The Myth of Worldview Antithesis

Published on by D. G. Hart

Kuyper2Our friend and constant critic, Baus, likes to point out the incomplete reading of paleo-Calvinists in the wonders of neo-Calvinist wisdom. He also regularly recommends the work of Roy Clouser as providing a significant criticism of secular thought and the incompleteness of any thought or system that leaves out religion. Neutrality is not only a myth but a no-no.

So I was surprised to find a piece by Clouser in which he argues that faith is the most basic part of human identity, but will actually yield a Rodney King-like world in which people of different faiths will hold hands and sing “We Are the World.” This is antithesis with a heavy dose of synthesis.

On the one hand, Clouser insists that beliefs control all forms of human thinking so that faith affects all theories about the world and the way we live in it. He writes:

If theories differ according to the religious beliefs controlling them, then those of us who believe in God should have distinctive theories from those who do not share our biblical Faith. It is for this reason [my] book concludes with blueprints for constructing or reinterpreting theories so as to bring them under the control of belief in God. These include guidelines for a theory of reality, a theory of society, and a political theory, all of which consciously attempt to make the Judeo-Christian idea of God their controlling presupposition.

On the other hand, Clouser believes that such theoretical and religious differences will not result in antagonism. Instead, these differing blueprints of the world and ourselves will result in relations very much like those in a liberal, democratic social order. He responds to the question of whether such deep and profound differences will divide people and set them at odds:

For it means that theories are the products of spiritual faith communities working out explanations which differ relative to their religious beliefs. Moreover, the position goes beyond simply uncovering that religious control has in fact occurred. It argues that such control is unavoidable because the role of religious belief is embedded in the very nature of theoretical reasoning. In addition, it acknowledges that because theoretical reasoning is always faith-directed there can be no religiously neutral faculty or procedure by which religious beliefs themselves can be adjudicated. So won’t this position result in isolating the “isms” of philosophy and science and encouraging intolerance among them? . . .

The answer to such questions is that nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, pointing out the root causes of theory differences does not itself produce intolerance or lack of communication on the part of those who differ, any more than it produces the differences themselves. Intolerance and unwillingness to communicate with those who disagree are the fruits of the sin that infects human nature, not of uncovering the ultimate cause of disagreements. . .

The second part of our reply is even more important. It is that uncovering the religious roots of theoretical perspectives actually opens the way to more fruitful communication than is otherwise possible. . . . recognizing that all people have religious beliefs which regulate their theorizing can allow thinkers a mutual respect of one another’s large-scale theory differences as expressions of their alternative faiths. They may then be able to appreciate why others, starting from their contrary religious beliefs, developed their opposing theories in just the way they did. On this basis they can then explore any points of contact and agreement they may have, as well as gain greater insight into the nature of their genuinely irreconcilable differences. And this may all be done without the temptation of either side to view the other as sub-rational.

Wow! Who knew that religion was such a source of friendship and mutual good will? Sure, creeds were divisive and resulted in military conflict before the Enlightenment, and sure, the Irish are still conflicted over religion not to mention those delicate matters of Middle Eastern politcs. But apparently worldviews are swell and will give us what creeds couldn’t – a utopian world of peace and harmony.

Clouser leaves me wondering how seriously he takes faith. If it goes all the way down in one’s worldview and yet is not bothered by the false god or idol motivating my fellow interlocutor, citizen, or neighbor, how much does that faith take seriously the first of the Ten Commandments? Could it be the Clouser, like many neo-Calvinists, talks a better game of antithesis than liberal, democratic secular society allows him to practice?

36 thoughts on “The Myth of Worldview Antithesis”

  1. In as non-condescending a manner as possible, I seriously want to applaud you for interacting with an actual neocalvinistic piece of writing. This is a good start.

    Here’s my feedback:

    1) you write “Clouser believes that such theoretical and religious differences will not result in antagonism. Instead, these differing blueprints of the world and ourselves will result in relations very much like those in a liberal, democratic social order.”

    You’ve got it exactly backwards.

    Clouser explicitly does not believe this. Clouser’s whole point is based on the fact that there is inevitable antagonism between alternate religious beliefs and the theoretical claims controlled by those beliefs.

    Clouser says that in the liberal, democratic social order because religious neutrality is assumed to be possible, the real confessional roots of theoretical claims are not understood, and therefore communication is seriously inhibited. In the liberal democratic social order, supposed “non-neutral” positions are accused of being “sub-rational.” This is the result Clouser does not want.

