The Aquinas Wars: Surveying The Lay of the Land

 

Introduction

Theological trouble is brewing. It has been for a while. We are now several books, dozens of articles, and innumerable blogs, tweets, and status updates into this fight. 

While it is tempting to jump in as a combatant (and I have done that from time to time), my main goal here is to explain what this war is about and why it matters. With any luck, I'll do this in a way most laymen can understand. I will do my level best to represent each position fairly, but please note this is a snapshot in time. The battle lines are still somewhat fluid, but I think a general topography has emerged. Get ready to survey The Aquinas Wars.

An Overly-Generalized History

In one sense, this debate goes back to Tertullian asking what Jerusalem has to do with Athens. For ease, I'm going to limit our focus to more recent history. 

Many of you will be familiar with two Reformed giants of recent times. Namely, R. C. Sproul and Greg Bahnsen. In 1977 they debated one another on apologetic method. Apologetics is the rational defense of faith. Apologetic method seeks to answer how do we defend the faith in a way faithful to Scripture and aligned with reason? A few distinct camps have emerged on this question, Sproul represented the classical camp, with Bahnsen representing the presuppositional camp. 

I'm not going to recap that debate (you can read it here, or listen to it here). Suffice it to say where we are now is it is perfectly evident different apologetic methods depend on different views of natural theology, different views on the nature of Sola Scriptura, different views of the effects of the fall on man, and different views of God Himself.

Fast-forward to more recent times. This all comes to a head via two different doctrinal streams. First, as complementarians define their position they popularize the Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son (EFS for short) to help account for equality of person even as they espouse different roles for men and women. The more classically-minded see this as an unacceptable compromise of the historical understanding of the Trinity, introducing a division in the very being of God. And this brings us to the second doctrinal stream, the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS for short). Simplicity simply means God is not composed of metaphysical parts. That is, you don't get God by adding omnipotence with omniscience with omnipresence, etc. In His Being, God is without division. James Dolezal wrote some books on this, including All That Is in God. John Frame responded to Dolezal's book with a broadside. This exchange set off a host of reactions and responses, with continual dustups over the last five years. 

The Lay of the Land Today

As these dustups continue, there are now four broad camps. 

1.  Theistic mutualists skeptical of natural theology. In this camp is John Frame, Owen Strachan, James White, Jeffrey Johnson, and most presuppositionalists. These are among the most vocal critics of classical theism and the project of natural theology. In broad form, they believe Sola Scriptura and the nature of man render natural theology a doomed project. They also uphold modern views of personhood and personality, such that for God to be personal He must be personal in the way moderns imagine personhood. Those of us more classically-minded would say they believe at least some language about God is univocal.

2.  Theistic mutualists supportive of natural theology. In this camp is William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, and most classical or evidential apologists. They agree with the above camp on God's personality. However, they also believe natural theology can be used to show the existence of God. So they are not quite as skeptical on the nature of man and not quite as restrictive in their understanding of Sola Scriptura. Many of today's most popular arguments for God's existence come from these guys (Kalam, the argument from consciousness, modal ontological argument). 

3.  Classical theists supportive of natural theology. In this camp are the late R.C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, and living theologians and philosophers such as Matthew Barrett, Craig Carter, David Haines, and most people affiliated with The Davenant Institute. They uphold the classical view of God, including on simplicity, aseity, The Trinity, and the Incarnation. Being classical, they also uphold a classical understanding of reason and the ability to demonstrate the existence of God through argument (natural theology). Common terms to describe this position are Reformed Thomism and Christian Platonism. 

4.  Classical theists who believe it is clear to reason God exists. This camp is newer and somewhat unknown. But without doubt, its champion is Owen Anderson. It upholds the classical theism of confessions like Westminster. But it critiques other supporters of natural theology not for going too far, but for not going far enough. Presuppositionalists say the problem with Plato is he was trying to use reason for what it cannot achieve. This camp would say the problem with Plato is it's pretty evident he could use reason quite well, so he should have understood the truth about God. Because he did not, Plato's unbelief is morally culpable. And so it is with all unbelief. Because it is clear to reason God exists, all unbelief is morally culpable.

Conclusion

I understand this is a gross summary, in which I've engaged in gross generalizations. But if you are trying to catch up on this brewing war, in which strikes continue to be made, I hope this helps give you some terminology to learn about and scholars to brush up on. Make no mistake, this war will continue. Major publishing projects are in the works, conferences are taking place, and shots are being fired via social media. Stay tuned to learn more about my own stance on these issues. 

Adulting and the Rise of Perpetual Adolescence

 

I do not write about my professional life often. This is in part because much of it is confidential. But it's also because I do not like writing about myself. My experience will necessarily be subjective, and I much prefer to talk about objective matters. I don't think the public sphere needs one more "personal perspective." 

