... fulfills this verse: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils." 1 Timothy 6:10. Case in point: China keeps trying to export food to the U.S., whether it is intended for pets or humans, which is laden with banned toxins, chemicals, and other substances which render such food unfit for consumption. Why would China do such a thing? They erroneously believe that the root of Western prosperity is capitalism, when in fact it is Christ. China has embraced capitalism without Christ, and lust for money not tempered by love for your neighbor has produced a very dangerous trading partner, indeed.
A T. rex bone was discovered some years ago with blood cell proteins still intact in the bone marrow - something which is completely impossible by any standard of science if the bone of the dinosaur was truly 68 million years old, as darwinists claim. Yet when the intact protein was discovered, did you read about it in National Geographic, or see one of those controversial documentaries that Discovery Channel likes to air so much? If you knew about it at all, it was because you saw the news in Creation Magazine or in one of the other creation science news outlets.
As Creation Magazine pointedly said at the time, if dinosaurs were created on day six, when the Bible says land animals were created, then were buried for rapid fossilization during the cataclysm of Noah's global flood some 4500 years ago, it is quite possible for blood proteins to have remained intact without decaying completely.
The first news of this startling discovery just hit the secular press a few weeks ago, but the headline wasn't "Soft tissue in dinosaur bone shatters millions of years timeline!" as it should have been. It was ... "T. rex thigh reveals chicken family ties." They came to that conclusion that since the protein studied most closely matched collagen in chickens, therefore the leap was made that chickens are the modern evolutionary descendants of the T. rex.
Answers in Genesis and Dr. Grady McMurty of Creation Worldview Ministries both handily debunked the claims, while rightly pointing out the bigger story to which the darwinists have blinded their eyes. The protein tested only represented less than 3% of the T. rex's total genome, and it was compared to the collagen (no other proteins?) of only three modern animals: the chicken, the newt, and the frog. Why those three? Clearly, the bias of the researcher to find "evidence" to support the pre- accepted theory that modern amphibians or birds were descendants of the dinosaurs was at play. Conclusions based on such limited data are logically flawed, and cannot be as conclusive as the media have hopefully portrayed.
In the meanwhile, Bill Maher (he is a comedian; I didn't know who he was either) has determined to make a "mockumentary" ridiculing Christians and creationists, and to that end, broke into AiG's Creation Museum last week, bypassing security to gain an interview with AiG founder Ken Ham. I am not sure why criminal activity was necessary, since AiG and Mr. Ham have been granting interviews to all the media outlets who have come calling.
The Creation Museum is set to open next month, on Memorial Day. Atheists who do not believe in God, and Christians who do not believe that God was either the author of Genesis, or who believe He lied to us in Genesis if He was, are staging protests outside the Museum for opening day. Their reason: "... fear that their children may be influenced by what the Museum teaches." It seems to me that only those who have no confidence in the truth of their own position "fear" the free presentation of other positions. Truth always reveals itself upon examination. So why the mocking, why the silencing attempts of non- darwinian viewpoints and evidence, if darwinism is based on such rock solid truth? Just present the evidence.
I had noted in a few previous posts about the atheists, or "non-theists" as I suppose they want to be called now, and their renewed crusade to destroy God and all gods but their own (here and here). I noticed that last week Ken Ham also wrote a very interesting article on the same topic at the Answers in Genesis website; he goes into much more detail on their agenda than the newspaper article I had seen did. So check it out!
There is a little discussion going on in the comments of this post, The illogic of naturalism. Since the comments are getting so long, and are bringing in so many points which were never introduced in the original post, I thought it best to address some of the points raised in a new post.
First, the nature of truth: I have blogged about this before, Ibut a refresher is in order. Discovering what is true is the business of several different disciplines. Philosophy is considered the mother discipline, under which all other disciplines subsist (but one). Mathematics, Logic, Science, and Theology are all disciplines under the umbrella of Philosophy, which seek to determine what is true for their areas of expertise. Mathematics concerns itself with axioms expressed numerically or algebraically, Logic with axioms expressed grammatically, Science with the natural world, and theology with the supernatural world.
