Insanity by Jonah Haddad

“Clear, compelling, and existentially fascinating book on the theory of knowledge (epistemology) that rationally support Christian theism are too rare. Yet this is what Jonah Haddad offers us. I applaud this exceptional achievement.”
—DOUGLAS GROOTHUIS
author of Christian Apologetics

“Jonah Haddad is angry. He does not suffer in silence when he details the insanity of intellectuals, who place
confidence in the autonomy of human reason. His calm rejoinder shows how faith and reason are bound
together in a holy alliance with God who made us in his image and grounds our legitimate use of reason in God’s design for us as made in his image. His history of skepticism and the search for certitude is especially helpful.”
—JAMES W. SIRE
author of The Universe Next Door

JONAH HADDAD received his MA in Philosophy of Religion from Denver Seminary. He lives and works in Lyon, France.

INSANITY
God and the Theory of Knowledge
JONAH HADDAD

“Have you seen such men—peculiar, raving, foam-mouthed, and
straitjacketed—throwing themselves mercilessly at white padded
walls . . . ?” Such men are said to be insane. But there is more to
insanity than the images depicted in film and planted in our minds
by popular media. Insanity is a condition that affects us all. Unsoundness
of mind disrupts our ability to think clearly and to form knowledge
about the world. Our understanding is dangerously incomplete
and our minds are corrupt. We are all insane. How then can we
ever hope to know our world? Is it possible to form justified true
beliefs about anything? What possibility, if any, do we have of escaping
this condition of madness that keeps us from the light of knowledge?
In Insanity, Jonah Haddad explores these very questions by
introducing the main problems of the theory of knowledge and by
offering a response to our madness—a response grounded in God,
the ultimate Knower.
ISBN: 978-1-62564-229-5
$S20 / 172 pp. / paper

Apologetics in Spanish

Apologetics from J.P. Moreland, Douglas Groothuis, and others in Spanish. 

A Moral Case Against Darwinism

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.

A Moral Argument Against Darwinism

1.      If Darwinism is an adequate account of the biosphere, then human beings have no essential nature, since they evolved without design into their present forms.

2.      If (1), then various races of humans may be more adaptively fit than other races. Darwin himself states this in The Descent of Man.

3.      If (2), there is nothing intrinsically valuable about the human race as a whole. That is, some races may prevail upon other races given their selective advantages due to their unique evolutionary path.

4.      If (3), then there is no philosophical basis for the claim that humans qua humans have objective and universal human rights.

5.      But (4) is false. Our moral intuitions and the history of Western law treat every human being, irrespective of race, as possessing intrinsic human dignity and must be treated as such. The United Nation’s statement on human rights affirms this, for example, as does The United States Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal.”

6.      Further, if (4) is true, then we have no objective basis to morally condemn the enslavement or even eradication of the “less favored races” (Darwin’s term)—that is, less favored by the impersonal processes of macro-evolution.

7.      But (4) is false, because of (5).

8.      Therefore (6) is false because of (5)

9.      Therefore, (1)—Darwinism—is false. This is by modus tollens, which in this case is a reductio ad absurdum (reduce the claim to absurdity).

Note: modus tollens (or denying the consequent):

a.       If p, then q.

b.      Not-q.

c.       Therefore, not-P.

Art Forgeries

Since The New York Times did not publish this, here it is:

November 5, 2013

To the Editor:

Blake Gopnik’s defense of art forgeries “as the art lover’s friend” is an impressive piece of sustained sophistry. All seven arguments he offers fail miserably.

First, if a forgery can fool an expert, it can give the rest of us pleasure. This is good. But pleasure does not justify deceit, nor does pleasure define the meaning of art. Second, the forger may reveal what the copied artist might have himself done; he may even reveal the artists inner essence. Lying imitations have nothing to do with artistic continuity or revelations. Third, forgeries are justified because artists often use assistants. This is a false analogy, since the artists authorized these assistants, unlike forgers. Fourth, art forgeries can “tame our absurd art market” by bringing down prices. This comment—if true—has no force, and it purely utilitarian. Two wrongs do not make a right. Fifth, forgeries endorsed by art experts teach us that “connoisseurship is not to be trusted.” This is illogical. Everyone already knows that connoisseurs are fallible. But they may be fallible and generally reliable, like all merely human judges. Sixth, because some ancient cultures endorsed the copying and augmenting of valued artworks, this justifies forgeries today. On the contrary, these copies were culturally-authorized and well-accepted—and not forgeries. Seventh, much of 20 Century art, such as Duchamp’s, “set out to undermine idea of unique authentic, hand-touched works of art.” This is true, but irrelevant. Duchamp’s ready-mades were not forgeries, because he did not claim to make them.