    2) You write “But apparently worldviews are swell and will give us what creeds couldn’t – a utopian world of peace and harmony.”

    Clouser is not contrasting creed and worldview. He is contrasting the worldview that one can do without creeds (religious neutrality) with the worldview that creeds are inevitable and controlling in a specific way.

    Clouser is not saying worldviews give us peace. He is saying that recognition of the creedal basis of all worldview and all theory *allows for* (“opens the way”) the possibility of more accurate understanding and communication. In other words, Clouser is saying if we want to have better interaction, we have to stop ignoring this reality about religious control.

    3) You write: “Clouser leaves me wondering how seriously he takes faith. If… [he] is not bothered by the false god or idol motivating my fellow…”

    Again, you have it exactly backwards.
    Clouser is precisely bothered by the idols motivating others, and his entire work is aimed at exposing and combating those idols in philosophy, sciences, and culture.

    Do reflect on my feedback, Darryl, and keep up the serious interaction with real neocalvinist writings. This is bound to be more fruitful than constantly having to point out fantasy strawmen.

    Like

  2. Yes, as Baus has clearly shown, this interaction with Clouser demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding and misreading of his specific point and broader scholarly project (cf. The Myth of Religious Neutrality).

    Like

  3. If I misread Clouser, why did he write “So won’t this position result in isolating the “isms” of philosophy and science and encouraging intolerance among them? . . . The answer to such questions is that nothing could be further from the truth.”

    That sounds a lot like worldviews will not breed intolerance of conflicting positions. This is, in fact, the point of the last part of his piece. Recognizing different worldview will lead to great understanding and better communication — sort of like the United Nations.

    Gents, that’s not a misreading. I think it would be good if neo-Cals could get on the same page.

    Like

  4. I wouldn’t make a positive comparison of anything good to the U.N. –and neither would you, I assume.

    But that aside, you misread Clouser by taking him to affirm the following (which he does not affirm):
    1) religious and theoretical differences are not antagonistic, or not in conflict
    2) the result Clouser wants are like those of liberal, democratic social order
    3) creeds and worldviews are the points of contrast
    4) worldviews themselves cause peace
    5) difference in faith and creed is not taken seriously; idols are not troublesome

    Do you not claim that Clouser affirms these things?
    If so, misread Clouser in all those ways, and I hope you see that they are in fact misreadings.

    Concerning Clouser’s answering the concern about whether his position results in isolation of viewpoints and intolerance… again, Clouser is saying that recognition of the creedal basis of all worldview and all theory (ie, Clouser’s “position”) allows for the possibility of more accurate mutual understanding and communication, which he is implying are important conditions for promoting social order, yes.

    All neocalvinists are on this same page. We believe in promoting social order as far as we can, and agree that “recognition of creedal control of viewpoints allows for the possibility of better communication” is an important condition for this.

    Like

  5. According to Clouser, it seems its the hidden antithesis that secretly deceives people into accepting another’s position. The open antithesis let’s them hit each other head on, recognize their fundamental disagreements, and pursue compromised, pragmatic actions in the public sphere.

    However, I think, on this way of viewing things, we do have this in law to a large extent already; although, the metaphysical/epistemological aspects use a vocabulary different from philosophy/religion.

    On the other hand, DG Hart seems right. Dooyeweerd did advocate a different level of antithesis than Van Til. Dooyeweerd’s modalism may also have a play in viewing other views as non-‘subrational’ (distinct but not separate?). Perhaps those are the unstated positions that work themselves into Clouser’s article?

    What does ‘Uncle Glen’ say? Hmm.

    Like

  6. Joy, what do you mean by “accepting another’s position”? You mean “accepting” as understanding, communicating, and not initiating aggression? Clouser says that ignoring the reality of inevitable religious control tends towards worse interaction. “Compromise” and “pragmatic” have little to do with it, and could be taken in a positive or negative sense.

    We do not have anything at all like a recognition of Clouser’s neocalvinistic view “in law”. What would that even mean? This isn’t an issue of legislation per se.

    It is not clear what you think Dooyeweerd’s view of modal aspects has to do with his view of antithesis; nor is it clear what “different level” of antithesis you see between Dooyeweerd and Van Til, nor what that has to do with what Clouser is saying or what Hart thinks Clouser is saying.
    In any case, Clouser is saying that when one ignores the inevitability of religious control, then one may tend to consider supposed “non-neutral” views as subrational (and, by implication, tending to reject further attempt to understand or communicate, and to accept a course tending to aggression).