There is another branch of truth- finding: historical- legal, or the kind of truth- finding which is employed in police investigations and court rooms. It determines what is true (what happened at a certain point in time) by utilising other avenues, primarily, than the philosophy branches of truth- finding. That is not to say that the philosophy branches are not used in court cases. Forensics is an ever expanding branch of specialized science, and scientists are called all the time to testify in court cases. But why do lawyers call witnesses other than scientists, if what science says is the end of the matter? The testimony of science is included with the testimony of the other witnesses, so that a more complete picture can be drawn.
Now science is not the only avenue of truth- finding that exists with authority, although I find many naturalists believe that it is. It is not. In fact, a hierarchy exists, and science is not at the apex of the hierarchy. Many naturalists have not studied philosophy, and are often unaware of the limitations of science and the authority which the other branches of truth- finding bring to bear on the question at hand. "What exists?" is an ancient question, and much discussion, debate, and proofs are advanced to answer it in each generation. There is a vast library which has already been written on the topic.
But many naturalists ignore all that, and often do not realize that "naturalism" itself is a school of philosophy, which shares the tent with many other schools. Naturalists believe that their school of philosophy is true and that all others are false, but that has never been proven. Thus, they must take their philosophy, their "religion," if you will, on faith, just like the rest of us.
Unfortunately, naturalism is one of the least tolerant of the schools, as we can see by Dr. Dawkins' statements in his book, in which he seeks to destroy all gods or God but his own. Many naturalists are not only ignorant of the limitations of their own school, but have an exaggerated view of the authority of their school, and a contempt for every philosophy which is not naturalism. The Nazis were naturalists. Their advancement of the "superior white race" policy was an outgrowth of Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
It was mentioned that "supernaturalists have no authority to tell those of us living in the here and now natural world how to deal with the world's problems." Here is an example of naturalism dismissing the authority of the other philosophies which are not naturalism. Among all the philosophies, naturalism is the most likely to impose its views by force on those who do not share them. Protestant Christianity gave the world freedom of religion (which could be translated as freedom of philosophy) and so is responsible for a culture in which naturalism can thrive. But naturalism, as a philosophy with a long history, much more ancient than Darwin, cannot say the same.
"For some time, the religious right has decried "secular humanism," a philosophy that rejects the supernatural or spiritual as a basis for moral decisionmaking. But now, nonbelievers are vigorously fighting back."
"Two particularly provocative books, in fact, hit the top of Publishers Weekly's religion bestseller list in December. No. 1, "The God Delusion," by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, and No. 2, "Letter to a Christian Nation," by writer Sam Harris, are no-holds-barred, antireligion polemics that call for the eradication of all manifestations of faith.
"'I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented,' declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote The Selfish Gene."
"Yet the authors are anything but modest about their efforts to supplant faith with pure scientific rationality."
"Many nontheists don't share this militant perspective, but have decided that keeping silent in religious America no longer makes sense. They are astonished that a majority of Americans question evolution and support teaching intelligent design in the science classroom. They are distressed over polls that show that at least half of Americans are unwilling to vote for an atheist despite the Constitution's requirement that there be no religious test for public office. And they contend that in recent years, Congress has passed bills and the president has issued executive orders that have privileged religion in inappropriate and unconstitutional ways."
It is interesting that Dr. Dawkins claims he is attacking all gods, but in reality he is attacking all gods but his own: scientific rationality. To claim that nature is all that exists, and that what can be proved in a science lab is the end of everything; that supernature does not exist, is a statement of belief. "Nature is all that exists" is a statement which must be taken on faith, for it in itself cannot be proved.
In fact, the statement "Nature is all that exists" may have been disproved over 70 years ago. In the early part of the 20th century, nearly all career mathematicians (like Bertrand Russell) were busy trying to prove that arithmetic was self-consistent, something heretofore taken for granted but called into question when intuitive set theory was shown to be inconsistent.
"After nearly three decades the search ended in 1931, when Kurt Godel published an unsettling proof. His proof had two profound conclusions.
