The prevailing philosophy today, whether it be the less deliberate, less self conscious views of the lay mind or the professional and technical theories of the scholars, is the secular philosophy of humanism or naturalism.
This summary judgment may not seem accurate to those who bear in mind the religious tenor of the idealistic schools. The Absolute is often referred to in tones of religious unction, and spiritual values received extensive consideration. None the less, the Absolute is usually nothing other than the world as a whole, transcending each particular part, but not transcending the natural universe. In some writers the identification of the Absolute and the world is not so clear. They will speak of God as creative; they will allow God to have thoughts that are not a part of external nature; and thus they will try to preserve the concept of transcendence. Some of the intricacies of these attempts to maintain a religious philosophy opposed to humanism are examined in the present volume. But by way of introduction this foreword suggests that idealism in both these forms is an unstable position. The latter form may speak of creation, but it can hardly mean creation ex nihilo; its God is a finite God and not God the Father Almighty; and in that case this finite person cannot command man’s worship with divine authority. The first form of idealism, stressing the Absolute as the whole, avoids a finite God at the expense of avoiding God altogether. Is there then any difference between the usual forms of idealism and the secularism of naturalistic philosophy? Whatever difference there may be, it is not one to safeguard the religious aspirations of historic Christianity for personal immortality and communion with the Triune God. Idealism therefore may be considered as a somewhat disguised and somewhat inconsistent form of humanism.
According to this view the supreme values of human life must be found in this world and in this life. Nature, whether conceived as hostile or as merely indifferent to man’s desires, is the only sphere of his activities and the only source of his comforts. Prayer addressed to a supernatural Person is superstition and must be replaced by human cooperation in the harnessing of natural forces. This is the purpose of modern science, and beyond the material and economic benefits of science humanism offers the consolations of morality and art. Whether a naturalistic philosophy, having repudiated a divine lawgiver, can logically justify moral distinctions, and whether, without a divine purpose, it can provide the necessary ingredients for art, are questions not here to be discussed. The point is simply that humanism restricts human values to the science, morality, and art of a secularized civilization. Religion, in the common sense of the word, is excluded.
Now that humanism has come to dominate the temper of the age and is in fact exhibiting an evangelistic fervor to consolidate its gains, some people, though they may never have been known for piety and though they may never have taken an interest in opposing the spread of naturalism, are beginning to wonder whether religion is not an essential factor for the maintenance of a healthy society. That humanism, naturalism, atheism, is not quite satisfactory is evidenced by the increasing demand that public education be supplemented by religious instruction.
This leads to the important and therefore controversial question of what the contents of this religious instruction shall be; or in more explicit terms it is the question of what religion shall be taught.
The largest, or at least the most powerful segment of American Protestantism can roughly be described as modernistic. The leaders of the great denominations have largely abandoned the orthodoxy of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and through the influence of Kant, Schleiermacher, and Ritschl have developed quite a different type of religion. Undoubtedly these men oppose naturalism. What must be asked, however, is whether their philosophy suffices. Can modernism meet the onslaught of humanism?
This question brings to light a most unfortunate condition that plagues Protestantism. It is this: Although the modernistic churchmen pay some attention to philosophy, their movement is not unified by adherence to a definite philosophical or theological position. Their unity is rather the negative unity of rejecting Biblical Christianity. And for this reason, for the reason that modernism springs from Kant, Schleiermacher, and Ritschl, it must be conceived as a less self-consistent form of the naturalism to which it leads. Because modernism has abandoned the idea of an authoritative revelation, it has changed modern theology from a science of God into a psychology of religious experience. And when experience is substituted for God, the logical outcome is a godless philosophy. Therefore until the modernists reject their fundamental tenet and return to revelation for a knowledge of God, they will aid more than they will obstruct the progress of humanism.
Almost in the last few days the other segment of American Protestantism has begun to show signs of life. To contest the power of the modernistic Federal Council of Churches, there have recently been organized the American Council of Christian Churches and the National Association of Evangelicals. Both of these organizations represent the philosophy of Christian theism. Their acceptance of an authoritative religion is a better defense and offense against atheism than the silent or stammering God of modernism. Yet here more evidently the unfortunate condition of American Protestantism is revealed.
The people who organized these two associations, roughly though justly called fundamentalists, have in the past paid practically no attention to philosophy. These people, it is true, have certain positive bonds of unity and would therefore seem to have an advantage over a negatively united modernism. But their positive unity is still meagre. They have been preaching Biblical sermons and have given themselves to evangelicalism. And this is essential, necessary, indispensable. But they have neglected the philosophical, scientific, social, and political problems that agitate our century. The result is that the thinking world has the choice of going through modernism to communism or of taking the road to Rome. For Romanism has not neglected the pressing problems of humanity. The Romish scholars for years have been producing well written volumes on all the problems that perplex man’s intellect. And the cumulative effect of this body of literature is naturally great.
But is some Protestant college student wants guidance in the subjects he is studying, where is he to look? The textbooks, whether in philosophy, economics, or literature, present a secular non-Christian view. The professors are, some more, some less, antagonistic to Christianity. And the orthodox Christians seem to care nothing about his perplexity. If such a student should ask the more prominent fundamentalist preachers, what is the Christian view of physical law, what is the Christian view of labor problems and natural unity, what are the implications of Christianity for art, or how does Christian philosophy describe the learning process, it is probably not only that no answer would be given, but that the questions themselves would be regarded as trivial or even as unintelligible. And this is one reason why evangelical Christianity has so greatly suffered. A contemporary Christian literature that studies all phases of intellectual interest is the great need of our age, for the fundamentalists have too long neglected their obligations.
The present volume, as it studies one of the crucial problems of philosophy and religion, is a hopeful sign. Perhaps it is a prophecy of conservative works on many subjects; perhaps it foretells the day when Christianity will again make its voice heard throughout the world. At least we find here a determination not to lose the battle by default. This is itself is an improvement over the previous disdain of philosophy. But the present volume shows more than determination. It also shows one of the fatal weaknesses of modern religion. That weakness is the exaggerated opinion of man’s goodness. Modernism bolsters this argument with assertion to popularize its view of man. And this part of modern religion is essential to the whole development. When the philosophy of Schleiermacher exchanged theology for psychology by basing religion on experience instead of on revelation, modernism could do nothing but replace faith in God with faith in man. No wonder humanism is the result. But is man worthy of faith? Is moral progress naturally inevitable? Is human nature fundamentally good? Modern thought, particularly modern religious thought, shows its instability by its increasing disunity; it has modified and has even reversed its earlier positions on these and similar questions to which Christianity gives unambiguous answers. And today, if ever, these questions must be faced.
To these questions World War II have an historical answer written in blood. This book gives a philosophical answer written in ink. Both blood and ink, history and argument, warn against a man-centered religion and a humanistic secularism. Mankind, today as always, needs God.
Gordon H. Clark
Butler
University,
Indianapolis,
Ind.
No comments:
Post a Comment