The Church

Recently, while driving very early one morning, I passed a church sign which proudly and piously stated, "Only Jesus saves, not politicians."

No doubt the recent election of President Obama is the backdrop for the statement. Churches in certain circles have been up in arms since many seem to be assigning Messianic expectations to President Obama.

It seems to me that the church has done it to herself.

You see the time was when the source of authority in our culture was the church, for better or for worse. She could give us hope when hope was no where else to be found. The time was when the masses, even though they may not have formally participated in Christianity, still had some regard for the authority of the church and found in the church and her message, even her God, a source of optimism about the future.

But the self-absorbed church is no longer getting the job done.

The truth is that we frail creatures of dust know we cannot manage our own lives.

This becomes especially apparent when things go south due to economic crisis, a time of war, an assault by terrorism or a any of the other potential plagues which might fall upon us.

When things get bad we finite sons and sisters of Adam start looking outside of ourselves for reasons for optimism and a basis for courage. The fact is that in many of the corners of our culture things are pretty tough and uncertain right now.

But as Nietzsche prophetically proclaimed long ago, the church has killed God. This case of divine homicide has forced us to look elsewhere for a way to face what appears to be our feeble futures.

So it really is not surprising at all that people would shop elsewhere in order to fulfill their cravings for a Messiah.

So is it really all that surprising that the masses and the media would project onto President Obama the role of Messiah?

So the church sign which reads, "Jesus saves, not politicians" contains a level of irony, which that particular congregation and the church in general will never understand. The fact that President Obama is regarded as a Messianic figure is a reflection of exactly how greatly the church has failed in proclaiming what it believes to be the message of the real Messiah who gives meaning, hope, and optimism the future seems too fragile to face alone.

Levi's, Lucky's and the Local Church

For quite some time now I have been of the opinion that most churches are tragically beside the point. Now I admit that this isn't true of all churches. A very few, a minuscule minority, have some degree of relevance, but most really are beside the point. I have reached the allegedly cynical conclusion that the phrase "in pursuit of irrelevance" should figure prominently in most congregational mission statements.

This irrelevance is seen in that there is seldom any engagement with contemporary culture for the purpose of pursuing any type of transformation at any level.

Congregations simply gather together in their habitual holy huddles, and attempt to convince themselves they truly believe they are sinners but in the final analysis their self-righteous piety always wins out. They make their way back into the hypnotizing mundaneness of their respective worlds unswervingly entrenched in their unaffected and unchanged states of religious delusion, and certainly with no heightened sensitivity to the cultural crisis taking place around them.

And if there is any awareness of any cultural crisis or social chaos on the part of the local assembly it serves only the purpose of further convincing them to thank their "gods" that they are not part of the pagan culture going to hell in a hand basket around them, which by the way is in just this condition because of the failure of the church.

This has not always been the case.

The time was when the church at least endeavored to react to, if not shape, the culture in which it existed. During the apostolic era, the relation of the church to culture was reactionary. Everything seemed to be "clear cut" in the mind of the churches and their leaders. They at least had an awareness of what they should not be and an awareness that they were not to accommodate to the standards of the culture around them. As tragic as this type of isolationism is, it at least conveyed the early churches awareness of the cultural context in which it existed.

With the emergence of the Ante-Nicene Era, however, there was increased confusion about the place of the church in culture. Christianity was reviewing and reassessing its previous stance on issues such as war, women's roles, church state relations, race relations and sexuality. The Apostolic church's passion for isolation from the culture seemed to be vanishing since it seemed that Jesus was not going to come back any time soon and so the church was going to have to "find its place," so to speak.

Then, in the ultimate swing of the pendulum, in the Post-Nicene Era, the time of Constantinian Christianity, the church seemed to have committed itself to full blown cultural accommodation.

It seems that in each of these eras, however the church at least had an awareness of what was taking place around it. In other words, the church was not narcissistically self-absorbed. I get the impression these days, however, that not only does the church not care about the contemporary cultural cateclysm taking place but it does not even remotely care.

Call it what you will. Head in the sand. Freudian denial. Blinders on. Whatever. The church is completely content to wallow in its self-absorption.

I saw this "sanctified obliviousness" clearly this week on a local churches website. A particular congregation (which will remain nameless, not so much for my own sake but for the sake of the embarrassment which its leadership and people should have but won't which also speaks volumes) was celebrating by challenging their youth and entire congregation to wear their "favorite pair of jeans" to church to support the youth program.

How cute.

So my wife and I talked last night about the renewed focus of parental consent laws before the state legislature, lectures in her family law class about 13 year-olds having sex and becoming pregnant, and the legal system providing an avenue for these teens to have abortions without parental consent, yet nonetheless having to handle this entire mess of what to do in those circumstances.

And this is only one major mess among many.

It seems to me that generally church is like the clowns at Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Traveling Circus. The elephants make gigantic messes but it is of no concern to them since cleaning up behind the elephants isn't what they are about. Thank god picking up the elephant "stuff" is someone else's job. The clowns are just about putting on their favorite pair of jeans, and having fun in front of a mega-crowd.

So put on your Lucky's or your Levi's, and make you way to the local self-absorption enablers group this Sunday, and take a big sip of the Congregational Kool Aid.

Drink deep and drink big.

While the rest of us thank god that the Kingdom and the church are two separate realities, and that the two are seldom if ever to be identified with one another and also that God, like every good hard working farmer, knows how to plough around the ecclesiologic stump.

From Reality to "Realness"

Woodfin proposes that when we are connected to Reality do our lives become real or authentic. He proposes once again a Christologically centered ontology arguing that we are only rightly related to Realty, according to the Christian worldview, through a relationship with our Creator and Redeemer.

Once again, Woodfin contends that the experiential appropriation of Reality which manifests itself experientially in our lives in the form of authenticity or realness (which ethicists would call the "summum bonum" of life or "the good life) validates the Christian worldview.

Woodfin records

An ontological belief in a Christ who is indeed God, not only in his revelation but also in his being must therefore be capable of creating in experience a quality of life which corresponds to that which the Christian holds as theologically valid in his understanding of God as real.

Woodfin's conclusion is a philosophical affirmation biblical statement from Christ, "I have come that you might have life and life abundantly." Philosophically speaking, life abundantly is found in an ontologic connection with Ultimate Reality which manifests itself in a life lived authentically.