    Like

  7. “In any case, Clouser is saying that when one ignores the inevitability of religious control, then one may tend to consider supposed “non-neutral” views as subrational (and, by implication, tending to reject further attempt to understand or communicate, and to accept a course tending to aggression).”

    I have no idea what Clouser is talking about practically, then. I was thinking that a rep. of Islam, a rep. of Christianity, rep. of Marxism, etc. etc. comes to the table. They all present their views, which of course hold irreconcilable presuppositions of reality. They present the most coherent form of gov’t/law/diplomatic from their philosophy. Of course, no one agrees. But they see similar conclusions or goals and use those as the course of action (knowing full well that it is a compromise, but not in a negative sense at all). I would think this is a good form of compromise because everyone involved knows it is.

    The only alternatives I see are 1) the others becoming convinced of a government based in Christian philosophy or 2) we all part ways and make our own societies based on our own philosophies.

    I’m not sure I’m convinced this reduces aggression. I think ‘aggression’ is a common element of humanity’s sin-nature –look at the ‘communism versus democracy’ meme that people ran with. I mean, it may produce better results or be more philosophically/biblically coherent, but yeah, I’m not so sure “reduced aggression” is the correct phrase. Perhaps reduced prejudice?

    Concerning Dooyeweerd, you’re going to have to help me out here. Is there a difference in levels of antithesis? From what I’ve read about Van Til and Dooyeweerd, it seems there is.
    It would seem that the modal aspect of Dooyeweerd allows the rational to be parsed from the experiential/law/religious/etc aspects of an object. That how I see Dooyeweerd solve the ‘sub-rational’ aspect. Or does ‘sub-rational’ only refer to stigmatism with regard to views of gov’t that are attached to religions? Wouldn’t a non-Christian worldview be deficient with respect to rationality in an ultimate sense? Wouldn’t everyone start viewing each other’s worldview as sub-rational in an ultimate sense? I’m not sure what ‘rational’ means in the article.

    Like

  8. I wonder if neo’s understand that if you think theology bears directly on ideology, and you think you have to get to the bottom of theology in order to make the world work well (or at least better than it presently does), this not only must apply to the enduring questions of civil life but also the mundane. It sounds pious and all to consider these things with regard to theories of science, education, art and statecraft. But unless one is also willing to deliberate with the pagan cashier on how he could possibly give correct change when his theology is so different then the former project tends to look just as silly.

    But Clouser and company seem to have it precisely backward. Tolerance and better interaction in the civil arena is actually best served by rejecting creedal control on worldview. It’s also funny to think that creedal control will bring increased peace to the nations when it doesn’t even bring it to the ecclesial sphere where creedal control belongs, as in Trent. But maybe that’s why so many non-Catholic ECT signers and proponents are of the neo persuasion and not so much the paleo.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Clouser wrote (and I quoted): “recognizing that all people have religious beliefs which regulate their theorizing can allow thinkers a mutual respect of one another’s large-scale theory differences as expressions of their alternative faiths. They may then be able to appreciate why others, starting from their contrary religious beliefs, developed their opposing theories in just the way they did. On this basis they can then explore any points of contact and agreement they may have, as well as gain greater insight into the nature of their genuinely irreconcilable differences. And this may all be done without the temptation of either side to view the other as sub-rational.”

    “Respect,” “appreciate,” and “rational” are all words of the liberal, democratic order. Mind you, I think they are pretty good as far as they go. But they are not in the ball park of have no other gods before me. That’s anti-thesis, and it does not mean respect, appreciation, or judgment based on reason. It means get the idols the *()^%^! out of here.

    Really, if you tell me I need to take worldviews seriously, and then you tell me we can all appreciate competing worldviews, haven’t I entered the worlds of George Bush and Barrack Obama? Please don’t tell me I don’t know the Dooyeweerdian code. That would be a gnostic response.

    Like

  10. Zrim, let me encourage you also to read Clouser’s book. It has nothing to do with what you suppose.

    As I have repeated several times now, creedal control does not itself bring increased peace. This is not anyone’s claim here. No one is saying this. So, forget whatever you think is being talked about. It’s not that.

    Now, what *is* being discussed is the way that certain (inescapable) religious beliefs (even when the persons holding to them do not recognize them *as* religious beliefs) exercise a certain kind of influence on theory in specific sciences in specific ways. If you want to debate Clouser’s position, and the view of neocalvinism on this point, you’ll have to read up on it so you know what you’re talking about.

