Samantha Young's second place essay

Inconsistent. Illogical. Absurd. Such adjectives provide a flavor of some of the less-than-amiable epithets that have been associated with Christianity both historically and in the present. Philosophers, academics, and the atheist who cares only to defend his licentious lifestyle free of condemnation are quick to jab at apparent inconsistencies or paradoxes. Yet Christianity is not the only belief system that should be obliged to answer such accusations. Any philosophy of religion and life is forced to deal with a number of difficult questions, such as—where does the concept of religion even originate? Is there a satisfactory answer to the question of epistemology? How did language come about and what type of information can it convey? Is there a basis for morality or ethics? What is the explanation for evil, pain, and suffering in the world? Such quandaries have taxed the minds of philosophers for years, and any system that claims the name of religion must be able to provide convincing and consistent answers.

In his book Religion, Reason and Revelation, Gordon Clark has focused on accomplishing exactly this. His goal in these five chapters is to lay out and defend the Christian responses to the afore-mentioned philosophical questions. Not only is the coherency of Christianity (which he defines specifically as Calvinism and the tenets established by the Westminster Confession) upheld, the flaws and holes in other religious or philosophical systems are also exposed, revealing the necessity and wisdom of the Christian worldview. Christianity does, indeed, prove itself to be a coherent, satisfactory philosophy of life.

What is religion?

In speaking of religion in general, it is imperative that the term “religion” first be clearly understood and defined. Yet, for as many books and treatises as have been written on the subject, most fail to adequately set forth such delineation and instead rely on a common understanding developed by the frequent usage and cultural connotations of the word. Among the few brave souls who have tried their hand at the difficult task, one can trace two distinct approaches. The first of these looks to the psychological factors of religion, while the second relies on a comparative approach.

The psychological category rests on the observation of the psychological—primarily emotional—effects of religion on a person; from these emotional experiences it seeks to derive a common definition. Though not necessarily omitted, intellectual content is overlooked, de-emphasized, or down-played. The essence of religion is not any specific truth claim or commonality among propositions (such as, for example, “there is a God”), but rather has to do with the attitudes or emotions it produces in a person.

Yet such categorizations fail to satisfy. Despite the psychological approach’s claim of scientific objectivity, it does not truly achieve impartiality. In observing the various forms of religion, one finds varied emphases—some esteem emotional response while others sit heavily on intellectual content such as histories and creeds. What reason, then, can this approach give for declaring emotional or psychological factors as primary in defining religion? Doing so demonstrates a pre-conceived notion of what religion is, not any empirical observation. Because of this, Clark rightly remarks, “only a non-observational judgment of value could motivate the assertion that the intellectual tenets of a religion are not worth investigating. And only the same a priori judgment could select which part of the complex phenomenon to describe” (14)….

If an emotional basis fails to provide adequate grounds for a definition, perhaps an analysis of the actual beliefs or tenets of religions can provide information from which to deduce a definition. This method is known as the comparative method; it rests on the idea that, if one examines the different religions and searches for a belief or claim common to all, therein one will find the basis of religion. In other words, it is a search for the common denominator.

Two problems, however, arise with this method. First, the comparative approach requires already knowing that which it claims to seek. Though it claims to seek the definition of religion, it compares religions in order to do so. Yet until the conditions for religion are discovered, it cannot be known if the subjects of comparison are, indeed, religions. Clearly, this leads to skewed conclusions. Secondly, even supposing the definition may be discovered by finding the common denominator, this common denominator becomes so general and vague that it ceases to provide any meaningful description of the phenomenon….

In regard to these two failed attempts, then, one must ask: why the phenomenon of religion? If no emotional or doctrinal similarities exist among all systems considered religious, why and how did such a classification even come about? The answer to this question relies on revelation, and can only be provided through a Christian worldview. God revealed himself to Adam before the Fall. This, indeed, was the inception of religion. The Fall, however, separated man from God and shrouded much of this true religion. Man, in his repulsion from God “distorted both the revelation and their reaction to it. As generations came and went, these distortions diverged in many directions, giving rise to all forms of idolatry, animal worship, fetishism, and witchcraft, not to mention the more blatant rebellion of atheism” (24-25). Thus, some worldviews are quickly recognized as religion because of a closeness to the original (such as Judaism, or Islam), while others look more like “philosophies.” These divergences cannot be categorized because they have not occurred logically and thus “the only comprehensive result of attempting to define religion is now the vaguest of meaningless statements” (25).

