Chapter Summaries: A Christian View of Men and Things by Clark, Chapter 1 Chapter 1 is an introduction to the book. Clark intends to accomplish three things in this book: In the first place, although a theistic philosophy of systematic proportions has not been developed to meet contemporary needs, some elements and implications of theism in various fields are included in this book, that give an overview of what a theistic worldview would be. Secondly, from the mass of naturalistic literature, a comparison can be drawn between that and theism through the various subjects of academic interest. Clark hopes that the reader will be aware of how much intellectual capital is the result of reflective choice and how much is the result of imperceptible social absorption. Thirdly, Clark hopes to phrase most of this work into an introduction to philosophy. Clark moves through the introduction to questions of philosophy, and notes that while many may think that philosophy is dull, academic, boring, and uninteresting, it addresses many questions that are applicable to everyday life. Questions such as what kind of government is the best form, whether God has revealed any answers to life s questions, and whether history is taking us somewhere. What is the purpose of life? Is there any distinction between right and wrong? If man is the evolutionary product of chance, can any sacredness be assigned to life? These are important questions that philosophy can help us answer. Clark expresses the fact that logic will help guide our progress, and that, in worldviews, there is no neutral party. Everyone will make a decision on how they will live, and no one will be able not to make judgments. Suspension of judgment is not possible, and neither is neutrality. 1
Chapter Summaries: A Christian View of Men and Things by Clark, Chapter 2 Chapter Two is an examination of the philosophy of history. In this chapter, Clark states that one of the most inviting gateways to philosophic thinking is the study of history. The study of history has been given a boost in recent years, but most of the questions still remain. The general problem of history is the formulation of a law which will enable us to understand the course of events and to make a probable guess about the future. Ancient philosophers had no such interest in history as such. However, Clark shows that in the last hundred years or so, there has been a resurgence in the understanding of history. Clark reviews several views of history, the first of which is Marxism, which pins all of history on economic factors. History is not a haphazard series of events, but one culture, civilization, nation, replaces or supplants one another by the operation of a fixed and definite cause, namely economic pressure. Clark shows that while economic pressure is a factor, it cannot be the only factor. Marxism failed to provide sufficient answers to history. The philosophy of progress is also one that Clark reviews. It states that progress must occur in all spheres of human interest, with things getting better and better. Negatively, progress is the denial of divine Providence; positively, progress is a natural process. This concept both undermined the belief in Providence, specifically Christianity, and also promised assurance that nothing could prevent indefinite scientific progress. However, since science is an instrument, it can produce things which can be used for evil and for good. It cannot determine evil and good. Political and social planning, biological 2
evolution, and social environment were all considered as far as progress goes, but none of them could provide any answers or laws for history and progress. Progress in its generic sense had no goal, and thus history moved along with no end point. Spengler and Toynbee both offered an empirical view of history. However, Clark states that empirical history is inherently impossible. If a person with a completely unbiased mind should try to study history, the thousand and one events that happens every minute the world over would doom him to a speedy failure. To make any progress at all, he would have to select some of these events and pay no attention to the others. Toynbee or any other student of history must select his facts and in the selection begin to impose his interpretation upon them. Clark finally provides an alternate view of history, a Christian one. He provides three aspects of a Christian view of history, given the axiomatic presuppositional view of Christianity. One is that God controls history. God not only has control over it, but will also bring it to its end. Thirdly, God himself acts in history. 3
