The One and the Many (Part 2 of 2)

Picking up where we left off, the problem of the One and the Many has also been known as the struggle between realism and nominalism. Realists sees universal categories (something similiar to Plato’s forms) as truly possessing an objective existence. Nominalists, on the other hand, believe that universals are merely the titles we give groups of things by mentally abstracting the similarities between various things (like “redness” from our observation of a fire truck, an apple, the sight of blood, etc.). Usually realists are rationalists and nominalists are empiricists.

Our own living experience tells us that both universals and particulars are needed in order to make sense out of life. Examples could be endlessly multiplied, but for the sake of space one will have to do. The classic example in teaching students of logic what a deductive argument is this:

1) All men are mortal

2) Socrates is a man

3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Both universal categories as well as empirical particulars are needed in order for this syllogism to make sense. When we look at the first premise we ask, What is a “man?” Socrates is an example of a man. But Socrates, understood by himself, severed from the category of “manness” does not make sense. What is this creature (another universal!) that stands before me? Without a class in which to place this creature called “Socrates,” I have no way of understanding him. Universals are needed. Yet, if I so exalt the form of man so that is refers to no individual men I lose the individuality of Socrates and destroy his personhood and uniqueness. The higher we go into the realm of categories and forms, the less and less we are speaking about actual, concrete, tangible realities (as in the case of Rusty).

The Christian Answer
So, how do we avoid these pitfalls? Though many philosophers no longer discuss these issues (explicitly, at least), their answers are assumed in all of our everyday endeavors. The Christian vision of life, as derived from the Bible, provides the answer that no other secular philosophy, nor explicitly religious system can. Scripture presents us with a framework within both universals and their particular instantiations are kept significant and intelligible. Cornelius Van Til finds the solution in the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

How is this? The Triune God is both one and many, and neither unity or plurality is more important, basic, or fundamental that the other. So the farthest thing back, the really real, God, grounds and gives worth to both unity and plurality. Van Til States:

Using the language of the One-and-Many question we contend that in God the one and many are equally ultimate. Unity in God is no more fundamental than diversity, and diversity in God is no more fundamental than unity. The persons of the Trinity are mutually exhaustive to one another. The Son and the Spirit are ontologically [i.e. in their very nature] on par with the Father. (In Defense of the Faith)

Thus, the Christian understanding of God solves, and indeed makes understandable at a deep, profound level, how it is that we can make sense of the world. Plurality is not absorbed into unity, and unity is not lost among plurality. God, the eternal One and Many created and formed the temporal one and many (the universe). This solves the “metaphysical” and “ontological” issues raised by the One/many problem. But, we also realized that this One and Many God has created, organized, and ordained everything that happens in this world (as mysterious as that may be), and provides the unity behind the plurality of the historical One and Many (the One being the ultimate goal and purpose of creation, the Many being the various “chapters” of history leading us there).

Here’s a helpful chart that makes this a bit more understandable.

Ok, my brain is sufficiently tied in knots, so I think I’m done…

The Failure of Scientism

Here’s a short blog entry from Barry Carey over at WithAllYourMind.net on the problem with the claim that science holds the keys to all knowledge (aka scientism). It’s short, and to the point. Also, I think it provides further support for the line of thinking behind my blog entry, “But Christianity Contradicts Science!“

Thanks, Barry!

Free Worldview Lectures!

If you’re not aware already, you should know about Biblicaltraining.org. They have scores of free seminary level courses in Old Testament, New Testament, systematic theology, Church history, Apologetics, Pastoral theology, and much more. You need to register in order to listen to the lectures, but there’s no charge whatsoever.

Here’s are my favorites by Christian philosopher and apologist Ronald Nash:

1) Apologetics

2) History of Philosophy and Christian Thought

3) Ethics (Introduction)

The One and the Many (Part 1 of 2)

All throughout the history of philosophy, especially in the early philosophers before Socrates (called “pre-socratics”), a debate over the ultimate nature of reality has gone on. The debate is over what can be said to be the skeleton key that unlocks the treasure chest of knowledge. Is the key the notion of unity or plurality? Many of the pre-socratics favored unity (the One over the Many). Different answers were proposed as to what provided that ultimate unity, Thales believed all was water, Heraclitus believed all was fire, while others came up with there own theories.

