Rooted in the Absolute

"The infinite and personal God, the one who made the physical realm, is also responsible for the world's intelligibility and the unfolding of historical events. As a result, the classical Christian position on truth, knowledge, and history differs significantly from the relativistic spirit so common in today's world. The Christian worldview is rooted in absolute truth." (1)

Throughout our study of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, we have continued to compare and contrast their views with that of biblical Christianity. The focus of our compare -and -contrast study has been Plato's philosophy. Since our semester comes to a close next week, yesterday's class consisted of reviewing and summarizing our observations.

We acknowledge that all truth is God's truth, and we do see several things in Plato's view of reality that we can agree with. One of those things is that he claimed that truth is absolute. His doctrine ,or theory, of the Forms conveys an absolute, eternal, immutable, perfect spiritual realm that is in opposition with the temporal, imperfect and ever-changing physical world of matter. Even as believers in our postmodern world, we see that the shadow of Plato's dualism often creeps into our thinking. We are tempted to divide our lives into the sacred and secular, separating our Sundy -morning- God from the rest of our week, the rest of our lives. Plato's most famous pupil does not hold to this dualism.

In the later life of Aristotle, we see a departure from the teachings of his mentor. In fact, we see an outright rejection of the world of the Forms. Unlike Plato, he views the physical world of matter as very good. This world is the arena for experimentation and exploration ; Aristotle is a classifier by nature with a love of what is now known as biology and zoology. As to the spiritual realm, he does not hold a complete reversal of Plato's views and, therefore, consider it evil, but his focus is on the physical world. Aristotle sees 'God' as the Unmoved Mover, an eternal being, a First Cause. Applications of Aristotles' philosophy can tend toward humanism.

The students have been asked to explain and discuss some of the things they have learned in this study with their parents. I'm excited to hear about the results!

(1) Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 74.

Lord Over All

In yesterday's class, we discussed some of the ways in which echos of Plato's dualism continue to influence the world in which we live today. Plato was correct in pointing out the duality of reality; this world is not all there is. The problem lies in the fact that his philosophy places an overemphasis on the unseen spiritual realm and dismisses the value of the material world. Duality, yes. Dualism, no. The Christian doctrine of creation shows no such enmity between the body and soul. Plato sees the physical realm as an evil that one must endure until the soul breaks free from the body, its "prisonhouse," and returns to its former state of perfection. Unfortunately, this doesn't always last since the soul continues its journey of transmigration when it must return to the "dreary world of matter" (as he says in the Republic) and inhabit another body.

This disdain for the physical world spills over into a devaluing of physical labor and those who perform it and an exaltation of those who are employed in activities that are "good for the soul." Plato's influence has led many to believe that the priesthood, or even the life of a pastor or missionary, is more holy than that of other professions. It must be noted that Plato included philosophers in the first category as those who look after the things of the soul. In his ideal city, philosopher-kings would rule!

In our current society, we see the imposition of a sacred/secular divide. God, religion and matters of the soul are all well and good as long as they do not escape the walls of the church. The Christian sees no such divide; Jesus Christ is Lord over all areas of life both inside and outside the church walls. This is not to say that believers see no difference in the roles of church and government. Martin Luther's "Creator-Redeemer Distinction" exemplifies this and sees all of life under Christ's Lordship. (Students, remind me to discuss this next time.)

I will close with a definition of "secular" which was given by one of my former students: "The secular world is not one in which God does not exist; it is one in which He is ignored." I couldn't have said it better!

Whoooo is really wise?

Is it the one with the highest academic degree? Is it someone with a lot of common sense? What about someone who is 'street smart'? Socrates thinks that the really wise person is the one who realizes his own lack or his own ignorance--that he doesn't know it all. We can certainly see some truth in that statement, and it does seem to be a humble stance, at least on the surface. We have outlined Plato's view of reality and have seen that, for him, real knowledge and truth reside in the supernatural realm of the Forms--the world of Ideas. We have also noted that, according to his theory, everything that exists in the material world is only a cheap imitation of its real form or pattern which is immaterial. So we might infer that if, and I repeat, if there is any wisdom to be found here, it is in the striving for those things which are good for the soul and for the ultimate Good itself. As Christian believers we will differ from the Platonists as to what is the only real ultimate Good for the soul, and we will also differ as to where truth, knowledge and wisdom are to be found. The scripture tells us that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. 1:7). I look forward to sharing in the wisdom that you will discover in your scripture search this week.

