Customer Reviews

Christian View of Men and Things (3rd edition)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Clark's overview of truly Christian philosophy is the best such book that I have read and one of the best books I have read, period. His philosophy is consistent across domains, which is something that many, more famous philosophers have never been able to achieve. To witness such an achievement is something of which no student of philosophy should deprive himself. Clark's lucidity and consistency demand and demonstrate the highest standards in philosophical inquiry and writing, and the final result is compelling. Not to be missed.

Of Clark's philisophical works, this stands as one of the best, excepting perhaps his larger introduction to philosophy entitled, "Thales to Dewey." His aim in "A Christian View of Men and Things" is threefold (from the introduction): 1) To demonstrate what a a theistic worldview would be by exploring its implications in several fields. 2) To contrast theism and naturalism and trace the divergent implication of these two types through various subjects in order to clarify our understanding of both. 3)To phrase the whole in an elementary introduction to philosophy.

The strength of Clark's approach is that although the introduction is very comprehensive in scope, there is no loss of precision and detail. You will see a very well organized and tightly argued work from beginning to end. This work affected me in two ways: After reading so much 'religious' trash,so called 'apologetical' books, and having been heavily influenced by naturalism, i realized that theism can at least be shown to be intellectually viable if nothing else, and secondly, that naturalism is suspiciously full of hot air. Naturalistic arguments are quite simplistic and easy to come-by. There is nothing systematic, no consistency in naturalism--what you have is random chaos. In any case, the defenition of both worldviews and the corresponding explanation of their several implications has proven to be very helpful to me in organizing my thoughts in the hopes of one day accepting either one of the two systems without reservation. And thanks to Clark, i am leaning to the right. THis work is indispensible if you wish to understand the two great systems of philosophy. It is really quite broad in scope and exciting.

This is regarded as Clark's magnum opus. Originally presented as lectures at Wheaton College, this is a systematic refutation of all secular thought. Clark deals with religion, science, politics, ethics, and most importantly, epistemology. A must-read work of Biblical Christian apologetics at its best.

It won't be on the New york Times best seller list, nor will it feature on Oprah. In fact, this text will hardly make a showing in most Christian bookstores, but it remains a work you cannot ignore. If you want to know the truth about Christianity as a system opposing all other approaches, you absolutely must read Gordon Clark's The Christian View of Men and Things (The Trinity Foundation: Unicoi, TN: 1998 [1952] third ed).

This is no lite read. It will stretch and challenge you to rigorous clarity in thinking. It is orderly and systematic in its dismantling of every secular approach to reality. I urge all those in ministerial positions to order this text and to patiently wade through it. Clark is a sure guide. Many have never been exposed to Gordon Clark, even though they have had formal theological (sometimes questionable) training. I remember in my own M.Div days how many of my fellow students graduated without an inkling of who Athanasius was and had never read him directly. This awful predicament is nothing but a crying shame. Let us get back to reading the great theologians! Gordon Haddon Clark is in that rare category and does not deserve the anonymity he has today, and certainly did not merit the ignominy hurled upon him by Cornelius Van Til (see Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy [Trinity Foundation: Unicoi, TN, 1995]).

Here is a sampling from Clark: "The macrocosmic world with its microcosmic but thoughtful inhabitants will not be fortuitous aggregation of unrelated elements. Instead of a series of disconnected propositions, truth will be a rational system, a logically ordered series, somewhat like geometry with its theorems and axioms, its implications and presuppositions. And each part will derive its significance from the whole. Christianity therefore has, or, one may even say, Christianity is a comprehensive view of all things: It takes the world, both material and spiritual, to be an ordered system."

Clark goes from the philosophy of history to the philosophy of science. He attacks the question of ethics and politics. Clark addresses the question of Religion and wraps up with a compelling chapter on epistemology, in one sense his forte. There is a comprehensive world view that emerges from the defense of Christianity as the only system that warrants belief. However, Gordon Clark does not start with a mythical notion of neutrality. Clark is not about providing possibilities. If that were his aim he would stick to the evidentialist approach. Clark's goal is far higher: it aims for the certainties of God's Word, and as such, the only way to arrive at certainties in the conclusion is to have certainties in the foundation or beginning. From its inception, Clark's theological philosophy is grounded in God's Revelation in the canonical scriptures. So like St. Bonaventure, he borrows from philosophers but never leans on them. For Clark, as for St. Augustine before him, faith seeks understanding, and so philosophy is governed by faith.