Chapter Summaries: A Christian View of Men and Things by Clark, Chapter 3 Chapter three is a discussion on a philosophy of politics. Politics is a subdivision of history. Clark states that just as the general laws of botany apply to plants, so the laws of universal history include the phenomena of politics. History, politics, and ethics are all related. Religion is also not exempt from politics. The question this chapter seeks to answer is, what form of state is best? Or, as Clark redefines it, what is the purpose of government? The issue that Clark reviews first is normative vs. descriptive politics. However, he clarifies that descriptive can never provide us what ought to be. No amount of factual information will imply that one form of government is better than another. Facts are statements about what is; ideals or standards are statements of what ought to be. A description of the variety of opinion cannot decide which opinion is best. The fact that a theory has been popular does not make it true. A description of norms is not a normative theory. It also does not follow that what is believed to be the ideal actually is the ideal. Clark reviews Aristotle and Plato briefly and shows that their views of government are highly totalitarian. Clark examines the questions of the purpose of state and shows that the greatest good for the greatest number obviously cannot be first ascertained without first determining the good of one man. The definition of good depends on the nature of man. Aristotle said that the citizen belonged to the state, and Spengler stated that society was an organism in which each man is but one blood cell. In this case, the sacrifice of man s life for the good of society is a light manner. Stalin and Hitler are both justified under this scheme. 4
Clark examines the justification of coercion and what justifies violence or coercion on the part of the state. Force cannot create morality. One must explain by what right the majority coerces the minority, or vice versa. Clark uses Rousseau to argue that coercion, or force, does not justify itself. Force creates no authority or right to rule. All authority, argues Rousseau, must be based on conventions. Only by some voluntary agreement can a social order be established, and it is the social order that is the basis of all other rights. When in this situation, a man refuses to perform his duty as a subject to this state, he may be coerced. However, in discussing Rousseau, Clark notes that the assertion that all rights are founded on the social compact seems to be inconsistent with the compact itself. If man in his natural state has no rights because all rights are founded on social convention, how can Rousseau consistently assert that in the social compact each associate alienates all his rights to the community? Rousseau also notes that a state or body is established by unanimous consent. However, Rousseau himself could not give the date and place of the compact established by the French people. If unanimous action is required to establish a government, then the United States has never had a legitimate government. The social contract theory can be made more plausible by discarding some of Rousseau s particularities and by attempting to see its value in the notion that a legitimate government depends on the consent of the governed. However, this has some of the same problems as Rousseau s theories. Clark shows that, according to the consent of the governed, if an amendment to exterminate the Jews is adopted, the government, on this theory, will then have not merely the force but the right to exterminate them. The voice 5
of the people become the voice of God. All of these theories have one thing in common they are totalitarian in some respects. Clark offers a theistic view of government. A God who is worth anything is a God who makes a difference in politics and in every phase of philosophy. Government is a divine institution. The authority of the government does not derive from any voluntary social compact, but it derives from God. God is the source of all rights. It is, however, the essence of government to coerce, and the power of the sword, the power of life and death, used both against crime and in war, is the most conspicuous form of coercion. These have been ordained by God. Government is not a natural institution like the family. The state was a partial punishment and cure for sin. However, unless the rights of government are given and limited by God, there is no systematic ground between anarchy and dictatorship. Governments are without authority beyond the limits set by God. If the magistrates exceed their authority, no one is under obligation to obey. Christian presuppositions justify civil governments of limited rights, whereas humanistic principles imply either anarchy or totalitarianism. Only in a theistic worldview can both anarchy and totalitarianism be avoided. 6
Chapter Summaries: A Christian View of Men and Things by Clark, Chapter 4 Chapter 4 is a discussion of the philosophy of ethics. Clark states that it is impossible to arrive at a satisfactory theory of politics without first settling the question of ethics. The question of good and evil, right and wrong, must be asked and settled first. The standards of ethics can be applied to all spheres of life, science, and study. Clark states that a very superficial impression would be that everyone agrees on what is right and wrong. That is hardly the case. He gives an example of theft, and states that one source of disagreement lies in the difficulty of knowing what the definition of theft is. Contrary to popular and naïve opinions, it is very difficult to define theft. Theft and murder, for instance, have been regarded as legitimate political procedure. Clark studies several examples of theories that attempt to explain the basis of morality. One is teleological ethics, which basically states that a moral value of an act depends on its purpose and consequences. Clark