Christ the Clue to Reality (Part 2)

As previously stated, Woodfin cites James Barr's contention that the predominant grammatico-historical method has led to a tension between an ontological interpretation of Christ and what Woodfin terms as an "event centered Christology." However, Barr goes on to point out that there is another variable, which has contributed to this tension. He contends that an understanding of revelation which has had placed excessive confidence in its understanding of "history" has also contributed to the enmity between the two.

Our seemingly singular anthropocentric understanding of history is problematic in that it fails to acknowledge a more transcendent understanding of the nature of history. German theological vocabulary assists us at this point in that two words or terms were utilized in order to grasp the full significance of history. On the one hand there was "historie" with which term reference was made to the actual events of history as we seen and observe them. To use biblical imagery, the historical facts of the Red Sea parting, the taking of the promised land by the Israelites, the crucifixion of Christ in actual time.

However to understand history in these terms is inadequate. Consequently, the German language utilized another term to speak of history on a more profound and transcendent level. The term was "heilsgeschichte" meaning in its most basic definition "salvation history." It is in this term that the revelational significance of history became significant. In each of these events of "historie" was a higher purpose or significance in that the divine was accomplishing his purposes and fulfilling his providential plans.

It is precisely this distinction to which Barr, and also Woodfin is pointing. The wooden, literal, observable understanding of history fails to take into account this more profound significance of "heilsgeschichte" or "salvation history." Consequently, it seems that Woodfin is pointing out that our understanding of the Christ event is also limited and neglects the philosophical consideration of Christ as the interpretive clue to all of reality.

Christ - The Clue to Reality

Woodfin entitles his chapter on Metaphysics, "Christ, the Clue to Reality." He proposes that the person and work of Christ is the interpretive key to ontology. He writes, "It is therefore in the historical incarnation of Christ that the Christian finds the objective ground and rational paradigm for his understanding of creation, redemption, and the meaningfulness of reality as a whole." (Woodfin, With All Your Mind, 95)

Woodfin sees in the Incarnation what he terms as a "normative theological" paradigm. As normative, Christ constitutes the standard for all of reality. However we have difficulty understanding the biblical Christ in this fashion. He proposes that the Christian believer, and I propose that even the Baptist Christian "intellectual", has a hard time understanding Christ ontologically because of our exclusive and almost idolatrous commitment to the "grammatico-historical method" of biblical interpretation.

It seems to this writer that Woodfin is "onto something" so to speak.

In my faith tradition, I have been taught that my understanding of the person of Jesus is to be rooted in scripture alone and that in order to understand scripture's presentation of Christ I must utilize the grammatico-historical method of interpretation in order to be faithful to the text. Throughout 30 years of pulpit ministry I maintained a complete commitment to the exegesis of the words, clauses, phrases, context of the biblical material with which I was working.

However, there emerged a time in my life when I began to think that there was something limited to my understanding of Scripture in this manner and consequently to my understanding of the person and work of Christ. It has only been after having taught Philosophy for a number of years now that I have realized that the hermeneutical omission of the grammatico-historical method "philosophic understanding" of Christ and religious faith.

In fact, it seems that one of the reasons I initially had such a challenging time getting my mind around Woodfin's ontological understanding of Christ in this particular chapter is due to my being so entrenched in the grammatico-historical method of interpretation and the consequent understanding of Christ which emerges from the use of the method.

This seems to be what Woodfin is getting at when he cites the observation of James Barr. Barr contends that the tension which exists between the ontological understandings of Christ and "event centered Christology" is a consequence of the grammatico-historical method of interpretation. In short, the grammatico-historical method has placed interpretational blinders upon the student of the text with the result that an understanding of Christ beyond the "facts of the text" so to speak is rendered unlikely if not impossible.

It seems, at least to me, that a more well developed understanding of Christ transcends the grasping of the data or facts uncovered through the grammatico-historical method of interpretation.

Exploring the Validity of an Ontological Claim

Yandall Woodfin contends that in order to explore the validity of an Ontological Claim we must engage in what he describes as an "ontological existentialism." When one approaches the question of Ontological validity from the perspective of existential existence the result is that the criteria for ontological validation centers on the correlation with this claim regarding Ontological Ultimacy and its consequent impact upon the individual's personal existence. It seems that Woodfin is saying that the test of the validity of our Ontological perspective lies in its practical result. Woodfin seems to advocating that idea that the "Ontological proof" is in the "pragmatic pudding." Woodfin does acknowledge that a tension always exists between ontology and experience which will necessitate a constant awareness of the need for reformulation and restructuring.
By using the experiential test as a means of validation for our ontological perspective, Woodfin endeavors to avoid a exclusively speculative ivory tower approach to ontology.

Ontological Inevitability

1. There is no severing human existence from Ontology. Paul himself seemed to be hinting at this when he wrote that it is in Him that we "live and move and have our being." (Acts 17). Yandall Woodfin proposes that there is a certain audacity concerning the Christian faith in particular since it proposes to explore and comprehend the nature of Ultimate Reality. There is an inevitable relationship between humanity existence as "frail creatures of dust" and their Ontologic context. One of the greatest philosophical theologians, if not the greatest, was Paul Tillich. Tillich is described as an "ontological theologian." He argued, "Every epistemological statement is implicitly ontological." There is no escaping the reality that the two are tethered. Human existence cannot be eliminated from Ontologic Reality regardless of how we might try to do so or how intensely we might deny any Ontological Reality. Willard Quine argues that Ontological considerations are the basis for even the most commonplace considerations of life.

2. There is a human quest in each individual life to transcend functional existence. It seems that in every human "heart" so to speak there is a need for Ontological interpretation. Perhaps this need is intuitive to the human condition or perhaps this need is part of the marred but not destroyed "imago dei". Regardless of its source the human need to understand our place in the cosmos is apparent even in those efforts, which reach toward transcendence by following less than avenues such as hedonism, materialism, intellectualism and the multiplicity of other "isms" which could be cited. In every human being there is what someone has termed an "ontological anemia" which struggles for fulfillment and understanding.

3. Ontological inevitability is also evidence in the seemingly commonly human confidence that there is rationality in the universe. Even among those who have resigned themselves that there is no such rationality, the bewilderment exhibited at this discovery is evidence that there "should be" such a rationality. T F. Torrance reflects this same observation when he proposes that simply to ask questions of an ontological nature in pursuit of rationality is evidence that the seeker must at some level assume that ontological rationality should be present, or at the least that the seeker "wishes" so to speak that this rationality existed in the cosmos.

