Racheal Parker's third place essay

The term "Christian philosophy" may surprise some, since often the word philosophy calls to mind men like Plato, Hume, and Nietzsche. However, the simplest definition of philosophy is the love of or study of wisdom. In order to have a full grasp of Christian philosophy, as well as a comprehension of its superiority when contrasted with other systems, one must first have at least a cursory understanding of secular philosophy. Dr. Gordon Clark, in An Introduction to Christian Philosophy strongly asserts: "Secular attacks on Christianity have been made in every field of learning; therefore we must pay attention to them all" (274). In order to equip Christians with the knowledge necessary to parry these attacks skillfully, Clark provides a brief history of anti-Christian philosophy. He begins with the foundation of every ideological system, epistemology, and from there covers several relevant topics. The problems inherent in the secular worldview are resolved by the introduction of divine revelation. This revelation provides answers to all of life’s questions, from the most grave to the most trivial.

Arguably, one of the most important areas of philosophical study is epistemology because it is the study of how one knows or how knowledge is possible. Within secular philosophy, there are two main epistemological theories, rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism promotes the belief that all knowledge originates within the mind of autonomous man. In other words, knowledge does not begin with God (if there is one). Man alone is the source of knowledge. According to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a prominent nineteenth-century rationalist, man has an expanding knowledge in all areas of life. He defined "expanding knowledge" as the cyclical dialectic between thesis and antithesis, which culminates in synthesis. This kind of knowledge is an evolutionary notion that denies absolutes and claims no limit to what man may learn. Therefore, he gains wisdom and knowledge ad infinitum and there is no final say as to what is politically, morally, or scientifically correct. Every age has its own valid truth, even if it is contradictory to the previous generation’s notions.  Hegel apparently saw no problem with his logically invalid system. Dr. Clark concisely sums up Hegel’s theory: "Thesis, upon analysis turned into its contradictory Antithesis. These two were then harmonized in the next higher category Synthesis. This three-term dialectic continued until all problems were solved in the Absolute Spirit" (275). This drive toward intellectual nirvana denied absolute truth. In its place, it promoted a system of thought that encouraged "new" ideas in antithesis to the old. Christian philosophy cannot accept this idea because God deals in absolute truth. The Christian concept of truth cannot be coupled with Hegelian rationalism because "expanding knowledge" by definition rejects absolutes….

In direct opposition to both Hegelian and Platonic rationalism stands empiricism, the second of the two secular epistemological theories. Empiricism, championed by Aristotle, bases all knowledge on sensory perception. Unlike his teacher, Plato, Aristotle believed man’s mind to be blank at birth (a "clean slate"). As sensory perceptions occurred, the impressions which these memories and perceptions left were categorized. In dealing with universal categories, like man and bird, it can be supposed that such a concept might work, though how one innately knows where or how to categorize something remains a mystery. Aristotle’s theory of epistemology contained a fatal flaw demonstrated by two of his philosophical categories. The first of these categories was substance, or reality, in which he claimed that there are primary and secondary realities. As he defined it, a primary reality is an individual object, of which there can be only one. We could call these the proper nouns of empiricism. A secondary reality is like a regular noun; it is a universal rather than a particular. Contrary to Plato, who believed the universal to be more real than the particular (Idea over object), Aristotle held that the particular was more real than the universal. The problem is that primary realities (particulars) are constructed of secondary realties (universals). For example, Aristotle would say that Mount Olympus is a primary reality. However, it is comprised of rocks, secondary realties. Which is it in truth, a primary or a secondary reality? If Mount Olympus "is the primary reality, a single rock would be but a fraction of an individual; it itself would not be an individual and therefore would not be real" (277). The difficulty here is that since almost everything is comprised of smaller particles, nothing could be truly real. Even single cell organisms are comprised of more than one substance. Thus, Aristotle’s distinction of primary and secondary realities cannot stand scrutiny of any depth. Holding this principle as true logically entails the complete denial of all existence, including man’s….

