Person of Interest- Book Review Introduction

J. Warner Wallace is a cold-case homicide detective who, when he was an atheist, used his investigative skills to investigate the claims of Christianity. In recent years he has written several books describing his investigations and the results of those investigations. He investigated the claims that the gospels are eye-witness accounts of actual events ("Cold-Case Christianity"), the existence of God ("God's Crime Scene"), and the claim that Jesus and the New Testament writers encouraged a trust based not in evidence but in blind faith ("Forensic Faith").

Book Review: Scientism And Secularism by J.P. Moreland

All scientific research, discussion, and education is affected by a series of underlying beliefs that include what one grants as sources of knowledge. It is quite common in today's culture for people to accept "scientism," which limits sources of knowledge entirely to the sciences to the exclusion of any other claimed knowledge source or places all other sources of knowledge under the authority of the sciences.

Both of these philosophies stifle scientific discovery, places knowledge of anything outside of the natural realm beyond reach and erects seemingly impenetrable barriers in discussions about ultimate reality (including morality, beauty, and theology). This has serious implications in the sciences, education, politics, and basic everyday life. In his book "Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology" Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland aims to demonstrate the dangers of scientism, how it is (unwittingly?) accepted and exercised in culture even by Christians, and provide an alternative philosophy of knowledge that will avoid the dangers, expand humanity's knowledge of reality in general, and move forward Christians' internal discussions of theology and the world and give them another tool in their evangelical toolbelts as they provide "...reasons for the hope that [they] have..." (1 Peter 3:15). In this review, I'll provide some of the key points, several important quotes, and my recommendations.

Introduction

"In God We Trust" has increasingly become a debated motto for Americans as the country becomes more secularized. However, in recent days, the State of South Dakota passed a law stating that all public schools must prominently display that motto on their campuses. Many will challenge the constitutionality and wisdom of such a law while others will debate the practicality of it (such as money to fund the creation of the displays). Neither of those is the focus of this post, though. Today, I want to discuss the reasonableness of an educational institution recognizing God's existence and its dependence on Him.

Many things that the educational system depends upon actually requires God to find its roots in reality. It is quite common for the distinction between knowing something and justifying something to be confused. We can know that something is true without being able to justify its being true. In philosophy, this is known as the distinction between ontology (what is true) and epistemology (how we know what is true). People can know things to be true, and even act properly according to that knowledge, yet not hold a worldview that can justify its being true (this will be explained more, in the section on morality below). Many of the things that are foundational to education (e.g. knowledge, progress, intrinsic human value, diversity, design, history, and science) are often known yet cannot be justified by those who know them to be true. Of those many things, knowledge is the most foundational.

Knowledge, The Education System, and God

Knowledge is at the foundation of the entire education system. If we cannot find some way to ground our claims of knowledge to reality, we are merely communicating opinions. Because of this, if knowledge of reality is not even possible, then all knowledge disciplines (the subjects taught in school), are not rightly called "knowledge" but rather "opinion" disciplines. The connection of knowledge to God is required in two ways: first, the justification of what is true must be something that is chiefly concerned with what is true. Second, the agents who are attempting to discover what is true must possess faculties that are concerned with chiefly with what is true.

We know from evolutionary biology that organisms and all their components are only "concerned" with survival (I place quotes around "concerned" because naturalistic evolution is neither forward-thinking nor purpose-driven). This means that our brains are not programmed by nature to believe what is true but rather to believe what will keep us alive. In a world that is "red in tooth and claw" it is better to be safe than sorry, so our brains register (believe) many false positives about dangers, for instance. This is just one example of "useful fictions" that our brains must believe, according to naturalistic evolution. Because they are chiefly concerned with believing what will keep us safe even if it is false, our brains are not reliable tools for apprehending truth.

However, if our brains are created by a God who is concerned with our ability to believe what is true, then He would have created our brains (and sense organs, as well) with the ability to not only distinguish between what is true and what is safe, but it will also prefer the former (free will does have an effect on this, though). So, from the very foundation of the educational system, for it to even be called such, God is required. On this ground, alone, it is reasonable that an education system would recognize God's existence and its dependence upon Him for its very purpose in society (to educate).

Without proper justification, there is no objective standard by which to judge what is true or false about not just knowledge, but the things that we will continue to discuss in this post, and what is taught by the system about these things comes at the whim of whoever is currently controlling the system. The education system ultimately reduces to "might makes right," an exercise in epistemology anarchy. If the education system were to affirm any worldview that cannot justify knowledge, it is admitting its uselessness for imparting knowledge to the next generation and admitting that its only purpose is to propagandize our children into blindly believing that their purpose in life is to serve an elite class of people with money and power.

For more on the necessity of God to justify knowledge, I highly recommend that you read the book "Where The Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism" by philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Also, see this short video explaining his argument:

Conclusion

It is only if God exists that what we believe can be justified. Without God, all claims to knowledge are merely opinions and do not actually reflect reality. If they do not actually reflect reality, then the "education" system is not imparting knowledge of what is true but rather indoctrinating opinions that are preferred by a few people in power. Since the public school system claims to impart knowledge of the world in which we live, it is only reasonable that our schools recognize the foundation and justification of knowledge: God. Students and parents are free to disagree; however, if they wish to do so, they need to defend an alternative justification.

For more on this topic and to see how several other foundations to the education system are justified only by God's existence, see the links throughout this post and these additional ones:

Is Education Overrated?