Epistemology: Eschatological Verification

Woodfin adds that, when it comes to the issue of a Christian theory of knowledge, there is an additional unique dimension to "knowing that we know." He terms this as "eschatological verification." For Woodfin, epistemology has three dimensions. First epistemology possesses a historical verification dimension. By this Woodfin intends that we examine the past in order to "know." In addition, Woodfin argues that there is an existential verification in which we address the present impact of a truth upon on our life. But finally, Woodfin argues that there is a future dimension to the verification of knowledge which he terms "eschatological verification" by which he intends that we can never really "know" so to speak until what we believe is verified or confirmed by the events which will unfold in the future. In Christian verbiage, the consummation of the Kingdom of God will as the interpretive key to the validity of Christian belief.

Conclusion

Woodfin concludes his discussion of a Christian Theory of Knowledge with the statement, " The basic problem in epistemology, it may be concluded, is perhaps not so much how one knows as it is the ontological question concerning the nature of the reality which is being known.' (Woodfin, With All Your Mind, 36) He sees in the Christian faith what he term as "an epistemologic paradox" or "epistemologic inversion." The paradox or inversion hinges on the central reality that the Christian message focuses not so much upon our desire to know God but rather upon God's desire to be known. The ultimate impact is this inversion is not so much that we know God, but that God knows us.

Knowledge of God through the Rational/Reflective Channel

Woodfin contends that there is no such thing as "pure reason" or "mere reason" and therefore he opts to call this category of knowledge the "rational/reflective channel of knowledge." He writes, "Reason may . . . be a legitimate means of obtaining knowledge of God when it is a coherent and consistent conceptual reflection upon that which has been given through divine revelation." (Woodfin, With All Your Mind, 31) He further contends that the very reality of humanities need for "revelation" of God indicates the ultimate limitations and insufficiency of human reason or rationality. In short, revelation is verification that reason has its limits.

Woodfin utilizes Paul's Sermon on the Mount as a basis for his conclusions. He indicates that upon examination it is obvious that Paul's main objective is evangelistic while his method of persuasion is rationalistic. Paul points first to the rational inconsistencies of Athenian religion and then to the rational consistencies of Christian faith. In addition, Paul roots his proclamation in the context of confidence regarding the historical legitimacy of the Christian faith.

Knowledge of God through the Pragmatic Channel

For Woodfin, this pragmatic channel constitutes the evidential confirmation of the validity of Christian belief about God revealed in Jesus Christ by the examination of the practical impact of such belief.

According to Woodfin, this pragmatic approach appears frequently in the New Testament. For instance, Woodfin cites, Nathan's question to Philip, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" and the response "Come and see." (John 1:46) The response demonstrates that the "proof is in the pudding" so to speak. The response is a call on the part of Philip to observe the practicalities of the life, which Jesus lived as a verification of his own identity. Further, Woodfin points to a sermon by Dr. Daniel Fuller in which he examines the Acts narrative, which describes Barnabas as a "good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith. And (as a result), a large company was added to the Lord." Barnabas' faith had so convincingly impacted his life that others were compelled to believe also.

Moving beyond the biblical material, the writings of Justin Martyr also employ the pragmatic test:

After our conversion by the Word . . . we who devoted ourselves to the arts of magic now consecrate ourselves to the good an unbegotten God; we who loved above all else the ways of acquiring riches and possessions now hand over to a community fund what we possess, and share it with every needy person, we who hated and killed one another and would not share our hearth with those of another tribe because of their different customs, now, after coming of Christ, live together with them, and pray for our enemies, and try to convince those who hate us unjustly, so that they who live according to the good commands of Christ hay have a firm hope of receiving the same reward as ourselves from God who governs all. (Saint Justin Martyr, The First Apology, in The Fathers of the Church, trans. Thomas B. Falls (New York: Christian Heritage), 1.14. p. 47)

Knowledge of God through the Intuitive Channel

There are numerous biblical references to individuals receiving knowledge of God through an intuitive awareness. For instance, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, For Flesh and blod has not revealed this to you, but m Faher who is in heaven. (Matt. 16:17) Or, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval, By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear. (Hebrews 11:1-3)

By the term "intuitive awareness" it seems that Woodfin is referring that when individuals examined the person and works of Jesus there was an evocation of a trustworthiness regarding his representing God and a consequent inner conviction, which emerges in the individual regarding his identity.

Woodfin contends that this inner awareness of which we are speaking is not to be considered as the work of the Holy Spirit. Rather this awareness is of a different nature. According to Woodfin, this awareness has to do with "that faculty of immediate perception to which the objective reality of God as personal Spirit makes his appeal through Christ.

However, Woodfin is quick to point out that this intuitive awareness of God is not sufficient in itself. Rather, this intuitive channel of knowledge concerning God's presence in the person of Jesus Christ must find confirmation or at least further validation in two other sources of knowledge: the pragmatic channel and the rational/reflective channel.

Epistemology: A Christian Theory of Knowledge

The Christian claim to know God must be received through the intuitive, pragmatic, and rational/reflective channels. Yandall Woodfin contends, "Even though knowledge of God, according to Christian belief, is possible only by a gracious quickening and illumination of the human spirit through the immediate personal presence or God, this knowledge, as long as man remains a creature in time and space will be mediated through experience." (Woodfin, With All Your Mind, 27) In other words, in this issue of epistemology, one cannot rest at ease in the mystical conclusions, since these even mystical experience must come to us through experience and rationality or reason.

It should also recognized that we are talking about the individual's knowledge of God and not knowledge of things about or characteristics of God. Woodfin considers our knowledge of God in terms of a "friendship" or "trust among persons." (Woodfin, With All Your Mind, 27) It is important to recognize that while God is "suprapersonal" according to Woodfin, God is never "subpersonal" and must be grasped by human beings as personal, at least according to Christian faith.

I develop trust in individuals (though it is harder these days than in the past) through a subjective intuitional awareness of the individual which tells me whether an individual is trustworthy or not, through a pragmatic test of examining their charater, behavior and conduct toward others which gives me insight as to their level of trustworthiness, and through the use of rationality/reflection which assists me in determining that my trust in another individual is a rational or reasonable thing to give.

Epistemology: A General Theory of Knowledge

Yandall Woodfin in his "With All Your Mind" constructs a general theory of knowledge in the following fashion. He contends that experience (empiricism) or the sensation of objects interacts with the Mind, which evokes the process of interpretation of those experiences. He gives credit to Immanuel Kant to some extent, who argued that we can never actually know the nature of the object which we perceive and that the human mind has built into it the faculties for the interpretation of those external objects. Consequently, in distinction to most of us who are common sense realists, believing that the external world is actually as we perceive it to be, Woodfin contends that this is not necessarily the case.