If one can know nothing, as Hume claimed, how does science, a controversial and important subject, operate? Clark notes, "A priori categories, particularly the Kantian category of cause, were supposed to provide the basis of science which Hume’s skepticism so obviously lacked" (282). Since Hume claimed that there was no logical connection between cause and effect, Kant’s categories were necessary to make physics possible. In addition, empiricism cannot demonstrate the uniformity of nature. The concept of cause, which is supposed to provide this uniformity, is said to be a universal principle. It claims that every event is caused by something else; there is a sort of regularity in nature causing uniformity. In other words, this regularity assures that rocks will always sink and never float. The cause and effect tableau always appears in a linear, progressive fashion. Such order and regularity, according to Kant, is both real and imaginary as our minds synthesize sense impressions with our concept of understanding. Dr. Clark notes on this idea, "Unless nature is uniform, we could have no confidence in any law" (283). Kant’s principle of causality teaches that every event is produced by a previous event and two random acts do not necessarily share a related cause. 

How does one distinguish what is or is not related using this principle? Because Kant’s principle of causality does not determine relation between events, we must use experimentation. Once a law is established, does it prove the concept of cause to be a universal principle? No, because scientific laws are continually changed, reevaluated, and updated as additional evidence arises. Neither do these laws apply to everything; therefore, they are not universal. Scientific laws cannot determine cause; if they did, physics would be unalterable, since each law would be absolute. Scientific laws are not actual concrete discoveries; rather they are a compilation of non-observational mathematic averages. "This conclusion carries with it an interesting theological implication. If science can neither explain the workings of nature nor identify the elements of its composition, those materialists, naturalists, or atheists who have sometimes so dogmatically claimed scientific authority for their views are left without foundation" (285). While some secular philosophers claim science to be absolute truth, they cannot legitimately do so because the continual revision and replacement of formulated laws demonstrate that science is not absolute.

Secular philosophy also unanimously denies an absolute moral standard. Dr. Clark addresses five of these ethical theories. They are: Utilitarianism, morality’s reduction to a social code, personal preference, the emotive theory, and existentialism. According to Utilitarianism, which dominated nineteenth-century ethical thought, the attainment of good is extolled as man’s highest goal. In this context, good is defined as pleasure, with the added notion that "in opposition to earlier forms of hedonism, Utilitarianism holds that each of us is to seek, not our own pleasure precisely, but the greatest good for the greatest number" (287). Not only does this smell of Rousseau and Marx, it is an impossible idea. Even if one could consistently bear this principle always in mind, he would constantly be doing "unethical" things due to his lack of omniscience. Since he cannot foresee all of the consequences of an action, any particular decision has the potential (or certitude) to be harmful to others and is, therefore, unethical….

Secular philosophers also attempt to reduce morality to a social code. Ethical relativism of this sort is based on the assumption that because different times and cultures have differing moral principles that morality is subjective and therefore relevant to contemporary circumstances. What one generation sees as ‘right’ another future generation will see as "wrong". This presents no contradiction to them. However, ethical relativity necessitates men from differing moral codes endorsing each other’s actions, while at the same time denying the morality of that action for themselves. This absurdity does not work simply because it cannot. Opposites do not sanction one another; they never have and never will. It is illogical. Clark points out the glaring inconsistency of this ‘tolerant’ position by noting that Gallie, a defender of moral relativism, believed that: "There is one moral system, one social code, that is absolutely wrong, no matter how large the society that accepts it…the Ten Commandments must be banned" (290). Since absolutes are banned by ethical relativism, Christian philosophy must reject the offered premise….

The final ethical argument is existentialism, which exhorts men to live authentically or "to create their essence," yet without providing any useful guidelines. Dr. Clark remarks, "Existentialism is an extreme form of romanticism" in which there is "a denial of all knowledge and truth, and if there is no knowledge in general, obviously there can be no knowledge of morality in particular" (294). Friedrich Nietzsche was an existentialist. He claimed that there was no logic and no values. All life, including ethics, is completely subjective and absurd. There is no meaning for life, no purpose. Since this is the case, man ought to live in whatever fashion he personally sees as appropriate, regardless of the consequences. In Nietzche’s case, he destroyed all the remnants of Christianity that he could in his life, purposely driving himself from hope, health, and sanity.

