In 1980 Carl Sagan offered these words as a sort of atheistic manifesto to explain the world we live in.

Sagan’s brilliant mind and winsome demeanor defused the provocative statement and popularized a philosophical commitment known as “naturalism.” While this concept is as old as ancient philosophy itself, going back to Democritus in 4th century BC, Sagan broadcasted it anew to a young generation who bought his book and watched the BBC documentary, both by the title of Cosmos.

Apart from the popular culture, however, another trend was developing that caught the attention of journalists. In 1980 Time Magazine published an article by the title of “Modernizing the Case for God” in which they observed:

God? Wasn’t he chased out of heaven by Marx, banished to the unconscious by Freud and announced by Nietzsche to be deceased? Did not Darwin drive him out of the empirical world? Well, not entirely. In a quiet revolution in thought and arguments that hardly anyone could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers … but in the crisp, intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse. Now it is more respectable among philosophers than it has been for a generation to talk about the possibility of God’s existence….But if in an age of science, faith in God can be more rationally grounded, as a growing number of philosophers now attest, then the reasoning soul who is so inclined can more surely and assuredly feel comfortable in moving beyond reason. (Time Magazine, April 7, 1980)

Ah, the “reasoning soul” can feel comfortable in believing in God. The juxtaposition of the Time piece with Sagan’s Cosmos is interesting. While philosophical naturalism was popularized in print and on screen, theism was gaining ground in ivy league philosophy departments. Can it be that a deeper look doesn’t lead to a self-creating universe, but to an infinite Creator, or to use Aristotelian language, an “unmoved mover”? Could it be that the Socratic method is dangerous for unbelief?

Francis Bacon thoughts so. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism,” he said, “but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. If the reasoning soul in search of truth wants to avoid God, he will also need to avoid depth in philosophy, according to Bacon. C.S. Lewis offers an additional warning, “A young atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.” If a person in 1980 were to move beyond Sagan’s book and documentary, he might be in danger of discovering the same truth as Time Magazine: God isn’t dead after all.

To again quote Daniel Dennett, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.” Understanding the philosophy behind someone’s scientific claims is highly important. At a time when Sagan’s proposition permeated bookstores and television sets, there were men and women committed to critical thinking who evaluated his “philosophical baggage” and came to a very different conclusion: Before there was a Cosmos, there was a Creator. 

(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4) (Part 5)

C.S. Lewis wrote these words to his friend Dom Bede Griffiths on January 8th, 1936. Lewis was concerned that Griffiths was too enamored with Eastern philosophies and that he was vulnerable of diluting his Christian faith. This is a good illustration of the sort of deceptive philosophy we are admonished to avoid by the Apostle Paul in Colossians 2. Philosophy in general should not, however, be seen as an enemy of theology.

The Middle Ages recognized theology as the “queen of the sciences” and philosophy as “her handmaid.” Since the word science simply means “knowledge,” it makes perfect sense that both theologians and scientists give emphasis to philosophy, “the love of knowledge or wisdom.” But enough with definitions and etymology.

While philosophy offers us no abiding city, it does point us to one. Philosophy helps to connect the dots that span the ultimate questions every human being must face. That’s why the Apostle Paul took time in Acts 17 to dialogue with the Athenian philosophers. Paul’s statement, “In him we live and move and have our being,” touches at the heart of some of philosophy’s deepest questions. It was actually a quote from the philosopher Epimenides from Crete. Paul presented the Gospel as the answer to the perennial questions of philosophy.

The Stoics were among the philosophers present at Mars Hill for Paul’s famous sermon (Acts 17). They held that there was a “divine animating principle pervading the universe” which they called the Logos (or the word). Heraclitus and Aristotle used the term before them, but the Stoics considered it to be an ultimate reality. To use a philosophical word, they considered the Logos to be a metaphysical truth.

Thus, when the Apostle John begins his gospel he states, “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God….And the Logos 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 1:1,14). Like Paul, John used a framework his readers would understand to introduce them to the living Son of God: The Word Incarnate.

To be continued.

(Part 1) (Part 2) (Par3) (Part 4)

These words find their home in the opening paragraph of G.K. Chesterton’s classic work Orthodoxy. The book was born out of a challenge. Chesterton was accused of critiquing others’ views while neglecting to build a case for his own in his earlier published work Heretics. G.S. Street said of the book, “I will begin to worry about my philosophy when  Mr. Chesterton has given us his.” Chesterton accepted the duel.