For those daring enough to listen to Clark carefully, they will be awakened to new vistas. They will rise to new levels of both understanding the Christian Faith, and being able defenders of the same. I hope and pray that a new generation of reformed pastors will give Clark a hearing. It will be to their great loss if they ignore him.

You will need to go to the Trinity Foundation site for this, and other resources, to strengthen your apologetic arsenal. Please visit:

[...]

Theodore Zachariades

Introduction
The three-fold purpose of the book "A Christian View of Men and Things" (1952) by Gordon Haddon Clark is:
1) To look at several fields to see what a fully developed Christian worldview is,
2) To clarify the Christian worldview by contrasting it with naturalism, and
3) To serve as a brief introduction to philosophy.
The purpose of this paper is to outline the skeleton of the book, leaving the meat for those who read it.
To praise God for the flower he created requires us to first have studied, or at least noticed, the flower. In the same way, Philosophizing is an act of worship of God's eternal truths.
Some questions of philosophy:
1) Where is history taking us?
2) What is the best form of government?
3) Should each society make its own ethical code?
4) Is thinking actually just electrical energy of nervous excitation?
5) Is any person's opinion superior to any others?
Clark asserts:
1) Truth should be a rational system, logically ordered, somewhat like geometry with its theorems and axioms, its implications and presuppositions.
2) Man does not have to know everything just to know something - just as higher mathematics is not required to know the truth of basic addition.
If truth is an interrelated whole, then Christianity and naturalism cannot coexist as both being true. Each system proposes to interpret all the facts.
The classical proofs for the existence of God fail. For example, the cosmological argument ("there must be a designer") cannot prove God is capable of creating anything more than has already been created, nor can it prove God's omniscience and eternal qualities.
What is needed is a comprehensive system of thought that is internally consistent. This method will dispense with many competing world views.
When you take actions in your daily life, you have already chosen a philosophic worldview. There is no neutral or intermediate position. Since we must choose a first principle, why not choose the one that is consistent over one that is blatantly self-contradictory.

The Philosophy of History
The general problem of history is the formulation of laws which will enable us to understand the course of events and to make a probable guess about the future. Many have worked on with this problem. Herbert Spencer concludes "so surely must man become perfect."
If man is progressing toward perfection, but the world ends before the goal is reached, then the concept of progress looses its meaning. If this objection is overlooked, what will ensure man's progress? If scientific knowledge can produce evil as well as good, it cannot protect us from extinguishing ourselves with biological warfare. If social planners can reform humans into better members, they could just as easily make mankind worse. If biological evolution does not guarantee man's survival over that of the savage beast or parasite, then it certainly cannot ensure our perfection.
The concept of progress demands an end-goal to which progress can be measured. For example, the end-goal could be liberty for all. But if we claim progress in all areas, then even our end-goal should be progressing. Universal liberty may be what we are progressing toward today, but the better society of tomorrow may no longer count liberty as worthy of pursuit.
If a scholar with an unbiased mind wants to study history the countless events happing throughout the world every moment would foredoom any comprehensive analysis. The scholar needs to choose which historical events should be studied. So in selecting facts, the bias is inevitable.
Though seriously at odds with each other, both Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee assume history must be divided into units. Suppose we grant that some event that divides history into one unit or another. Suppose the event is that the majority seizes the temporary advantages of the day and coerces the minority into submission. Some would call this the breakdown of society, and others would call the same event the fulfillment of all their hopes and dreams. The decision between these two interpretations cannot be settled by an appeal to facts. There is involved a normative judgment.
Suppose we do somehow establish that history repeats itself. Is this any more significant than the fact that one generation of mosquitoes gives birth to another? Bertrand Russell concludes that the significance of man's history would be lost under the great march of the cosmos, and we have no choice but to accept "unyielding despair". But before giving in to Russell, we should understand what he presupposed to come to his conclusion, and contrast this with what is presupposed by a world view that gives life meaning.
History is meaningless when there is no value placed upon unique events. Significance requires a purpose. If history is to be granted significance, unique values must be assigned to unique events and something must happen once and for all. Christianity claims a unique creation, man plays a central role, because of sin man's condition is not normal, and there will be a definite end to this world's history. God controls history, God will bring history to an end, and God himself acts in history.