Therefore, beginning with sensory experience, which is interpreted by the human mind, the next phase of the process of "knowing" proceeds to what Woodfin terms an "intuitive risk". This dimension of the epistemologic process also seems to be subjective in that we intuit the way we perceive reality to be in light of experience and the process of reasoning through so to speak what we have experienced. Ultimately, this process of knowing finds its way, according to Woodfin, into the pragmatic channel, which speaks of the manner in which we react to or respond to the interpreted reality, which we have experienced.

Art XII: Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), Part 2

Wittgenstein's family resemblance theory works in the following manner. Imagine that you have three traits such as eye color, hair color and nose shape. Your sister resembles you regarding the hair color and nose shape but she has a different color eyes and ears different from yours. Her ears are like those of your brother who happens to have eyes and hair unlike your. However, he has your nose shape and you resemble him somewhat but not as much as you resemble your sister. Your brother has more of your dad's traits but you don't have any traits of your dad. We still think of you as being in the same family as your dad because your traits and his overlap through their appearances in your brother and sister.

Wittgenstein's theory has been described in the following manner:

• You have traits A, B, C
• Your sister has traits B, C, D
• Your brother has traits C, D, E
• Your dad has traits D, E, F

Wittgensteinians think of art in this fashion some works of art seem so different that it seems hard to imagine what makes them both the same kind of thing. But they have traits that they have enough in common with other pieces that we think of as works of art that we think of them individually as works of art. In addition, if those things are art and they are remotely like other things we call art then it seems sensible to say that they belong to the same family even though they do not share any identical features.

Art XI: Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), Part 1

Wittgenstein argues that there is no necessary and sufficient condition for caling something 'art". Art is an open concept that ties activities together through overlappling family resemblances. This is called the "family resemblance theory". We could never have a specific definition of art because at some future date something else might be included in the category of art. We simply have to decide whether to use a coertain concept or term to refer to the activity in question. In contrast to logical or mathematical concepts, concept that are based on cmpirical obsevations or normative judgments aresimply stipulated as to their ranges of use. The decision is based on whether the overlaps in family resemblances are similar enogh to warrant calling something art.

Art X: Existentialist Aesthetics

For human beings existentialists argue, "Existence precedes essence." Things for humans are meaningful not in virtue of some always already divinely determined essence or nature but the nature or function of a thing follows from how we apprehend it. Our perception of the world is of our own making.

The world is to be understood as an object of art, a product of human creativity. However, unlike typical works of art, which are, completed or finished products, the world and everything in it are never finished. The world is a work in progress, not something that is being but rather something that is becoming. The virtue of art is that it highlights this incomplete character indirectly by showing the kind of thing that the world is not. The becoming of the world displaces us, makes us homeless, and requires us to assume our responsibility to create.

Art requires that we pass from the familiar to questions regarding the ultimate meaning of existence. Art challenges us to examine things such as birth, death and interaction with others and moves us from the typical to the symbolic and enables us to transcend ordinary life. The point of art is to make us do something to change our lives from the mundane to the meaningful. Such a change is possible only when we recognize that we are the ones who must do it and no one else.

Art IX: Herbet Marcuse (1898-1979)

Marcuse combines elements from Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. For Marx, doing away with the conditions for economic repression would allow everyone to express himself or herself artistically. For Freud, though our repression of antisocial desires such as sexuality and aggression is necessary for society. In order to keep certain classes in positions of power, we are asked to repress even more than is needed to achieve social ends. This added repression is designated by Marcuse as "surplus repression." Workers are seduced into becoming part of the very system that uses them up by themselves becoming consumers. Even anti-establishment activity such as rock music is co-opted by being transformed into a commodity. To break free of this cycle of seduction we need to eliminate surplus repression and decrease necessary repression through technological advances. Marcus advances however that just when we are able to cur down on necessary repression, the forces of power increase surplus repression.

Art VII: Marx

According to Karl Marx artistic expression and aesthetic enjoyment are essential human characteristics but the ways in which human productions are manipulated and understood are always ideological. In other words, art specifically is always attempting to convey the ideology, conviction or belief of the artist. Marx argued that capitalism inevitably estranges the producer from his product or one might use the word "alienates" more appropriately. The individual is forced to market what is produced in the interest of providing for one's means for the sustenance of life and this is the context in which this alienation takes place. According to Marx, the creative artistic productions of human labor define the nature of human existence, but when their work is alienated from human beings, as with capitalism, human beings are alienated from themselves. Art, like religion, morality, and philosophy is the expression of the socioeconomic system of the ruling class. The conflict of classes generates counter culture or revolutionary art according to Marx.

Art VII: Marx

According to Karl Marx artistic expression and aesthetic enjoyment are essential human characteristics but the ways in which human productions are manipulated and understood are always ideological. In other words, art specifically is always attempting to convey the ideology, conviction or belief of the artist. Marx argued that capitalism inevitably estranges the producer from his product or one might use the word "alienates" more appropriately. The individual is forced to market what is produced in the interest of providing for one's means for the sustenance of life and this is the context in which this alienation takes place. According to Marx, the creative artistic productions of human labor define the nature of human existence, but when their work is alienated from human beings, as with capitalism, human beings are alienated from themselves. Art, like religion, morality, and philosophy is the expression of the socioeconomic system of the ruling class. The conflict of classes generates counter culture or revolutionary art according to Marx.

Art VI: Art for Art's Sake

Plato and Aristotle agreed that art should be judged based on its effect on us. However, some theorists claim that art is intrinsically valuable or, put differently, art needs no justification other than itself. Art should not be considered a means to some end other than itself. IN this sense art is devoid of instrumental value. It does not express anything about anything other than itself and does not try to imitate nature or life. In fact quiet the contrary is true according to these theorists. Life and nature find expression through the energy that art provides. Interestingly since the proper goal of art is not to capture or repeat the way things actually are, art is essentially a lie and, in addition, lying is the proper objective of art.

Art V: Neo Platonism, Classicism/Formalism and Tolstoy's Religious Defense of Art

Neo Platonism is distinct from Platonism in its view of art in that it has a higher view of the value of art. Remember, Plato was pretty harsh with regard to the legitimacy of Art but this is not true with Neo Platonism. According to Neo Platonism, art expresses higher truths of beauty and sensuality. It seems that there is an Aristotelian influence evidenced in the conclusions of Neo Platonism regarding the meaning and significance of art.

Classicism or Formalism argues that art and the experience of beauty capture the harmony between the ways in which things in reality are structure and the structure and activities of the mind.