Christianity provides an answer to the age-old difficulty of what, exactly, “religion” is. The category does not stem from any common doctrine or feeling, but rather finds its origins in God’s relationship with mankind and the subsequent entrance of sin into the world and separation from God….

Faith and Reason – Dichotomy or Symbiosis?

One of the first critical and most basic questions at the root of any religion is the relationship of faith and reason, for it deals with the question of epistemology—the basis of knowledge—which in turn validates or defeats any other claims the religion might make. While many stances have been taken on the issue throughout history, they may be summarized under four general categories—natural theology, modern philosophy, irrationalism, and Christian Calvinism.

Natural theology—also called Thomism in honor of one of its main proponents, Thomas Aquinas—holds faith and reason as distinct, yet not antithetical, ideas. The essence of natural theology is that knowledge of God is derived by reasoning from nature….

Faith and reason fit into this system as mutually exclusive, though not antithetical, concepts. Once something has been demonstrated by reason—shown rationally true—it is impossible to accept it any longer on faith, for it has been proven. It is accepted on the basis of knowledge and reason. Only those things which have not been proven or demonstrated can be the subject of faith.  Clark summarizes the position well:          

God has accommodated himself to human frailty, and because the Christian religion is not to be restricted to scholars, God has supernaturally revealed some truths which scholars can discover of themselves. Thus God has revealed his existence so that peasants and morons may believe on him; and they have faith. But Thomas [Aquinas] no longer believes in God’s existence; he knows that God exists because he has proved it. (30)…

However, despite the view’s popularity, it contains several flaws that must not be overlooked. Though the universe may point to a Cause, logic does not allow us to ascribe any more characteristics to that Cause than the barebones necessary for producing the specific effects observed. Thus, while the universe requires some sort of physical cause, we cannot derive from this the “transcendent personality” of God…. A more satisfactory account of the relationship between reason and faith must be found, for Thomism still provides no adequate grounds for a knowledge of God.

The second school of thought discards the validity of faith entirely and attempts to rely on reason alone for knowledge. Though the forms this idea has taken are greatly varied, this school of thought has carried on throughout much of the modern history of philosophy and boasts such notable constituents as Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Kant, and Hegel….

Observing the futility of dependency on reason alone for knowledge, others have turned to the opposite extreme of embracing faith without reason. These form the third group of thought —irrationalism. Again, the varieties of persons and belief systems involving faith without reason is extremely varied and ranges from mysticism and Neo-orthodoxy to certain aspects of pietism and fundamentalism. The famous Kierkegaard and Nietzsche also fall into this category….

Irrationalism simply provides no basis for truth or knowledge.

The fourth and final view is that purported by Christianity. Having demonstrated the inadequacy of the previous three views in regards to the basis of knowledge and relationship of faith and reason, the coherence and truth of the Christian view becomes even more visible. Faith and reason are not antithetical, as those who throw out faith would claim. Yet faith does have an intellectual basis, despite the claims of the irrationalists. Their compatibility, however, is of a different sort than that conceived of in natural theology. It is a Biblical conception of reason and faith that enable one to avoid the contradictions of the other three systems. Thus, a Biblical definition of the two terms must be clearly set forth.

Establishing what faith is, in the Biblical sense, requires having a Biblical understanding of psychology, specifically as it relates to the human personality. In today’s Christian experience, it is common to divide a person into the concepts of “intellect,” “emotion,” and “volition.” Faith is considered to be one or some combination of these three faculties. Yet this notion of a “faculty psychology”—where the self is divided—is a modern concept that has worked its way into the understanding of the self. The Bible does not so dichotomize the human soul. In Hebrew, the word “heart” is much more like the modern-day word for “self;” it does not refer merely to “emotion.” In fact, Scripture passages demonstrate that the intellect plays just as much, if not more, of a role than emotions do in the heart or self.

Faith, then, is not simply a feeling. Indeed, Scripture points to the fact that faith involves elements of intellect and volition. Faith or belief is faith or belief in something—the fact that there is an object requires there be true propositions about that object, and therefore intellectual components in faith….

Reason must also be defined and can most simply be described as logic. It is not defined in the terms of natural theology or as deriving its basis from sensory experience. Logic and reason must rest on revelation, for as demonstrated by the history of philosophy, reason without a basis on revelation fails to arrive at knowledge and ends in skepticism….