This ambitious essay fails to marshal any good arguments. We await a better apologist for artistic deception.

Douglas Groothuis,

Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary

Postmodernism and the Church

Here is the video for the panel discussion on postmodernism and the church, featuring Sarah Geis, Larry Burtoft, Doug Groothuis, and David Mathewson. This was sponsored by The Gordon Lewis Center for Christian Thought and Culture on November 19, 2013.

Duke

Duke Ellington,
I should write a symphony
in your memory
or 
a poem of tonality
to express the beauty
and sublimity of your
sonic personality.

Philosophy of Being on a Panel Dicussion.

1. Pray before, during, and after that truth will be made known, truth that transforms for the good.
2. Defer to those who know more than you do.
3. Do not dominate the panel.
4. Follow up on others' comments only when you have something significant to add.
5. Don't argue with a like-minded panel member.
6. Keep a sense of humor, but don't be a buffoon.
7. Don't mention your own work too much. I think I did this last night.
8. Mention your work if it can help someone get a better answer than what you can give on a panel.
9. Don't make jokes about your spouse.
10. Don't fall off your stool.
11. Stay afterward to minister to people who did not ask a question or who have questions that were not answered sufficiently. Try to be the last person out of the room.
12. Bring hand out or books that are pertinent to the subject at hand. That is, give something people can take home and learn more from.
13. Generally speaking, it is best to speak in public with an empty stomach, but we sure to hydrate adequately; otherwise, you voice may suffer.
14. If the discussion has anything to do with Christianity, present the Gospel clearly and cogently.

This includes Professors Craig Blomberg (New Testament), Richard Hess (Old Testament), and Douglas Groothuis (Philosophy).

Why I am not a Continental Philosopher

Why I am Not A Continental Philosopher (CP)

First, unlike CP's, I'll define terms. An analytic philosopher (AP) emphasize the following philosophical principles:

1. Define terms carefully.
2. Obscurity is not profundity
3. Logical operations are primary for philosophy, such as the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions, types and tokens, necessary and contingent, and, of course, the basic arguments forms--deductive, inductive, and abductive. One should not have to guess about these points; they should be clearly stated.

Second, the orgins of analytical philosophy probably trace to Bertrand Russell and G.E. Moore. It is a neutral method and is not committed, a priori, to any one worldview. Russell was an atheist; Alvin Plantinga is a Christian. Both are analytic philosophers.

Third, many claims to the contrary, the method of AP does not rule out large-scale philosophical questions about God, meaning, philosophy of culture (I do that!) or even aesthetics. CPs often make this erroneous claim.

Fourth, while some APs de-emphasize the important of the history of philosophy, there is nothing in the approach of AP that necessitates this; that is, it is not part of the definition of AP. The history of a philosophical concept, such as substance, is very significant in making any sense of it rationally.

Fifth, philosophers who are pre-analytic, such as Pascal, are subject to analytical criticism and reconstruction. I did so in my book, On Pascal. It has even been done with Nietzsche and Kierkegaard (see the work of C. Stephen Evans)!

CPs typically do not define terms or types of arguments carefully and revel in obscurity and false dichotomies, such as "those analytic apologists like J.P. Moreland, Bill Craig, and Doug Groothuis emphasize logic, but not love and community" (Myron Penner). Bullshit.

Modern (not classical) Liberalism is the political philosophy that holds an unconstrained vision of human potential in this world. Thus, it takes human limitations (such as poverty, inequality, and lack of education) to be addressed largely through the auspices of the civil government, which function on the basis of coercion, not persuasion. To do this, it must consolidate power at the top, game as much information from the activities of its citizens as possible and lesson the power of free associations (Edmund Burke's "little platoons," Peter Berger's "mediating structures," or Abraham Kuyper's "spheres of government' under God). It must also avoid or reinterpret America's founding documents, since they stipulate a limited civil government (federalism). To sum up. liberalism is Utopian; it is the unsubstantiated vision of the anointed (the ones who see reality unconstrained by history or human nature). It is an ersatz and false religion of humanity. Economically, it pits "the rich" against "the poor," based on the false assumption that making money requires ripping off others. Thus, those who general jobs and services are penalized for success through progressive taxation (something advocated by Karl Marx). But this money extracted from "the rich" (the category is subjected and fluctuates) is not given directly to "the poor) the category is subjective and fluctuates), but to massive, inept bureaucracies, which are not governed by the profit motive and are accountable only to "commissions." They also have "the power of the sword" (coercion).