The Philosophers

Yesterday's class marked the beginning of our look at the ancient Greek philosophers. We introduced Socrates, Plato & Aristotle, but our primary focus will be on Plato. The basis for our discussion was his Allegory of the Cave which is found in Plato's Republic. I took a few 'prisoners' myself in our darkened 'cave' of a classroom to illustrate the basis of the story. The point being that Plato views the material world as a mere shadow of what is really real--the immaterial spiritual world. This is the realm of ideas or Forms as Plato describes it. Next time we will dig a little deeper into the Theory of the Forms and see how Plato's ideas still influence the world today. (Click on the picture to read a short explanation of the cave allegory.)

Two Paths

In Virgil's Aeneid, the hero's visit to the Underworld illustrates the way in which the ancient Romans viewed the afterlife. It is very clear that, to their way of thinking, a person's life on earth determined their destination after death:



"It is here that the way splits into two paths; one track, on the right, goes straight to mighty Pluto's battlements and by it we make our journey to Elysium; and the other, to the left, brings evil men to godless Tartarus, and with never a pause, exacts their punishment"(1).



The Elysian Fields, the Roman idea of heaven, was called by various other names such as the Field of Joy, the Fortunate Woods and the Homes of Peace where the Souls in Bliss spend eternity singing, dancing and playing games while "snow white ribbons" encircle their brows (2).



Those who wound up in Tartarus, while they are hungry and thirsty, have plentiful food and drink in view, but it is guarded by monstrous creatures who ensure that it always remain just out of reach. And all the while, these tormented souls are undergoing unspeakable torture.



Romans 1:20 says that all men, since the dawn of creation, are made aware of God's nature and power through what is seen around them. With this knowledge comes an innate awareness that one is not in good standing with such a holy and powerful God. The ancient Greeks and Romans were, of course, no exception; however, they continued to worship gods made in their own image. As we mentioned last week, these gods and goddesses were considered to possess all the shortcomings and commit all the sins that human beings do. Next time we will begin to examine how the later philosophers thought that it was inappropriate to think of the divine in this way.

(1), (2) - All quotes are taken from Virgil's Aeneid translated by W. F. Jackson Knight, Penguin Books, New York, NY, 1958.

As we examine the ancient Greco-Roman world, we are summarizing the works of Homer and Virgil. War and peace, love and hatred, jealousy and vengeance, adventure and danger, heroes and cowards, not to mention a few monsters thrown in to keep things from getting boring! These stories run the gamut of all human emotion and passion-the good, the bad and the ugly. The problem is that this describes the gods and goddesses as well. Odysseus and Aeneus perceive the gods to be just like themselves except, of course, for the fact that they are all-powerful and immortal! Now that's a scary scenario! If the gods are just like human beings with all our shortcomings. . .well, this doesn't exactly sound like a refuge to run to when trouble comes in this life, does it? The gods are fickle. They plot and scheme to intervene in the events of earth to benefit their favorite mortals and then take vengeance against others. And what about beyond the grave. . .will I find favor with the gods?

According to Homer, Odysseus was able to visit the place of the dead. Later on Virgil writes that Aeneas also made this same voyage. What a picture they have provided. Yesterday we began to discuss the Greco-Roman concept of the afterlife. We will later see that some of their ideas are comparable to popular conceptions of heaven and hell even to this day. Next week we will place these ideas up against the standard of Scripture.

"Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods?"

We took a detour yesterday from our right-brained look at logic to enter into more of a relaxed left-brained story time! Just what does that have to do with Christian worldview thinking? The next topic in our text examines the Christian view of truth, knowledge and history, so this seemed to be a good time to back up and look at the worldviews which were prevalent in the centuries leading up to the birth of Christ. Our starting point for this segment is the worship of the gods and goddesses of Olympus by the ancient Greeks and Romans. This topic was introduced through the story of "The Golden Apple of Discord" which supposedly formed the backdrop for the Trojan War. Even though the Greek and Roman myths are 'just stories' to us, we can't lose sight of the fact that these myths, especially the works of Homer and Virgil, represented the history and the theology of these ancient people groups; these gods and goddesses were considered to be real.

