Best Of
Recent comments
- Ummm, no.
The rightness or
2 weeks 18 hours ago - I recently saw the re-trial
2 weeks 19 hours ago - I am a conservative who did
2 weeks 21 hours ago - Amen.
We're called to serve
2 weeks 3 days ago - I have to disagree with your
2 weeks 6 days ago - To break up the monotony of
3 weeks 3 days ago - Although I am a conservative
3 weeks 4 days ago - Been reading your blogs,
3 weeks 6 days ago - Excellent post, Will.
3 weeks 6 days ago - Thanks for the reminder,
3 weeks 6 days ago
Friends of GWH
Subscribe
Recent blog posts
- Evangelicals and the Future of Politics: Wise Words from Joel Hunter
- Election 2008: The Day After
- The 2008 Good Will Hinton Voting Guide
- Dumb Reasons To Not Vote For Barack Obama
- The Immorality of the Housing Bailout
- Random Non-Partisan Thought of the Day
- Good: Bad on the Election and Voting
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Eric Metaxas
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Bridget Kibbey
- More On Obama and the Ayers Non-Story
Recommended Blogs
Who's online
Online users
Kant and the New Atheists
I appreciate Dinesh Dsouza's linking the New Atheism to the fallacy of the Enlightenment, but Kant is not an ally to revealed religion as he suggests. Kant did attempt to make room for faith against the Enlightenment skepticism of his day, but he accomplished this by putting faith in a completely separate room from science. Hardly anyone questions whether these two should be separated anymore, but that move made the objects of faith utterly unknowable to reason. It turned religion into a subjective sentiment.
Kant's noumena—reality as it is in itself before the human mind filters it through its categories—is no friend to revealed religion. Or to put it the other way round, revealed religion insists that the noumena speaks clearly in human language, which Kant would not have appreciated.
Comments
Relevant Theology
By separating religion from science in this way, Christianity becomes completely irrelevant outside of personal experience. Our culture simply deems religion to be whatever one's subjective experience says it is. It therefore, is not to be applied to political, ethical, legal, or psychological matters. Try challenging this "Sacred Cow" and you find your intelligence, motive or even your sanity is now under question. By making such a challenge, one quickly realizes that he has touched upon the unchallengeable universal truth:
Christianity is supposed to be externally irrelevant!
The Christian church has mostly bought in to this as well. One friend told me that Christian Culture is an oxymoron! Having bought into this subjectivism itself, Christianity is becoming more and more irrelevant.
This subjective view of Christianity, although foreign to Scripture, is attractive mainly because of fear, not philosophy or exegesis. The Bible presents the faith of Christianity in very absolute, even legal, terms. God is presented as a higher authority than man himself. He is therefore the source of wisdom, creation and law. No human endeavor is outside of His authority. The fear is that, if people believe this, they will be intolerant of competing views as ethical/lifestyle/cultural conflicts arise. So, fear drives the philosophy. Fear of the consequences of the claims of Christ.
If Christianity is not absolutely true in science, politics, economics, ethics and psychology, then the battle is already lost. This view must be rejected as overly anti-Christian.
Post new comment