"Beyond the Never"

Philosopher Attends "Beyond the Never," A Metallica Film

Tonight, alone, in a sparsely attended showing, shoveling vast amounts of pop corn and Coke down my gullet, I say the Metallica movie. I was about five minutes late, having gotten lost on the way. That is normal for me.

The concert footage was outstanding. The film did not use the unbearable fast cuts and jump cuts that are so common, but it did give multiple angels on the band and the audience (who seemed to be worshiping more than listening).

The physicality of this band is remarkable. Their music, while load and intense, is not simple. Yet, they walk and run around the stage, which, in this case was in the round. Yet all the tunes were perfectly executed. Yet I wonder if "Cyanide" does not excuse suicide, which is morally wrong. James screams to the hysterical crowd at one point, "How does it feel to be alive?" The implication is that it is right to be alive, and that this group experience contributes to that. But, then, why do "Cyanide?"

Now consider the nearly unbearable part. There was a secondary story of a roadie who was sent to obtain some object for the band. Along the way, he encounters horrendous and unexplained violence. These scenes are interspersed with the band's performance. Since these pointless and violent interjections included extra sounds (bodies being burned, crushed, slashed, and the like), I had a clue to close my eyes or just peek at the screen at the screen to see if the boys had returned to the screen--where they belonged for the entire film.

The secondary story make so sense whatsoever. It was not only senseless violence, but inexplicable violence. It marred the film. Good night, Metallica (especially with that elaborate stage set up) is dramatic enough!

There it is: Philosopher goes Metallica.

1. In Whose Afraid of Postmodernism, Jame K. A. Smith puts me in the same category as Os Guinness, DA Carson, Millard Erickson and other critics of postmodernism. Thank you!

2. In the End of Apologetics, Myron Penner puts me in the same (evil) apologetics category as J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Thank you!

3. In The Next Reformation, Carl Raschke likens my apologetic method (which he rejects; he has no apologetic) to the philosophical rigor of Bertrand Russell. Thank you!

I am honored to be a part of these hit lists. I will continue to defend Christianity as objectively true, compellingly rational, and pertinent to all of life.

http://backboneradio.net/

Jesus Christ

"Religion is wide, but truth is narrow. Truth captures reality in statements, and any statement that fails that task is erroneous. Error in religion is no small thing, and it can be a matter of eternal consequence if that error be egregious enough. The end of true religion must be truth, saving and flaming truth. According to Christianity, Jesus Christ is the eternal cornerstone of reality and truth incarnate (John 14:6). This is no idle claim, but is backed up by considerable philosophical and historical arguments. Christ is, therefore, the only source of undying liberation. To err at this point is catastrophic. While other religions contain elements of truth, they reject the most important truth of all: Christ crucified, resurrected and offered for the redemption of the cosmos".( Douglas Groothuis. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove:IVP, 2011. p. 598)

http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Apologetics-Comprehensive-Biblical-Faith/dp/0830839356

Does anyone have an contracts at Red Rocks Community College for employment in teaching? I have the web page, but am looking for humans.

My lecture, "Is Faith Beyond Knowledge?" is now available at the Gordon Lewis Center web page. http://www.denverseminary.edu/thelewiscenter/

On relevance in studies:

If one is in a creditable course of study, one should not bother with the question, "Is this relevant to the rest of my life?" Why not?

1. You do not know what the rest of your life will bring. Read Ecclesiastes on that.
2. You are a student (details), not a teacher. Perhaps the teacher (horrors!) knows better what is important in her discipline.
3. Perhaps the books (if books are still used in your course...) are worth reading. Even if they are not worth reading because they are good, you can practice your critical thinking skills on detecting falsehood, illogic, and plan bullshit.
4. Screening things out because of "irrelevance" will likely rob you of much of your education.
5. Even if the material does not directly relate to your vocation, the disciplines of learning will help you be a better person.
6. So there.

My letter to The New York Times:

Jon Carannica is right: Let (the new) Miley Cyrus be Miley Cyrus, and let's ridicule the "hollow, declarations of cultural war from defenders of an innocent era that never was." Yes! "Pop as a whole...always needs flamboyant disrupters to survive," he writes. Consider Tony Bennett, whose recording of his 1964 performance was given a full-page add on the page next to Mr. Carannica's scolding. Mr. Bennett shocked with his tight, neon pants, eye-liner, sexual pantomime, and libidinally-laced lyrics--and all done with a wink of course. The same goes for Jim Croce, and Eric Clapton. Wait, maybe these three pop stars relied on...talent.