tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post895167046907092817..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: Ways in Which You Refuse the Postmodern WorldDouglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-12084349763384136492008-08-08T20:57:00.000-06:002008-08-08T20:57:00.000-06:00And I am certain that, if it does not get lost in ...And I am certain that, if it does not get lost in a quick perusal on the way to more important things, Dr. Groothuis knows better than to believe I charged him with completely misreading Derrida.pgeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00778075334003141988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-18500761193112032562008-08-07T00:37:00.000-06:002008-08-07T00:37:00.000-06:00Comparing me to Jeremiah Wright is one of the wors...Comparing me to Jeremiah Wright is one of the worst insults I have ever received. And it is profoundly wrong, since I am not a racial bigot, nor an intellectually reckless propagandist.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-36281605628757101152008-08-06T15:50:00.000-06:002008-08-06T15:50:00.000-06:00TRF,Just for the record, I am not a "Dr." :o)TRF,<BR/><BR/>Just for the record, I am not a "Dr." :o)Kevin Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14702922698859174212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-18911011550656718852008-08-06T11:03:00.000-06:002008-08-06T11:03:00.000-06:00Dr. Winters:I took up your advice and read The Act...Dr. Winters:<BR/><BR/>I took up your advice and read The Acts of Religion. <BR/><BR/>I think that you are correct. His rhetoric is a bit all over the place, but I don't get the impression that Dr. Groothuis has ever read him. Interpreting reality as ambivalent is different than saying that things are relative. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps Pgrepps was correct in his charge against Dr. Groothuis when he wrote that Dr. Groothuis *completely* misreading him [Derrida]".<BR/><BR/>I really don't know how to feel. On the one hand, Postmodernism is still moral relativism and is dangerous, which Dr. Groothuis successfully argues, but on the other hand, he's misrepresenting the subjects. It reminds me of Reverend Wright, who would change lives for the better with a less than honest (or distorted message). When it's all said and done, changed lives are more important than total accuracy. So I forgive Dr. Groothuis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-13677586648093720412008-07-31T13:36:00.000-06:002008-07-31T13:36:00.000-06:00I am *incredibly* curious about what Dr. Groothuis...I am *incredibly* curious about what Dr. Groothuis thinks of TRF's understanding and elucidation of his approach to "liberal sources" and such. Is TRF accurately representing and therefore emulating Dr. Groothuis' approach, as he claims?Kevin Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14702922698859174212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-5380937989325356882008-07-31T09:03:00.000-06:002008-07-31T09:03:00.000-06:00"Oh, do tell, Rich, how do you refute something yo..."Oh, do tell, Rich, how do you refute something you have never read?"<BR/><BR/>This is a simple and illogical question.<BR/><BR/>Are you a Muslim? No, even though you haven't read the Koran.<BR/><BR/>Are you a ballet dancer? No, even though you haven't take lessons. <BR/><BR/>Why do you hold me to a different standard than you hold yourself onto. As I've said before, evangelical apologetics don't need to read something to know that it stinks. You don't need to inspect your garbage can to know that rotting tuna fish cans reek. Moral relativism is wrong, just plain and simple, whether you need to have it explained or not. <BR/><BR/>Pgrepps: <BR/><BR/>I agree with this statement: " would not directly expose unprepared undergrads to a lot of this stuff. It takes a lot of background to get there, and it's extremely toxic if mishandled. I'd start them out with a good grounding in the faith." That was why I went to Bible College rather than a liberal school.<BR/><BR/>You mentioned that you went to Bob Jones, which, while a little conservative for my tastes, seems to have ground you in the faith well. I appreciate how you don't give liberalism the time of day when it's all said and done. Just like a cancer, it spreads before you know and the only way to deal with it is to surgically remove it, knowing that there might be some collateral damage. <BR/><BR/>Maybe I should wait to read the moral relitavists in a PhD program rather than as Mr. Winters has suggested that I read them now. For seminary, I'll focus on grounding myself before a Phd so that I'll be prepared to refute them in my PhD. <BR/><BR/><BR/>For the record, knowing that liberalism is communicated in subtle ways via a medium has nothing to do with postmodernism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-65847860969606156002008-07-31T07:35:00.000-06:002008-07-31T07:35:00.000-06:00by the way--while I do not believe for a moment th...by the way--while I do not believe for a moment that Liberty shuns contact with primary sources programmatically, I would not directly expose unprepared undergrads to a lot of this stuff. It takes a lot of background to get there, and it's extremely toxic if