Others, like the atomists, held that the key to understanding reality was plurality. They denied that anything (other than the human mind) brought unity to the world. An example of this would be the ancient philosopher Democritus, who believed that everything was made up of atoms (what he thought of atoms is slightly different from what we know of them today). According to Democritus, everything we see around of is the result of these atoms (which are always in motion) banging around and becoming latched on to each other in various ways.

In historic Christianity, not only are rationalism and irrationalism avoided but also the war between monists (those who favors unity, or the “One”) and pluralists (those that favor plurality, or the “Many”), as well as the battle between epistemological rationalism and empiricism (the question what is the ultimate source of knowledge, abstract concepts or data gained by the 5 senses), is dissolved. Rationalists, such as Plato, have asserted that that which is the “most real thing” is the world of ideas. This world of ideas, or “forms,” as he called them, where more real than the physical objects we encounter everyday. This, Plato believed, was because the forms provided physical matter with the concepts or patterns after which they were to be made. For instance, a round object is the combination of base matter (wood, steel, clay, etc.) participating is the form of “roundness.” Therefore, according to Plato’s line of thought, the form of “roundness” is more important, more real, and more fundamental than the matter than round object is made from. Plato was wrestling with the One/Many problem, but favored unity over plurality.

Though few went as far as Plato in denouncing all physical knowledge as mere opinion, other rationalists, such as Descartes, believed that only ideas, or “pure reason” could furnish one with absolutely certain knowledge. Others denied the existence of such “forms”, such as Aristotle, John Locke, and David Hume, believe that the only true reality is the world of particulars, sensible objects. If something is not susceptible to observation or experience by the five senses then it simply cannot be an object of knowledge. (Note: Aristotle is the exception here, he didn’t deny the existence of “forms”, but did deny that they existed in another realm, apart from matter.)

Thus rationalists exalt generalities, categories, and abstracts over concrete realities. Empiricists exalt the sensible over and above the general, abstract, etc. But a danger lies on either side of this bridge. When one emphasizes the abstract categories of understanding over and above particulars the particular lose their individuality and uniqueness.

Let’s see how this works out in everyday life. if I wanted to know, say, my nephew’s dog, Rusty, what do I really need to know in order to really know him? According to those who emphasize unity, “forms” or abstract concepts, what I really need to know about Rusty is the “dogness” that he “participates” in. Why? Because how can we know Rusty the canine, without knowing the thing that he is (a “dog, an abstract concept). According to those who emphasize diversity and plurality, what I really need to know about Rusty are the features of his face, his weight, the shape of his legs, etc (i.e the particulars of this particular dog).

The problem with the first approach (placing all the weight in Unity) is that the further I abstract into Rusty into “Jack Russell Terrier” and further more to “dogness,”the further away I move from Rusty. In fact, if i abstract somuch that I’m thinking about the thing that unifies all breeds of dog, then I’m left with nothing, because there’s always going to be qualities that apply to a couple of breeds and not to others. Once I’m down to the lowest common denominator, I’m left with nothing distinctive to dogs. This approach doesn’t work.

The problem with the second approach (reducing Rusty down to particulars) is where do I stop? After all, Rusty is made up of ears, eyes, paws, fur, legs, a tail, colors, smells, etc. Do I really know Rusty is I “know” these aspects of him? But, these aspects of him are further broken up into smaller parts, like cells, atoms, protons, and neutrons, etc. The snag is that if I’m focusing all my energies to knowing these things, I miss Rusty. Rusty is the total combination of all these things and cannot be reduced to the parts he’s made up of.