Religion, being inexorably tied to ethics, is yet another area where secular philosophy fails. Religion is defined as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (Webster’s Dictionary). Since the denial of an almighty, creator God (or any god whatsoever) is more or less universal in secular philosophy and since man is a religious being by nature, something must take the place of God. Often ideology, science, or self becomes the idol. Dr. Clark concisely points out secular philosophy’s failure on the religious front:

If a secular philosophy fails to establish knowledge, then religious knowledge drops away with the rest. If science is a pragmatic and non-cognitive enterprise, then a scientism that claims to be a substitute for religion is left without foundation. If, furthermore, non-revelational ethics is an impossibility, Kant’s religion within the limits of mere reason, and Brightman’s reliance on discovery of values in experience, are likewise impossible. (295)

Basically, Clark is saying that without a sound epistemological basis for knowledge, nothing else is possible, including religion. Under all secular philosophies, true religion is nothing, just as are meaning, morals, and science. However, any belief held is by definition, religious. Therefore, the various forms of secular philosophy are religious, even though they are not true religion….

Romans 1:20-21 declares:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

While it is true that "the heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1), natural theology must be handled with care because it can easily become twisted and lead to pantheism, as seen when men "worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25). Special (or divine) revelation is God’s personal verbal communication with man. Second Timothy 3:16-17 states: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." While God no longer speaks audibly to us through prophets and apostles, as seen in Hebrews 1: 1-2, He continues to communicate to us by His Word. The Bible is divine revelation, wherein God instructs us in the principles of ethics, morality, and politics. These three subjects, broadly understood, cover the entirety of life.

With a discussion of verbal communication (or communication in general) naturally comes a discourse concerning logic. When conversing on logic, the first principle that must be presented and accepted is that of the law of contradiction. This principle is of such import that Dr. Clark observes, "the denial of the law of contradiction, or even the failure to establish it as a universal truth, was the downfall of secular philosophy" (302). What is this law upon which hangs the rise or demise of philosophy? In its most simple form, the law of contradiction maintains that something and its antithesis cannot both be true; one or the other (or both), have to be false. For example, murder cannot be both moral and immoral at the same time; either murder is an acceptable action or it is an unacceptable action. This principle must be acknowledged because if its truth is denied, meaningful communication ceases. We communicate using propositions, which are constructed out of words. Words, without the law of contradiction, can mean anything; the same word may hold an individual meaning for each person. The law of contradiction restricts word meanings to a common understanding, which in turn entails that when one person states, "The sky is blue," another person does not interpret it as, "The dog is barking."

With the law of contradiction established, consider briefly the relationship between God and logic. God alone is sovereign, omniscient, all-powerful, unchangeable, and eternal. There is nothing higher than God and there is nothing older than God, since He has no beginning and is the creator of all things. He is infinite. Because God is self-sufficient, He is also the source of His own knowledge. Paul writes:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

"For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?"
"Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?"

For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)

God’s knowledge is logical; logic is orderly and antithetical to chaos. Webster’s Dictionary defines chaos as "a state of utter confusion" and logic as "the science of the formal principles of reasoning." Natural and special revelation both point to the orderly nature of God. Likewise, our own innate rationality testifies to God’s logical nature. Clark asserts, "It [logic] is not subsequent temporally for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically" (305)…. If God is logical, Scripture also is logical, because it is the mind of God revealed to man. If the Bible is the mind of God, then the relation to logic is clear. Not only is God’s communication logical, but the actual narratives of Scripture contain propositions; the sentences declare truths because the words have definite meanings. 

Scripture informs us that God created man in His own image. Because man was created in the image of God, "in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness" (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 10), he too is logical. Knowledge presupposes rationality, the application of logic. Rationality is what sets men apart from animals, since only humans can think and communicate via logical expressions (i.e. we think propositionally). On the subject of rationality, Clark raises an interesting observation, "there could be no righteousness at all—nor even sin—without rationality" (309). Rationality enables man to understand and reason, which in turn leaves him open to choices. If man could not think rationally, he could not understand God’s commandments and therefore he could not disobey, being without understanding. While we do sin in ignorance, God did not give us rational commandments without the mental capacity to understand them since He is both logical and just….

In answer to the objections raised against the image of God in man, Clark details three responses. Firstly, righteousness presupposes rationality because we must understand what we are to obey. If we have no understanding of what we should do, or why, we are just automatons. Automatons cannot be held responsible for their actions because they have no mind of their own. Secondly, righteousness requires right thinking about God, because "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23b). Faith is not a Kierkegaardian blind leap into the dark. Rather it is the knowledgeable (rational) acceptance of the truth of God’s promises. We must understand their truth in order to believe in God. Dr. Clark further points out that righteous thinking "is the intellectual activity that makes the external action pleasing to God" (310). Thirdly, even though man’s intellect is corrupt due to the fall, his total depravity does not entail that he cannot form valid syllogisms. Because man must have understanding in order to believe, "the preaching of the Gospel therefore presupposes a[t] least the rational remnants of the image of God in man" (311). Rationality, or logic, is necessary for all thought and understanding, even for those who deny its legitimacy and usefulness.