    Like

  11. Joy, this is not about debating which faith is the most coherent, or anything like that.
    numbered pages 1-6 here will be informative:

    Click to access Roots%20Front%20Matter%20&%20Introduction.pdf

    The accusation of “subrational” (ie, “incompatible with standards of using reason”) is made by those who believe religious neutrality is possible against those who they perceive to hold non-neutral positions.

    If you would like to study Dooyeweerd’s works, see here:
    http://reformatorische.blogspot.com/

    For Clouser’s writings see here:
    http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/clouser.htm

    Feel free to email me [ideolog-at-gmail-dot-com] if you have further interest in neocalvinistic study.

    Like

  12. Darryl, now you’re just being silly.

    Are you telling me that if Calvin *appreciated* his wife’s cooking, then he was implicating himself in a “liberal, democratic order”?

    In any case, this is not the sort of appreciation Clouser is talking about. He’s not saying appreciate the idols as you might learn to appreciate sushi.

    Again, lets quote: “They [that is those involved in an academic discussion about philosophical and scientific theories] may then be able to appreciate why others [that is, see for oneself how someone else would think something made sense, yet disagreeing in an irreconcilable way], starting from their contrary religious beliefs, developed their opposing theories in just the way they did.”

    Read Clouser’s book and you will see how he “appreciates” the erroneous scientific and philosophical theories discussed.

    Now how are you going to “get rid” of the idols possibly implied in your own political theory, Darryl, if you don’t even think one can possibly have such a thing as a theory controlled by an idol?

    Like

  13. Baus, If I’m being silly it stems from the bloviated prose of Clouser and inheres in your school-girl defense of him. What’s with the man-crush, really?

    He is not simply talking about appreciating theories. I do see a difference between appreciating food and theory. That’s why Paul could distinguish idols from food offered to idols. But how does a Christian, who takes Christianity seriously while maintaining the antithesis “appreciate” a false god. Were the Israelites to appreciate the gods of the Canaanites? Oh, that’s right. Silly question.

    But as I say, this is more than just theoretical. In Clouser’s pieces he also says this: “This means that theories about math and physics, sociology and economics, art and ethics, politics and law can never be religiously neutral. They are all regulated by some religious belief. . . . The discovery of this relation between religious belief and theory making is not merely a matter of intellectual curiosity, but is of enormous importance. If theories differ according to the religious beliefs controlling them, then those of us who believe in God should have distinctive theories from those who do not share our biblical Faith. It is for this reason the book concludes with blueprints for constructing or reinterpreting theories so as to bring them under the control of belief in God. These include guidelines for a theory of reality, a theory of society, and a political theory, all of which consciously attempt to make the Judeo-Christian idea of God their controlling presupposition.”

    So, this isn’t a classroom discussion. It’s about law, politics, and society, and it means that we need to find a Christian basis for American government. Darn, that sure sounds theonomic.

    Well, kind of. What is Judeo-Christian anyway, except a step to the left of Evangelicals and Catholics Together? Sorry, but Clouser’s liberal-democratic undies are showing.

    As for my needing to take down idols, I do so by serving as an elder in a church where the Christian ministry, according to Paul’s teaching, takes every thought captive. Outside church, I have actually figured out that idolaters are part of parcel of my life this side of the eschaton, and that I don’t need to have a world-view discussion or debate in order to live in the best country on God’s green earth.

    Like

  14. As I have repeated several times now, creedal control does not itself bring increased peace.

    But, Baus, he speaks of “tolerance, opening the way to fruitful communication, [not] condemning the other as irrational.” Good grief, he’s writing for the Center for Public Justice. That’s the language of peace. Are you sure you’re a neo-Calvinist?

    But let me do the peaceful thing and allow that the neo program’s goal comes to fruition. Now everyone understands each other. So what? Now let me do the not-so-peaceful thing and suggest that the goal of the neo program is to finally tell the other why he has less a right to the public square (you know, as in tearing down idols, taking every thought captive and every square inch). But how is telling the other his idolatry reduces his rights really all that peaceful? It all seems like a very pious, kind and gentle way to take over

    Like

  15. Clouser, in his own way, is working out the insights of Dooyeweerd. Truth be told, I have a crush on crusty Herman. But, we’re both fans of Machen, so you know how it is.