Here’s an example of how one comes down on this issue plays out in real life. In political theory favoring the One leads to totalitarianism, where the goals of the state supersede the “rights” of the individual. According to Rousas John Rushdoony:

If the many, or plurality, best describes ultimate reality, then the unit cannot gain priority over the many; then the state, church, or society are subordinate to the will of the citizen, the believer, and the man in particular. If the one is ultimate, then individuals are sacrificed to the group. If the many be ultimate, the unity is sacrificed to the will of many, and anarchy prevails. (The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy. Fairfax: Thoburn Press, 1971, Pg. 2.)

Next we’ll look at the Christian response to this problem and see whether the Bible has anything to say about this (Hint: it does )

What’s Your Theological Worldview?

Try this out. It’s an online quiz. It’s fun, though let’s face it, often the wording of some of the questions is quite loaded. But, it does get you thinking!

Putting the Pieces Together

For the past several months I’ve covered a variety of topics related to theology, apologetics, and the Christian worldview. One of the problems readers may have is that much of the work I’ve done here can seemingly appear random and possibly (though I hope not) without order, obscuring the big picture.

I thought now would be a great time to reorganize the work already posted on this blog in a logical order than helps the reader develop their approach to apologetics (my primary area of specialization) in a Biblically faithful, and philosophically sound way. The goal is this: if you read these in order you should be able to understand the flow of the arguments in favor of the Christian worldview, as well as understand the more philosophical of the entries.

Level 1: Making Sense Out of Apologetics
1) Prologue to Apologetics, part 1, 2, 3, and summary
2) Why Apologetics? part 1, 2, 3, 4
3) Pointers for Defending the Faith, part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and summary
4) Evangelism, Apologetics, and the Sovereignty of God

Level 2: Apologetics and the Bible
1) Apologetics and the Witness of Scripture, part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
2) Creation and Corruption

Level 3: Tackling Objections
1) “But, the Bible was Written by Men!”
2) Is the Bible a Reliable Book? (This is a longer article than most. For a short video clip summarizing, see here)
3) Does the Bible Contradict Science?
4) Is Morality Relative?
5) Do we Judge What’s Right and Wrong by Counting Heads?

Level 4: Taking It Up a Notch
1) Answering the Atheist
2) Answering the Fool According to His Folly, part 1, 2
3) The Uniformity of Nature
4) The Twin Sins of Non-Christian Thinking, part 1, 2
5) Applying Our Approach in a Real Debate

Why Intelligent Design Will Win

Here’s Nancy Pearcey’s great summary article on why she believes that the Intelligent Design movement will eventually win the battle over origins in the academic community.

The Fallacy Finder

Here’s a fantastic site that lists, provides definitions for, and gives examples of various logical fallacies. It’s pretty exhaustive. I click around and skim every so often, it’s actually quite fun for me.

What’s a fallacy, you may ask? According to Robert C. Solomon a fallacy is “[a]n apparently persuasive argument that is really an error in reasoning; an unsound or invalid argument.” (Introducing Philosophy: A Text with Integrated Readings, pg. 38)

Don’t You Want to be”Rational”?

Here’s a great parody of the rhetoric of the “new atheists” Richard Darwins and Sam Harris. The point made here ties in nicely with a point made in my entry A Little Atheism is Good for the Soul (Part 2). If atheists want to say that Christianity is false because of the crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then we can play that game too.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/kGGkg7mGVDc" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Jesus and Logic

Here’s a wonderful blog entry by Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland on Jesus’ use of logic. Enjoy!

How Well Do You Know Your Bible?

Several months ago, I wrote a series on defending the faith in which I listed, and briefly addressed several things Christians should know when sharing their faith with others. One of the points was made that these days (as opposed to, say, 40 years ago) often unbelievers don’t know the Bible very well. So, as a result of this biblical illiteracy Christians need to start from the ground up in proclaiming Christ.

I myself have tried to chip away at this problem in my Kingdom of God series (parts 1, 2, and 3). There I provide a general framework for understanding the story of scripture so as to alleviate some of the scariness when someone who wants to know what the entire Bible teaches opens up to Leviticus or the first several chapters of Numbers. Likewise elsewhere I’ve provided a starter list of books to aid those who would like to go further in their studies of the “entire” message of scripture.

