Dualism

Although he doesn't call it this, the first chapter of the book brings up an issue that is very important even today.  Dualism can mean different things depending on what you are talking about.  When talking about good and evil, dualism is definitely false.  Good and evil are not equal and opposite forces at work in the universe.  Evil can't actually even exist apart from good, but good can exist without evil.  Evil is like rust on metal.  You can have metal without rust, but you can't have rust without the metal.  Evil is a deterioration or perversion of something good.  Maybe we'll talk about this more when we get to Augustine.

But the dualism this chapter deals with has to do with the soul and personhood.  Many of the ancients believed in the existence of the soul.  Philosophers today still deal with this as 'the mind-body problem'.  My view is that dualism in this sense is true.  Human beings have a dualistic nature to their being.  We are part material (our body and brain) and part immaterial (our soul, mind, spirit, etc).  What do you all think about this?

One of the objections some Christians have about this is that the Bible speaks of "body, soul, and spirit" which is a tripartite view, not the two part view of dualism.  But to say you are a dualist in regard to the mind-body problem is not mutually exclusive to "body, soul, spirit."  The point of dualism is that you are not just a body, not just a material substance.  You are an immaterial substance as well.  In fact, the immaterial substance is probably more important than the material part.  The three aspects the Bible speaks of can be dividing into the two categories: body is material, soul and spirit are immaterial.  Besides, there are several things in the NT that point to dualism.  Romans talks about the flesh vs the spirit.  Jesus talks about fearing the one who can destroy both the body and the soul, not just the body.  Paul talks about "being absent from the body is to be with the Lord."  Paul also talks about being caught up to the third heaven, whether in the body or outside of it he did not know.  But that reflects that he at least thought it was possible he could exist without his body.  

There are some Christians who reject this mind-body dualism on the basis that all we are is a brain and nervous system, and when the body dies, we die.   This view is called physicalism, that is, we are only physical.  They think Christians will be resurrected and be raised to life at the end of time, but when you are dead you are dead, there is no soul.  I think there are a lot of problems with that view, but I'll leave that up for discussion.

So, why does it matter?  Does it matter whether I believe in Jesus with my brain only, or with my brain and soul?  In a sense, no it doesn't matter.  If I believe in Jesus I believe in Jesus.  I don't have to have the proper beliefs about my beliefs.  But it does matter in regard to how we treat a lot of issues important to Christians, such as evolution and abortion.  For instance, one evolutionist has said, "I know people don't have souls, because if evolution is true souls can't exist.  I know evolution is true, therefore souls don't exist."  As a Christian I agree that evolution is not consistent with the existence of souls.  But I can turn that around on him.  "If souls exist, evolution can't be true.  I know souls exist, therefore evolution isn't true."

Diogenes Laertius was more of a biographer or historian of philosophy than an actual philosopher.  There were several philosophers in the ancient world named Diogenes.  On page 22 of the book he mentions another one, Diogenes of Apollonia.  

I think the most famous Diogenes was a guy that lived in the 4th century BC.  He was kind of a kook (in my opinion) who thought that men should reject society and live without any more luxuries than were absolutely necessary.  He lived in tub or barrel turned on its side.  Sounds like some envrio wackos (another editorial opinion) today.  Nevertheless, Alexander the Great is said to have respected him, and the two had a famous encounter. 

Chuck, you are right that Pythagoras was originally from Greece.  He was born on an island off the coast of what is now Turkey, then called Ionia.  As book points out, we aren't sure what he exactly did or thought, but if what they say about him is true, he deserves a lot of credit.  He thought that math one of the most fundamental things in the universe.  Things do happen in rhythms and patterns.  That's what modern physics is all about.  He recognized the relationship between numbers and music, and thought music to be an integral part of reality as well.  He took all this to a religious extreme, and his pantheistic religion was all wrong, but he does deserve credit for some insight.

Diogenes Laertisu

Diogenes Laertius
According to chapter one of our study book, this guy is called the father of of philosopy. He divided the presocratic era into several sections. I think they are:1. Ionic or Mylesian school which consists primarily of three big named philosophers from Greece: thales, anaximander, and anaximenes.2. The Pthyagorus school - which was centered in Italy, but I believe he came from Greece. Does anyone know if this is correct? I understand that his school was more spiritually motivated. I can't remember the others and I don't have my book with me!Who knows what Thales is remembered for? I also think that Hippocrates was one of the later names.

I did some research on what Laertius said about Pythagorous and found this interesting tidbit that might tie him into the bible... Diogenes writes, "And as he was a young man, and devoted to learning, he quitted his country, and got initiated into all the Grecian and barbarian sacred mysteries. Accordingly, he went to Egypt, on which occasion Polycrates gave him a letter of introduction to Amasis; and he learnt the Egyptian language, as Antipho tells us, in his treatise on those men who have been conspicuous for virtue, and he associated with the Chaldaeans and with the Magi."

Cool, huh?