In Heretics Chesterton gives a negative appraisal of other worldviews. In Orthodoxy he gives a positive argument for his own.

This was the first book I ever read by G.K.C. I initially expected, both because of my ignorance of the author and due to the title of the book, to find something of a biblical outline or systematic theology. Of course Chesterton gives little space to such disciplines in any of his writings. This was a work of natural theology and autobiographical in nature.

As Chesterton states, “The book is therefore arranged upon the positive principle of a riddle and its answer. It deals first with all the writer’s own solitary and sincere speculations and then with all the startling style in which they were all suddenly satisfied by the Christian theology.” For Chesterton, philosophy began in desire and led to satisfaction. Philosophy led him to Christ.

The maxim, “All truth is God’s truth” is herein illustrated. As the Apostle Paul outlines in Romans, man recognizes the Divine both in the beauty of the external world (Romans 1:20) and in internal world of moral obligations (Romans 2:14). Both creation and moral duty lead men to consider God’s existence. Philosophy is the path upon which they travel for answers.

This is not to say philosophy is without limitations. But because God has revealed himself (his invisible attributes and divine power), philosophy is a helpful tool to connect the dots. Chesterton again illustrates this point in his aforementioned book:

This at least seems to me the main problem for philosophers, and is in a manner the main problem of this book. How can we contrive to be at once astonished at the world and yet at home in it? How can this queer cosmic town, with its many-legged citizens, with its monstrous and ancient lamps, how can this world give us at once the fascination of a strange town and the comfort and honour of being our own town? To show that a faith or a philosophy is true from every standpoint would be too give an undertaking even for a much bigger book than this; it is necessary to follow one path of argument; and this is the path I here propose to follow.

A man can easily avoid the Bible, but reality is another matter altogether. He must wake up in the morning and face the day. Philosophy matters because this man will begin asking questions about the world he lives in, a world in which God’s invisible attributes are shouting, as the Psalmist says, “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

Philosophy helps the man hear the song. If he listens long enough, it might begin to resonate, and soon he will be dancing to its melody. May he have ears to hear. In time, if philosophy serves her purpose, he will say with C.S. Lewis, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

To be continued.

(Part 1) (Part 2) (Par3) (Part 4)

Why should anyone study during a time of war? That was the question C.S. Lewis was answering in 1939 when he delivered the previous quote in a church in Oxford, England. Whether at war or at peace, there are some things that cannot be ignored. Error is one of them.

As atheist author Daniel Dennet well stated, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.” While other atheists like Stephen Hawking claim that “philosophy is dead,” Dennett surely recognizes that that too is a philosophical statement. Philosophy is important because poorly founded propositions are pervasive.

Philosophy plays a crucial role in assessing the validity of a complex truth claim. That is why I’m so thankful for John Lennox in his role as a Professor of Philosophy of Science at Oxford University (in addition to many other roles included Professor of Mathematics). Assessing the assumptions inherent within one’s approach to science is as important as science itself. As Dennett stated earlier, we must not take our unevaluated baggage on board. Philosophy helps us to know how to pack.

Error is a problem, particularly when it is a fundamental error. I could be wrong about the temperature in Chicago when I pack for my weekend trip to visit the Windy City, but that is far different than getting on a plane that is headed for Orlando. One error will lead me to Michigan Avenue in search of a new jacket, the other will leave me stranded. Philosophy helps to point us in the right direction.

Why does philosophy matter? Because error exists. And because bad philosophy needs to be answered.

To be continued.

(Part 1) (Part 2) (Par3) (Part 4)

In response to the laughing crowd, he then proclaimed, “God is dead. And we have killed him.”

Nietzsche spoke these words through the voice of a fictional character in his book The Gay Science. Nietzsche’s point is essentially that man, because of scientific advancement and rationalism, no longer has need of god. Thus, we have thrown off our adolescent whims and in the process killed the idea of god altogether. But this crime could not be overlooked, as Nietzsche later said by way of the madman:

How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us – for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.”

God’s death would come at a price, and Nietzsche questioned whether man would be able or willing to pay it. Nietzsche was right. We killed God. But it doesn’t end there and it doesn’t result in nihilism (a loss of absolute values and purpose). Nietzsche was right, but not right enough. He took his philosophy as far as he could take it, but he didn’t take it far enough.

We killed God. But God came back. He rose again and in so doing he left not one molecule in the universe unaffected by his radical resurrection.

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

(2 Corinthians 5:14-15)