>...I wish I'd been required to take something
>besides Phil 101. It seems to me that every discipline has a philosophy
>by which it operates and is (somewhat) unique to that discipline. Its
>potential practitioners should know what it is.
>
When I was an undergraduate, engineers weren't required to take _any_
philosophy. I ended up taking one course -- symbolic logic -- which was
useful but not a substitute for a real introduction to philosophy.
Sometimes I hear scientists claiming that they don't need to worry about
philosophy since they are dealing with hard data. But the truth is they
are applying a philosophy which they have -- to paraphrase Francis
Schaeffer -- caught like most people catch the measles. Not teaching
philosphy does not result in philosophy-free practitioners. It results in
practitioners who practice a philosophy they are only dimly aware of. I
think the same thing happens in the church. The various streams of
Christianity -- Calvinism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism, Adventist,
Orthodox, etc. -- all have developed their own approaches to hermeneutics,
and these approaches might be said to constitute philosophies. They all
recognize Christian essentials, so there's no question that they are
Christian. But many lay people have but a superficial understanding of the
underlying philosophy used by seminarians in their denomination. That
makes it very difficult for laypeople from different groups to discuss
theological differences, and frequently results in shouting matches.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)