We are going to get together, in person, Friday night November 7, at 7 PM, at the church.  Hopefully that will kick start the group.  We can start to discuss the group in general, the first chapter of the book, and get to know each other a little.  I'll bring some snacks/dessert, and I'm sure there will be coffee, etc.  Anyone who is interested is welcome.  Hope to see you there.

   Colin Brown's description of the sophists was a little bit brief, and I think the subject needs a little bit more discussion.  Understanding them helps us understand the importance of Socrates.  The Greek word for sophist is the root of some English words like 'sophistry' and 'sophisticated'. Sophistry is a form of reasoning that sounds plausible, but is totally fallacious.  I've heard Rush Limbaugh use the word to describe some political hacks before.  The sophists were basically intellectual guns for hire in the ancient world.  They could take any position and argue it convincingly.  The better their rhetorical skill and power of persuasion the more they got paid.  The problem was that they had no concept of truth.  There was no gold standard by which to judge what they said.  They essentially made up their own truth. 

    This relativism is what Socrates argued against.  He understood that there some things are true and some things false, independently of what we think about them.  Evaluating ideas in terms of this truth, in terms of some standard outside ourselves, was the starting place from which Plato, Aristotle, etc carried on.  That is a lot different than "man is the measure of all things." 

    Here is a description of what the culture was like before Socrates:

1.  there is no master story that underlies humanity (for a Christian this would involve the fall and the process of redemption)

2.  no standard by which to judge another person's reasoning

3.  there is no such thing as objectivity

4.  no moral absolutes

5.  deep suspicion of all ideas, because ideas are always manipulated for personal reasons

   This is just a partial list, but does it look familiar?  It isn't that much different than the postmodern, relativistic culture we live in.   Once again, there is nothing new under the sun, but Christ.

     One of the things the first chapter of the book brings to mind is that there really is nothing new under the sun (see Ecclesiastes).  Intelligent design is sometimes criticized as being just another attempt at the design argument for the origin of life, i.e., there is a design to nature, therefore there must be a designer (i.e. God).  I don't think that is a cogent criticism anyway, but it turns out that evolution itself is a recycled argument to some extent.  The belief in atoms is not entirely new.  And modern humanists haven't really come up with something new either.  Protagoras' quote, "Man is the measure of all things," is a fair approximation of modern secular humanism.  

     This can give us some confidence to say to modern skeptics of Christianity, whatever their pet philosophy may be, "Been there, done that."  There is one thing that happened in the ancient world, however, that had never occurred before and is truly unique in history.  That is Christ.  

     There is a lot more to say about Chapter 1.  I'll post more later, and I'll look forward to hearing from everyone else.

Current ithink activity

The ithink group is currently discussing the book Christianity and Western Thought: A History of Philosophers, Ideas, and Movements by Colin Brown.  We'll be posting our own reviews and discussions of Chapter 1 soon.

ithink intro

“But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His son…” Gal 4:4 (NASB)

What was it about the Mediterranean world two thousand years ago that made it the “fullness of time”? Why was that time ripe for the next stage in God’s plan of salvation? Part of the answer to that is the Greco-Roman culture that dominated the time. As Chesterton said (paraphrased), the Romans may have been pagans, but not all pagans were created equal. Rome’s defeat of Carthage is one the most important events in history. Carthage worshiped Moloch in what was probably a continuation of the Baal worshipping cults of the Old Testament, and the sacrifice of first born infants was a common ritual.
The Romans is many ways carried on where the Greeks left off. Certain Greeks had developed a strong desire for Truth, which they carried as far as they could without divine revelation. Salvation is certainly from the Jews, but the influence of Greek thought is pervasive throughout Christian thought. Even the doctrine of the Trinity, central to Christian theology yet never explicitly articulated in that way in the Bible, was developed using ideas that the Greek mind was comfortable with but were foreign to the Hebrew mind. I have heard it said that it is impossible to explain the Trinity to someone without invoking Plato’s idea of essences, whether you know you are doing it or not. Plato, in fact, was so good at the pursuit of truth that CS Lewis speculated that perhaps he was a believer, and Lewis would not have been surprised at all to see Plato in heaven. While I think that idea is certainly debatable, the Greeks do deserve credit for taking the pursuit of truth as far as possible without divine intervention.
We could go on with many more examples of ways in which the ancient Mediterranean world was “the fullness of time.” If anything is true it helps us understand more about God. Fortunately, God has given us direct, special revelation in the Bible. There are truths that no one can discover without that special revelation. That is why the things of Bible, namely the crucifixion, are ‘foolishness to the Greeks’. But that doesn’t change the fact that some of the Greeks had a way of understanding reality that was indispensable for the full development of Christian thought. What about after the Greeks and Romans? Alfred North Whitehead said that the history of philosophy is merely footnotes on Plato. The impact of the Greek thought on philosophy and Christian theology is indisputable. That is why I am looking forward to this group.