Romanticism argued that through artistic imagination, which is subjective and emotional, we are put in touch with what is eternally real and creative. Classicism's emphasis on order and proportion, like philosophic reason or science in general, provides information merely about the temporal world not reality as it is eternally.

Tolstoy argued that art brings us together as children of God through shared feelings. He contended that great art would be sincere and universal and not affected or accessible only to the cultural elite.

Art IV: Aristotle

Aristotle argued that art imitates not what is the case but theorizes what could potentially be the case. Art focuses on what Aristotle designated "universals." As history recounts particular events, so art portrays particular events in terms of how well they embody universal ideals and values. Philosophy theorizes about theorizing itself. Instead of encouraging the passions to take control of reason, art is the means by which we cleanse or purge the passions and through which we engage in a "catharsis" or cleansing. Therefore, according to Aristotle art replaces erotic and aggressive passions rather than causing them and that is the social function of art according to Aristotle.

Art III: Sigmund Freud

According to Sigmund Freud, if rationality and society are to survive, irrational and antisocial drives such as sexuality and aggression must be controlled. They can be channeled or "sublimated" in socially acceptable forms of creativity and higher culture such as art, religion, philosophy, law, science, or morality, but even so they still threaten rationality and society.

Some people such as "neurotics" deal with the world by pretending that it is other than what they really experience, but they do not deny that there is a reality that might be different from what they experience.

Art tries not only to deny reality but also attempts to replace reality. In this respect, art is amazingly similar to insanity. Art is the means by which we experience the pleasure of unresolved or repressed irrational antisocial impulses. But like Plato, Freud thinks that art is not a rational response to the demands of reality. Rather, art is only the way of avoiding violence or other socially disruptive activity.

Art II: Plato

Plato argued that Artistic expression and enjoyment of art are unacceptable human activities for a variety of reasons.

• The Ontological Objection: Art is an imitation of things in the world but things in the world are not real things but are only copies of the Forms which are "real" according to Plato. Unlike philosophy, art does not provide with any truth and in fact it draws attention away from the truth insofar as its purpose is to make us pay attention to appearances rather than to reality.

• The Epistemological Objection: According to Plato we attain no knowledge through art because art is false and is therefore epistemologically unreliable. Artists do not provide us with the logos or the rational principle for what we experience.

• The Moral Objection: According to Plato, to be distracted from the pursuit of the good or to be distracted from developing a proper i=harmonious inner psychic order is immoral. Insofar as art depicts heroes and gods doing immoral things it does not inspire us to be great; insofar as art is illusion, it encourages us only to pretend to be good. In addition, art does not appeal to the highest faculty of the soul, which is reason because it relies on images. Rather than appealing to intellect or rationality, art appeals to the emotions which re antisocial and are also personally destructive.

Art I: Preliminary Questions

There are a number of questions which are addressed in consideration of the Philosopht of Art. Among those questions are:

• What is art? Can art be defined?
• What is it that makes one object or piece f writing or music rather than another worthy of being called art?
• What is beauty?
• Is there something distinctively human about art?
• What is the relation between art and reality?

Political Philosophy - John Stuart Mill (1806-73)

John Stuart Mill recognized the potential of the majority to function as a sort of dictatorship in which the minority of citizens is tyrannized. He argued that in the past liberty meant protection against the tyranny of political ruler but that this was no longer so. Rather the nature of the tyranny imposed upon an individual was now the potential of a group of individuals, the minority, being tyrannized by another group of individuals, the majority.

Mill argued that in order to avoid this tyranny a Principle of Liberty is needed. In short, Mill argued that the function of Law is to protect individuals from the potential of harm. Individuals can be coerced only in order to protect the health and welfare of others. Consequently the law is appropriate where harm to others is a concern. The law is aimed at protecting individuals from those who would harm them or infringe upon their rights.

He advanced that state intervention is justified in order to improve genera living conditions in a society for instance with regard to the protection of the environment or the support of the arts.

Mill argued that a free marker economy has many benefits but that the defects in terms of poverty for many, that result from private ownerships of the means of projection may imply that we should institute the alternative of socialisms or public ownership of the means of production. Some would propose that we are witnessing this principle of Mill's political philosophy in our own day.

Further, He argued for the utility of liberty as a social institution Under such social order individual will be encouraged and this individuality in turns tends to produce innovations in knowledge, technology, and morality that contribute significantly to improving the general welfare.

Regarding objections to Mill, some have argued that Mills political philosophy is too vague to be useful. These critics would argue that Mill fails to distinguish clearly between what is private and what is public.

Political Philosophy - Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

One of the more interesting political philosophers was Rousseau. Rousseau argued that individuals are born free, autonomous and naturally virtuous. However, Rousseau further argued that civil society perverts humanities virtuous nature into selfishness, pride and the delight in the suffering of others.

Consequently, Rousseau also argued that Government is needed to enforce laws concerning private property. At the risk of oversimplification, Rousseau argued that should the individual be capable of living an isolated existence then he would have no inclination toward the abuse of others, stealing, lying, the abuse of power, etc. However, the individual cannot live in isolation and therefore sees the possessions of his neighbor, abuses his power against his neighbor and his otherwise virtuous character is corrupted so to speak.

Whereas other philosophers spoke of the Social Contract, Rousseau spoke of the "General Will" and defined this Will as what I and all others in society want for ourselves. This is the determining factor regarding the establishing of the laws of the land. Rousseau that in the establishing of the General Will or Social Contract the individual will develop his or her natural virtuousness and civility.

Also and interestingly Rousseau argued a persons obeys the laws not because of some external force whether that force be God or the state but primarily because I "choose" to impose a particular law or set of laws upon himself. In addition, the individual chooses to impose the law upon himself in the interests of the common good of society.

Rousseau's political philosophy is not without it weaknesses however. For instance, Rousseau seems to have an overly optimistic view of human nature. His idea that individuals are born free, autonomous and naturally virtuous seems to be somewhat naive. In addition and as with other philosophers, his understanding of the majority rule or the General Will and the willingness of individuals to agree to the Social Contract in which they willingly forego personal rights in the interests of society as a whole may also be somewhat naive.

Political Philosophy - John Locke (1632-1704)

According to John Locke individuals re naturally indifferent to one another. In addition, moral distinctions characterize individual's social relationships and these individual moral distinctions are natural or are God given according to Locke. For Locke the individual acts morally only in light of the threat of future divine reward or divine punishment. The more God consciousness evaporates from a society, the less inclination the citizenry will have to live morally according to Locke's philosophy.