mishandled. I'd start them out with a good grounding in the faith, reflected upon by growing historical awareness of the Western tradition, enriched by comparative work in world literatures/religions. With lots of good questions around the edges to tempt them to keep looking for more. Then, somewhere in their PhD programs, they'd be ready to read e.g. Derrida without *completely* misreading him--they can get over the "wallowing in undecidability" phase quicker that way.pgeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00778075334003141988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-85786212642402886522008-07-31T00:42:00.000-06:002008-07-31T00:42:00.000-06:00I'm beginning to return to my initial assessment t...I'm beginning to return to my initial assessment that trf is a parody. In the middle, though, I admit I was convinced there was a sincere writer, there. 'fess up, and let there be honest dialogue.pgeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00778075334003141988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-69671687594068665502008-07-30T22:38:00.000-06:002008-07-30T22:38:00.000-06:00Oh, do tell, Rich, how do you refute something you...Oh, do tell, Rich, how do you refute something you have never read?<BR/><BR/>Also, your statement that the "medium is the message," seems very... um... postmodern.Heath Countrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02443570122029029549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-21521889716758675132008-07-30T20:20:00.000-06:002008-07-30T20:20:00.000-06:00You wonder why I want to avoid liberal sources. Th...You wonder why I want to avoid liberal sources. That's easy, and I'm laughing that you actually don't see how this is a problem. Let me answer this from many ways. <BR/><BR/>1. People slip in liberalism through subtle mediums. Ideas cannot be isolated from their context and delivery. The medium is the message. <BR/><BR/>2. Evangelical schools have seen this so they require strict doctrinal statements to weed out liberal faculty. Schools like Liberty University see the validity in this approach and shun liberal "scholars." Even Denver Seminary separates the wheat from the tares. If you argue against me, you'd have to argue against all of conservative evangelicalism.<BR/><BR/>Let me ask you this: Why do you think Dr. Groothuis relies on conservative sources. He realizes the inherent danger of running in liberal circles and using liberal sources, except to refute them. So I trust his wisdom and follow "in his steps."<BR/><BR/>You need to seriously take stock of your soul and spiritual life. Yea, ye are leading people onto the wide path of destruction. The path to eternal life is narrow.<BR/><BR/>Jesus = logic (John 1) and Truth (John 14:6); therefore, Postmodernism leads to hell because it denies logic and truth. May he baptize you with tongues of fire to speakforth the unsearchable wisdom of our gracious savior. Amen.<BR/><BR/>My main concern, however, is that Barack (6) Hussen (6) Obahma (Arabic Spelling) (6) is the anti-CHrist and I don't want to see fellow conservative believers miss the path he's leading our God founded country in the wrong direction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-57068488662107999222008-07-30T19:14:00.000-06:002008-07-30T19:14:00.000-06:00hahahahaha!!!I am truly laughing over here....:)"I...hahahahaha!!!<BR/><BR/>I am truly laughing over here....<BR/><BR/>:)<BR/><BR/>"I'm not comfortable moving in liberal circles and so, like Dr. Groothuis, I want to use conservative sources."<BR/><BR/>I point you back to my original comment, Item #4.<BR/><BR/>What is there to be afraid of? If it contains Truth, then it should be accepted. If not, then it is easily dismissed. Are you honestly worried that your faith is that weak?Heath Countrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02443570122029029549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-2219940572021829432008-07-30T15:26:00.000-06:002008-07-30T15:26:00.000-06:00"Mr. Winters, at the risk of fueling the fire--I h..."Mr. Winters, at the risk of fueling the fire--I honestly think your point about the need to (re)visit the Continentals, with which I fully agree, has been sufficiently made." <BR/><BR/>Who are the continentals?<BR/><BR/>Dr. Winters: I'm troubled by your demand to read primary literature from liberal thinkers. <BR/><BR/>I went through Dr. Groothuis' book and saw that whenever he interactered with liberal thinkers he relied on conservative sources rather than liberal ones. Had he relied on liberal sources--or as you might say "the horse's mouth"--he wouldn't have come to the same conclusion. I'm not comfortable moving in liberal circles and so, like Dr. Groothuis, I want to use conservative sources. For me, this means that I rely on Dr. Groothuis, who relies on J.P. Moreland, I think. The Proverbs talk about taking counsel from the wicked. <BR/><BR/>I actually spoke with a student at Liberty (probably the top apologetics and philosophy program in the country) and he told me that they don't read the liberal stuff. And if they are forced to, it's only to point out how incredibly flawed it is becuase they don't believe in God and the Bible. And if that's what they do at Liberty, I'd imagine Dr. Groothuis has just