We realized many of our discussions on the Reformed Media Review were drifting toward the philosophical. And we also believe there is a general lack of good philosophical resources – at least from people working from a Reformed theological framework. As a result, we bring you Philosophy for Theologians.
Our goal in this program is to provide an overview of a particular philosophical figure or an idea and to analyze it critically through the lens of Scripture. That doesn’t mean proof-texting Kant’s views, but it does mean that we consider everything in light of God’s revelation. We not only want to address philosophical questions on Philosophy for Theologians, but we want to equip you with a way to think about these questions.
In this wide-ranging discussion, the panel begins with a discussion between Nate Shannon and Bob LaRocca regarding the role of realism in Herman Bavinck and the consistency thereof. The discussions moves on and touches, among other things, upon Thomas Reid, Alvin Plantinga and possible worlds semantics.
Participants: Bob LaRocca, Camden Bucey, Jared Oliphint, Jonathan Brack, Nate Shannon
Browse more episodes from this program and learn how to subscribe.
Good decision and good resource!
Very interesting show. I look forward to future installments.
Thanks. Jared and Jonathan will be handling most of this one. They’re planning to address one philosopher or philosophical topic per episode and drill drown in a structure fashion. This was sort of a free-for-all discussion. Regardless, I enjoyed it
Passing reference to Quine as ending in something of a postmodern position suggests the RF crew could do a better job staying within their areas of research, but overall an interesting show and great new series. I’m sure you have more show ideas than time to record them, but might I suggest a possible future show format: RF participants could each read an article or book/chapter (in this case, in philosophy) and discuss it on a show, perhaps each preparing 5-10 minute or-so comments or responses. Alternatively, you could interact with some of the philosophy of religion audio online–for example, the 2009 conference at Notre Dame “My ways are not your ways,” which is all online here: http://www.nd.edu/~cprelig/conferences/HebrewBible.shtml I look forward to hearing future discussions in this series though.
Patrick,
Fair enough, and Thanks for your comment. Please understand that I am not calling Quine a ‘postmodern’ per se. Instead, Quine’s ontological relativism and denial of ‘first philosophy’ of aprior knowledge for empirical data leads to instrumentailism and thus results in pragmatism. Quine’s “two dogmas” concludes with any logical or analytic statement being up for revision. What does that mean…it means A=A is not necessarily true. This leads to a skepticism about ‘meaning’…and who does that sound like?…That’s right, Derrida. The “two dogmas” was mainly criticized for neglecting analytic presuppositions by men such as Grice, Strawson, and Soames. Is Quine in the analytic tradition? Yes, you are correct, and I admit that. Nevertheless, I would argue that his conclusions, when stripped of their analytic clothes are very similar to many post-modern thinkers. This is why I find him fascinating.
If I might make a suggestion – you dived into the main issues a little early, I suspect listeners who weren’t already familiar with the material would have found it hard to follow.
I guess I’m not a theologian, so I didn’t get much from this. Too free-flowing and staccato for my ageing cerebral cortex.
I guess I should have bought the program so I could have determined the players’ names and numbers, earned run average, etc.
I cannot comment on Reid but concerning Bavinck’s realism, I think Jan Veenhof’s little booklet, “Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck”, definitively puts Bavinck’s realism in connection to creation. Veenhof himself holds views that is less than to be desired. But I think to reduce Bavinck’s realism to just the 3 pages in the prolegomena of the Reformed Dogmatics is a mistake.
Let me add a quote (sorry it’s tardy) by Poythress: “The ‘realists’ said that the universal category, ‘dog’ … was the starting point, and individual dogs were embodiments of the prior, real idea. By contrast, the ‘nominalists’ said that the particular dogs were the starting point, and that the general category was … a kind of grouping together of the particulars under one name, ‘dog.’ Our examination of the words suggests that neither of these accounts is completely right” (Vern Poythress: In the Beginning was the Word, p. 275).