In addition, Locke argued that all individuals have the right to be treated equally regardless of their life status. Life is a divine gift, which provides the basis for this equality among individuals. Locke argued also that individual are bound to obey the law not on the basis of the power of an external authority such as the Leviathan as Hobbes argued. Rather Locke contends that the individual obeys the law only because they give internal consent to the law. Conscience and moral sensibility compels the individual to give allegiance to the law and to the authority of the government.

Lock also argued that all human beings have a God given right to own property. Wealth, prestige and power are to be distributed justly when worked for. Inherent in these two positions is the idea that the individual citizen is endowed by his Creator with a right to personal property that transcends the individuals obligation to "share the wealth" and that the access which the individual has to property and to wealth is secured through the mandate to work for those things. In this point of Lockean political philosophy we see the foundation for capitalism.

Regarding the role of government, government is to standardize punishment for all individuals who refuse to live by the law of the land and who intrude upon another citizen's personal rights. For Locke, such punishment by the government has two purposes: deterrence and retribution. In short, the State is to protect the individuals natural or God given rights to life, liberty and property.

A number of objections can be launched at Locke's political philosophy. First, Locke seems to possess an overly optimistic view of the majority. His emphasis upon majority rule may eventually lead to the tyranny of the majority over the minority on a particular issue.

In addition, Locke possesses an overly optimistic view of the individual's access to wealth and power through work. Part of accessing wealth and power lies beyond the scope of hard work. The individual must also possess access to certain networks, relationships, and social structures both in the educational as well as in the economic spheres.

Further, although not touched upon in our summary, Locke argued on the one hand for the separation of church and state while on the other hand he argued that the individual has inherent rights, which are God given. It seems that it is hard for Locke to have it both ways with regard to these two matters.

Political Philosophy - Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

Thomas Hobbes argued that individuals are naturally motivated by self-interests. He proposed that the law is required to maintain order in society and to prevent social chaos.

He advanced the idea of Legal Positivism in which he argued that what those in power determine to be justice constitutes the natures of justice.

He also called for a Social Contract among the citizenry since this would be required for the majority to abide by the laws. In the social contract the individual agrees to forego certain of his or her rights in the interests of society in general. According to Hobbes, peace is only maintained when individuals are willing to yield their rights.

Most prominent in Hobbes philosophy is his call for a powerful central state, which is to maintain order in the society. He designated this state as "Leviathan." Hobbes understood the state to be all-powerful and against those who argued that his view of the state was too powerful and too brutal, Hobbes argued that a brutal state is better than no state at all.

A number of objections can be launched toward Hobbes political philosophy not the least of which is his excessively low view of human nature and human motivation. Is it really true that all individuals are motivated by self-interests alone?

In addition, it may be that Hobbes view of the Social Contract is somewhat naive. Would individuals be willing to forego their personal rights in the interests of others? For instance, would individuals be willing to give up the right to bear arms in the interests of enhancing the peace and harmony of society? If not, Hobbes would respond that it is the power of the Leviathan, the state, to enforce this idea should it become law.

Finally, and somewhat related to the initial objection stated above, Hobbes has a pessimistic view of the individual to live selflessly. How do we explain altruistic behavior on the part of so many individuals? Hobbes would likely counter that even altruistic deeds are motivated by an unconscious desire for control, power, or self-preservation.

Political Philosophy: Plato (427 - 347 BC)

Plato was the first Western thinker to ask philosophical questions bout government. (James L. Christian, Philosophy: An Introduction to the Art of Wondering, 349).

Plato's distrust of human nature and disgust for democracy had its roots in the Athenian democracy of Plato's youth and the determination of Athenian political leaders that Socrates, Plato's revered teacher, should die for instigating insurrection among the youth of the day.

Regarding social/civil order, Plato envisioned a utopia in which the authoritarian state conditions the young with stories and myths, marriage is regulated, reproduction is controlled for the purposes of eugenics, personal freedoms are non existent.

Plato argued that natural weaknesses incline us to form social relationships. Social and political structure is required to control envy and greed. The average person lacks knowledge and the mastery of emotions which are required for social civility. This lack of knowledge and emotional control hinders decision-making. According to Plato, people generally pursue their own self-interests.

Plato argued that asking individuals to run the State is asking for trouble since individuals are incapable of doing so due to the lack of knowledge and emotional control. He concluded that only those individuals who are well trained and are knowledgeable should be in control of the State. In fact, Plato argued that it is the duty of these individuals to control the State.

According to Plato, there are three forces at work in human society. First, there are the Rulers; second, there are the enforcers such as police and military; third, there are the workers. Each individual is born into one of these classes or groups.

Plato advanced the idea of the Noble Lie. The Noble Lie, according to Plato, was needed to maintain class distinctions. The essence of the Noble Lie is found in its emphasis that the individual is destined to be part of the particular social group into which they were born and that there is no changing one's social status, either by personal ambition, marriage, etc. The individual is to accept their social status.

Political Philosophy: The Spectrum Illustrated

At the risk of oversimplification four basic categories may be utilized to cover the spectrum of political philosophy.

• Classical liberalism argues that the individual should be allowed to live as he or she desires with minimal involvement of the State.

• Classical conservatism assumes that people cannot be trusted to act properly and consequently must be told how to act by the authority of the State.

• Authoritarianism contends that decision sabot what is socially appropriate must be left to the government alone, thereby minimizing the ability of the individual for self-control and direction.

• Libertarianism advances that the least government is the best government which by implication minimizes the presence and the power of governmental authority.

These four categories provide an interpretive grid or frame of reference for the study of the political philosophy's of various individuals.

• Plato may be categorized as a conservative authoritarian. As such, Plato was pessimistic about the ability of the individual to responsibly manage his or her life (Conservative). Consequently, Plato argued for the existence of a strong central power or State which would insure both individual and social order (Authoritarian).

• Thomas Hobbes may be categorized as a liberal authoritarian. Hobbes argued that the individual could be trusted (Liberal). However, he argued that decisions and laws regarding what is socially right should be left to the state in order to prohibit social anarchy and chaos between individuals.

• John Locke is a liberal libertarian. He argues optimistically that individual can be trusted to do as they want and also that there should be minimal state intrusion into the individual rights or the social dimension of individual existence.

• Jean Jacques Rousseau presents a very unique political philosophy. Rousseau is a liberal libertarian regarding how human beings are naturally. However, Rousseau is a conservative libertarian regarding people under the influence of society. As will be seen in subsequent entries, Rousseau owes the transformation of human nature from a higher to a lower state of being to the corrupting influence of social existence.