Language – Human Convention or Divine Instrument?

Since revelation is necessary for knowledge, the question for the Christian worldview next becomes—how is this revealed? Simply answered, it is revealed through Scripture. But this raises a number of questions. Can language be an adequate means of conveying divine revelation? What, specifically, is the process or method of this occurrence? Can, indeed, “divine revelation as the presupposition of knowledge offer a solution to the problems of language?” (111).

To begin, one must first examine the claims Scripture makes of itself. The Bible claims that Scripture is inspired—it is all God-breathed (2 Timothy 2:16), particularly using language as its means of conveyance. Additionally, many verses specifically reference God’s Word—his speaking and his putting words in the mouths of his prophets. Nor did such words lose their force when written down; Jesus, in the New Testament, references these writings as authoritative and reliable. Finally, Jesus demonstrates the accuracy and importance of precise language by referencing the meanings of individual words in particular passages of Scripture….

Christian theism provides an answer to the difficulty of where and how spiritual language developed—theistic linguistics. All thought and communication are desired, planned, and implemented by God—he is its creator, and it is innate through Christ, the Word (John 1:1). Such ability was given to mankind by God in order to receive his revelation. Clark remarks:

Theism of course need not deny that the names of animals and things refer to sensorily perceived physical objects; it need not deny that spatial relationships are well represented in language; it need not deny or distort any of our common gross experience. But it must assert that man’s endowment with rationality, his innate ideas and a priori categories, his ability to think and speak were given to him by God for the essential purpose of receiving a verbal revelation, of approaching God in prayer, and of conversing with other men about God and spiritual realities (135).

Religious language can indeed be literal and is not fundamentally different than any other category of language; it is a gift from God.

From whence morality?

Knowledge and language are not the only two categories made coherent by the idea of revelation. The question of right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, good and evil is a predicament that has been pondered and discussed through all of history. Can views that do not accept revelation have any successful, coherent theories of ethics? Can they, indeed, logically define morality? Or is morality also dependent on revelation for a foundation?...

Christian ethics, on the other hand, find their basis in a Divine Legislator (183). God is sovereign and his commands determine the ethical code. Because he is the Supreme Judge and there is none above or outside him to condemn or approve his actions, he can do no wrong. It is in his clear commands that one finds the grounds for an ethical system. Some are hesitant to affirm that, as God could have designed the physical world in a different manner, so, too, he could have created the moral standard and rules differently. Yet we see this demonstrated in God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his own son. As difficult as it may be for humans to grasp this, the rightness of the command comes from the position of the One who commands it, rather than some abstract body of principles outside of God or conclusions deduced from scientific reasoning. God always acts in accordance with his nature, which protects Christian ethics from the claim of being “arbitrary” or “whimsical,” but ethics rest in his divine decree.

Good and Omnipotent God – A contradiction of terms?

Following a discussion of morality and its basis, the question that next demands an answer from any viable worldview is the reason for and origin of pain and evil. Horrendous specters such as the holocaust and genocide are nearly universally labeled as wrong—but on what grounds? As recently addressed, non-revelational ethical systems truly have no basis from which to condemn evil as evil. Christianity does indeed provide a foundation for right and wrong, but the frightful question becomes—how does the existence of evil not contradict the Biblical idea of a good, omnipotent God? Christianity seems to lie in a predicament….

The idea of free-will has frequently been used as an answer to this apparent contradiction. Though God is omnipotent, he intentionally limits himself for a greater good—the free will of man—so that he is not served by robots. We choose evil simply because we want to; thus, the blame lies solely on mankind. Yet does this theory hold up to Biblical evidence and logical scrutiny?

One must first consider what, specifically, is meant by the term free-will. It cannot—at least in this day and age—refer to one’s ability to always refrain from sin, for only Adam and Eve had this type of freedom. Romans 5 makes clear that through the sin of Adam all of his offspring have become guilty. David, in Psalm 51, affirms that all men are conceived in iniquity. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We are a fallen race; sin is inevitable. Free-will, then, must refer to something else when used in a modern context. A fair definition of the word is an equal ability to choose either of two incompatible paths.  In order for this to be the case, Clark observes that “whatever motives or inclinations a man may have, or whatever inducements may be laid before him, that might seem to turn him in a certain direction, he may at a moment disregard them all and do the opposite” (203). This is a necessary condition for the type of freedom previously defined. Yet if it is true that a person’s choices “are not determined by motives, by inducements, or by his settled character,” such free choices become sheer randomness (204)….

