The Antithesis Prelude

I've recently published my review in MySpace and my other blogging account, in which I noted The Golden Compass published Philip Pullman. And within the blog I noted that there were some philosophical issues that I had problems with, as a religious Christian. Indeed, I think that every evangelical, catholic, and reformed protestant should take issue with these works. One of my major concerns over the books overall reliability had to deal with the seat in takes in literature. I do believe there are some literary accomplishments that should be noted; however, the philosophy behind what it endorses I am vehemently at odds with. Purely rendered, the books philosophy is basically a complaint. It complains that the people of the book don't want an overall outlook to control their thinking. Let's look at that point.

The Majestarium seeks to control what the children think by separating the children from their daemons. The problem, however, isn't that t he act of control is immoral; the act is merely preconditioned. This country's overarching philosophy is atheist, and to subordinate the idea would be deemed "irrational" (see Dr. M. Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification). Dr. Martin, in his published book called, The Case Against Christianity, he writes that one of Christianity's way of controlling the minds and ideas of the world (he writes that even today our literature, laws, music, science, thinking and our way of life) is by controlling the divine writ. "This suppression was manifested in many ways. One of the primary ways was the church's absolute control over what was officially recognized to be the inspired word of God (pg. 3)." This almost smacks the face of any rational human: who would even conceive of manufactured thought and life? It is a slap in the face. As human beings we have the tendency to want to control out way of thinking and our own lives. Just recently I received a text message by an old friend with a quote saying, "Life is raw material. We are artisans. We can sculpt our existence into something beautiful, or debase it into ugliness. It's in our hands." This is just another example of our subterfuge into the idiosyncratic philosophy of atheism. Christianity, on the other hand, has always remained faithful to its ideologies of the thought world: that although it is subordinate to action (political and pragmatic), the thought was always to reflect the image and character of God (Deut. 6). The rational was never abandoned to the Christians' commitment; however, the commitments were redefined by a strict use of reason. Reason as it stands has been influential by the "age of reason." Renaissance man was now to mean that he (Renaissance man) can carve himself out of the rock (viz. Michelangelo's David). This use in a denotative sense was humanism in the making. In this sense of the word, I deny this use of reason. Reason was always to reflect the rational faculties endowed by our creator. I want to add also that "reason" was never to mean—in the Christian context—Reason (with a raised 'r' to its upper case).

Christ himself was not opposed to reason:

And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' "This is the great and foremost commandment.

(Matthew 22:37-38)

Indeed, it is the maximum et primum mandatum. The maximum and the primum show the import of the use of this 'mandatum' (i.e., command). Reason was always to reflect the assent of God's glory, and this is why an atheist or any other person who doesn't assent to God's glory as central to his thinking will always fall short of a proper interpretation of the world and other possible worlds (that's for all you who love modal logic). There are, however, laws that govern thought, i.e., logic. This, of course, is a side issue but important. Do these laws rightly show how the world should be interpreted? I would venture to agree with that corollary, but there is a problem that any philosopher encounters: are these laws universal? And if they are, how do they account for them? Though I believe they are universal, how can an atheist know of biology without any assent to God's glory? How could he know of anything? These are questions I am still trying to answer. What is surprising to some who enjoy dialogue with the atheist is that they do not agree with the Christian that these laws we call logic are not universal, that is they do not apply to all people in all ages.

The problem of accountability is still with the philosophic community, though in a stunning degree. Natural man is still trying to bring unity to the particulars and the universals. These are problems that will flank the Christian if he or she isn't prepared for education, be that college life or high school. The facts are these; the world is plaguing the world with these problems in philosophy. This is why I believe that Christians should concern themselves with philosophy and the history of philosophy.

With the age of reason still present in spirit, the dichotomies throw the atheist under the rationalism/empiricism camps with the Christians along with fideism.