The Philosophy of Politics
Politics is a subdivision of history. If history is meaningless, then politics is too. Political theory presupposes history is in some sense significant or rational. Beware when studying works on politics that there is a difference between describing what is (descriptive, facts), and what ought to be (norms, ideals or standards). Political theory must answer the question "what form of state is best?" If there are no norms, then one form of government cannot be better than another. If there are norms, we should understand first what the purpose of government is, and if one is better than another, better for whom?
Plato and Aristotle advocate totalitarian solutions. For example, if one man is like a corpuscle, then loosing some corpuscles as we squeeze poison out of a wound is no different than Joseph Stalin liquidating his opposition. A corpuscle has no rights that conflict with the body.
"The greatest good for the greatest number" and the more general questions of politics cannot be understood without first understanding what is good for one man. If human nature is positively good, then it follows that government officers can be trusted with vast powers.
Anarchists argue against the centralization of authority. Instead they trust that there would be fair deals of value for labor. But is it true that human nature is so dependable the voluntary promises will enforce themselves?
But if a state is necessary, what justifies coercion on the part of the state? If there was a vote to that effect, by what right can the majority coerce the minority into accepting the state? If there has been a unanimous vote that established this power, can the father's contract bind the children? And if the father voted for a constitution that provides for amendments, how is this consistent with the theory of inalienable rights?
The Christian understands government as a divine institution, deriving its authority not from any voluntary social contract, but from God. Man cannot surrender any rights given to him from God. God is the source of all rights.
Government is not a natural institution like the family. The family was established before the fall of man. Government was established afterwards, for sinful man needs to be restrained. Christians are under obligation to obey governments that are in many ways undesirable. The powers that actually exist are ordained of God.
Christian presuppositions justify governments of limited rights, whereas humanistic principles imply either anarchy or totalitarianism. Can anyone maintain intellectual consistency if he favors political liberty and rejects Christian presuppositions?
Democracy is best not because a majority is wiser than a dictator, but because a large number of sinful people working at cross purposes does less harm than a single irresponsible ruler.

Ethics
Ethics is basic to history, which is basic to politics.
No one seriously advocates theft and murder as being morally wrong. But it is difficult to define theft. Aristotle recommended sickly infants to be exposed. Some defend mercy killing of the sick and aged. People differ on what is right and wrong - that is a fact. The question is: Why is a particular act right or wrong?
Teleological ethics is the theory that the morality of an act depends on the sum total of its consequences.
Egoism is the branch of teleological ethics that looks at acts that obtain good for the individual. Egoism may be selfish, but is it immoral? A self-centered inconsiderate person is not a very smart egoist. It does not take long to realize that friends are worth cultivating. A smart egoist may even be more agreeable than the do-gooder whose virtues stick out like the quills of a porcupine. With all due regard to other people, should I not seek my own good?
The theory that the egoist's good is pleasure is properly called hedonism. Pleasure could mean sense pleasure, but it could also mean the pleasure of chess, or even the pleasures that are at God's right hand forevermore.
Utilitarianism is the branch of teleological ethics that considers the good of the whole human race. Its slogan "the greatest good of the greatest number" implies that the torture of a few Jews for the pleasure of the 90% indigenous stock of blond Nordics is justified, especially if the department of education steps up courses in torture-appreciation.
If the good of each individual was in perfect harmony with the good of all others then utilitarianism and egoism would yield the same result. But it seems impossible that Stalin, Hitler and Churchill can all get what is good for them - so the chasm between utilitarianism and egoism remains.
Ateleological ethics is a theory that the morality of an act depends on the act itself, regardless of its consequences. The Stoics gave us a list of moral laws called "Noemas". Emmanuel Kant tells "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Kant's law could be used to show that a life of avarice and a life of benevolence are virtues.
Christianity is definitely egoistic, for "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." A conscious desire for eternal rewards and to avoid punishment is legitimate motivation.