"First, Godel showed that all efforts to prove arithmetic to be free from contradictions are doomed to failure. Arithmetic cannot be proven consistent. In fact, no system powerful enough to include arithmetic is capable of proving itself consistent. ("Godel's Proof," Scientific American, June 1956).
"[Second,] Godel showed a basic limitation in the power of the axiomatic method. He showed that any mathematical system powerful enough to contain arithmetic within itself is essentially incomplete. ... This is called Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. ... [Godel] showed there exists mathematical truth that can never be proven true. There exists truth forever out of reach of the axiomatic method. There exists truth we can never 'observe' to be true by examining a superstructure of reasoning. ... This is like proving the existence of the supernatural."
Dr. ReMine explains the details wonderfully well in his excellent book, another of the treasures of my library. Nontheists, by limiting that which exists to that which can be proved by rationalism employed by finite human understanding, must ignore the principles of the disciplines on which they rely -- mathematics and science -- in order to live under that limitation. Naturalism and rationalism are both philosophies, and not science at all; but they masquerade as science. In truth, they seek to silence any other philosophy which is not naturalism, something WAY OUTSIDE the scope and purvue of science proper. Thus the illogic.
With the violence in Iraq, and the troubles in Hungary, there’s the idea out there that there is something inherently wrong with democracy as a system that has caused these failures. It is partially true: democracy practiced by unrepentant, fallen man would be a nightmare, if the only standard observed is what the majority desires and not what the law requires.
It is not the democracy component of the American experiment which has made this country a success; it is the adherance to biblical principles component which has resulted in the blessings we live under. If a monarchy or an oligarchy would rule according to biblical standards, that country would enjoy just as much success and prosperity, as history attests.
Likewise, it is not that democracy is the root of the trouble in Hungary or Iraq; it is rather a departure from the biblical standard, in either the practice of government, or the desires of the people.
We were talking about the assumptions behind the reasoning of the day age theory: that Scripture is consistent with an old age of the earth; for, science has proved age beyond doubt, therefore theology must be made to support science, in order to remain viable as truth. We discussed the first three assumptions behind that reasoning already.
4. The fourth assumption is that theology will lose its value as truth unless it is made to support that science which seems to disprove it. Truth, by its nature, cannot be denied, disproved, destroyed, or otherwise marred. While our understanding of it can be off, truth will always reassert itself. If one avenue of truth is shut down, other avenues will open. It cannot be stopped, any more than God can be defeated.
Theology does not need science to retain its value as truth; its value is permanent and intrinsic. Rather, science can only seem to disprove theology because of an incomplete understanding of either science or theology. In reality, true science cannot disprove true theology; they instead uphold each other.
Discrepancies, in reality, have not now and never have been between science and theology; if seeming descrepancies exist, then they only do so in us, who are looking on them both and trying to describe what we see. It is our imperfect and incomplete description of them which clash, not them themselves.
Every human being that looks at them both, does so through a lens, a filter. For some that lens is naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is; therefore what he sees will be filtered through that unproven and unproveable ideology, and distorted by it. Other lenses also exist, which distort in other ways. There is only one lens which provides a clear picture, and that is the lens of biblical inerrancy. For we are, after all, speaking of revealed truth.
So I claim the day age theory does violence to theology, therefore the science upon which it relies -- the old age of the earth -- is suspect; day agers claim an old earth does no violence to theology. That is what we will examine next.
Our question is, Has God revealed the truth of the age of the earth?
God
reveals truth through His Word, and His world. We mentioned that the
truth disciplines (philosophy, theology, science, mathematics, logic)
act as a sort of vast check and balance system for each other, because
truth will never contradict itself. So, if a science statement is true,
it should not be contradicted by the laws of the other truth
disciplines. If a science statement is contradicted by logic, or
mathematics, then that is your first clue that there is something wrong
with your science.
However, there is a hierarchy. There is
one truth discipline which acts as a plumb line for the others, and
that is theology. This is why one of classical education’s foundational
tenets is “theology is the queen of the sciences.” And since
misunderstanding this truth is the heart of the division, usually, in
debates over any of the creation - evolution questions (as well as an
ignorance of the nature and limits of science) I suppose we should
discuss why this is so first.