Some theologians, while they do not deny rationality, deny verbal revelation. In doing so, they also foreswear any possibility of truly knowing God as He has revealed Himself. Instead, they claim analogy, which is "essentially a literary and aesthetic device. An author impresses us if he can make an unexpected comparison between two objects we already know, but never connected in our own minds" (312). Analogical interpretation is fundamentally useless in philosophy and theology because it does not give the information explaining why one thing is similar to another. The connection is not explained, it is just declared. An example is the issue of God’s image in man. Neo-Orthodox theologians affirm that man is like God, but not how this is so. The nature of the resemblance does not instantaneously jump out at us. If we read the Word for what it says, letting the clear passages interpret the obscure, we discover what that point of resemblance is, even if it is never explicitly stated. However, if we attempt to use analogy to find a deeper meaning, we might come up with something similar to Barth’s unscriptural ideas. Depending on analogy for instruction in truth, as the Neo-Orthodox do, does nothing but destroy revelation because it reduces Scripture to subjectivity. With no authoritative final word on what a passage says, each man may claim his own version of truth. This is contrary to the apostle Peter’s warning: "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21)….

With the axiom of divine revelation having been established as the basis of orthodox Christian knowledge, Dr. Clark continues, "Important though epistemology is, apologetics or Christian philosophy ought to have something to offer on history, psychology, economics, and other ordinary academic subjects" (325). In other words, the practical day-to-day topics, in addition to the theological and philosophical issues, must be defended from those who would detract from and destroy Christian philosophy (and thereby Christianity). It is with this in view that Dr. Clark takes up the apologetic mantle in order to defend a Biblical view of history, politics, ethics, and religion. These four areas are so closely linked that it is hard to discuss one without the others and impossible to think of them without the premises concerning the other three. 

The first of these aspects, history, has two main positions held by secular philosophy. The first conception sees history to be a presuppositionless and purely objective scientific theory. There is no reason (or more clearly no God) behind it. The outcome of this scientific view of history is one of meaninglessness and hopeless (as demonstrated by evolutionary ideas). The second view maintains that "all historical writing is colored by the author’s state of mind" (331). Expressed differently, the actual events recorded are shaped by the writer’s bias to such a degree that all history is so completely subjective that there is no way of really knowing what happened. Descartes belonged to this later category, as is seen by Clarks’ citation of him: "‘Fictitious narratives lead us to imagine the possibility of many events that are impossible.’ Presumably this refers to miracles and mythology" (332). One thing both views have in common is that supernatural works, like Christ’s miracles, are impossible. In addition, there is no legitimate reason to study history under either view because there is nothing to be learned from it. For the secular philosopher the study of history is a waste of time, even if it is purely factual, unless it is being used in an attempt to destroy the authenticity of the Bible and therefore, God.

A proper theological view of history directs our attention to the fact that "not only can it handle tragic events by means of the doctrine of total depravity, but also revelation provides a general philosophy of history" (332). Dr. Clark is saying that, with a Biblical understanding of history, the presence of evil and suffering can be understood and that history has meaning. Because of mankind’s rebellion through Adam, our federal head, sin entered the world and with it, death, pain, suffering, and cruelty. The meaning of history is apprehended when we realize that it is all His story and for His glory. Clark condenses the plan of history well when he affirms: "God called Abraham in order to have a chosen people, out of whom a Messiah should come and redeem the elect, whom he will raise at the Messiah’s second advent and transform and fit them for everlasting beatitude before the throne of God" (333). God is sovereign over everything and the story He is unfolding is the redemptive story of His chosen people. 

In the study of history, politics is discovered to be one of the major players. While Christianity claims no political affiliation, it does promote proper government….

The Bible endorses government in passages such as Romans 13:1, "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." However, such obedience should be qualified by the spirit of the apostles as displayed in Acts 5:29, "But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’" No government is above the law, neither is it itself the law. It is constrained under the moral law of God, as seen in 2 Kings 14:5-6: 

Now it happened, as soon as the kingdom was established in his [Amaziah’s] hand, that he executed his servants who had murdered his father the king. But the children of the murderers he did not execute, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses…"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall be put to death for his own sin."