We are going to spend a little time here and then move on to the different theological views posed by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Next week we will look at the anthropomorphic nature of the gods of Olympus.

Does it line up?

I want to thank Harrison for bringing this imagery to our minds. As we discussed whether or not an argument is valid, he processed it this way: "Does it line up?" That is a great way to define a valid argument. Does it line up? Does it add up? However, there's an important phrase to remember here and that is "If the premises are true. . . ." An argument may have premises that are ridiculous, but the test is this: If the premises were true, would the conclusion logically follow? That will always be the case in a valid argument. Take this example:
P1: Anyone who wishes to may go to Paris, France tomorrow.
P2: I wish to go to Paris, France tomorrow.
Therefore, I am going to Paris, France tomorrow.
Premise 2 is certainly true. If premise 1 were true also, then the conclusion would be logical and true, and I would be on my way to the airport! This means that the argument is valid, but it is not sound. So validity is a very important aspect of a persuasive argument, but validity alone will not get me to the Eiffel Tower. An effective persuasive argument will be sound as well as valid. Yes, we want our premises to line up and lead to the desired conclusion, but we also want our premises to be true. Anything else would certainly be "vain philosophy."
(Mrs. H.)

"Brilliant deduction!"

Dr. Watson, the sidekick of Sherlock Holmes,was often found to be congratulating Holmes on his investigative detective skills by using the phrase, "Brilliant deduction!" If we wanted to be sticklers about it, we would note that what should have been said is "Brilliant induction!" Holmes and Watson were always busy gathering evidence from a crime scene and putting the pieces together to reach their conclusion as to who had committed the crime. So they were really engaged in inductive reasoning.

Remember that inductive reasoning involves examining the particulars that one has witnessed or experienced in some way, evidence that has been gathered in, and moving toward a general conclusion that may or may not be true. Depending upon the kind of evidence and the amount of evidence, the probability of a true and certain conclusion will rise or fall. Technically speaking, deductive reasoning involves moving from a general principle that is accepted as true or assumed to be true and concluding that it has application to particular instances as well. We might need to give Sherlock and Dr. Watson a break, though, because sometimes the term "deduce" is used to mean only that a conclusion has been reached through reasoning. For our purposes, we will keep the terms as we defined them in class today. Knowing the difference will help you to discern whether or not an argument and its conclusion are sound and reliable no matter how logical they may first appear.

Just for fun, I'm including the link to a Sherlock Holmes mystery that I just watched myself. It's about 30 minutes long; check with your parents and make sure you're caught up on all your homework first!
See you next week. . .Mrs. H.

Is it real?

We are continuing on with the subject of epistomology - the study of how we can know anything at all and specifically how we can know what is really real. Thank you, Sadie, for helping us to illustrate this with your homework assignment!



Remember that last week we watched a video clip in which the participants voiced their opinions on this topic. Yesterday we focused on the written transcript of that discussion entitled "Science or Revelation." Parents, you should know that the students were each given a copy of this transcript which you might find useful for continued conversations with your child. Some of the questions involved are:

• Is science the only way of knowing?
• Are empirical methods the only valid means of gaining knowledge? (At this time, we are using the term "empirical" to mean those things which can be learned by experimentation, observation and/or measurement; however, we will soon bring in another aspect of this term as it relates to personal experience).
• Is the material world, and the knowledge we can gain from it, our only source of knowledge?
• Is the scientific method the only way to determine what is real?

In the transcript, you will notice that one of the panelists tells us that reality is viewed through different windows. We know this to be true as it concerns the window of our particular worldview because this is how we interpret everything, but what we must clarify is that what many people are viewing, and clinging to, is a false sense of reality. For further illustration of this, we discussed what we might call peepholes within the bigger worldview window. Some may be viewing reality through the window of science or that of music or art or any other area of interest to the individual. Even around our small classroom table, we are all bringing something different to the 'table' of life. These differences are opportunities for us to learn from each other. We have been emphatic in pointing out that just because each of us may view different facets or aspects of reality, we are not viewing a different reality. We are not saying that we can create our own reality by choosing what is real and true for each of us as individuals (Students, remember that this is called "relativism").

Back to our transcript: the panelists in this discussion have given us glimpses into their own presuppositions, many of which are false. Francis Schaeffer says that one of our apologetics tasks is to lovingly bring unbelievers face to face with the logical conclusions of their presuppositions. We will begin learning how to do that as we tackle the homework assignment for next week. See you then. . .Mrs. H.