as high of standards. <BR/><BR/>I'm pretty sure that Harvard uses truth decay in the Post-modern course. I can't think of what other class it would be used in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-9742331987562210022008-07-30T13:31:00.000-06:002008-07-30T13:31:00.000-06:00What can I say: a curmudgeon's job is never done. ...What can I say: a curmudgeon's job is never done. ;o)Kevin Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14702922698859174212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-69813330784954283592008-07-30T12:56:00.000-06:002008-07-30T12:56:00.000-06:00:-) I think perhaps I was referring to the volume...:-) I think perhaps I was referring to the volumes before, and not the brief and apposite comment after, zarathustra's interjection.pgeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00778075334003141988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-61616584453911204942008-07-30T11:07:00.000-06:002008-07-30T11:07:00.000-06:00pgepps,Well, first I was simply presenting a good ...pgepps,<BR/><BR/>Well, first I was simply presenting a good source (from an author that some Evangelicals have referenced favorably, due to his influential _Sources of the Self_) about the tentative nature of transcendental arguments, which I think your post was pointing towards (i.e. the finite nature of human understanding as it relates to absolute beginnings/foundations, or first philosophy). Taylor's article deals with Kant, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty, so I believe it could be beneficially used by everyone, regardless of their take on the supposed analytic-continental divide.<BR/><BR/>Second, I hardly think the point has been made, unless by some miracle *this* attempt to argue for such has somehow been more successful than the many other attempts I've made in the past on this same point, here and elsewhere. But since that point was not the point of my response (see first paragraph), I don't think I was belaboring my original argument by pointing to Taylor's work. :o)Kevin Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14702922698859174212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-83657592019061041952008-07-30T10:51:00.000-06:002008-07-30T10:51:00.000-06:00Mr. Winters, at the risk of fueling the fire--I ho...Mr. Winters, at the risk of fueling the fire--I honestly think your point about the need to (re)visit the Continentals, with which I fully agree, has been sufficiently made. What do you think you gain by extending the argument?pgeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00778075334003141988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-79512741336144454322008-07-30T10:38:00.000-06:002008-07-30T10:38:00.000-06:00When I was in intercollegiate debate, some years a...When I was in intercollegiate debate, some years ago, a team of ill-prepared briefing-book debaters spent an entire CX period attempting to rephrase the same question so I would use the key word to introduce one of their briefs.<BR/><BR/>The attempt to create reflexive incoherence in arguments about the paradoxical necessity and tentativeness of knowledge claims for contingent beings (and the special case of depraved ones like us) is very similar to that Rose-Hulman tack.<BR/><BR/>I cannot empirically prove a negative. I can repeatedly demonstrate the manner in which semantic word-play creates illusions like "objective" and "absolute" knowledge which somehow wedges some "truth" out of the economy of revelation, sets it up as iconic, and proceeds to usher in a wholesale idolatry of mind and spirit.<BR/><BR/>I all-too-humanly infer that this repeated demonstration will eventually convince you to read more carefully and faithfully, rather than to systematically erect systems of uprightness and character based on your self-interested renegotiation of language in argument. And I cannot attempt to persuade you without, in my own sinfulness, constantly courting the danger--in fact engaging you with precisely the same sort of rhetorical violence.<BR/><BR/>We lost to those debaters because the judge hated Bob Jones University, and liked the word "plethora."<BR/><BR/>You choose an odd ID. Strauss fan?pgeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00778075334003141988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-4997879972484750152008-07-29T23:10:00.000-06:002008-07-29T23:10:00.000-06:00That comment was for Zarathustra...That comment was for Zarathustra...Kevin Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14702922698859174212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-57942367886638761532008-07-29T23:09:00.000-06:002008-07-29T23:09:00.000-06:00Such truly is the tentative nature of transcendent...Such truly is the tentative nature of transcendental arguments. See Charles Taylor's "The Validity of Transcendental Arguments," in _Philosophical Arguments_.Kevin Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14702922698859174212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-43497437014901240332008-07-29T21:27:00.000-06:002008-07-29T21:27:00.000-06:00pgepps said:"As long as the claims are utterances ...pgepps said:<BR/>"As long as the claims are utterances from (to borrow Aquinas) contingent beings, to contingent beings, their truth is necessarily NOT absolute. If we insist on using the language of absolute-ness and objectivity, well, the only "knowing" that could possibly have that character is God's, in himself, incommunicably."