Science
Karl Pearson, the inventor of statistics, writes, "The goal of science is clear--it is nothing short of the complete interpretation of the universe." William Gilbert, the father of electrical engineering, wrote that true science arrives at conclusions "not with mere probability, but with certainty."
But what science assures us that Pearson's claim is not just probably true, but certainly true? Historically, the scientific method has a long history of accepting what is later thought to be false. Gilbert claimed the Earth's magnetism holds it in its rotational course. Robert Wood, the first to take infrared pictures, claimed (in vivid defiance of Newton's earlier experiments) "that the prism actually manufactures the colored light."
Modern scientists may counter that the scientific methodology had not been adequately developed in Gilbert's day. But Wood's claim was made not that long ago. How do we know (or more appropriately by what science are we certain) that the methodology of today's science is now adequately developed?
What many call facts are actually theories developed out of simpler items of perception. Is something as simple as the roundness of the earth a fact in itself, or is it a really a theory based upon observing a dark curved region upon the surface of the moon. Is anything seen directly as what it is?
Suppose a scientist measures the length of an object many times, with slightly different results. Should the scientist report the first length, the middle length, the arithmetical mean, the (unobserved) arithmetical average, or conclude the length is constantly changing? What is the fact? Perhaps the only fact is that the scientist has a list of numbers.
From the list the scientist could record a figure denoting the range of probable error of the measurement. But, as a matter of fact, any range contains an infinite number of values. So however useful scientific laws are, they laws are built upon the methods of observation, the choices made about dealing with the measurements, and selecting one of an infinite number within a range.
Rescuing scientific conclusions by pointing to verified predictions is irrational. It is a logical fallacy called "asserting the consequent". For example, if the periodic table is true, this undiscovered element must exist - the element does exist so the periodic table is true. And, if I eat roast turkey and plum pudding I lose my appetite - I lost my appetite therefore I ate turkey and plum pudding.
Getting back to lengths, is a submicroscopic length the same sort of thing as a visible length? Many scientists, like Percy Bridgman, would say no. Instead, they define length by the method used to measure it. It is only by confusion that we relate telescopic and microscopic lengths. A new method of measurement means something different is being measured. And if length is defined by the method, is there room for the original concept that length is a real attribute of a physical thing? Is there anything left but methods? The selection of methods is a value judgment - not found in the data itself.

Religion
Naturalism or humanism leads to inconsistency, despair, or suicide. Christianity does not. But are Christian presuppositions the only principles satisfying a satisfactory worldview?
One method to determine this is to comprehensively survey all non-Christian religions. This is a vast field, for "non-Christian" means many things, and religion is not so easily defined. The method chosen by Clark is to examine a typical form of modern religious philosophy, that of Edgar S. Brightman.
Brightman claims all knowledge comes from experience... and redefines experience to mean everything present in our consciousness... and redefines value to mean anything that is desired by anyone at any time... and redefines ideal to mean an experience which we value. A plainer way to state these three together is that we should consult our desires to see what we desire.
After expounding Brightman's inconsistencies, Clark admits that he has deliberately set aside all other forms of religion. For this reason, any conclusions of this chapter cannot be applied generally.

Epistemology
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, or answering the question "how do you know?" Some, like Will Durant, claim that the question deserves no answer. If so, then Durant's other claims deserve no attention. A sound epistemology cannot demand omniscience, but rather show that some men can know something. The positive answers to the question can be classified into one of four categories.

Skepticism
Someone may adopt the skeptical world view from exhaustion, or the inability to distinguish between reality and dreams, or the fear that some omnipotent demon is constantly deceiving us. To make the positive case for skepticism requires a coherent and logical argument. But logic tells us that if a skeptic can know nothing, then a skeptic can not know his world view is correct.

