Loving God with Your Mind
10 comments | Permalink
J. P. Moreland, in his excellent book, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, writes:
In order to do this, reading Moreland's book would be an excellent first step.
Here's an exercise you can try. Read When Religion Loses Its Credibility, an editorial in today's USA Today written by Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
Identify his thesis (what's the main thing he's trying to argue). Next identify his arguments (composed of premises that lead to conclusions). Then evaluate his arguments. Are his arguments valid (that is, do they logically follow and are they free from fallacious reasoning)? Then finally ask: Are his arguments true (that is, how well do they match up with a Scriptural view of God, world, and self)?
The mind is like a muscle. If it is not exercised regularly and strenuously, it loses some of its capacities and strength. We modern evangelicals often feel small and without influence in the public square. We must recapture our intellectual heritage if we are to present to our brothers and sisters, our children, and a post-Christian culture a version of Christianity rich and deep enough to challenge the dehumanizing structures and habits of thought of a society gone mad. To do this, we must change our reading habits; indeed, we must alter our entire approach to the life of the mind as part of Christian discipleship." (p. 87)
In order to do this, reading Moreland's book would be an excellent first step.
Here's an exercise you can try. Read When Religion Loses Its Credibility, an editorial in today's USA Today written by Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
Identify his thesis (what's the main thing he's trying to argue). Next identify his arguments (composed of premises that lead to conclusions). Then evaluate his arguments. Are his arguments valid (that is, do they logically follow and are they free from fallacious reasoning)? Then finally ask: Are his arguments true (that is, how well do they match up with a Scriptural view of God, world, and self)?
posted by JT at Monday, November 20, 2006
10 Comments:
Interestingly, the author states: "The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability." This is a fundamental assumption to his argument, and I would argue that it is incorrect. The Christian doctrine of original sin, in fact, argues against this notion. We are all born sinners, yet this does not excuse our sin. The reason is that, as Jonathan Edwards argued, the guilt of a sinful disposition lies not in its cause, but in its nature.
The author of the piece acknowledges that promiscuity is sinful, whether homosexual or heterosexual. What if it were shown that some people were born with a desire to be promiscuous? Would promiscuity then no longer be a sin? What if someone was born with a disposition to be intolerant--would intolerance then no longer be wrong?
I would argue that most (probably all) sinful dispositions are things that we "find" in ourselves, not things that we choose. That does not make them any less sinful. The choice comes at the point of determining what to do about them.
This also shows that homosexuality is not a unique case. Whether the issue is pride, impatience, selfishness, or any other number of things, a disposition towards sin is not something initially chosen, but rather something corrupted in our nature from the start.
I almost get the sense that Moreland thinks that if Christians are just all smarter than everyone else that we will win the day....But I honestly don't know how Christians could impact this post-everything world even if we were all as smart as Moreland.
For example, if you destroy a post-something's argument and make them look stupid what have you accomplished? If you show them that God is the most rational and probable of existing beings and that logic is quite clear on this point how have you done anything, whatsoever to persuade someone who has no interest in rationality, probability or logic?
You can only argue people into the Kingdom if they want to argue with you. But argumentation seems to be increasingly uninteresting for many....
Jonathan,
You write: "But I honestly don't know how Christians could impact this post-everything world even if we were all as smart as Moreland...You can only argue people into the Kingdom if they want to argue with you. But argumentation seems to be increasingly uninteresting for many."
Is that your argument? if so, how do you expect it to previal in this 'post everything' world you speak of?
I think you've misread Moreland. JP does not say we can argue people into the kingdom. His two main points are these: 1) Christians must learn to love God with their minds, and critical thinking (including apologetics) is part of that task. 2) Apologetics is often a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for pointing people toward the truth of the Christian worldview.
That's far different than saying we can argue people into the kingdom.
As for post-modernism, I don't think most people truly are postmodern. Rather, they accept truth in the hard sciences, but reject it in ethics and religion. That's JP's point. I've had emerging church types tell me truth can't be known, but when I say something critical about Brian Mclaren, boy do they complain that I'm not being fair (or Christian). When I graciously point out the self-defeating nature of their claim, the more honest one's admit the problem. The rest just keep making more truth claims of their own.
In short, Moreland is more correct than you assume: Human beings, made in the image of their creator, have certain moral (and logical) truths written into their natures. Good Christian apologists like Moreland know how tap into those truths for the sake of the gospel.
Irbfan81,
You have misread my argument (yes, I did put one forth!), although in only a subtle way.
My point is that Moreland will often appeal to post-everythings from premises and frameworks of thought that are unfamiliar and unimpressive to post-everythings. Meanwhile, he will speak in gross generalizations that quite obviously fail to take into account the subtle insights of the post-whatever's perpective.
Moreland fell a notch in my respect for him as a scholar in his ridiculous preliminary address at ETS in 2004. The issue was truth, and Moreland appeared to me to be rather unfamiliar with the issues at stake. Very briefly here....Firstly, over-generalized a group he calls "postmodernism":
On a postmodernist view, there is no such thing as objective reality, truth, value, reason and so forth. All these are social constructions, creations of linguistic practices and, as such, are relative not to individuals, but to social groups that share a narrative.
Postmodernism denies the correspondence theory, claiming that truth is simply a contingent creation of language which expresses customs, emotions, and values embedded in a community’s linguistic practices. For the postmodernist, if one claims to have the truth in the correspondence sense, this assertion is a power move that victimizes those judged not to have the truth.
This is just simply not true. The issue of truth has never been resolved in such a cute way amongst thinkers like Heidegger, Wittgenstein, or even Derrida.