The alternate option to this idea of free-will, however, is that of predestination. The gut-reaction of most people to this term is one of disgust. Additionally, it only seems to worsen the problem of evil—for it makes God the ordainer of all the horrific events that have taken place since the beginning of time. Moreover, humans could not have done otherwise, and thus they have no responsibility. Guilt is laid on God’s shoulders, making him the author of evil.

While these are legitimate concerns, it is not up to us to decide God’s nature—rather, we must look to scripture and see what God himself declares to be true. The Bible demonstrates God’s sovereignty over all—even his willing of immoral occurrences (such as the murder of his own Son) and calamity (Isaiah 45:7). As repulsive as it may initially sound to human ears, God is the ultimate cause of evil; if he did not enable it, it would not exist, for nothing exists outside his willing. However, many quickly assume that God is then culpable, that he is contradictory, and that men are innocent and merely puppets. These points do not follow. God is not contradictory in planning the occurrence of evil events while commanding humans not to sin—for one is his prescriptive will and the other is his decretive will. He prescribes for humans what they ought to do. Yet he decides what will occur in the future and, because of his omnipotence and lack of any standard but himself, all that he does is right. Nor is man a puppet in the process. Though his will is not “free” in that it is not uninfluenced by outside factors, it is also not coerced. It does what it wants to do. The fact that we experience “choice” is evidence of this—we do that which we most desire….

Important Implications

The final question now remains…so what? Pretty words, fancy philosophies, even organized arguments are futile without a clear understanding of how to practically apply them. First and foremost, answers to these difficult philosophical quandaries serve to help cement the veracity of Christianity in the believer’s own mind. Though the topic is almost taboo in many Christian spheres, almost all believers experience doubt at some time or another. Indeed, doubt is a key tool Satan uses in discouraging and distracting the saints…. When philosophers, academics, or adherents of other religions make objections or attacks against Christianity, having solid answers to these religious questions provide the Christian with a firm background to not be blown by the wind or quake at every so-called “contradiction” brought forth. Furthermore, when one feels doubtful—perhaps for no other reason than that emotions fluctuate—having a strong, intellectual grounding and reasons for the faith help to guard against and fight back against such emotions.  Such ballast is a huge point of application for an intricate, well-formed philosophy of Christianity.

Secondly, this information may be used to provide responses that are timely, well-worded, and “seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6) to questions about or attacks against the faith. Having a better grasp of what Christianity believes and understanding the implications of other viewpoints enables one to more perceptively respond to the heart of a question or objection….

Finally, though Clark’s book focuses tremendously on the intellectual aspects of faith, this is not to minimize volition and emotion. Rather, as Clark notes in his discussion of faith and reason, the underlying unity of a human being dictates that, if a truth affects our intellect, it should in turn affect our volition and emotions, as well—the whole self. Conversely, our choices and emotions betray our actual beliefs. If we espouse the intellectual propositions herein discussed, it carries implications for how we will think, act, and feel about various life circumstances. We proclaim God’s sovereignty —but do we live day-to-day trusting that he is working all things for the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28)? Is our gut response praise of the Creator because he is worthy, even when afflictions come? Do we take seriously the divine commands of Scripture as the inspired Word of God? Or do we, at times, intentionally gloss over certain commands, such as “do not be anxious about anything” (Philippians 4:6)?...

Where does this leave us but humbly dependent on the God of the Gospel, bringing us back to the very center of Christianity? For we know that in this life we will never completely accomplish the alignment of what we say we believe with all of our thoughts, actions, and emotions. In Romans 7, Paul groans that the good he wishes to do, he does not do, and that which he does not wish to do, this he does. Our remaining sin and discontinuity incessantly remind us of our need for a Savior. God has provided that Savior in Jesus Christ. We are again brought to our knees in front of the cross, pleading for God’s grace and change in our lives, yet exalting in the glorious work he has already accomplished and the fact that our sins have been forgiven—indeed, we are the very righteousness of Christ, the sons and daughters of God. He calls us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling for He is the One at work within us both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13). Assured of this, then, let us join Paul in Philippians 3:14, fervently “press[ing] on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called [us] heavenward in Christ Jesus.”