Theology is the study of
God’s Word, and its meaning. God’s Word is a direct, special revelation
of truth from He who is truth. It contains truth which we would never
have been able to obtain through science or any of the other truth disciplines, without His special revelation. Here is a list of just some of the Scriptures which describe the perfection of the truth of Scripture.
The
truth of Scripture acts a plumb line by which we can gauge all other
truth, for all the other truth disciplines are discerned from a fallen
world in a fallen state. But the mind, thoughts, and word of the Lord
are not fallen.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” Matthew 24:35
These
are just two examples of many that exist. From these passages, and
others like them, we understand that God has revealed that His Word is
the authority to which all other authorities must repair. The truth of
His Word is absolute.
Some say that absolute truth
doesn’t exist. They do not live as if they believe it. They live as if
gravity is an absolute every day. If they themselves deny by their
actions what their mouth asserts, that is a strong proof of the flaw of
their statement.
We will get to the age of the earth, I promise, LOL.
We
have concluded that God does reveal truth to man so that he can know
it. Now the question is, Has God revealed the truth of the age of the
earth?
There are two basic methods God uses to reveal truth. The first is through His word.
In His word, God tells us that which we need to know, which we would
not be able to learn about Him otherwise. The Word is further subdivded
into the written Word, and the incarnate Word. Both the written Word,
the Bible, and the incarnate Word, Jesus and His life, deeds and words,
reveal truth. Jesus even goes so far to say that error comes in when one or the other, either the written Word, or the manifest Word, is not taken into account.
The second way God reveals truth is through His world (and here). Man can learn what is true about the physical universe by observation and repetition, otherwise known as science.
There
are other disciplines which study the broad subject of truth.
Philosophy asks the question What is true? Science asks the same
question of the natural world, therefore it is a subset of philosophy
with a much more limited scope. Science, by its nature, cannot answer
all questions (although naturalists often seek to remove these limits
on science by denying the existence of other or greater purvues).
Theology asks the same question of the spiritual world. Mathematics and
Logic are also disciplines which deal with truth in expression;
mathematics with numerical expression, logic with linguistic
expression.
It is important to note that it is a universal
law that truth does not contradict. If something is true in science,
then it is true in mathematics, or logic, or even theology. Truth and
its nature is really an expression of God’s consistent, unchanging, and
non- contradictory character, of which man’s study of the disciplines
of truth are a dim reflection in a dark mirror.
So
we have this sort of cosmic check and balance system with truth: if we
think something is true of science, let us test it with mathematics; if
the mathematics do not work out, then that is a clue for us that we
have got something wrong in our science somewhere (assuming our math is
correct), so back to the drawing board. If we think something is true
of philosophy, let us test it with logic or theology; if the theology
does not work out, then that is a clue for us that we have got
something wrong in our philosophy (assuming our theology is correct).
All truth disciplines can be tested by the other truth disciplines,
with one exception.
This is really the debate, in a
nutshell. Some truth disciplines (science) do not want to be tested by
the others (theology), not understanding the nature of truth: that if
something is in fact true, it is illuminated more clearly by testing.
And if the testing shows something to be false, then do not all parties
wish to know that? Not always.
I
said that the heart of the discussion which my pastor started, when he
said to not believe those who say they have answers about young earth
or old earth, because they are lying, was the philosophical question,
Can man know what is true, and How can man know what is true?
I said the Scriptures answer that question by saying God is truth, and man can know that truth which God has revealed to him.
God is truth:
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His
glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and
truth.” John 1:14 “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” John 14:6 “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent.” Numbers 23:19
Man cannot know unrevealed truth: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the LORD.” Isaiah 55:8 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”Jeremiah 17:9
Man can know revealed truth: “For I know that my Redeemer lives; and at the last He will stand upon the earth.” Job 19:25 “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” John 1:18 “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.” John 14:9
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the
truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God
has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal
power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the
creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are
without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20
If we accept that God is truth, that man cannot know unrevealed truth, but that man can know revealed truth; then we have to ask, has the truth about young earth old or old earth been revealed, and how?