Relativism
It is not always easy to discover a person's epistemological principles, since they are hidden beneath a façade of history, politics, or religion. For example, according to Spengler, men, their philosophy, and their concepts are the products of their culture. If this is true, then Spengler's theory itself is only a temporary phenomenon. Another example is Hans Kelsen's theory that absolute truth is the basis for totalitarianism; therefore democracy must be based upon relativism. If any relativist, like Kelsen, is correct, then they are mistaken.

Empiricism
John Locke writes that the mind obtains the materials of reason and knowledge from experience. There are two types of images from experience that make up our knowledge; the ideas of sensation and the ideas of reflection. All knowledge is made up of these images. But how does this theory of knowledge perceive the abstract ideas of color and of man?
Furthermore, Kant argues, the ideas of both space and time do not originate in our senses, but are presupposed. Succession does not produce the concept of time, but presupposes it. As for space, one cannot sense that there is a place somewhere else.
No amount of experience can ever show that nature will continue in the same way. If all knowledge is based upon experience, no statement can validly be made about the future, and since no one has experienced every case, empiricism cannot consistently assert that the Sun always has risen in the East.
Finally, experience cannot formulate basic logical truths. For example, the law of contradiction cannot be abstracted or obtained from experienced particulars. And without the law of contradiction, nothing is meaningful, and we are left with skepticism.

Apriorism
Apriorism is the view that we are endowed with certain abilities such as the ability to classify and judge. In understanding the world we live in, we bring a set of principles (or assumptions) about the world, to bear upon and interpret our experiences.

A Theistic World
It has been shown that for us to know anything, truth must be unchanging, absolute. To speak of truth as changing is a misuse of language and a violation of logic. A truth is a proposition, a meaning, significance, a thought. Truth is universal, it did not begin when we were born, it has always existed. These assertions are nothing less than the admission that there is an immutable Mind, a supreme Reason, a personal living God. Anything man knows he knows by being in contact with the mind of God.
The Christian view emphasizes a world of spirits, of persons, and of minds. An intertwining of each individuals mind with the mind of God is taught throughout scripture. Christians do not equate the universe with god, but rather understand God to be the Almighty Creator. All humanity is dependent on God, and God is wholly independent.

Conclusion
Christianity theism is self-consistent and several other philosophies are inconsistent, skeptical, and therefore erroneous. Christianity gives meaning to life, allows morality, supports the existence of truth, and the possibility of knowledge. It remains for each person to make his choice.

The cheif virtue of this book is the range of topics that it covers. It looks at the philosophy of politics, history, ethics, religion and epistemology and exposes the major flaws in contemporary secular thinking in relation to these issues. Most other apologetic works that i have read deal with the defense of the faith in a more narrow sense, but this book aims at showing christians how to think about nearly everything. Quite an ambitious project, and of course, 250 pages is not enough to delve into the details but nevertheless, the book accomplishes what it sets out to do.

Another strength is the readability. The ideas are clearly explained and are ready to be taken into use by the reader straight after completion of the book.

Here comes the critique: although this book is good at exposing rotten ideas, it does not offer a sufficient amount of biblical answers to the problems of modern thought. It feels like the reader is left with the tools to tear down, but not with the tools to offer a reasonable alternative.

All in all, i'd say that this is the one of the best apologetic works i've read. It will definitely provide you with the tools to "tear down strongholds", but if you want to build a christian theory of knowledge, ethics and so forth, you'll need to complement it with other works.

As with other works written about the theories of theism or Christianity, this one still fails to deal with fundamental issues in physical reality and epistemology. The author of course wishes to reject rationalism, but the presupposition that he replaces them with fails to preserve intelligibility and thought. Once again, the question "How do we know what we claim to know?" destroys theistic philosophy. For more information, read the works of Massimo Pigliucci and Richard Dawkins. Until theists can justify their presuppositions, they are just building mythological castles in thin air.