Of course, the problem is even worse than I said. Many bible-believing Christians have never read the entire Bible, and fewer still have mastered the books they have read. As a result, we’re ill-equipped for developing a vision of life that reflects Biblical standards (i.e. our worldview is about as strong as wet-tissue paper). Also, and this is where my concerns are for the moment, if we don’t know the Bible, we can’t defend our faith. In his latest book, Taking Back the Good Book, Woodrow Kroll, president of Back to the Bible ministries devotes a small chapter to this issue. The chapter is titled “Biblical Illiteracy Weakens our Defense of the Gospel.”

The essential point is that you don’t engage in spiritual warfare without your weapon, and according to Eph. 6, the sword of the Spirit is the word of God.

A Biblical Vision for the City

I was born and raised in the Bronx, New York City. Since August of 05 I’ve lived down in Orlando, Florida, in order to get my Master’s Degree in Christian Thought at Reformed Theological Seminary From the day I moved here to the day I graduated in May, the experience has overall been nothing short of a blessing. But, I must tell you, I truly miss home. There’s way too much sky here in Florida, not enough sun-blocking, cement towers (you may call them “buildings” ).

My dream is to eventually head back home and teach there. But how should Christians approach city life? Is Christianity compatible with the “city that never sleeps”? Well here are some wonderful articles written about a theology of the city by the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, Tim Keller.

1) A New Kind of Urban Christian
2) Biblical Theology of the City
3) Christ and the City

And here are some great sermon on the same topic:

1. Should I Not Love That Great City? Should I Not Love That Great City?
2. The Meaning of the City The Meaning of the City
3. Love for the City Love for the City

For more, see:

What’s the Difference Between Philosophy and Theology?

I’ve been rereading sections of my favorite theology book, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, by John M. Frame, and ran across this gem and thought I should share it:

It is hard 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 most broad, general features. It includes metaphysics or ontology (the study of being, of what “is”), epistemology (the study of knowing) and theory of value (ethics, aesthetics, etc.) If one seeks to develop a Christian philosophy, then 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 [Frame's definition of Theology is "the application of God's word by people to all areas of life."]. Philosophy would be a subdivision of theology. Further, 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 would make philosophy, not a subdivision of theology, but identical to theology.

If there are any differences, they would probably be (1) that the Christian philosopher spends more time studying natural revelation than the theologian, while the theologian spends more time study Scripture; (2) that the theologian seeks a formulation which is an application of Scripture and thus absolutely authoritative; his goal is a formulation before which he can utter “Thus saith the Lord.” A Christian philosopher, however, may have a more modest goal: a wise human judgment which accords with Scripture thought is not necessarily warranted by Scripture.

A Christian philosophy can be of great value in helping us articulate in detail the biblical world view. We must beware, however, of “philosophical imperialism.” The comprehensiveness of philosophy has often led philosophers to seek rule over all other disciplines, even over theology, over God’s word. Even philosophers processing Christianity have been guilty of this. Some have even insisted that Scripture itself cannot be properly understood unless it is read in a way prescribed by the philosopher. Certainly philosophy can help us in the business of Scripture interpretation; philosophers often have interesting insights about language, e.g. But the line must be drawn: where a philosophical scheme contradicts Scripture, or where it seeks to inhibit the freedom of exegesis without Scriptural warrant, it must be rejected. (Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, pg. 85-86)

For more, see:

A Little Atheism is Good for the Soul (Part 2 of 2)

In the brief first part of this series I disclosed a bit of personal information about myself. Now, I’d like to give the reasons why I believe that the study of atheism is a good thing. Now, for the record, what I mean by “study of atheism” is not reading books or article against atheism by Christians (though that is good, helpful, and ought to be done). What I mean here is actually reading books and articles written by actual atheists.

Here I’d like to list some benefits of reading atheists, some of the things to look for, and then list of few books worth looking into.

