Dear Class:
Take a look at CBD.org for great prices on theology books. I recommend for your use:
1) New Bible Dictionary
2) Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, $19.99!
3) The Westminster Confession of Faith: Study Guide for Classes by G. I. Williamson
4) Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John A. Murray
5) The Plan of Salvation by B. B. Warfield
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Harvard Philosophy of Education
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Thus in the Harvard Report, Christianity with its doctrine of God the creator and redeemer is included with the other factors in “our tradition” as if it were virtually on one plane with them. That means that Christianity must not have telling, that is controlling, significance for general education in a free society. The foundation of education, as far as the Harvard Report is concerned, is something of a cross between Plato and Dewey. It is therefore unable to make education intelligible. (Its principle of continuity would lead to stark identity and its principle of discontinuity would lead to blank meaningless particularity.)
--The Works of Cornelius Van Til, 1895-1987. electronic ed.
As I happen to like Van Til's "dark" sayings, I gravitate to the last sentence in parentheses. "Its principle of continuity would lead to stark identity and its principle of discontinuity would lead to blank meaningless particularity." What is this about? He is talking about a problem of knowledge behind ethics. A "What is it?" problem. An illustration follows.
I heard a nice lady--Susan Neiman, A.M., Ph.D.--speak to the Harvard Club tonight. She spoke about Kant and universal human values, reason and morality. She likes Obama because he speaks about universal values. I liked her, but I thought that what Van Til says above applied to her.
He says that the Harvard philosophy of education, like hers, will suffer the problem of intelligibility because of an innate epistemological problem. The facts of ethics cannot be identified. In fact, Ms. Neiman said, our father Abraham had a full philosophy of ethics above and before his knowledge of God. Plato and Dewey, natural thinkers, can only repeat the Greek patterns of atomism and abstract generality. Without the God of Scripture, atomism becomes meaningless. And generality will lead to an empty category of thought.
At the end of the lecture, I said there was one law of ethics at Harvard: "Thou shalt not speak of God authoritatively. You can talk of God and Christ and anything else, but only tentatively, not imperatively." A squash player from the Club said he was a Christian and he would not speak authoritatively about it. I said he was agreeing with me: I could not and should not speak authoritatively in God's name. C'est la vie. I had a good time and was glad that I had said something and reached intelligences on the other side of the room.
Thus in the Harvard Report, Christianity with its doctrine of God the creator and redeemer is included with the other factors in “our tradition” as if it were virtually on one plane with them. That means that Christianity must not have telling, that is controlling, significance for general education in a free society. The foundation of education, as far as the Harvard Report is concerned, is something of a cross between Plato and Dewey. It is therefore unable to make education intelligible. (Its principle of continuity would lead to stark identity and its principle of discontinuity would lead to blank meaningless particularity.)
--The Works of Cornelius Van Til, 1895-1987. electronic ed.
As I happen to like Van Til's "dark" sayings, I gravitate to the last sentence in parentheses. "Its principle of continuity would lead to stark identity and its principle of discontinuity would lead to blank meaningless particularity." What is this about? He is talking about a problem of knowledge behind ethics. A "What is it?" problem. An illustration follows.
I heard a nice lady--Susan Neiman, A.M., Ph.D.--speak to the Harvard Club tonight. She spoke about Kant and universal human values, reason and morality. She likes Obama because he speaks about universal values. I liked her, but I thought that what Van Til says above applied to her.
He says that the Harvard philosophy of education, like hers, will suffer the problem of intelligibility because of an innate epistemological problem. The facts of ethics cannot be identified. In fact, Ms. Neiman said, our father Abraham had a full philosophy of ethics above and before his knowledge of God. Plato and Dewey, natural thinkers, can only repeat the Greek patterns of atomism and abstract generality. Without the God of Scripture, atomism becomes meaningless. And generality will lead to an empty category of thought.
At the end of the lecture, I said there was one law of ethics at Harvard: "Thou shalt not speak of God authoritatively. You can talk of God and Christ and anything else, but only tentatively, not imperatively." A squash player from the Club said he was a Christian and he would not speak authoritatively about it. I said he was agreeing with me: I could not and should not speak authoritatively in God's name. C'est la vie. I had a good time and was glad that I had said something and reached intelligences on the other side of the room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