The Old and New Testaments are the source of the many judicial principles upon which Christian political philosophy stands. Clark affirms that,

God has given it [the state] the right to wage war, execute criminals, and collect taxes. Both Testaments exhort us to obey the government in the exercise of its just powers…. Thus a theory of civil power established by divine decree and promulgated by revelation avoids, as the secular theories cannot, the twin evils of totalitarianism and anarchy. (338)

Christian political theory is tied closely to ethics because morality is in reality the only thing that can be legislated. Secular philosophy fails in the realm of ethics "because there is no valid argument by which one can start from observable phenomena and reach a conclusion concerning obligation" (339). Scriptural ethical principles show us that the "norms" of ethics are not what pop culture affirms, nor what the intellectuals preach. Instead, it defines the moral law of God, found in divine revelation, as the standard of ethics. The norms of ethics are established by God Himself. God is not bound under these laws because He is their sovereign author. These laws alone are right because God wills them. They reflect His character which He does not transgress in His governance of the universe.

The practical application of the biblical principle of ethics points out that under the Christian framework the breakers of God’s law will be judged. The answer to the fifty-sixth question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism declares: "The reason annexed to the third commandment is, that however the breakers of this commandment may escape punishment from men, yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment." Dr. Clark agrees: "Divine laws cannot be disobeyed with impunity" (340). We have been handed rules for life with both eternal rewards and punishments. The secular system claims a "personal peace" strategy where men are only punished by the calamities that befall them in this life. This does not necessarily promote moral behavior. It can actually have an entirely opposite effect; if there is no eternal judgment, then one can get away with committing gross immoralities. If there are no consequences, why not sin? Conversely, if there is a reason to be obedient and consequences for disobedience, why not be obedient?

Religion is the final apologetic issue under discussion. The Neo-Orthodox position on religion is summed up by Brunner’s position as seen by Clark’s rendering: "A good Christian is under obligation to be inconsistent. The Bible itself is illogical and contains no doctrinal system" (344). I do not know which Bible he is reading, but by stating this, Brunner frees himself from all claim of being a Christian. If there is no doctrinal system, what is the purpose of continuing to claim Christianity? Under all secular philosophies, true religion is non-existent, as are meaning, real morals, and truly objective science. In contrast, orthodox Christians believe, "since revelation is propositional and true, it also follows that the laws of logic are applicable and legitimate for the purpose of validly deducing the implied conclusion" (345). While all belief systems are religious, even those that deny religion’s legitimacy, only the Bible instructs man in the true religion. Orthodox Christianity asserts absolute truth. Only absolute truth brings a conviction of purpose and meaning for life because "right" really means right and "wrong" really means wrong. Christianity leaves no room for mysterious gray areas about the major questions of life that all secular systems ultimately leave unanswered.

A man’s epistemological philosophy will determine his worldview because it is the foundation of all other knowledge. The epistemology of the rationalists and empiricists is rooted in nothing else than the vain imaginings of men attempting to escape the reality of their finiteness. While rebellion against God takes many forms, these two schools of thought have shaped much of that rebellion. This is demonstrated in the field of science when Nature becomes God, having creative powers and, to some extent, a sense of direction. Secular views of ethics deny any real morality, abandoning true ethical judgments for more "tolerant" approaches. Religion, being tied to ethics, is of no value, except as a crutch used by the weak-minded. Secular philosophy and the closely connected Neo-Orthodox ideology fail because they embrace autonomous epistemology.

In contrast, orthodox Christian philosophy embraces a God-centered epistemology. God alone is the source of knowledge because man is created in His image—with rationality. We alone among the creatures have the ability to employ logic and are capable of thought and expression in a rational manner. The Bible, God’s revelation to man, sufficiently explains the mysteries of life, including the question of evil and suffering. It directs us to the way of salvation God has graciously provided—Christ.  Secular philosophy cannot provide salvation or peace—personal or social. The pure doctrines of the Bible are the essence of Christian philosophy. When the secular and Christian philosophical systems are contrasted, it becomes very clear that there is only one means of achieving the individual peace men strive after. Likewise, there is but a single answer to the haunting questions asked by men for centuries. That answer is discovered in the Word of God, the foundation of Christian philosophy, worldview, and life.