Benefits of reading atheists. Here are some of the positive things one gets out of reading works on atheism:

1) It exposes us to attacks against the faith

2) It forces us to deal with real objections by real unbelievers (reading too many books about atheists usually causes us to think we already know what they’re going to say, and that’s not listening. We don’t like it when they do it to us, let’s not do it to them.)

3) It prepares us for real-world engagement with unbelief.

4) Through careful examination of atheist argumentation and objections we come to confidently learn that our faith isn’t a blind leap. Atheist arguments in defense of their stance really aren’t good arguments (My atheist books are thoroughly marked with red ink).

Things to look for when reading atheists. Now I pick up from point 4 above. What kinds of things ruin atheistic arguments? (for an extended, and more thorough treatment on this subject, see here) Here’s where things go bad:

1) Lots of emotion-raising language instead of actual evidence and argument.he In other words, many atheists like to depend on flash rather than substance. (Richard Dawkins is really good at this, especially in his latest work, The God Delusion). For instance, compare these two types of statements:

a) To believe in a God that allows and even ordains the amounts of evil in our world is rationally unacceptable.

b) Who in their right mind would believe that there’s an invisible man in the sky who arbitrarily decides to allows children to be tortured?

Notice that the first claim is something that we can discuss and debate fairly. The second statement is loaded with lots of emotional baggage that first needs to be addressed and in fact turns the audience against anybody who would make a Christian defense. After all, no one wants to be told that they’re not “in their right mind.”

2) Ignorance of Christian theology. I’ve addressed this problem elsewhere. How can the atheist attack Christian belief if he or she doesn’t even understand what they’re talking about?

3) Double standards. It not a good argument to say something against your opponent that with a few word changes he can say right back to you.

*Example:
Objection by Atheist: “Christianity cannot be true because look at all the evil that’s been done by ‘Christians.’”

Response by Christian: “Atheism cannot be true because look at all the evil that’s been done by atheists (such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Nero, Mao, and Vlad the impaler, to name a few).”

If it cuts both ways, just drop it.

4) Appealing to notions that don’t have any foundations in a atheistic worldview. If a naturalistic, atheistic worldview cannot provide a foundation for the objective existence and value of logic, the uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, etc., how can it appeal to such things in it’s attack against Christianity? Answer: It’s shouldn’t. (I’ve also dealt with this here and here).

Books promoting atheism. Here’s list of books to keep in mind when wanting to hear “the other side”:

1) Atheism: A Very Short Introduction- by Julian Baggini. This is a great little introduction to atheism, and is one of the few books on the subject written by an atheist that actually admits that atheism is a worldview.

2) Why I am Not a Christian- by Bertrand Russell. This is a classic work in atheistic literature and is made up of short essays, so you don’t have to read the entire thing straight through (for an excellent Christian response to the essay that the book is named after see here).

3) Atheism: The Case Against God- by George Smith. Many atheists believe that his is still the classic work on the subject. Herbert also fails prey to many of the logical and argumentative errors noted above.

4) The God Delusion- by Richard Dawkins. In this work, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins steps outside of his area of expertise and unto the court of apologetics and philosophy of religion. If one were to remove all of his emotionally charged rhetoric this 374 pg book would probably be reduced to a 100 pg booklet. And when you examine the material that’s left you’ll discover nothing new that hasn’t been responded to before. Of course Dawkins, with Sam Harris, is the most outspoken contemporary atheist, so knowing this material when speaking to atheists is helpful.

I read atheists because they strengthen my conviction that only Christianity provides meaning, and atheism is irrational. Thus, exposing oneself to a bit of atheism can indeed be good for the soul.

Apologetics Cathechism for Children

Take a look at this (First click on “BOOKS, COURSES & STUDY GUIDES” on the left, it should then be the first document on the list), I thought it was pretty well done (Of course, I’d add a couple more questions )

We need more stuff like this if we hope to guard our children against the flood of secularism and Darwinism so often taught as gospel in our public schools.