• John Stuart Mill's political philosophy reflects that of a liberal conservative. In short he is more of a classic liberal concerning private or personal matters and a classic conservative regarding public matters.

Political Philosophy: Overview

One of the more challenging areas of the study of Philosophy concerns Political Philosophy. Some of the central questions addressed in Political Philosophy are:

• Are we naturally political?
• Is civil society artificial or necessary?
• What distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate authority?
• Are political bodies necessarily unjust because they restrict freedom?
• What is the role of the State?
• At what point does the state become intrusive to human liberties?

The Political spectrum consists essentially of four categories.

• Classical Liberalism argues people should be allowed to do as they want. The emphasis of this perspective is upon maximization of individual liberties and minimization of the power of the State. An important distinction should be made between "classical liberalism" and "contemporary liberalism." While "classical liberalism" emphasized what might be termed a minimalization of government, "contemporary liberalism" calls for an increase in governmental size and involvement in individual and social functioning.

Question: What is the difference between "classical liberalism" as defined above and "contemporary liberalism" of today?

• Classical Conservatism assumes that people cannot be trusted to act properly and must be told what to do by the State. The focus of this political philosophy is upon the maximization of the authority of the State and the minimization of the liberties of the individual. As above, an important distinction should also be made between "classical conservatism" and "modern conservatism" in that the classical model called for maximal governmental size and involvement whereas the contemporary model calls for a decrease in governmental size and function.

Question: What is the difference between "classical conservatism" as defined above and "contemporary conservatism" of today?

• Authoritarianism argues that decisions about what is socially right must be left to the government and also places complete authority in the power of the State, usually in the form of one highly powerful leader.

Question: What are two strengths and two weaknesses of "authoritarianism"?

• Libertarianism contends that the least government is the best government and therefore that the State has minimal obligations toward the citizenry perhaps with the exception of protection from outside threat.

Question: How does "libertarianism" view human nature? How does "libertarianism" view the state?

Leading philosophers such as Plato, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill fit into various of the previously cited categories, each depending essentially how each perceives the authority and the liberty of the individual. However, it should be acknowledged that the Philosophers conclusions regarding these matters is squarely rooted in his understanding of human nature and the source of authority (God or Society) from which human liberty is derived.

Ontological Perspectives of Science

Each of the Ontologies has their perspectives regarding the values of science. These include:

• Idealism is interested primarily in theoretical science not the physical science of the physical world.

• Naturalism is vitally interested in science and provides for naturalist the explanation of all issues.

• Realism is interested in science and the physical world and is also concerned with the supernatural world.

• Existentialism is most interested in sciences potential for helping in the vital choices, which are made in life.

• Pragmatism is interested in science in that technology can better life and in the perspective of pragmatism pure science is generally regarded as a waste.

The Elusiveness of Scientific Objectivity: Anthropomorphic Nature and Reductionism

Two more variables lead to questions concerning the objectivity of science: The Necessity for Anthropomorphic concepts and language and the tendency toward Reductionism.

All scientific endeavors are tailored for humans. What are the aberrations in method caused by this reality? Again while this factor may be unconscious it is none the less a potential influencing factor which threatens to skew the outcome of scientific research.

Finally, scientific explanations can be reductionistic in that they attempt to explain very complex events in merely physical terms. In short, quantitative results do not adequately account for qualitative differences.

The Elusiveness of Scientific Objectivity: The Inductive Method and Subjectivity

Two more concerns cause questions regarding the objectivity of science: The Inductive method, which leads only to probability not certainty, and the inevitable influence of subjective factors influencing the scientist.

Questions such as the following emerge from these two factors.

How does the scientist feel about his or her research? Who is paying the scientist for his or her research? What pressure is being exerted on them regarding the direction or outcome of their research? Why does the scientist study one thing rather than another and what is influencing the scientist to follow a particular subject area? These are all important questions, which must be taken into consideration when considering the possibility of complete scientific objectivity.

The Elusiveness of Scientific Objectivity: Sensory Deception

In addition, one of the major flaws of the scientific endeavor is its overconfidence in the human senses or its overly optimistic empiricism. The reality is that each of the five senses can be deceived.

• Sight: Deception occurs in the form of a mirage, dream, projective image, and blindness or color blindness.

• Hearing: Time delays from sight and from the Doppler effect.

• Touch: The reliability of human touch is contingent upon the condition of the human nervous system and to our previous environment.

• Smell: Our sense of smell can be deceptive as in the instance of when one has a cold. While this is a blatant instance of such deception the likelihood that this form of sensory deception can take place on other unconscious levels is highly probable.

• Taste: Human taste varies from individual to individual as with such things as saltiness, sweetness, and bitterness.

Each of these instances prove that human senses are not always reliable and dependable and are vulnerable to deception certainly on a conscious level and possibly to a greater extent on an unconscious level. Therefore, scientific objectivity may not be as achievable as is claimed by the scientific community.

The Elusiveness of Scientific Objectivity: Unproven Presuppositions

As stated above, the possibility of achieving scientific objectivity is questionable. There is elusiveness to scientific objectivity. Hans Vaihinger calls the scientific hypothesis, which pursues this objectivity, nothing more than "useful fiction." Michael Polyani contends that there is a contribution to be made by "faith" in a scientific viewpoint. In short, the honest scientist admits that complete objectivity is not achievable and that in reality there is need for "faith" in the pursuit and production of scientific knowledge.

The Scientific Method and Scientific Objectivity

In the scientific method, science claims complete objectivity. However, philosophy questions the possibility of such objectivity. It is possible that even on a subjective and unconscious level, the white-frocked priest of the scientific lab is not as objective as he would think himself to be. However, in the pursuit of scientific objectivity the scientific method uses the following principles in order to "assure" such objectivity.

• The Principle of Empiricism: Science assumes the reliability of the human senses. Reality is as the human senses perceive it.

• The Principle of Parsimony: This principle is also known as Ockam's Razor and it assumes that the best explanation of a reality event is the simplest explanation.

• The Principle of Isolation: The principle attempts to eliminate extraneous factors by use of a control group or by means of scientific sampling.

• The Principle of Exact Measurement: This principle expresses the results in quantitative terms. This principle essentially refers to data gathering.

By use of these principles, the scientist endeavors to insure scientific objectivity.

Theories of Science: Scientific Realism, Critical Realism and Instrumentalism

There are three basic philosophical understandings of Science.