demonstrates several objections to this view, and moves on to egoism. Egoism defends morality by defining morality as that which by its efficacy obtains the individual s good. One should always seek his own ultimate good. However, most egoists have defined good as pleasure, and no two people can agree on what good is or pleasure is. Quite aside from the question of whether pleasure is really the supreme good in life is the question of definition of pleasure and what relation it has to human motives. Utilitarianism defines morality as what is good for the human race. The greatest good, or the greatest pleasure, for the greatest number defines this theory. However, this theory also fails. One could argue that the execution and torture of each member of an inferior race provides good or pleasure for millions, as 7
Hitler did. If utilitarianism is to commend itself above egoism, it must argue that an individual ought to sacrifice himself without hope of compensation for the greater pleasure of someone else. These forms of teleological ethics, Clark concludes, seem to be a complete failure. They do not give direction, and fail the crucial test of practical, concrete application. Clark then reviews the possibility of ateleological ethics, which states that the morality of an act cannot be determined by way of showing that it is an effective means to a good end. The morality of an act must be found in the act itself regardless of the consequences. This accords with popular opinion. That the end justifies the means is widely held to be an immoral principle. Some say the sphere of morality lies within us; it has to do with the will and not the consequences. Kant was one of the individuals that sought the test of morality not in the consequences but in the act itself. Again Clark refutes these theories and shows that they provide no actual guidance for the circumstances of life. Finally, Clark discusses the ethics of revelation. Biblical theism advances a theory of ethics that satisfies all the requirements. It provides adequate scope for selfinterest. Biblical theism gives specific guidance in the actual situations of life. Christianity escapes the difficulties of the other systems. Clark ends his discussion of ethics with a series of questions. If there is a God, we should expect to be driven on, for would not God so control the world that every factor would be related to every other factor? Would not politics depend on ethics, and would not ethics require some form of science and theology? 8
Chapter Summaries: A Christian View of Men and Things by Clark, Chapter 5 Chapter five is a discussion on the philosophy of science. Science claims objectivity; no personal or emotional bias contributes to its results. Today, science is the final arbiter of many disputes, and it seems that science will be able to provide answers for any problem mankind can come up with. Clark quotes many scientists and philosophers that state that the goal of science is the complete interpretation o the universe. The scientific method is the sole gateway to the whole region of knowledge. Of course, Clark asks what experiment or what evidence is sufficient to prove that science is the sole gateway to all knowledge? Clark shows that scientific judgments are far from being absolute. The findings of science change constantly, and what was true yesterday may well be false tomorrow. Clark asserts and shows that science is all false, but is extremely useful. He demonstrates how scientific laws are not discovered, but chosen. A scientist chooses his law from among an infinite number of equally possible laws, the probability that he has chosen the true law is one over infinity, or zero. The scientist has no chance of hitting upon the real laws of nature. Clark shows that there is no science to which a final appeal can be made; there are only scientists and their various theories. Science of infallible law does not exist. Concepts of science change with their operations. Clark attempted to show that methods, as opposed to the results, of science are taken as the ultimately important matters, and scientists d not even agree on methods. Furthermore, all of these scientific observations are taken on faith. No scientific or observational proof can be given for the uniformity of 9
nature, and the scientific method cannot demonstrate that science is the sole gateway to knowledge. Clark asserts that nothing that comes out of observation can discredit the arguments of the previous chapters or motivate a choice against theism. Ethics and history do not depend on science, but science depends on them. 10