<BR/><BR/>Just curious. How do you know? It sounds like you are making a claim to know something absolutely. And it appears that this claim of knowledge is being made from one contingent be to another. Thus, per your claim, the truth of your utterance would be necessarily not absolute.Pilgrim in Progresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15734316211183192738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-41828604656837159632008-07-29T15:28:00.000-06:002008-07-29T15:28:00.000-06:00TRF,I find it interesting that you seem to be equa...TRF,<BR/><BR/>I find it interesting that you seem to be equating rigorous scholarship with liberalism. Is that intentional?<BR/><BR/>While I certainly understand the need to bring things down when writing for a popular audience, there is no real indication in _Truth Decay_ or other Evangelical works on so-called "postmodernism" that there is anything like the distinction I gave: Heidegger, Derrida, and Foucault, along with the wider culture, simply *are* relativists. So when such respected writers do not make such an important distinction, their readers have no felt impetus to actually read these writers. After all, the great Douglas Groothuis, J.P. Moreland, and R. Scott Smith, all Evangelical philosophical superstars (a new show: Evangelical Idol!), give no indication that things could be otherwise or be more complex than postmodernism (without distinguishing thinkers or movements) = relativism.<BR/><BR/>As for how you can verify the claim I'm making, it is quite simple (yet complex): take the time to actually read the primary literature with the help of good scholarly secondary literature. For Foucault, for example, you can start with _How to Read Foucault_ and _Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics_ in tandem with reading his own works. For so-called "postmodernism" as a whole, I would suggest again Calvin Schrag's _The Resources of Rationality: A Response to the Postmodern Challenge_ as a book that is overall very accurate on his understanding of the primary thinkers, but isn't a "poster boy".<BR/><BR/>Beyond the simple beginning suggested above, it is also complex because it *will* take a lot of time to understand these thinkers. They are not simple, as even their best scholars would admit, and understanding what they are trying to say requires much time and effort. So I would suggest focusing on a particular thinker, rather than trying to digest them all at once. For me that was Heidegger, which is fortuitous as both Derrida and Foucault explicitly express a great debt to him as a primary influence on their work. This then gives me a very good background from which to understand them as I'm very familiar with one of their primary predecessors and can then also distinguish how they differ, what they provide that Heidegger didn't, or perhaps how they criticize Heidegger and thus move beyond him in some ways (particularly in the case of Derrida, though later Heidegger's thought does move in the corrective way Derrida suggests).<BR/><BR/>Lastly, on Harvard: at first you were presenting it as hearsay and I'm still trying to find verification that such actually happened, including how his work was situated and used in the class/classes (i.e. fully endorsed, criticized, etc.). Do you have any evidence for your claim or am I to take your word on it?<BR/><BR/>Still, let me repeat what I said before: Harvard using _Truth Decay_ is statistically negligible if there is no evidence that other universities are doing likewise. The existence of one *may* indicate the existence of more, but such is very weak if at present only one example is known.Kevin Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14702922698859174212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-39581214978897638292008-07-29T14:20:00.000-06:002008-07-29T14:20:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.pgeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00778075334003141988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-5327116667967216372008-07-29T12:31:00.000-06:002008-07-29T12:31:00.000-06:00Doug - I did not intend to "chop" or otherwise den...Doug - <BR/><BR/>I did not intend to "chop" or otherwise denigrate the blog, it was merely a tongue in cheek aside (tone does not come across well in printed matter). Sorry about that.jim_lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12253591749027100734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-59882349997404138232008-07-29T12:07:00.000-06:002008-07-29T12:07:00.000-06:00"No, I wasn't putting words in your mouth: you sai..."No, I wasn't putting words in your mouth: you said quite explicitly that the work of soul saving warrants bad scholarship" I mean not-perfect. Not-perfect scholarship doesn't = bad scholarship.