Many people complain of the trouble that philosophers cause with all of their theories and disputations. As a “professional” philosopher, I’ve fielded my share of such complaints over the years. For example, a friend once scoffed to me how he had once heard a philosopher question whether he could know that the chair in which he was sitting was real. I simply smiled in response, sensing that he was in no mood for a serious discussion of the matter. The truth is, of course, that it is not philosophy which poses the problem of the reality of the chair, but science. As physicists tell us, that chair is 99.9% empty space—very far from the “reality” of the chair that we seem to perceive with our senses. That is a scientific conclusion, not so much a philosophical one. What the philosopher says in response to this is to ask, given this apparent scientific fact, whether we can know the “chair” that is really there. This is a very natural and ordinary question, it seems to me, given the facts of the situation. So then, we might ask, what is my friend’s actual complaint in this case? If he claims the problem is with philosophy, then he’s really just confused or else in denial. But if his problem is with science and its implications for knowledge, then, well, he’s a philosopher.
Faithful Learning in Philosophy
Back in the mid-1980s when I was cutting my teeth as a student of philosophy, it was common to hear Christians worry aloud about the wisdom of studying in that area. Why expose yourself to so many godless thinkers and dangerous ideas? And isn’t philosophy about relying entirely on your own ability to reason rather than on the wisdom of God? I recall how as a college student I would sometimes struggle to defend what I was doing, though it seemed clear to me at the time that I was essentially following a divine call into the field. Now, three decades hence, it is gratifying to see the impact that Christians have had in the field of academic philosophy since my college days. In my latest book, Philosophy: Faithful Learning (P&R Publishing), I discuss just this.
In the book—which is actually so short as to be more like a lengthy pamphlet—I review several of the major contributions that Christian philosophers (such as Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Marilyn McCord Adams, William Alston, Linda Zagzebski, Robert Roberts, and William Lane Craig, to name just a few) have made to the field. These thinkers have profoundly impacted contemporary philosophy, not just in philosophy of religion but also in epistemology, ethics and other sub-fields of the discipline. Their work also powerfully demonstrates how real wisdom can be gleaned from careful, Christ-centered philosophical exploration into ultimate questions. So if you’ve never done much reading in philosophy or are curious about what it means to do “Christian philosophy,” I invite you to check it out. Just please don’t ask me why the publisher put Karl Marx on the cover. Some questions are beyond my pay grade even as an academic philosopher.
From Christianity to Atheism?
When reading or hearing the stories of atheists, certain patterns tend to emerge. One standard account goes like this: I was a devout Christian but along the way became dissatisfied with certain aspects of my faith. As I learned more about the Bible I realized that it is loaded with problems. After examining it more closely, I concluded that it is horribly unreliable and really just a bunch of made up stories, essentially religious fairy-tales. This realization, combined with all of the hypocrisy I witnessed among Christians, essentially spelled the end of my faith. So now I’m a completely fulfilled atheist. Examples of this basic story abound on the Internet, such as here and here.
Now there are a few things about this journey to un-faith paradigm that bother me and that from a rational standpoint don’t add up. For one thing, it strikes me as odd that so many atheists moved directly from giving up Christianity to giving up theism. The Christian faith is just one of three major brands of theism (along with Judaism and Islam). To falsify one form of this general religious perspective is not to falsify it in all of its forms. After rejecting Christianity, why not look into one of the other major versions of theism? Perhaps such atheists will insist that in discovering the Bible is a book of fairy tales they have basically discovered that all religions “of the book” (in this case, all three including the Old Testament) are baseless. But, then, we may ask, why limit one’s theistic alternatives to these three traditions? Why not consider generic theism or a non-religious philosophical theism such as that espoused by the likes of Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle?—at least until one has thoroughly reviewed the evidences for God. Some thinkers, such as Antony Flew late in his career, have done just this, all the while keeping an open mind about the possibility that the world creator had revealed himself in some special way.
Another unsettling fact about many atheists is their rejection of Jesus Christ, not just as a religious figure or, more specifically, the God-incarnate savior of humankind, but in toto. That is, in rejecting Jesus Christ as Christians believe in him, one need not also reject his teachings. One can deny that Jesus is “Lord” but still recognize his wisdom, even philosophical genius, as evident in his many brilliant discourses and parables. One might even reasonably say that Jesus is a great philosopher. As Doug Groothuis shows in his fascinating little book On Jesus, the itinerant Nazarene is undeniably a profound and innovative philosophical mind, whatever else he might be.
Suppose a religious tradition emerged which had as a core teaching the notion that Immanuel Kant was divine and somehow God’s envoy to save humanity from our moral faults, such as by assiduously following the Categorical Imperative, praying in Kant’s name, and so on. Now if I decided, as I think we all should, that Kant is not the savior, would it make sense to also completely disregard him as a philosopher or otherwise ignore his many valuable insights about ultimate questions? The same might be said of many other great thinkers, from Plato and Aristotle to Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, Hume, and Plantinga. The fact that none of these thinkers is divine is no excuse to completely ignore them as philosophers and sources of great wisdom. In fact, we should study their teachings closely regardless of how they might be misconstrued from a religious standpoint. Other people’s overestimation of their ultimate identity or moral goodness is no reason to ignore their philosophical genius. Yet, this is what most atheists and other non-Christians do when it comes to Jesus. They seem to assume that rejection of him as God-incarnate and/or savior of humanity is tantamount to rejecting him as wise or even as a significant ethicist or philosopher of religion. But these two things are far from equivalent.