• Scientific Realism argues that scientific theories describe reality accurately and literally. Scientific Realism reflects absolute confidence in the scientific project.

• Critical Realism contends that scientific theories are only human constructs with some basis in reality. The focus of Critical Realism centers on the belief that scientific theories are only human tools, which serve the purpose of enabling us to function with the framework of reality, as well as functioning as interpretive keys to the nature of reality.

• Instrumentalism argues that scientific theories are merely heuristic fictions and function like Bohr's picture of the atom. Essentially, these theories have no basis in reality. These three approaches cover the spectrum of perspectives of nature of scientific theories.

Faith Before Reason

Newport designates this particular approach as an "integrative approach." He prefers this approach since it avoids the extremism of the reason then faith approach and the faith alone approach. Further Newport calls the approach as the "faith seeking understanding" approach. This particular approach has legitimacy in that it utilizes faith as a correction to inadequate human reason according to Newport.

Augustine is a representative of this approach and this is summed up in his conclusion, "I believe in order that I may understand." Augustine argued that in order for a person to come to a correct belief in God he must first of all believe and thereafter utilize human reason to "prop up" so to speak faith.

In Augustine we see a blending of the epistemological approach of rationalism and empiricism since for him we use our human reason to interpret our life experiences. This is what seems to be taking place in Augustine's contend that we experience belief in God and then use human reason to interpret that experience.

In Augustine we also observe an excellent blending of the three sources of human knowledge which philosophy in general and Christian philosophy in particular advocates: revelation, rationalism, and empiricism.

In addition, Newport argues that the medieval theologian Anselm also represents this approach in his contention that "we find out inward experience of God, given in and through our self consciousness, to be supremely revealing and significant among all other experiences, and then we go on to interpret all other experience in terms of it."

One weakness of this approach lies in the potentiality of the approach to slide toward the Fideistic approach and to neglect totally the legitimacy of reason. It seems that many individuals once claiming to have experienced belief in God through faith fail to go further in exploration of the rationality of their faith.

However, the approach is to be credited with providing legitimacy to both faith and reason. The approach genuinely provides a basis for utilizing human reason as a basis for supporting one's faith. In addition, the approach does not overly emphasize human reason. Put differently, the approach does acknowledge that human reason does have its dangers and its limitations.

Fideism or Faith Alone

Fideism is a second approach, which attempts to reconcile faith and reason. Fideism is also known as Presuppositionalism. This approach gives priority to the role of faith. Newport summarizes this approach as contending that while faith is all-important, reason has little value.

This particular approach argues that human reason or rationality has no place in belief in God's existence. According to proponents of this approach belief in God's existence and salvation is a matter of faith alone. Newport contends that this category represents the conclusions of the "antirationalists."

The ancient church father Tertullian represents this approach. It was Tertullian who asked, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem". "Athens" represents the use of the intellect in matters of belief, while "Jerusalem" represents the simplicity of faith. The conclusion to the matter is according to the fideists is that Athens is to have nothing to do with Jerusalem. Human reason is of limited value according to this approach, but faith is not irrational, as the term "antirationalists" would suggest.

Martin Luther also represents the faith alone approach. Luther reacted against the reason then faith approach of the Catholic Church. In so doing, he reacted to the excessive optimism of the reason then faith approach of Catholicism, which is portrayed in the theology of Aquinas and Luther, concluded that reason is a contradiction to faith.

Perhaps the individual most associated with this approach was Soren Kierkegaard. According to Newport, Kierkegaard "scorned philosophy, renounced objectivity, and called the intellectual approach to Christianity paganism and blasphemy."

Fideism is to be credited with its sincere attempt to acknowledge the legitimacy and primacy of faith in one's belief in and especially relationship to God. In short, fideism attempts to take faith seriously.

However, with its de-emphasis upon human reason it may be that the approach does quite the contrary in that it fails to establish the reasonableness of belief in God.

Unfortunately, fideism may also represent an oversimplification of belief in God.

Finally, the approach is to be credited with acknowledging that eventually belief in God's existence truly is a matter of faith and can never finally be proven by use of human reason.

Reason Before Faith

One effort used to describe the relation of faith and reason views human reason as the "ground floor" of humanity's knowledge of God. According to Newport, this approach assumes that human reason was not seriously affected in the Fall and as a result serves as an adequate foundation for knowledge of God. As a result of giving priority to human reason, revelation becomes the "second story" for knowledge of God. These two realities according to this approach provide the context for coming to an awareness of God. This approach is also called "evidential theism."

Advocates of this approach include the medieval catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas who argued that human reason has a prior creative role to faith. He also contended that reason prepares the way to faith in God. In addition, Aquinas contended that while human reason cannot prove the existence of God, human reason could demonstrate that belief in God is not irrational.

In addition, catholic theologian Karl Rahner also serves as a representative of this approach. Rahner also utilizes the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. Rahner places such an emphasis upon human reason that he argues humanity has a sort of built in capacity to believe in God, which is evidenced by humanities search for meaning and significance. For Rahner, reason can even prove to be a means of a salvific relationship with God, in contradistinction to Aquinas who stopped short of this position.

This approach has made valuable contribution to the discipline of theology. It has provided a stimulus to intellectual examination of religious faith. In addition, the approach has attempted to take Christian faith seriously as not just an emotional but also an intellectual or reasonable faith.

Further, the approach has attempted to provide a rational basis for belief in God's existence, which, while it is impossible to actually prove God's existence, has provided rational pillars upon which belief in God's existence can be built. Unfortunately, the approach has typically become overly optimistic regarding humanities capacity to experience salvation through the use of human reason alone.

What is the relationship of faith and reason?

One of the sources of tension between philosophy and Christian faith centers on the relationship between faith and reason. Philosophy attempts to give priority to rationality and has little regard for the religious category of "faith", whereas Christian faith strives to give primary allegiance to faith and unfortunately in many instances has little regard for the philosophical category of "rationality." However, one of the most important questions, which the believer can ask, concerns the rationality of belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.

As notes on previous sections have revealed (such as epistemology and metaphysics) many of the ancient and early philosophers operated with a belief in God's existence, though this was not always the God of "Christian" faith. However, with the emergence of the Enlightenment in the 18th century this began to change. Enlightenment thinkers issued a charge to dismiss all God thought and God talk as leftover superstition of centuries past. The philosophical pantheon of individuals who issued the call consisted of such Enlightenment luminaries as Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau and in a more subtle fashion Kant.

Descriptions of the relationship of faith and reason fall generally under three headings: Faith without Reason, Reason before Faith and Faith before Reason.