Our
pastor warned us this past weekend to beware of anyone who says that
they have the answers about the age of the earth question, because if
they say that, they are lying. He said there are unknowns out there,
and no one can have all the answers.
As an illustration to
prove his point, he cited the case of Copernicus and Galileo. The
church was so positive they had the answer that the earth was the
center about which the sun revolved, claiming the authority of
Scripture. And they were wrong.
(I had a pastor (not affiliated with our church) tell me the exact same thing
as proof that we cannot be sure that what the Bible says about eternal
life with Jesus is true. That is the extension of our pastor’s logic
from Sunday. I am noticing a pattern that Galileo is used as absolute
evidence that Christians cannot know absolute truth.)
I have been thinking a lot about this, and as much as I love and respect my pastor, I have to disagree with him here.
The
heart of the issue is the question: Can man know what is true, and how
can man know what is true? This is a philosophy question, not a science
question. Science begins when that question is already answered in the
affirmative (Yes, man can know what is true), therefore it cannot be a
science question.
So do the Scriptures answer that
question? Yes, indeed. Scripture has answered this question by saying,
in essence, God is Truth, and man can know that truth which God has revealed to him.
It was interesting to me to see how much traffic and anonymous comments the brief post on Ann Coulter’s new book,
Godless, has prompted. Anonymous comments are not the norm for this
blog, nor for the Homeschool Blogger community. Curious, I did some
digging, and discovered that a link to this post was included in the internet infidels discussion board website ... the discussion board of the “secular web”
whose Google description states its purpose is to provide an “online
community of nonbelievers dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge,
understanding and tolerance.”
However, the anonymous
comments to the Godless post have not been knowledgeable,
understanding, or tolerant of those who are not secular.
One commenter suggested my position is that we outlaw science
since I stated that “origins is a unique, historic event that cannot be
observed and repeated, so science has no business commenting on it.” It
seems that non- secularists have more understanding of the basic
definition of science than the knowledgeable secularists, even though
on the main page of the secular web the definition of naturalism is correctly stated.
Science, in its most fundamental definition,
makes statements and draws conclusions about that which can be observed
and repeated by other scientists, in order to pass the test of peer
review, in order for those statements and conclusions to be confirmed
as “knowledge.” The importance of peer review, of observability and
repeatability as a fundamental principle of all I would do as a
research scientist, was drummed into my head at a secular, state-
funded university as a science major.
Naturalism is not science
(or operational science as it is historically understood). It is a
philosophy devoted to the premise that nothing outside of nature or the
physical world affects nature or the physical world, or has ever
affected nature or the physical world. It must accept unprovable axioms
as foundational tenets, which define it as philosophy and not as
science. Its axioms must be believed by faith, since they are not
provable. Belief in something by faith is the definition of religion.
As to whether Coulter made a factual error
in her book, if so, then she should issue a correction. But I wonder
how many who are critical of her have actually read her book, or if
they are reporting what others have said she said out of context. (I
haven’t read her book yet myself, and just quoted her Human Events
article.) We don’t know, but it would make an interesting survey,
wouldn’t it?
What is a crunchy con? you ask. I asked it too, when I first saw the term while reading the paper on Sunday. The headline caught my eye: “‘Crunchy conservatism’ a sensibility that crosses into the left’s territory.”
Apparently, a crunchy conservative is a someone whose conservatism
flows from their Christian faith and cultural tradition (read Western
Civilization tradition), not from big business or political party
loyalty (i.e., traditional Republicans). I always wondered why some
Republicans in the national spotlight are so susceptible to the RINO
syndrome; so quick to compromise on abortion or defending traditional
marriage. Apparantly there is a Republicanism that flows from a faith
in capitalism, profit, and power, and that Republicanism tends to
capitulate when the social and moral -- foundational -- issues so important to me are on the line.