    As a simple, but careful, examination of Clouser’s sentence makes clear, it is not the idols or idolatry of someone that is to be “appreciated” by someone else. Yes, as you say, it is not about appreciating an erroneous theory. Moreover, Clouser is not using appreciate in the sense of “admiration” or “gratitude” but rather in the sense of “awareness” or “recognizing some characteristic”. And what he is referring to explicitly is coming to understand a certain fact, namely, how it is that someone else came a certain conclusion given their starting assumptions.

    If you, yourself Darryl, study more about this position, and about the particular kind of influence exercised on theories by certain religious beliefs in a certain manner, then you Darryl, might be able to come to a better understanding of how someone developed a given theory, however erroneous you may find that theory. You might become aware that the theory is not just erroneous, but ultimately idolatrous, and that you cannot adopt that theory because it conflicts with your belief that God is Creator.

    That sounds like a strange thing to you. I appreciate that. I do.

    And I realize you are only familiar with the categories of “liberal democratic” and “theonomic” and you have no idea what neocalvinism is proposing on this issue of how certain unavoidable religious beliefs exercise a certain kind of inescapable influence on development of theories.

    About getting rid of idols… what about your own idols, Darryl? What about the hidden idol involved in your own cultural theories? You refuse to consider you might have one?

    Like

  16. Zrim, the particular kind of influence exercised on theories by certain religious beliefs in a certain manner does not itself bring peace. The religious beliefs and the effect they have upon theories that is in view are shown to be inescapable realities. When one recognizes those realities then the possibility for understanding how they are present in a given theory is opened up.

    How does this tend towards peace? In your case, perhaps nothing will mitigate your insane blood-thirst. 😉 But in philosophical dialog, coming to understand the “internal logic” (as it were) of your interlocutor’s position is often helpful in avoiding an abrupt dismissal of discussion.

    Exposing idolatry here is more about Christian’s themselves avoiding idols in their own thinking.

    Like

  17. Clouser’s argument that a person’s First Principles dictates to all his reasoning seems rather axiomatic and non-controversial to me. To get to the root of a person’s First Principles is to “appreciate” how they think. That’s going on right here.

    Baus, is the dualism we see here the sort of dualism Doowyweerd talked about?

    Like

  18. igasx, what we have here is Hart being curmudgeony, mocking, and (apparently) not taking the issues with real time, study, or thoughtful consideration.

    But I’d encourage you too to read Clouser’s work. It’s not exactly axiomatic deduction from first principles. That’s more the approach of G.H.Clark.
    Nevertheless, you have the general idea about “appreciating” how someone else thinks.

    Check out the links I posted above in response to Joy. For more on Dooyeweerd’s ideas and writings.

    Like

  20. How does this tend towards peace? In your case, perhaps nothing will mitigate your insane blood-thirst. But in philosophical dialog, coming to understand the “internal logic” (as it were) of your interlocutor’s position is often helpful in avoiding an abrupt dismissal of discussion. Exposing idolatry here is more about Christian’s themselves avoiding idols in their own thinking.

    I’ve no problem honestly trying to understand the other in philosophical dialogue. I just don’t see what his theological confession has directly to do with it. I mean, what to make of those who share theological confession but who hold varying ideological outlooks? The neo premise seems to be that, instead of explaining it as a plain old-fashioned disagreement, one of us is harboring an idol. I can see the temptation—as one who holds, for example, a Borkian pro-states view on abortion, I’m tempted to simply charge my pro-life and pro-choice interlocutors as idolizing the things of individuals rights, liberty and life itself. And while such idolatries are likely somewhere in the mix, it seems to me at once lazy and overdone to call ideological disagreement idolatry.

    I agree that abrupt dismissal of discussion is a bad thing, and going the second mile is good. But is there no place for the shaking of dust from sandals?

    Like

  21. Baus, I actually think you have done little to answer some hard questions. You may think they mock and that is all. But if you, Dooyw. and Clouser are going to argue that faith affects all theories about science, law, politics, etc., and then also argue for tolerance and the Judeo-Christian tradition, then you’re theory is not nearly as ambitious as you claim. It’s simply a philosophical game that allows you to live in relative ease with a liberal democractic order, all the while belly-aching that that order doesn’t take faith seriously. I fail to see how Clouser or your defense of him actually takes it seriously, especially when you started by saying exactly what Clouser denies — Clouser thinks “nothing could be further from the truth” that antagonistic worldviews will result in intolerance or antagonism, and you say that antagonistic worldviews will result in intolerance and antagonism, but in an appreciative kind of way, sort of.

