and the regenerate.  The unregenerate is his own authority, choosing some other “religion,” philosophy, or other “-ism” by which to live his life.  And, the regenerate is his own authority.  Do not Christians say among themselves, “I just do not believe what you are saying, or “Let us agree to disagree.”  So, we have authority of the self for both the regenerate and the unregenerate.

The unregenerate can just go his own way and do his own thing.  But this issue is more serious for the regenerate.  He must constantly challenge his own authority with the authority of God’s Word.  While he does still rest upon his own reasoning, he faces primarily the challenge of Scripture, the authority of his elders in the faith, and the Holy Spirit within.  He must tread more cautiously than the unregenerate.  And, here is the ultimate challenge.   To the extent that he is “transformed by the renewing of his mind” (by the Scriptures), that is, by being consistent with the whole of the Bible, then he will “prove what is good, acceptable, and perfect” (Romans 12:2), that is, mature in the faith.  Thus, God’s authority must gradually replace his own authority.

Even the Christian retains his subjectivism—his self-authority—but to grow, he must give it over to the challenges of his elders in the faith, the Word of God written, and the witness of the Holy Spirit.  May God change us all in that way.

Faith and reason.  Language per se is highly developed reason.  Johann Hamann stated, “Language is the perfect hypostatic union of the sensible and the intelligible.”  Thus, just to formulate a proposition (simply, a declarative sentence) in order to have something to believe in is to have exercised reason to a considerable degree in the process.  Even Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” has a number of propositions in the background: God is, the person is, the leap is reasonable for the person, the leap is the highest purpose of man, etc.  After the “leap,” then one must reason whether it was, after all, the good and right thing to do.  Thus, reason and faith are inextricably intertwined.  The long-standing conflict of faith and reason is simply false.

The "real" and the Creation Mandate.  Philosophers have fretted over the "real" for millenia.  Kant went so far as to say that we could not know the real "thing in itself" (TII).  I suggest that we do not have to know the real, because God's intention was not to "know" or "understand" the real (world);  instead, He intended for us to "use" it.  Modern science (that is, technology) has accomplished great ends: mass production of food, the internet, the computer, space travel and observation, open heart surgery, etc., etc.  Because of these great accomplishments, we think that we know the TII, but we do not, re: quantum theory, chaos theory, space vs. matter, and rapidly changing sub-atomic theory.  However, these great accomplishments do not require that we know the TII.  And, this situation is exactly as God intended it in the Creation Mandate.  We can learn the characteristics of a TII, but not the TII because ultimately God is behind the creation—God is not of the "gaps," but of the whole and all of its parts.  To know the TII is to know God.

The Creation Mandate is a functional mandate, not a mandate to understand.  We have the Special Revelation of God to understand as much as He wanted us to understand.  We accomplish this task by deduction.  We learn the function of the world by induction.  The former concerns truth; the latter concerns predictable behavior.  Anything that has spirit (God, angels and demons, man, animals) must be understood by Special Revelation.  Anything that is matter without spirit is understood by General Revelation.  There is some overlap.  The material world points clearly to the Creator (Romans 1:20).  The spiritual world (Special Revelation) explains origin and maintenance of the material world. 

A term to describe this functional system is "operationalism."  I prefer the term "functionalism."  But the most important concept here is not the term, but two systems of epistemology.  One concerns truth; the other concerns function.  To confuse the two, as has been done since philosophy began, is to roam in the mists of spiritual primevalism.  With all of our technology, we cannot solve the problems of mankind because of this confusion.  The situation is almost as bad among Christians, as non-Christians, especially in philosophy.  But, if I am right, we can correct the situation by not confusing the epistemology of the two systems, and by developing the "science" of Biblical interpretation to the extent that we have developed technology.

Each epistemology has its own language.  There is the language of Scripture written in its languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.  There is the language of function written in the languages of sensory observation and modern science.  As modern linguists are fond to demonstrate, one language cannot be fully translated into another.  Thus, at the outset of any attempt to reconcile Scripture and science is a difficult impasse which is illustrated all too well in attempts to reconcile Genesis 1-11 with modern science.  The Hebrew of those passages were written in a particular language within a cultural context over 3000 years ago.  Modern science is written in a particular language within a cultural context.  Interestingly, Genesis 1-11 will not change markedly, if at all.  (There may be a few cultural and linguistic insights gained.)  But the language of science will change markedly.  So which is the more durable?  Which is the more likely to communicate what we might call truth?  The answer seems obvious.

Functionalism: Ed's preferred term for technical or scientific pragmatism, that is, a technical or scientifically derived procedure that "works" or produces desired results.  Operationalism is an approximate synonym.  The tricky aspect of this definition is that "what works" does not have to be true, even when the desired results occur.  For example, placebos in medicine can reduce blood pressure, significant pain, tense muscles, and more.  But there is no possible correlation between the chemical ingredients of the placebos and the physiological effects. 

This concept may be considerably broader than its application to science—it may be applicable to everything that concerns the physical world.  For example, the understanding and theory of language is quite complex, but it works remarkably (not perfectly) well.  Statistics have a certain usefulness, but their basis and interpretation are somewhat tentative.  I would even propose that functionalism (or operationalism) is the mode by which The Creation Mandate is to be achieved in the physical world. 