The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothin' but the Truth!

"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothin' but the truth?" When good ole Curley is asked to take this oath before he testifies in court, he thinks he's being given a lot of double talk. In the realm of ideas, we've all felt just like Curley did from time to time, I'm sure. Unfortunately, ever since the serpent spoke in the garden, there's been no shortage of double talk. The sad fact is that falsehood never shows itself; it always wears a mask, and sifting out the truth takes work. So how do we know what is true? OK, here I go again with my childhood Sunday School songs: "How do I know? The Bible tells me so!"

In today's class, we began laying the foundation for how we know what we know by introducing the topic of epistemology--the study of knowledge. We use our God-given reasoning abilities to interpret the ways that He has revealed Himself to us. There is no enmity between reason and revelation, but as Christians we realize that reason must submit to the revelation of God.

Students, think about the video clip that we watched today. We saw some very divergent opinions about how humans can attain knowledge. Please come prepared to discuss this at next week's class.

I look forward to our next time to together. . .Mrs. H.

Roadblocks and Smokescreens

Sometimes the practice of apologetics is necessary due to intellectual roadblocks or emotional smokescreens. There are those who are opposed to Christianity because of what they consider to be issues of intellectual integrity. They feel that they cannot accept Christian belief and remain intellectually honest. One of the big ticket items here is the theory of evolution; this is a roadblock for many, and as Matthew said today, it stops them from believing. Others have issues which are more emotional in nature. They just don't want to talk about it, and so they will send up a smokescreen to change the subject or try to stump you with a question that they are really not concerned about at all. These folks may actually be the most difficult to witness to. . .it will take prayer and commitment to the relationship to figure out where the real starting point is for them. But whatever that point might be, you can be certain that it involves wrong thinking. In fact, even as believers, each of us will struggle from time to time with our own wrong thinking patterns. We often drift back into "listening to ourselves instead of preaching to ourselves." This is because sin has affected us in our whole being. It has affected us noetically, in our minds. The end result, the resultant effect is a sin-clouded mind. This is manifested in each of us in different ways, and so our apologetics must be person-sensitive. Vivian noted that this means we can't "use the same formula" for every unbeliever that we come in contact with. Yes, apologetics is sometimes necessary to pave the way the for the gospel, but we do not assume that. . .gospel first, apologetics second, always remembering I Peter 3:15 and to do so "with gentleness and respect."

Until next time when we'll try to tackle one of Harrison's questions. . .Mrs. H.

Calling All Bookworms!

Did you do much reading over the summer? If you are a true bibliophile, you might like to check out Library Thing (No worries - it just means that you love books!). At Library Thing, you can display the variety of books in your own library, recommend something that you're currently reading or even give a book review. As you list each book, you can see how many other members own it also. I have entered several of my own books but still have a lot to go. Now that school is back in full swing, I hope that you will prioritize your time so that you still have time to curl up with a good book and be transported into its pages. Enjoy your library!

Your worldview is like. . .

- your window on the world. This is the place where you view and interpret the world around you.

- your eyeglasses. You see reality through the filter of this lens. Everything and everyone that you come into contact with is viewed in this particular light.

- the foundation of your house. You don't visit it often, but you know it's there holding everything else together. . .hopefully. . .if you've built upon a firm foundation. It shapes everything else that is built upon it.

- your roadmap for life. It directs your steps. You may have a perfectly good map, but it might be leading you to an unintended destination. Your map may be incomplete for your needs. A map of Kansas will only help you for a short while on a cross-country trip, and it will be totally useless if you find yourself in a foreign country. A map is no good unless it is taking you where you need to go.

- a mental filing cabinet. It organizes all that you believe about life. As you would expect, the big files contain your ideas about all the big issues of life: God, man, the universe and beyond. The little folders hold all those connected beliefs--some as firmly-held presuppositions and others have ideas that you're not quite sure about yet.

No matter which illustration you prefer, your worldview will determine whether you will embrace or reject the new ideas that you encounter each day. I will never forget a sign that I once saw in a bookstore: "Ideas come out in a life." Ideas are not content to stay in the mind; they will eventually come to life in our attitudes and behavior. It really does matter what you believe. Everything depends upon it. We'll talk more about that next time. . . .Mrs. H.