For this reason I often implore Christians-turned-atheists to return to Jesus, if only as a student of the man’s philosophical acumen. Jesus’ logical skill, ethical teachings, anthropological insights, and cultural criticism (usually aimed at religious leaders, which should please any atheist)—not to mention his rhetorical genius and unparalleled influence on world history—all merit close study. For these reasons we can all benefit from a better understanding of Jesus, whether we call him Lord or merely a great human thinker.
New and Old Treasures
A passage in the book of Matthew really struck me recently. Specifically, Matthew 13:52. The context of the verse is Jesus’ speaking about the kingdom of heaven and how at the end of the age the righteous and wicked will be separated and the wicked thrown into hell. Then Jesus says, “every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”
As a Christian philosopher who is especially interested in ethics, I suppose I am—or at least aspire to be—something like a “teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven.” So when Jesus offers a simile related to this role, it catches my attention. What could he mean here by “new treasures as well as old”? One thing that comes to mind is scholarly insights, old and new. In teaching the history of philosophy, I constantly emphasize the treasures in Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Locke, Edwards, Berkeley, Kant, etc. These are some of the towering intellects of Western thought, and their insights about the good life and, in many cases, the nature and purposes of God are considerable. As for new treasures, I think of contemporary Christian philosophers such as Robert and Marilyn Adams, Alvin Plantinga, Eleonore Stump, Peter van Inwagen, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Linda Zagzebski, Robert Roberts, and Alexander Pruss. In recent decades, these scholars and so many others have provided us with “new treasures” related to the intellectual life and virtuous living.
We should remember that Jesus himself was a teacher in the kingdom of heaven, and of course he modeled perfectly the bringing out of new and old treasures. Whenever he taught, he drew from and applied the Old Testament scriptures but also made new innovations as a teacher, using unique parables (unlike anyone else in history), stunning hyperbole, creative metaphors, and other figurative devices for teaching theology and ethics. Indeed, his method was a balanced blend of new and old treasures, something that all Christian educators and scholars should strive to emulate.
The Love of Wisdom
The word “philosophy” derives from two Greek words (philo and sophia) which together mean “the love of wisdom.” For the founder of Western philosophy, Socrates, this meant a selfless pursuit of understanding which would translate into a good moral life. How ironic, therefore, that the discipline of philosophy today is often viewed as (and often is in practice) anything but a quest to be wise. Much of academic philosophy today is devoted to technical minutiae and ponderous analysis of issues only remotely related to right living.
A wise person is someone who has practical moral insight. Moreover, s/he not only knows what courses of action are best but also conducts her/himself accordingly. In other words, a wise person is not only morally insightful but personally virtuous.
This basic but overlooked fact about wisdom served as a guiding principle for my co-author, Steve Cowan, and I as we wrote our new textbook, The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy. We wanted to show how every major issue in philosophy is relevant to living well. Moreover, we aimed to demonstrate how philosophical inquiry of all kinds is a boon to one’s relationship with God. Good philosophy begets stronger faith.
When Steve and I first hatched the idea of writing this book it became clear that we complemented one another in terms of our philosophical strengths. So as we divided our labor, our tasks fell out evenly. I wrote the introduction and the chapters on ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and philosophy of science, while he wrote the chapters on logic, metaphysics, epistemology, and most of the content in the chapters on human nature and philosophy of religion.
Given the surge of interest in philosophy among Christians over the past few decades, it is surprising that there aren’t many Christian introductory philosophy texts. And the few that are available are not very accessible. We wanted our text to be readable, even entertaining, for the novice. So we use a lot of illustrations referencing popular culture and current events. The book also contains an extensive glossary as well as study questions concluding every subsection in each chapter. These features are aimed at making the book useful for personal study as well as classroom use.
Proverbs 4:7 says “Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.” Those are strong words. Our hope is that this book will be helpful to readers who are serious about this quest.
Faith, Film, and Philosophy
The other day I received some good news from one of my publishers, InterVarsity Press. The book I co-edited with Doug Geivett last year, Faith, Film, and Philosophy, is going into a second printing. This is gratifying because it means the book is selling at a decent clip. The responses of our readers are more important than sales, of course, but it’s always nice to know that your book is not wasting your publisher’s efforts and expenses. The folks at IVP, especially Andy LePeau and Gary Deddo, believed in this project from the outset, and Doug and I are indebted to them for getting behind our vision for the book. It feels good to see that support rewarded.
In case you’re not familiar with Faith, Film, and Philosophy, the book features essays by fourteen philosophers (including Doug and myself), each which discusses a film (or two or more) from a Christian perspective. The films discussed include dramas, comedies, documentaries, and horror films—classic and contemporary, domestic and foreign. And the philosophical issues explored range across many of the major areas of philosophy, such as epistemology, philosophy of mind, ethics, and philosophy of religion. Contributors include James Sennett (on Citizen Kane), David Hunt (on The Matrix), Ron Tacelli (on horror films), Win Corduan (on Hong Kong films), and Dallas Willard (on American Beauty, Cider House Rules, and Pleasantville).
Doug has put together a website featuring more information about the book and other content related to film and philosophy: http://www.faith-film-philosophy.com/. When I complete work on my current project—a Philosophy introductory text—I’ll have more time to contribute content to that website, such as film reviews. But Doug already has some interesting stuff posted. I recommend checking out Doug’s blog as well.