Secondly, Moreland labels as "immoral" any postmodern! But, how are we to take this, because the "postmodern" to whom he refers is just a straw man he set up. So his claim is completely emptied of substance and remains a triviality. Ironically, Moreland's caricatures of "postmoderns" do not correspond with reality! But that's the whole thing: He never presents relevant quotes to support his absurd conclusions. I do not know of any scholarly work Moreland has produced that actually interacts, in depth, with any "postmodern" writers on truth. This is shabby scholarship, in my opinion.
Here is the link to Moreland's address, referenced above:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682
You can also cruse around my blog in an area I call The Aletheia Project for more on my thoughts about truth. But be warned, it is rather technical and dull reading....
Jonathan,
I read JP's paper back when he delivered in 2004 and it's spot on in my view. You claim he makes gross generalizations, but your evidence for that is very scant and not persuasive.
As for Wittgenstein (and, with some minor variations, Kallenberg, McIntire, et al,) JP has nailed them. That is, while each argues we are trapped behind language and cannot get at the truth, they somehow find a way to rise above their own language communities and lecture the rest of us about what's right/true--namely, that we cannot get at the truth!
Well, is that true or just a construct of THEIR language community? If the latter, why should I care in my language community what they think in theirs? If the former, how do any of these PM types get outside language to make the overarching truth claims they inevitably make?
JP is spot on: The whole PM thing is self-defeating.
Irbfan81,
I agree with you! If postmodernism is as stupid as you protrayed, then of course it is of no value and completely self-defeating and meaningless. Strawmen are always so easy to destroy, aren't they!
Could you give me some academic papers, etc. where JP interacts in depth with these guys? I would direct you to Anthony Thiselton over in the UK as a highly respected conservative biblical scholar who finds a great deal of value in Wittgenstein. Thiselton, incidentally, would not classify himself as "postmodern." Quite the contrary! In fact, he has written directly against what he believes is a distortion of the biblical notion of the "self" by what he calls postmodernism.
Again, let me know what these works are by JP, because he certainly didn't cite anyone significant in 2004, nor did he reference works of his own that critically interacted with any of these "postmoderns." But if he has interacted with guys like Derrida then I would absolutely love to get my hands on that stuff because to date I have only heard very broad generalizations.
Jonathan,
The burden of proof is more on you than me. You made the claim that JP misrepresents PM scholarship, so it's up to you to show how, exactly, he does this. So far, you've said little to support your rather bold claim.
Meanwhile, since you've made a reading suggestion, let me make one for you. R. Scott Smith's book, "Truth and the New Kind of Christian deals with Tony Jones, MacIntyre, Kallenberg, etc. I think you'll see after reading it that JP is right on the money with his own critique of PM.
There is no such thing as "Postmodernism." It's a big, bad boogey-man - a straw-man - that we Conservatives have set up in order to conveniently destroy something we fear without really exerting any real effort. It's something we fear, so we generalize it and dispose of it.
My guess: JP has very little interest in guys like Derrida. Why? My guess is he is irritated or frustrated by them - or maybe just bored. It takes a lot of effort to read through them, and I understand that. My problem with JP is that he turns around and then demonizes a group he calls "postmodern."
You say the burden of proof is on me, but I'm not sure what it is you want me to prove. All I asked for was if JP had engaged with the primary sources of any of the "postmodern" guys. What did you want me to prove?
Let's take JP's 2004 address: He hasn't cited any of the so-called "postmodern" boogy-men. So, how can I dispute what he says? I don't know who he is citing, so myself or anyone else would have no place to start. That's why I think it is shady scholarship. JP created a grossly overgeneralized group and then demonized it without giving his hearers/readers any primary sources to cross reference.
I have no ax to grind one way or the other with these "postmoderns" - whoever they are. But I think it is bad scholarship to create a phantom group and then not cite primary sources. I think all scholars deserve the respect of citing their words before calling them "immoral."
Jonathan,
You did way more than ask "if JP had engaged with the primary sources of any of the 'postmodern' guys. You claim that he "grossly overgeneralized group and then demonized it."
Okay. How so? instead of replying with evidence, you give us psychology: "JP has very little interest in guys like Derrida. Why? My guess is he is irritated or frustrated by them - or maybe just bored."
Sorry, but that just won't do. Given JP's excellent credentials in both the academic and Christian communities, you owe us a better explanation.
Irbfan 81,
Actually, I took great care to answer that very question you are raising - and in more than a "psychological" way. The claim I make is based upon JP's own text! Don't you remember me rambling on about how he doesn't cite primary sources in his ETS presentation??? Well, the fact that JP does not engage primary sources is evidence #1 to support my assertion that he overgeneralizes and then demonizes (hithertofore referred to as OG&D).
The 2nd supportive evidence is that he doesn't really name any names. When one is OG&D they typically don't engage the primary sources and they would prefer to give a diverse group a general label.
That is why I kept pressing you to provide me with some academic works in which JP engages primary sources of this so-called "postmodern" group that he OG&Ds. Really, I'm not trying to get off the hook or anything else, as you suppose. I honestly don't have an ax to grind on this issue. If anything I agree with you: JP is a top notch scholar. That's why I am so confused as to why he chose to do such sloppy work for his 2004 ETS presentation - a preliminary address, no less! The reason I start to "psychologize" JP is because his lack of academic scholarship at the 2004 ETS conference is inconsistent with his track record.
I've appreciated much of what JP has written on over the years- I've learned a lot from him. But I can't let his past work razzle and dazzle me. I've done a great deal of exegetical and philosophical work on truth, and it is from that vantage point that I thought his ETS presentation in 2004 not only failed to accomplish anything worthwhile, but was actually counterproductive to academic discussion.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home