Chapter Summaries: A Christian View of Men and Things by Clark, Chapter 6 Chapter 6 is Clark s discussion on the philosophy of religion. The problems of history, politics, and ethics, Clark has argued, require for their solution certain theistic presuppositions. All other philosophies have lead to inconsistencies, despair, or suicide. However, the fact that naturalism has proved intolerable does not prove theism. In this chapter Clark explores religion, and starts with the method. Clark explores the method of experience of determining a philosophy of religion, one based on empiricism, and soundly refutes this notion. Observation, experience, and sensory perception cannot take a finite creature to the infinite God. Empiricism cannot arrive at objectivity or universality. There is no rational process that leads from an individual s likes and dislikes, no matter how combined in sets or repeatedly verified in his experience, to the conclusion that he ought to like what he does, or to the wider conclusion that everybody out to like the same things. Clark states that attempts to define God and religion have been notoriously futile. The difficulty arises from the fact that there are many mutually contradictory religions; they may all be wrong, but only one of them can be true. The problem is to prove the existence of a Source of values, or better, as Clark states, since values may depend on man or physical nature, to determine whether there exists a personal, superhuman, Source of Values. Clark therefore examines the question of whether God can be known. Empiricism cannot reveal anything about God, Clark concludes. Man would know nothing about God unless God had revealed himself. Man can read neither the heavens nor his own heart correctly. 11
Clark asks, on the assumption that there is a God, and more particularly on the assumption that God exists as described in the Bible, what evidence could he give to man that he was God. It is inherent in the very nature of the case that the best witness to God s existence and revelation is God himself. There can be no higher source of truth. God has given us his revelation, and this is a first principle. Some things are first principles, that cannot be demonstrated. They are the basis or beginning of the argument. To require proof of a first principle is to misunderstand the whole procedure. Clark examines the nature of good and evil as a difficulty concerning the nature of God. However, al empirical theories of God and good and evil point to a finite god. Clark also examines the role of logic as an eternal attribute of God, and the laws of reason may be taken as descriptive of the activity of God s will, and hence dependent on it, though not created as the world has been created. Clark concludes by stating that on one basis and on one basis alone is it possible to have good hope for the future, and that basis in Almighty God. Anything limiting God, whether it be something external or an internal given chaos, makes the future uncertain. Any conclusion based on mere empirical observation makes the future both uncertain and dismal. But if the apparent evils, which are real evils to the people of the earthly city, are deliberately chosen means to the production of good for the people of the City of God, then it is possible to look at both the past and the future with equanimity, and with logical consistency. 12
Chapter Summaries: A Christian View of Men and Things by Clark, Chapter 7 The last chapter is on a philosophy of knowledge. Clark examines skepticism, relativism, empiricism, and apriorism, and concludes with a theistic worldview. The question, how do we know, may seem simple enough, comments Clark, but the answer virtually controls the whole system of philosophy. A refusal to answer this question determines the outcome as completely as any positive answer. Skepticism, replies that we don t know anything. Knowledge is impossible. Clark reviews why people have adopted this conclusion, and refutes this philosophy. If one states that we cannot know anything, then do we know that statement? Clark reviews Augustine s answers to skepticism. Modern writers have adopted epistemological relativism that obscures the underlying difficulties of skepticism. If a statement is true only within a given culture, and if there are no eternal truths or unalterable objectivity, and if rational theories are only threadbare school exercises, then any theory itself is only a temporary phenomenon. If relativism is asserted universally, then its assertion contradicts what is being asserted. An absolutist relativism is a self-contradiction. If it is true, then it is false. Clark examines empiricism as an attempt to avoid skepticism. This philosophy is the method that derives al knowledge from sensory experience. But Clark argues that if all knowledge is based on experience, then there is no knowledge. Experience is different for every person. Time has never been impressed on the senses so that we might have an image of it. The idea of space is not abstracted from external sensations. Arithmetic cannot be abstracted from sensory experience. Physics and mathematics 13
require necessary and universal judgments, and these are impossible on an empirical basis. The validity of syllogistic reasoning can never be based on experience. Therefore, empiricism is conclusively shown to be skeptical, because the law of contradiction cannot be abstracted or obtained from temporally conditioned particulars. Clark concludes with a theistic view of the world. If skepticism is to be repudiated and if knowledge is a reality, then truth must exist. Knowledge requires an existing object, and that object is truth truth that always has and always will exist. Truth must be unchangeable. What is true today always has been and always will be true. The object of knowledge is a proposition, a meaning, a significance; it is a thought. The truths or propositions that may be known are the thoughts of God, the eternal thought of God. 14