Thoughts
Trying to answer the question "why" is an exciting
and difficult task. What is the meaning of life? Of course, no
answer is possible without a discussion of epistemology--the
study of knowledge. How can we know anything? Thus the greatest
enemy of philosophy is the present skepticism in thought, which
suggests that no one can really know anything. That means that
all discussion is by people who know nothing and are talking
about what they do not know. I admit that that is true about
quite a few people, and there is no point in talking to such
admitted know-nothings, but I do not believe that it is true
about most people. I have written a paper on the foundation of
knowledge, which has been published on-line by Faculty
Dialogue. Give it a try.
I have written a book on philosophy, but it needs to
be rewritten. It is in dialog format,
where three people argue with each other over various
philosophical issues from three different perspectives. It was modeled
after the dialogues of Plato, but Plato was fortunate to write in the days
when people appreciated that approach. I don't think he would get
published these days if he didn't already have a name. Someday, when I
have time, I'll rewrite my book--maybe. I've been reading a little modern
philosophy, and you would think that, if that stuff can get published, anything
can. But the publishing world doesn't work that way, I've found.
Once I thought that solid reason would rise to the top, like cream goes to the
top of milk. I never was an Idealist (a little philosophical humor,
there), but now I have lost my idealism.
Skepticism (and its derivative, moral relativism) is
destroying philosophy, and indeed, thought itself. That is because it has
no anchor, and floats where the wind takes it--wherever the Zeitgeist
blows. Without a metaphysical basis, philosophy becomes just one opinion
against another. One person says that one thing is the most important
principle and another person says that another thing is, and there is no way to
settle the matter. Metaphysics must be the first part of philosophy, and
yet it is ignored. Why? Because the supposed
"philosophers" are afraid of it. They say the puzzle of
metaphysics cannot be solved. Everyone who has tried has failed. But
that is not true. Everyone they have listened to has failed. But
they have closed their ears, so they have no right to speak.
The central issue of metaphysics is the problem of the
One and the Many. How can there be Oneness, and at the same time Manyness?
The ancient Hindu mystics tried to solve it, and failed. Plato tried, and
failed. Kant also tried, and also failed. But I have solved
it. And from the solution comes the answers to the riddles of freedom and
determinism, and of history, and of ethics. Without the solution, there is
no solid ground to stand upon.
Do I have any right to speak about
philosophy? I am a Doctor of Philosophy, with much philosophy in my
doctoral program, lots of apologetics in my seminary program, and lots of
philosophy courses as an undergraduate. It is not likely, however, that I will ever have the
time to finish my philosophy book.
Political philosophy is also fascinating.
Realism is crucial
to politics, and is too often ignored by the competing positions. It is nice to have ideals, but if they are not tempered by a
sense of realism, they easily lead us astray. People who pretend that they
can remake human nature and re-form society into any shape they please are the
great fools--the radicals who ignore the truth and whose ignorance leads us
closer and closer to tyranny. On the other hand, the reactionaries who
refuse to change what must be changed merely spur on the radicals and their
march to destruction.
It is hard to balance between these two failed
ways unless you have a clear sense of what is right and wrong. Justice
itself cannot even be defined without that. A fundamental dictum comes
from Lord Acton, who said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. From this comes the concept of political liberty--a liberty
from corrupt tyrants. Liberty is not a freedom from responsibility, nor is
it license, but rather freedom from tyranny. Government must control the
society enough to prevent wickedness, but the society must control government
enough to prevent wickedness in government. Without this circular flow,
with each nourishing and disciplining the other, the free and just society
collapses, and becomes unfree and unjust. When people stop caring about
preventing wickedness, then all they care about is power.
I have written a book on politics, but it too is
a dialogue between three positions. I have begun rewriting it, but the
political scene is so discouraging and so irrational that I doubt that my
efforts would do much good. I can show with perfect and indisputable logic
that a government and nation must be committed to God in order to survive, but
the supposed intellectual elites refuse to hear that--regardless of its truth or
falsity. They refuse also to recognize how important the traditional
family is to the survival of the nation. These are the terrible errors of the
radicals. The reactionaries tend to focus on the economic wellbeing of the
nation. But modern
economic theory is dominated by the idea that free markets will
automatically lead us to heaven on earth. That theory is based on
the assumption that the customer is always right--i.e., that the
customer is a "rational person" and always knows what
is best, at least in the aggregate. Unfortunately, people are not
always rational, and that may distort a market. Look at illicit
drugs, for example.
What too many theories, economic and
political, ignore is the weaknesses of human beings. Ignorance of
the weaknesses of human beings leads to policies which result in
"unintended consequences." Look at the disastrous
effects of our present welfare system upon the people of our
society, including both the people receiving welfare benefits and
also people who are not receiving welfare benefits. The need in
politics is to structure policy for real people in real
situations. That is why communism, with its fictitious good guy
(worker) versus bad guy (capitalist) black-and-white dichotomy, is
such a disaster wherever in real life it is tried.
Do I have a right to speak about politics?
I am a Certified Public Accountant with auditing experience and a specialization
in internal controls--those techniques that keep people from doing what they are
not supposed to do in an organization. Even law is not a better background
than that.
Theology
is, in the end, the most important of all. I have written a book on
theology also, and again it was three people in dialogue, so it needs to be
rewritten. But it will almost certainly never be published because some of
its positions will delight some people and some of its positions will anger
those very same people. Sometimes I wish that I had learned how to just
stay in line.
The book shows that the Scriptures must be the
inspired and infallible Word of God, but it also shows that--like the
parables--it often deliberately hides the truth and misleads those who are not
really seeking the truth. It shows that God will ultimately save everyone,
but that there is an "eternal" Hell for those refuse to believe in the
Messiah, unending until they do believe. It shows that the death of Christ
saves us from our sins, but not as a substitutionary atonement. It shows
that salvation is not escaping the consequences of sin, but is receiving the
power to avoid sin through the indwelling of the Spirit of God. It shows
that the real mission of a Christian is to be like Christ--especially in His
suffering and dying for the sins of others. It shows that attempts to
predict the end times from the Scripture are nonsense, but that there will be a
resurrection from death to a glorified physical body living on a glorified
physical earth forever.
It is obvious that there is enough in just that
one paragraph to offend almost everyone. And that is enough to keep any
publisher from publishing such a book.
Do I have a right to speak about theology?
I graduated cum laude (when and where that was a serious honor) from a
three-year master of divinity program at Westminster Theological Seminary.
Westminster was started when a group of conservative Princeton Seminary
professors left Princeton to establish their own seminary--essentially a
conservative Princeton Seminary.
Finally, I
have written a poetic gospel. Actually, it was the first of all the books
I have written. It was what I considered most important. It was
inspired by the concept of Biblical Theology (begun by Vos), which used the
imagery of the Old Testament to help us see Christ more clearly--or at least
more vividly. Pictures and images filled my head, and came out in a poetic
style. But poetry is not read by anyone anymore, and there are a few
revelations in the book that will shock the faithful. So, it too will not
likely ever be published.
The music is Pachelbel's Canon in D Major.
The themed background is by Classic Themes