Anyway,
where does the crunchy come in? That is the granola- eating, organic
vegetable- growing, birkenstock- wearing side of the conservative. The
side the media portrays as only applying to lefty hippies. My name is
Christine, and I am crunchy. I do not have birkenstocks, though (although I would if I could afford them), but I do have crocs. Darn comfortable shoes when you have to be on your feet all day.
I have had an organic garden for ten years, and have been buying organic groceries at Wild Oats
for six months. Why organic gardening? Why organic meat, milk, and
produce? Why not industrialized, institutionalized mega farming? To me,
it is common sense. Why put poison on your food? The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, therefore, it is to be respected, it is to be cared for as our families are to be cared for, as our animals are to be cared for, and as the natural order is to be cared for. Not because nature is equal to or greater than humans, as many atheists or pagans believe, but because humans have been given authority and stewardship, and provision and protection is the responsibility of authority.
We
believe in nutrition, not necessarily prescriptions, to combat disease
and to stay healthy. There goes the “all Republicans support the evil
drug companies” fallacy. Actually, I do not believe drug companies are
evil. When I had a tooth pulled recently, I was thankful that someone
produced novocaine and Advil. I just believe that the drug companies
operate on the foundational worldview belief that in industrialized,
sterilized science lies our salvation. I do not share that belief, but
that does not make me ungrateful for science. It just helps me put
science in its proper place as man’s servant, not man’s savior.
(Besides, nutrition is science, too; just often not recognized as
“pure” science by the powers- that- be.)
That puts us in
with the alternative medicine folks. Just as homeschoolers are doing
with education, the alternative medicine folks are doing with health:
outside the mainstream, pooh poohed by the professionals, they are
slowly discovering what works, free of the received dogma.
One of the goals of my dh and I is to eventually produce our own power to power our little homestead.
That means, for our area of the country, a combination of wind and
solar power. There goes the “all Republicans support the evil oil
companies” fallacy. Actually, I do not believe the oil companies are
evil. I am thankful for the power, supplied by said companies, which is
heating my home right now while the snow is falling outside (predicted
high: 30 degrees today). And so are the lefties who rail at the big oil
companies. They use plenty of oil too. The oil companies are supplying
a demand, and they are not evil for doing so. If the demand ceased,
they would go the way of the Edsel.
I was at Wild Oats just
yesterday, and was perusing the magazines while standing in line. The
magazines they carry assume no Christian or no Republican or no
conservative would ever be standing in line looking at them. Typical
liberal mush informed by emotionalism rather than the reason, logic,
and truth which is so integral to Christianity
spewed out from the headlines. “I wonder if the execs at Wild Oats
would be open to a letter informing them that other people than blind
Cindy Sheehan supporters shop here?” I thought.
The
Hebrew culture recognized that God often spoke through men, therefore
freedom of speech was allowed because words may convey truth. The
Israelites further understood that God could speak His truth, not only
through the prophets or even the righteous, but through donkeys, if necessary; through the heathen,
at times, even without their conscious submission to God. Thus the
value came to center on the truth content of the statement, regardless
of the mouth it came from.
The underlying axiom is that
God’s speech equals truth, and truth helps. Truth blesses a person, and
a people, and nations. Truth edifies, encourages, convicts of sin, and
thus hopefully leads to righteousness. Truth promotes life and
happiness. Jesus taught that it is the liar and the father of lies who promotes theft, death, and destruction.
But it is usually the truth speakers who attract persecution, because the truth often offends.
Truth offends when it convicts of sin. People usually respond to truth
in one of two ways: with humility, when they hear truth and are
convicted, and thus allow the power of the truth they have heard to
change them; or with offense, when they hear truth and are convicted,
and thus try to deflect the power of the message by persecuting the
messenger in some way.
So Abel was murdered by Cain, Joseph
was sold as a slave, Elijah was pursued by Jezebel, Daniel was thrown
to the lions. Jesus was crucified on the cross. All but one of the
apostles were killed, instead of living out their lives and dying a
natural death. Reformers were burned at the stake. And cartoonists, of
all people, are in hiding because their lives are being sought too.