Christ as Mediator ... the Word as mediator.  The role of Christ as Mediator between God and man is well understood and well articulated among Bible-believing Christians.  But I propose that the Word is also a mediator in a different sense.  As such, the Bible can be our only source of truth.

Virtually every Christian would agree that God's knowledge exceeds, not only that of any individual person, but that of the entire human race combined.  That is, His knowledge quantitatively is almost infinitely greater.  No man can be omniscient.*  Philosophically (and religiously), true and accurate knowledge is dependent upon knowing not only the object (which can be a material object or a mental object—an object of thought), but its relationship to every other object in the universe.  In other words, unless one is omniscient, he cannot really know anything that is not relative.  Leibniz understood this connectedness is his concept of monads that affected every other monad in the universe.

Taking this position does not mean that such relative knowledge is not useful.  (1) Scientific knowledge or method (induction or empiricism) is quite useful.  Just look at all the modern technology, including the internet, space travel, and atomic reactors.  But modern science is not true.  The scientific method by definition is not true because it does not and cannot examine every condition in the universe to establish its universality.  One could say that science is an amalgam of Newton, Einstein, quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and every other theory that comprises "modern science."  (2) All knowledge is based upon faith—basic beliefs, presuppositions, basic propositions, axioms, assumptions, foundational beliefs, first principles, and any of the other terms for one's most basic starting point.  (See elsewhere on this site.) Faith cannot be proven—believing without proof is the definition of faith.

All these introductory comments are necessary to the Word a mediator.  Since only God can truly "know," and man cannot know as God knows, then a mediator is necessary for God to communicate with man.  This communicator is the Bible—the Word of God.  The Bible gives a reference point—the only reference point to knowledge so that its relativity is fixed.  (1) The Bible establishes language as a means to understanding.  As God talked with Adam directly, He has spoken through the Bible as His objective Word or fixed reference point.  If God, by this example, reveals (non-revelation) that communication is possible via language, then man can be assured that he can communicate back to God and to his fellow man.  Without the Bible, one could not be sure that other minds exist (contra solipsism) or that they can understand us and vice-versa.  (2) The Bible, as Special Revelation, is the only true knowledge (a redundant, but necessary term) that man can know.  It grounds knowledge that can be understood; it grounds knowledge that "works," that is, is functional;

We have hints in the Bible of this grounding and mediatorial relationship.  In Genesis 1, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light," and He continued to speak all creation into existence.  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).  Christ the Mediator was Christ the Word, the mediator of communication between God and man.  He is the "light" (understanding) of "every man" (John 1:9) and specially enlightens every regenerate person (Matthew 5:14).  "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke (communicated by language) in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son... " (Hebrews 1:1-2).  In this role, Christ is God speaking to man as His voice piece, his mediatorial spokesmen, as the go-between God and the human race.  Many, many other verses link the language of communication to Christ as a speaking as the speaking "go-between" God and man. 

Some theologians and philosophers have written about Christ as Word-mediator (although they did not used that term—I just invented).  Augustine of Hippo wrote of Christ the means by which man knows anything, especially in his De Magistro.  One of central propositions of Gordon H. Clark, that is virtually absent from most other Christian philosophers, is that the Bible is mankind's only source of truth.  Vern Poythress does not mention Christ in this mediatorial role, but does link the Word as revelation to the Word as Christ in his In the Beginning Was the Word.  (See next musing below.)

*Omniscience is not infinite.  God knows everything.  If knowledge were infinite, God could not know everything.

Only God can make communication possible.  Based upon the above, I have come to the conclusion that communication through language, whether written or spoken, is not possible without the direct action of God (as Word or as the Holy Spirit) in both the speaker and hearer.  The complexity of language is too great for man to achieve this end.  How is it possible that all the deconstructors of language, even the most rabid, must use language to explain their theories?  Why must they use the very tool that they want to destroy to attempt its deconstruction?  Why is it impossible to completely translate one language to another?  How is it possible for person to grasp all the nuances of language, especially the spoken word with its many-varied inflections and arrangement of words?  By exchanging a few punctuations marks, a message can have opposite meanings.  For examle, Wellington sent the message, "Napoleon defeated.  Wellington."  What was received was, "Napoleon defeated Wellington." 

Of course, my conclusion is mostly conjecture.  One has to investigate the intricacy and complexity of language to begin to understand my conclusion.  And, God could have given to man the ability to communicate by language.  But, the whole process seems to me to be too complex without an omniscient mind on each end of the communication.  Certainly, this human ability is one of, if not the greatest, facet of man's being created in the image of God.

Eureka!  Six Creation Days.  There have been a great many pages and words spoken on the length of the days of Creation Week, but there is a simple solution.  Creation Week was a Miracle Week.  When miracles occur, they are not subject to time as we know it.  So any time measurement for that period is really irrelevant.  In this debate, it is recognized that "day" can mean a normal calendar day or a longer period of time ("in the day that I was raised").  Well, I suggest adding another definition, "Creation Day."  This term has no definite time that can be ascribed to it except that each day was a period in which God created the very things that are listed in Genesis 1 on each day.  No clock could have measured the "time" because time did not apply, as God is not subject to time in His Eternity.  God created in six special, miracle days!  This definition could clear up many conflicts between Young Earth and Old Earth Christians.  However, Creation Days ended with the Sixth Day.  All the genealogies of Genesis that record years have to be taken as actual years as we know them.  There is no reason to think of them as anything else.