www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall New Post New Blog

I have started a new blog and I have a post discussing an apologetical type essay that I recently read. Your comments are most welcome! :-)

http://orthodoxchristianmusings.blogspot.com/

God bless.

Joe

Here is the essay I critiqued,

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/inevitable_choices/

And here is my critique:

I was reading a very interesting blog that pointed to an essay entitled, "Inevitable Choices," at Mercator.net. The article argues that there are only four competing world views and we must choose from among them. The four views are 1) Fideism 2) Modernism 3) Post-Modernism 4) Catholicism. The author of the article points out the pitfalls of the first three views and opts for Catholicism. It is an interesting piece, but being the nitpicky philosopher that I am, I need to point out some disagreements I have with the article.

The most important disagreement has to do with the categories themselves. While fideism and modernism are appropiate categories, I don't think that post-modernism and Catholicism (as explained by the author) are. For one thing, the author equates the view that there is a harmony between faith and reason with Catholicism. No doubt this is true of Catholicism. But it is also true of classical Patristic Christianity which includes not only Catholicism, but Orthodoxy, and some forms of traditional Protestantism as well (think C.S. Lewis for example). So the category of Catholicism is too narrow.

Also, while postmodernism can be accurately described as a new view that critiques and rejects important elements of modernism, we can't lump it all together into nihilism. Some postmodern philosophies are nihilistic. But there are also some postmodern-influenced thinkers like Renee Girard, Jean Luc Marion, and Metropolitan John Zizioulas who are by no means nihilists and in, in fact, are classical Christians.

Also, I have to take issue with the way that Descartes and Kant are demonized. I find this kind of thing all too common in Christian apologetics. For example, Peter Kreeft has a short article in which he completely misrepresents Kant's thoughts. So I will just point out a few things that do not jive with the typical caricature of these two great thinkers. First of all, Descartes never rejected the Church or divine Revelation. In fact, some of Descartes most fundamental arguments, including his argument to the cogito ergo sum are found in Augustine. It can be argued that Descartes based his Meditations on the literary form found in Augustine's Confessions. Also, Descartes did not say that all truth was discoverable only by reason. But he certainly held, as most scholastics held, that there are metaphysical truths that can be known by reason alone. As for Kant, I must say that he never held that truth was subjective, if what we mean by subjective is "relative and changeable." Kant believed that the categories of the mind were strictly universal and necessary. In other words, the way we apply the categories to the world of sense experience does not vary but is universal. Also, Kant held that the moral law was also strictly universal and necessary. If anything, Kant's moral philosophy can be viewed as quite rigorous.

I believe the reason we Christians often mischaracterize the views of thinkers is that from the start, we make "winning" the argument the ultimate goal of our endeavors (it is almost like a political campaign where you try to present yourself in the best light possible and present your opponent in the worst light possible). I see this all the time in Christian apologetical works (whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox). Painting straw men and using ad hominems is all too common. I confess that I have also used these kinds of bad arguments in the past. But I think that it behooves us to move forward with a more humble and sympathetic apologetic. Or as I tell my students, "before you criticize an author, make sure that you really understand his position well and try to imagine things from the author's point of view." I think that if we strive to do this, our apologetical efforts will be much more successful.

Joe it is good to see you blogging again, I updated my links to include your new blog.


Blessings,

Lance


A Byzantine Christian in a Postmodern World [byzantinechristian.blogspot.com]

Hey lance, I'll do the same for your blog :-).

Joe

You made good points in the critique.

IS OUTRAGE! Is not having new blogs in Old Russia!

I read his categories and designated representatives as prominent, perhaps ultimate in the case of Catholicism, examples of the actual general operatives (in italics):

1. sola fides -> Fideism -> Mohammed
2. sola ratio -> Modernism ->Descartes
3. nec ratio, nec fides -> Postmodernism-> Nietzsche
4. fides et ratio -> Catholicism -> the Pope

For instance under 4 he mentions the Patristic aspect, the "early Greek Fathers of the Church." One can add a lot of representative names and "ism" but it is the descriptions that are the discriminators. And while many other names can be added it is interesting that 4 (Pope) already comprises many names.

A general way of looking at it: The elements, fides and ratio, in the four general categories, and the conclusion that only 4 is "true" and therefore eternal, is stated explicitly and analytically by the Logical Conjunction [en.wikipedia.org].

Some other comments on your critique:
I would hardly say he demonizes anyone in the article let alone Descartes and Kant. And while one is "influenced" by all the past and present encountered, I am surprised to see Metropolitan John Zizioulas associated with postmodernism.

Thanks for the link to an interesting article and your thoughtful critique.

ajk,

Thanks for your comments. You make some excellent points. I shall have to ponder them for awhile. I am certainly not calling Metropolitan Zizioulas a post-modernist, far from it. But from what I've read by and about him, I know that he does interact with Heidegger and some themes in 20th century philosophy. Heidegger is arguably one of the foundational thinkers of post-modernism.

You are right that the author of that essay does not demonize Descartes and Kant (Peter Kreeft does that, at least with Kant), but he does paint what I consider to be a straw man picture of those two thinkers.

Joe

BLOG?!? What this word BLOG mean?!? Only priest write essay in old Russia! OUTRAGE truly!

Seriously-- good luck with this new blog, and you may want to make sure that you edit your profile to link it.

Alice

Thanks Alice, I'll do that!

Joe

"Heidegger is arguably one of the foundational thinkers of post-modernism."

Has a good translation of "Being and Time" arrived in English yet? I have heard from a fried who knew German and has a Ph.D. in philosophy that the translations he had seen in English did not do the German justice. He said that the English was less clear than the German narrative of the arguments Heidegger presented.

Terry