<BR/><BR/>You obviously know a ton more than me about philosophy and apologetics. At Bible College (Faith Baptist), an accredited undergraduate and graduate school, we read two books in apologetics. Truth Decay and The Genesis Record, because they made strong, unyielding stances on biblical truth and didn't get caught up in the worldliness of scholarly standards. We read a chapter by Norman Geisler, but sadly, he is becoming more liberal these days. So the fact that you are saying that Truth Decay doesn't meet your "scholarly" standards is precisely the reason I was required to read it. It didn't give in to liberalism at ALL. <BR/><BR/>But I think I'm starting to understand what you are trying to say. You are saying that the book does not show an awareness of postmodernism, but that it says that postmodernism is relativism. And that this is false because he has not read enough material and the material says something more complex. How can I verify this claim?<BR/><BR/>I have a couple of responses. <BR/><BR/>1. It is a helpful rhetorical tool to get to the main point. Talking in circles around the issue often just confuses people and this book was written for the average churchgoer not some Ivory tower professor. That's why it gets to the point. <BR/><BR/>2. Other apologists who are recognized as top scholars in the university system also agree with Dr. Groothuis. Thomas Ice of Liberty University, Henry Morris, PhD, Peter Kreeft at Boston College (though he is a Catholic!), Duane Gish, Dr. Joshua McDowell, John A. Jelinek, and the list goes on. I mean Dr. Groothuis may not be as well known as all these top scholars, but he is totally operating at their level. And they seem to agree that postmodernism = relativism. <BR/><BR/>You should read The Journal of Chirstian Apologetics. It is very technical.<BR/><BR/>"I would wager that the large majority would say, "Groothuis who?" Again, *this particular point* is not about the adequacy of _Truth Decay_, but of the quantifiable extent of the use and recognition of his work outside Evangelical circles." I'd be willing to bet that this is not the case, but scripture prevents gambling! Like I said, they read this book at HARVARD!, so you can't be even close to being correct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-71573709527006926352008-07-29T10:43:00.000-06:002008-07-29T10:43:00.000-06:00TRF,No, I wasn't putting words in your mouth: you ...TRF,<BR/><BR/>No, I wasn't putting words in your mouth: you said quite explicitly that the work of soul saving warrants bad scholarship (i.e. misinformation) because of the work and time needed to do good scholarship.<BR/><BR/>While it is true that not reading something does not necessarily mean one is misinformed, but it certainly makes the reader vulnerable to misunderstanding. That is my point: by not reading the primary texts (like needing to reference a secondary work to cite _Limited Inc._, in my mind one of the most important of Derrida's work and certainly the easiest read out of his middle and later period) Dr. Groothuis opened himself up to misunderstanding, which I believe did happen.<BR/><BR/>On Foucault, no he does not say that. "Power" is quite different than many commentators think it is and Foucault himself, in one of the last things he wrote (see his work at the end of the Rabinow/Dreyfus work mentioned above) he clarifies both his notion of power and its place in his work (i.e. that it is not his central concern). From what you've said so far, I am not impressed that you fail to see how Dr. Groothuis misinterprets Foucault. Honestly, how much Foucault have you actually read such that your failure to see misunderstanding should matter to me? This sounds flippant, but that is what you are asking me to do: to take your word for it that Dr. Groothuis did not misunderstand Foucault, especially that based on a single quote (which we all know is very open to misunderstanding as it is torn from its context...how very Derridian).<BR/><BR/>On your last point in the previous post: I'm not requiring Dr. Groothuis to read everything on Heidegger, Derrida, or Foucault. Heck, I would *most certainly* fail that requirement, even on Heidegger with whom I've done the most of the three above. But he is showing (in my mind) a serious lack of familiarity with even the basic primary texts (see again my comment above on _Limited Inc._ or my previous comment on Foucault and the 5 pg. _Encyclopedia vs. the much more adequate Rabinow/Dreyfus).<BR/><BR/>My argument is not that Dr. Groothuis has not read everything about these thinkers, but that he hasn't done even the basic reading and research which thereby gives him a faulty foundation on which to discuss and thereby critique their thought. Again, if Dr. Groothuis and other Evangelicals got their interpretation of these thinkers right I think that they would still have plenty to argue against, given their perspective. This makes me wonder why they must rely on the straw man...<BR/><BR/>On your very last point: if we sent out a questionnaire to major philosophical departments, or even just focus on those that have classes on "postmodernism," I would wager that the large majority would say, "Groothuis who?" Again, *this particular point* is not about the adequacy of _Truth Decay_, but of the quantifiable extent of the use and recognition of his work outside Evangelical circles. My reading it is statistically negligible and demonstrates little, if anything.Kevin Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14702922698859174212noreply@blogger.com