    But I really do like you’re trying to turn this back on me, first I’m really neo- and now I have idols. If you recall in the discussion of Keller on idolatry, I’m not partial to the expansive view of idolatry that you share with New Life and biblical counseling. In fact, I don’t think liberal democratic society is an idol because it is the order that God has ordained for this time and place. What two-kingdom theology does, as did the old Calvinists, is try to hold on to what is necessary for the Christian faith, and find ways to negotiate the powers that be for believers who are in exile. But since you think it’s either idolatry or true religion, with nothing in between, maybe you really are more theonomic than you care to admit.

    But what’s up with the Judeo-Christian stuff? Van Til would gag on that concept.

    Like

  22. Turning the question of idolatry back on our own views of culture is exactly what neocalvinism is doing, yes. I can see why that might make you uncomfortable, and why you’d want to write it off as not amounting to much.

    Now, your “hard” question all along has been what’s up with Judeo-Christian? You want to explain what you mean by “what’s up with” ?

    Like

  23. Zrim, I have recommended Clouser’s book to you because it is an explanation of what religious belief has to do with theory. Give it (or his essays on the topic) a read, and see if you’re still stumped.

    It’s not about making more of a disagreement by throwing idolatry into the mix. It’s about understanding our own and others’ theories better. Of course, taking Darryl’s pathetic misreading of neocalvinism for truth is what seems quite lazy to me.

    Like

  24. Baus,

    First, isn’t the piece under the present discussion at least something of “an explanation of what religious belief has to do with theory”?

    Second, I’m not trying to be dense, but if “it’s not about making more of a disagreement by throwing idolatry into the mix,” then what does “exposing idolatry here is more about Christian’s themselves avoiding idols in their own thinking” mean? The latter sure seems to be saying that if you and I as believers disagree philosophically (or scientifically, or politically, or educationally, etc.) that one of us is harboring idolatry. Again, it seems plain, as Calvin said, that our hearts are idol factories, so idolatry is always part of the territory. But is that really the way to explain our ideological differences? And isn’t it better to say idolatry explains the theological difference between you/me and the unbeliever? After all, it’s one thing to disagree about how to order public life and why, quite another to come to the Table.

    Like

  25. Zrim, 1) no, this blurb Darryl refers to http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$982 is not the explanation. It is just a page from the preface telling you something about what he will explain in the book.
    2) no, Christians with theories about some given topic might disagree for other reasons that are short of the question of influence of religious beliefs. Having the same, true religious belief does not guarantee identical, agreeing, or accurate theories.

    You will have to read Clouser’s explanation to understand what he means by idolatry and influence in this context. When you do that, and you have more questions or objections, I can be more helpful to you. Until then, all your questions will be answered by actually reading what he wrote.

    Like

  26. Baus,

    You will have to read Clouser’s explanation to understand what he means by idolatry and influence in this context.

    Well, consider this something of an opportunity for you being the resident neo-Calvinist. Instead of telling me to read more Clouser, how about you try and summarize it for me? I mean, I appreciate the pointer, but for the sake of the immediate discussion that might be more helpful.

    Christians with theories about some given topic might disagree for other reasons that are short of the question of influence of religious beliefs. Having the same, true religious belief does not guarantee identical, agreeing, or accurate theories.

    I understand that, and agree. But it seems to me when you say “exposing idolatry here is more about Christian’s themselves avoiding idols in their own thinking” that at least part of what the neo program is about is to locate the idols at play when we disagree philosophically. In other words, the neo seems 1) ill-at-ease with the fact that we disagree, 2) presumes somebody’s got an idol up his sleeve, and 3) it all needs to get straightened out, while the paleo just isn’t ill-at-ease to begin with. But change “philosophically” to “theologically” and the paleo is on board.

    Like

  27. Baus, Judeo-Christian is another construction of liberal democracy. It arose after World War II as a way to include Jews in Western Civ. I’m all for including all sorts of folks in W. Civ. It’s a long way from taking idolatry or true religion seriously since it is a pretty good form of civil religion.

    Like

  28. Ah. Well, Clouser isn’t using Western Civ. “with Jews” code here. He is referring to the Old & New Testament revelation of God as Creator.
    “Hard” question answered.

    Like

  35. Do not settle with one hardwood flooring installation contractor.
    Once you have your short list of companies you should visit their office and see how they
    run their own office. Insurance is necessary for
    the home repair handyman business.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.