Richard Mitchell once said that we have the wrong idea about writing.
We think of it as a vehicle of communication; that its purpose is to
“communicate” what we think to others. He said that the great value of
writing, for him, is that the rigor of putting his thoughts on paper,
the rigor of making his logic follow, the rigor of supporting his
assertions with evidence, is the making, not the telling, of what he
thinks.
Okay, I have elongated and mangled and paraphrased his words. This is
the exact quote, and it is much shorter (and sweeter, and clearer) than
my attempt to explain him:
“I have
never yet written anything, long or short, that did not surprise me.
That is, for me at least, the greatest worth of writing, which is only
incidentally a way of telling others what you think. Its first use is
for the making of what you think, for the discovery of understanding,
an act that happens only in language.”
All
I can say is, me too. That is why I love blogging: it gives me an
excuse to write. And that writing gives me an opportunity to discover
what I think.
I was recently asked how to provide a Christian classical education for children that will not lead them to humanism.
Let's begin by defining terms. Humanism comes from the Latin humanitas,
which means, "culture." Today it means that philosophy which elevates
the excellence of man, and is associated with secularism. Christians
usually adhere to that philosophy which elevates the excellence of God
- the biblical worldview.
It
helps to understand how humanism came to prominence as a philosophy.
The popular view is that Christianity causes ignorance of the worst
kind, and when mankind finally shook off the shackles of Christianity
imposed by the Dark and Middle Ages, inquiry and learning finally
advanced again, thus the Renaissance and humanism flowered and the
scientific and technological advances we enjoy today resulted.
That
might be the popular view, but it is not the correct one, in my
opinion. The history of the changes that led to the Renaissance
indicates that scholars and laymen alike were growing more and more
dismayed by an impure and unholy clergy that was named with God's name.
It seems amazing to me that all men, saved or not, know instinctively
that God is holy, and when God's people live unholy lives, they are
offended by it (regardless of the lives they themselves live), and
recoil from God. The great degeneration of the purity of the Church,
which preceded the Reformation, also preceded the Renaissance. Men who
believed that the nature of the clergy, which was overall depraved at
the time, accurately reflected the nature of God, rejected God and
Christianity in favor of Greek and Roman paganism, because the pagan
ideals seemed purer and more righteous than the Christian ones!
Humanism
was born not in a search for knowledge, but in a search for holiness.
What a testimony to the state of the Church at the time. Let it be a
warning to us, dear Lord.
But
rejecting God and embracing man in order to find holiness is the
ultimate case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and the
fatal flaw of the humanists. Humanism necessarily gives rise to
secularism, because the Bible teaches man's sinfulness, not man's
excellence. Western societies inherited boundaries on behavior
precisely because man is sinful, and the boundaries protected society
from the destructive effects of man's sinfulness. Today's secularists
are busy erasing as many boundaries as they can, thus rudeness and
coarseness are everywhere, broken homes, [p-rn]ography,
homo[s-x]uality, abortion, child predation by [s-x] offenders, cloning
and genetic manipulation -- all the legacy of secularism and the
rejection of God as lawgiver. The end result of the humanist philosophy
is precisely what the humanists rejected in the Church: depravity.
Visit with Christine Miller awhile and let's share our thoughts on homeschooling, education, and life.
:: home :: rss site feed
:: archives :: email me
"The Story of the Romans provides an introductory context for the culture and ideas so foundational to the development of Western thought.�
Anne Weiland :: The Old Schoolhouse Magazine
:: read a chapter from this book
:: more books
"For new and veteran homeschool families alike, this extensive new release from the editors of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine serves as a homeschool convention in a book. It details today's most viable education models, helping parents formulate an educational game plan and choose teaching methodologies. There are more than twenty contributors." Including Christine Miller, who wrote a chapter on Classical Education.
christine's reading
I am researching the holy days which were instituted by God as a celebration of the Messiah, instead of celebrating the holy days which were instituted by man to honor nature in place of nature's God.
:: Israel's Feast - Wooten
:: Annals - Ussher
