Blaise Pascal and the Apologetic Task
I'm currently reading a book called Christianity for Modern Pagans, which is a selected compendium of Blaise Pascal's greatest Pensees along with Peter Kreeft's "festooning's" (as he says himself). After reading only a little, I felt as though I were entering a unfamiliar world of beauty, conveyed through Pascal's brilliant thoughts, and wonderfully explained by his disciple Peter Kreeft. What struck me immediately was this: so many Christians (including myself) are so deeply entrenched in the muddy waters of modernism that we don't even realize it until we are confronted with biblical truth, Christ centered beauty, and psychologically orthodox and deep defenses of the faith. What I'm learning, especially through reading Aquinas and Pascal, is that generations before us thought and reasoned metaphysically rather than pragmatically and methodically. The thought orientation of the modern mind is focused on pragmatism, utilitarianism, methodology and results. Instead of asking questions like, "What must God be like?" the modern mind asks questions like, "What can God do for me?" God no longer is the embodiment of beauty, truth, and infinite glory. Instead God becomes a "quick fix" that will get us through the day and fulfill our need for self satisfaction, self esteem, and carnal desires. Once you're confronted with the pre-modern mind (the biblical mind), your world is turned upside down and you begin to see the slavish chains that you have been bound to all your life. Indeed, reading Pascal, Aquinas, and others has opened my eyes to see the need for a reformation of thinking within the church. This specific Pensee was enligtening to me and reveals the absolute failure of modern apologetics to accomplish its goal.
Order. Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first [1] to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next [2] make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then [3] show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.
A few days ago, one of my friends was talking to a chapel speaker about a point he made in chapel. When faced with the logical inconsitency of his arguments, the speaker said this, "You're going to get yourself in trouble by using so much reason! Just because it doesn't logically make sense to you, doesn't mean its not true. God's ways are higher than ours, and using reason will only get us into trouble." Like every false statement, there are some truths embedded in this argument, which was really only an attempt to weisel the man out of the predicament he was in. Of course God's ways are higher than ours, and of course pure reason can be dangerous apart from a firm faith in those mysteries of God which we will never understand. Does that mean that the Bible is not logical? Does that mean that reason isn't a vital element to the practice of hermeneutics and the task of apologetics? I hope most Christians would reply with a resounding, "NO!" What Pascal asserts in this statement is that Christianity is not an illogical system of doctrine. Christianity is beautiful precisely because it is not contrary to reason. Christianity is "worthy of respect" precisely because it is the only system of belief which can succesfully understand the human condition and provide a remedy for it. Another thing worthy of note is this: not only is Christianity logical, but Christianity promises true good. Rather than understanding "goodness" and "happiness" as subjective feelings, Pascal understands goodness as being an objective state of goodness in the soul [like health to the body]. Pascal isn't being modern because he's understanding goodness as something entirely different from a modern interpretation of the word. After revealing these two essential aspects Christianity, we learn that Christianity is objectively true. We finally see that this particular system of belief is logically sound and intensley satisfying because of the fact that it is objectively ture. Kreeft comments on this particular Pensee by saying this: "Most apologetics tries to feed spinach to a reluctant baby who stubbornly closes his mouth. (Ever try it? Watch sometime.) What you have to do is make the baby hungry." This is exactly what Pascal and other pre-modern thinkers attempt to do. Explaining Christianity in terms of its logical consistency, Christocentric beauty, and objective truthfulness. This is very different from explaining Christianity in terms of its ability to provide for my felt needs, my self esteem, and my attempt at being "all that I can be." May God grant us grace as we beseech him to rescue our thinking from the pitfalls of pragmatism.
Soli Deo Gloria
Order. Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first [1] to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next [2] make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then [3] show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.
A few days ago, one of my friends was talking to a chapel speaker about a point he made in chapel. When faced with the logical inconsitency of his arguments, the speaker said this, "You're going to get yourself in trouble by using so much reason! Just because it doesn't logically make sense to you, doesn't mean its not true. God's ways are higher than ours, and using reason will only get us into trouble." Like every false statement, there are some truths embedded in this argument, which was really only an attempt to weisel the man out of the predicament he was in. Of course God's ways are higher than ours, and of course pure reason can be dangerous apart from a firm faith in those mysteries of God which we will never understand. Does that mean that the Bible is not logical? Does that mean that reason isn't a vital element to the practice of hermeneutics and the task of apologetics? I hope most Christians would reply with a resounding, "NO!" What Pascal asserts in this statement is that Christianity is not an illogical system of doctrine. Christianity is beautiful precisely because it is not contrary to reason. Christianity is "worthy of respect" precisely because it is the only system of belief which can succesfully understand the human condition and provide a remedy for it. Another thing worthy of note is this: not only is Christianity logical, but Christianity promises true good. Rather than understanding "goodness" and "happiness" as subjective feelings, Pascal understands goodness as being an objective state of goodness in the soul [like health to the body]. Pascal isn't being modern because he's understanding goodness as something entirely different from a modern interpretation of the word. After revealing these two essential aspects Christianity, we learn that Christianity is objectively true. We finally see that this particular system of belief is logically sound and intensley satisfying because of the fact that it is objectively ture. Kreeft comments on this particular Pensee by saying this: "Most apologetics tries to feed spinach to a reluctant baby who stubbornly closes his mouth. (Ever try it? Watch sometime.) What you have to do is make the baby hungry." This is exactly what Pascal and other pre-modern thinkers attempt to do. Explaining Christianity in terms of its logical consistency, Christocentric beauty, and objective truthfulness. This is very different from explaining Christianity in terms of its ability to provide for my felt needs, my self esteem, and my attempt at being "all that I can be." May God grant us grace as we beseech him to rescue our thinking from the pitfalls of pragmatism.
Soli Deo Gloria
posted by ReformedVictorious at 8:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home