Introduction

A couple months ago I read an interesting article about a professor who made the case that today's education system is grossly overrated. If the article's author represented him correctly, his contention is that because a large portion of educational resources focus on credentials and self-esteem ("vanity" in the words of the author), the system is overrated and needs a major overhaul. You can read the article here: "Professor: 'Education is Grossly Overrated'." The last couple of lines are particularly what caught my attention:

"Is our quest to give students ever-higher levels of education and credentialing based more in vanity hits than in true knowledge and understanding of the world?"

That alone warrants this article for reasons that I will discuss shortly. But also happening in my home state of Oklahoma, as I write this blog post, is a dispute between public school teachers and law-makers regarding funding (you can check out any of our local media for the stories). As I have been involved in discussions at work and on Facebook about this local situation I recalled the content of the article above, that I believe may help explain how our education system got to producing the disrespectful display we have witnessed on both sides of the dispute. Let me get straight to my point.

The Closing of the American Heart
By Dr. Ronald Nash

The Closing of the American Heart is a critique of today's school system. Even though Dr. Nash wrote this book in the late 1990, it still seems quite applicable today. What attracted me to this book was first that it was written as a response to Alan Bloom's book The Closing of the American Mind; second that it recognizes the emotions are a critical part of our reasoning process as fallen human beings.

Nash starts out critiquing Bloom's book in Chapter 1. His main critique was that even though Bloom correctly identified an issue in the school system (and traced its history), he did not offer much of a solution. It seems that Nash was thinking that memorizing more facts is not the solution. The problem is the philosophical foundation- hearts set against God to the point that they will accept erroneous conclusions to avoid Him. Although Nash wrote this as a response to Bloom, it seems to me to be more of an addition to Bloom. Bloom answered the questions of "what happened" and "how it happened". Nash offers to answer "why did it happen" and "what should we do about it"

This post originally published July '09. It has been updated with new content and links to several related posts.

I have come across several people who have told me that right practice is more important than right beliefs. We're all familiar with the phrase "You can talk the 'talk', but can you walk the 'walk'?" These same people interpret this to mean that acting properly is more important than believing properly. I disagree.

Right Living presupposes Right Thinking. How one lives is dependent on how one perceives the world. Perception always precedes action. In order for someone to determine that an action is required (or not), a perception must be made. If a person makes the wrong perception, the wrong action may very well follow. Of course, if the right perception is made, the right action may very well follow also. This is not a definite equation because one still has to make a decision based on, not just one perception but, numerous perceptions; and it may not always be clear which of those perceptions should take precedence over the other(s). To make that determination (action), other perceptions must be invoked.

I have come across several people who have told me that right practice (orthopraxy) is more important than right beliefs (orthodoxy). We're all familiar with the phrase "You can talk the 'talk', but can you walk the 'walk'?" In terms of "orthodoxy" and "orthopraxy" it is, "You may have orthodoxy, but do you have orthpraxy?" These same people interpret this to mean that orthopraxy is more important that orthodoxy. I disagree.

Right Living (Orthopraxy) presupposes Right Thinking (Orthodoxy). How one lives is dependent on how one perceives the world. Perception always precedes action. In order for someone to determine that an action is required (or not), a perception must be made. If a person makes the wrong perception, the wrong action may very well follow. Of course, if the right perception is made, the right action may very well follow also. This is not a definite equation because one still has to make a decision based on, not just one perception but, numerous perceptions; and it may not always be clear which of those perceptions should take precedence over the other(s). To make that determination (action), other perceptions must be invoked.

Information vs Education

This post will tie a bit into my previous posts "Why Should I Challenge My Own View" and "This Argument is Full of Crap!". Please read them before you read this one.

Have you ever watched Jeopardy or played Trivial Pursuit and wondered what good all that information is? Well the answer is this: to win a game. I have always been suspicious of people who are "book" smart, but can't tell you how the conclusion was obtained. When one has only "book smarts" or knows only trivia, they can answer only so many questions. They are unable to explain how the person to discovered the answer (that they are parroting) arrived at the answer.

This is called "information". You can have all the information in the world, and not understand how it all ties together. I'm not saying that having information is bad, because it is not. But having just the information limits the usefulness of that information.

When someone is trying to convince an opponent of another point of view, just spouting off facts is not usually going to convince them. They will have questions about the validity of the facts, how the facts were concluded, and what use in the real world they are. This last question is extremely important for worldviews or political positions. If one only knows the "slogans" of a worldview or political position, they are impotent to explain their reasoning.

"Education" involves understanding the "ins" and "outs" of information. If the one who holds the view cannot explain how or why their information should be believed, they lose all ability to convince. One of the best ways to "get educated" is to investigate your information or "slogans" for authenticity. I'm not talking about searching only sources that believe the information or slogan, but also those who challenge the information or slogan.

This, of course, is important not just for your "information", but also the oppositions "information". The more you are "educated" in both, the more you will be able to reliably defend your own "information".

All this can be summed up like this: Conclusions vs. reasons for conclusions. If you stick with information only, you may misunderstand the reasons. This will lead to the building of an underlying "strawman", which is detrimental if you believe it about your own information or your opponents information.

Websites:
Apologetics.com
Stand to Reason

Podcasts:
Apologetics.com Radio Show
Stand to Reason Radio Program
Just Thinking

Books:
Tactics: by Greg Koukl
Come, Let us Reason: by Norman Geisler