Truth Project, Review, critique, Part 2
This is part two of review / critique / criticism of the Truth Project by Focus on the Family. This section is on ethics and philosophy.
Philosophy the queen of the sciences, at least that was the case a century or so ago. One would not even study philosophy until there was an understanding of another discipline or two.
The Truth Project looks at philosophy and ethics.
My first criticism of the Truth Project is a leftover from last week. The amount of area that is covered is 1. to large and 2. too small. The amount of material covered fails to even scratch the surface. What I mean here is, the vast amount of territory to cover is so vast that given one hour to cover philosophy and ethics one cannot even make a dent in the most teeny tiny point. Everything said, he makes only two small points, first, non-Christians cannot think outside of the box; and the idea of particular as opposed to universals. Both of these will be looked at in more depth later on. But how is to small?
The idea sometimes give by some is that this equal to semester of philosophy is absurd, what is given is not even equal to the second class of a semester long philosophy class. Hence, people are thinking they now know more than what they do. Of course my scary story at the discussion time should be an end to that myth.
The ‘lecture’ starts out with picking on everyone’s favorite kicking boy, Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagan first comments from Cosmos are given saying that, “The Cosmos is all that there is, or ever was, or ever will be,” uses assumptive language. Dr. Tackett went on to say how bas assumptive language is in speech. I lost count after 20 of the assumptive language used by Dr. Tackett. That was my first giggle of the night.
Let’s be real, we all use assumptive language. We have to or we have to explain everything every time. If we go by Dr. Tackett’s assumption conversation would become so cumbersome we would never talk again. Likewise, just because we ‘accept’ something, meaning not challenge it, we are not accepting the underlying premiss.
The bulk of the night was spent on the “Cosmic Cube.” This is the idea there are two differing ways of viewing the known universe. The first, is through the lens of this is all there is and there is nothing outside of the box. The second, of course, is there is G-d outside of the box. In this whole section, there is a cross between Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.
Within this debate, these two are crossed all the time and when that happens it is usually ugly. Hence, Will Provine also has the same problems, since he is a Historian by trade and not a scientist. For the record, I have always enjoyed listening and watching Will Provine in action.
Tackett moves on in his lecture to discuss philosophy and points how the questions that is asked: what is reality, how do I know I exists, et. el. To this end he places the problem of the Universals and the Particulars. Socrates, Confucius, Kant, and the Buddha always tried moved to understand the Universals that applied to people. While admittedly Aristotle tried to understand the Universals from the particulars. Tackett makes the assumption that one the Christian G-d can deal in universals. This of course is about Ethics.
Tackett rightly points out that morality and ethics have merged though they are quite separate looks at life. Ethics deals with, what out to be. And Morality deal with, what is. Hence he moves to Plato.
Plato asks the question, where an act is right because god wills it? or is that god wills it because he knows it is right. If you watch this, you will notice that Tackett does not deal with this question. Instead he points out William of Ockham, pointing out that G-d cannot change. However, this does not answer the question. He answers with a red herring. This in my mind was tossed out to show how smart Tackett is, by asking the question.
Perhaps there is a third option which was not discussed. G-d does not will much in particular actions other then what is found in special revelation, aka the Bible. just a thought.
Tackett spends the rest of the hour, chiding the Church that they have not taken the worldview thing with real desire or forthrightness.
Now for the scary story:
We were in discussion time, and the question of Universals and Particulars come up. The issue was lying. Is it wrong to ever lie? I point out Kant and my wife Corrie Ten Boom who tells the story of telling the truth to the Nazis about hidden Jews. Kant said, that telling the truth is separate from the consequences of telling the truthful statement.
One member said, well maybe you could lie, because G-d will forgive you and it will not be bad (a sin). I asked, rather tongue in cheek, therefore, we should lie so grace will increase? A paraphrase of Romans 6:1 So then, are we to say, “Let’s keep on sinning, so that there can be more grace”? He sat there and thought about it. I further inquired, should we sin more so that G-d can forgive us more? He thought more, and finally thought it might be a bad idea.
Dr. Tackett, the problem is not having a Christian Worldview, it is not understanding the Bible.
Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Evil, Church, Philosophy
Philosophy the queen of the sciences, at least that was the case a century or so ago. One would not even study philosophy until there was an understanding of another discipline or two.
The Truth Project looks at philosophy and ethics.
My first criticism of the Truth Project is a leftover from last week. The amount of area that is covered is 1. to large and 2. too small. The amount of material covered fails to even scratch the surface. What I mean here is, the vast amount of territory to cover is so vast that given one hour to cover philosophy and ethics one cannot even make a dent in the most teeny tiny point. Everything said, he makes only two small points, first, non-Christians cannot think outside of the box; and the idea of particular as opposed to universals. Both of these will be looked at in more depth later on. But how is to small?
The idea sometimes give by some is that this equal to semester of philosophy is absurd, what is given is not even equal to the second class of a semester long philosophy class. Hence, people are thinking they now know more than what they do. Of course my scary story at the discussion time should be an end to that myth.
The ‘lecture’ starts out with picking on everyone’s favorite kicking boy, Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagan first comments from Cosmos are given saying that, “The Cosmos is all that there is, or ever was, or ever will be,” uses assumptive language. Dr. Tackett went on to say how bas assumptive language is in speech. I lost count after 20 of the assumptive language used by Dr. Tackett. That was my first giggle of the night.
Let’s be real, we all use assumptive language. We have to or we have to explain everything every time. If we go by Dr. Tackett’s assumption conversation would become so cumbersome we would never talk again. Likewise, just because we ‘accept’ something, meaning not challenge it, we are not accepting the underlying premiss.
The bulk of the night was spent on the “Cosmic Cube.” This is the idea there are two differing ways of viewing the known universe. The first, is through the lens of this is all there is and there is nothing outside of the box. The second, of course, is there is G-d outside of the box. In this whole section, there is a cross between Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.
Philosophical Naturalism: the belief that the natural world is all that there is.
Methodological Naturalism: the belief that the natural world is all that is accessible for scientific inquiry.
Within this debate, these two are crossed all the time and when that happens it is usually ugly. Hence, Will Provine also has the same problems, since he is a Historian by trade and not a scientist. For the record, I have always enjoyed listening and watching Will Provine in action.
Tackett moves on in his lecture to discuss philosophy and points how the questions that is asked: what is reality, how do I know I exists, et. el. To this end he places the problem of the Universals and the Particulars. Socrates, Confucius, Kant, and the Buddha always tried moved to understand the Universals that applied to people. While admittedly Aristotle tried to understand the Universals from the particulars. Tackett makes the assumption that one the Christian G-d can deal in universals. This of course is about Ethics.
Tackett rightly points out that morality and ethics have merged though they are quite separate looks at life. Ethics deals with, what out to be. And Morality deal with, what is. Hence he moves to Plato.
Plato asks the question, where an act is right because god wills it? or is that god wills it because he knows it is right. If you watch this, you will notice that Tackett does not deal with this question. Instead he points out William of Ockham, pointing out that G-d cannot change. However, this does not answer the question. He answers with a red herring. This in my mind was tossed out to show how smart Tackett is, by asking the question.
Perhaps there is a third option which was not discussed. G-d does not will much in particular actions other then what is found in special revelation, aka the Bible. just a thought.
Tackett spends the rest of the hour, chiding the Church that they have not taken the worldview thing with real desire or forthrightness.
Now for the scary story:
We were in discussion time, and the question of Universals and Particulars come up. The issue was lying. Is it wrong to ever lie? I point out Kant and my wife Corrie Ten Boom who tells the story of telling the truth to the Nazis about hidden Jews. Kant said, that telling the truth is separate from the consequences of telling the truthful statement.
One member said, well maybe you could lie, because G-d will forgive you and it will not be bad (a sin). I asked, rather tongue in cheek, therefore, we should lie so grace will increase? A paraphrase of Romans 6:1 So then, are we to say, “Let’s keep on sinning, so that there can be more grace”? He sat there and thought about it. I further inquired, should we sin more so that G-d can forgive us more? He thought more, and finally thought it might be a bad idea.
Dr. Tackett, the problem is not having a Christian Worldview, it is not understanding the Bible.
Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Evil, Church, Philosophy
Labels: Philosophy, Review, The Truth Project
posted by The Isaac Group @ 10:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home