Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
Critical Standards Essential for Evangelicals
John Sommerville
Mountainview, Calif.
From: JASA 22 (June 1970): 76.
Francis Sehaeffer's The God Who Is There has achieved a considerable following,
despite the caution shown by this journal (Journal ASA 21, 54 (1969) and by other
evangelical publications in reviewing the book. In several respects its
popularity is justified. In identifying relativism and subjectivism as the
characteristic intellectual difficulties of our time, in urging Christians to
take the offensive against a culture which is less formidable arid less
self-assured than some might suppose, and in specific suggestions concerning
apologetics and evangelism, Schaeffer performs needed services. But in numerous
respects he violates his own principle (p. 166) by teaching what will later have
to he unlearned.
Take his central point, for example. Sehaeffer identifies the fundamental
stumbling block today, not as philosophical scepticism, which might make Hume,
Kant, and Sehleiermacher the central figures in his discussion, but rather
dialectical idealism. He supposes that Hegel denied any real difference between
a thesis and its antithesis, but constantly sought to resolve differences by
synthesis. Now, whether or not Hegel was more interested in the new synthesis
than in the subsequent antithesis, it is obvious that Kierkegaard, the author of
Either/Or, was no disciple of Hegel (p. 21).
The point of dialectical argument, put most simply, is that many philosophical
problems prove to he the result of an inadequate, poorly phrased, or
historically conditioned dichotomy, which must he replaced by another, in which
elements from both sides of the original problem are found in the new thesis,
which again has its antithesis. Schaeffer himself uses just such a dialectical
approach to show that Camus' ddemma concerning medicine and Providence was not
adequate to the true moral situation as revealed by Christian theology (pp. 101
& 107; see p. 95 for another of Schaeffer's own dialectical arguments). All
this is rather academic, however, for the real philosophical problems of today
stem not from a dialectical method but from scepticism, which has a history
going hack to pre-Christian times and was recognized as a problem by theologians
as early as Tertullian. What Dr. Sehaeffer is trying to say about the despair in
modern literature and art makes sense only in terms of philosophical scepticism.
Even more damaging to the hook is the lack of
ally sense of the difficulties with which natural theology met in the 13th
century and which eventually drove religious philosophers into fideism. The
little story of how Hegel hit upon the new way of thinking, not in terms of
"cause and effect" but rather in terms of synthesis (p. 20), seems
designed to indicate that there were no genuine reasons behind Hegel's attempt
to solve some of these very problems, and that we are therefore justified ill
simply returning to a prior philosophical position (p. 54?).
Besides the seeming ignorance of the relevant development of philosophical
theology and the frequent confusion of categories, the book uses a terminology
that is hopelessly and needlessly inadequate. For example, Schaeffer could have
avoided the absurdity of the phrase "true truth" by realizing that the
only way to "think about truth" (see p. 15), as opposed to considering
the truth of particular propositions, is to think generally about the conditions
under which we would
accept propositions as verified. A number of other words (universal, absolute,
real, reason, nature, romantic) fall apart in Schaeffer's hands, or are used for
their connotative value, a practice he decries in others.
He is also guilty of misrepresentation, as in regard to existentialism. He is
correct in saying that Sartre has forfeited his right to express objective moral
judgments on other men's actions, and is bound by his own principles to consider
the most hideous act as evidence of a man's "authentic" character. But
to say that to Sartre the choice is "unimportant" (p. 24) is a
grotesque error. Sartre can show his own repugnance by choosing not to do such
an act, though he has not, iii fact, limited himself to deeds ill expressing his
own deep moralizing interest-a point which Sehaeffer labors.
To show the logical or practical difficulties in other philosophical traditions,
although having a place in apologetics, does not suffice to prove one's own
position. And there is a danger that readers who have not been made aware of the
difficulties in the way of anyone who wants to demonstrate that the Scriptures
contain "truths ill a propositional form" or prove that
"reasons" and revelation form a "unified field of
knowledge", will find their witness weakened rather than strengthened. It
is not Sehaeffer's fault that he was the first to grapple with these broad
cultural and intellectual questions, and to indicate the pitfalls to avoid. But
evangelicals will he open to the charge of dishonesty if we fail to demand the
same critical standards of ourselves that we expect of others.