With that said I am on the front lines of a crisis. I work with young people and have spent most of my professional career doing so. When I say "young people" I mean those between the ages of 14-21, mostly. And young men, mostly, at that. When I first got into this work nine years ago I didn't much consider it a calling. It was more of an opportunity. But today it is my duty. And I must be the bearer of bad news. 

Young people are not OK. If you read that and think "This is going to be another blog about mental health that I'll read, feel slightly moved by, and move on with my life" then kindly sod off. I'm looking for people interested in action. 

When I say young people are not OK I do not primarily mean mental health. That's true, but that's well-known and I don't have much to add with respect to recognizing that. I mean at a more basic level, functionally, young people are not OK. They are not ready for the realities of adult life. They are not prepared to live in a world without oversight and direction from adults. 

I'm in organizational development. So much so that I developed my own job title and position, I wrote my own job description and convinced my organization of its necessity. And I've developed systems of process quality improvement. I've developed staff. I've developed programs. I've developed grant proposals and got them funded. Development is what I do, and I view implementation as the crowning goal of development. A process or idea not enacted is mere theory, and our organizations are too theory-laden as it is. 

Apply this to young people. I develop programs to try to help them. I write requirements. I revise systems. I argue for change. I implement those changes when those arguments are convincing. The first step in development is discovering where you are in relation to where you want to go. Think of this like a staircase. The top is your goal. But to get there, you have to figure out how many steps it's going to take to get to the top AND get those steps in the right order. 

In my work with young people over the last few years, we are increasingly down yet one more step. The goal, overall, hasn't changed all that much. But rather than starting from 4 to 5 steps down, we are starting from 8 to 10 steps down, and we are not yet at the bottom. 

Let me make this practical. I've taught resume writing, to both young people and adults, for about 10 years now. I used to be able to assume everyone knew what a resume was. I cannot always do that now. I cannot assume they know how to navigate a basic word processor like Microsoft Word or even Google Docs. I cannot assume they know what constitutes professional experience.

Do you see the problem? I used to teach resume writing by giving tips about putting together building blocks that should, at a minimum, be in your head already. Now I have to help the young people build the building blocks. It's hard to explain just how exasperating it is to increasingly find every facet of knowledge or basic skill you should be able to assume people have must now itself be taught. Education of every type becomes increasingly difficult. 

As another example, I recently gave a high school math teacher a copy of "What Every Sixth Grader Needs to Know" from the Core Knowledge series edited by E. D. Hirsch. Why did I give a teacher a book for several grade levels below what he was teaching? To help figure out what the existing students were missing, because it was obvious they were missing some basic mathematical concepts without which things like the study of algebra cannot proceed. In fact, I have begun consulting Hirsch's "New First Dictionary of Cultural Literacy" (meant for 6th grade and below) in preparing my own history lessons for high schoolers because that is now the step on which I've found them. 

In education, there is an idea called scaffolding. The idea is you scaffold around students, build supporting structures to help students grow taller just like a building needs scaffolding as you are building it up. There's nothing wrong with the idea of scaffolding, per se (the theory behind it is terrible but the practice itself can be useful). But again, it is wildly discouraging to find rather than being on the 7th or 8th story you need to go back and build scaffolds around the 5th or 6th story, then build those stories up, before you can even proceed to move higher. 

But this is all a much bigger problem than students being behind in academic study. Young people are perpetually behind in all of life. It's not just that they cannot write a resume, but they don't even have the character to want to get a job.

The end result is embodied in the phrase "adulting." People my age do basic necessities like laundry and proceed to brag (or more often, complain) about it on social media heralding to the world that they are "adulting" the same way a young child heralds to the world that they are playing superhero. And this adulting, of course, is seen as a distraction from the good life of sitting down to binge-watch a series on Netflix or Disney+. It used to be that acting like a responsible adult flowed from the development of character and virtue, and entertainment was the distraction from hard but rewarding work. We've got everything reversed, and it is getting worse. 

There are real-world consequences to all of this. We're going to have more diseases as dwellings that are perpetually not maintained become infested with pests. We're going to fall farther and farther behind the military technology of hostile nations like Russia and China because we both lack the drive to do great things and are too stupid to recognize why foreign policy matters anyway. 

We are up against a clock. Today's perpetual adolescents will, at some point, have to live on their own. And they are woefully unprepared to do so. Once education is squandered in childhood it must be made up for in adulthood. If it is not then we're stuck with perpetual children in adult bodies. That's harmful to the individual, no doubt. But it's also harmful to society and the greater good. We cannot, and will not, survive as a nation on our current trajectory. 

I started this by saying I'm looking for people interested in action. So what should we do? 

First, if you know a perpetual adolescent, have an intervention. Step up and give them the uncomfortable but necessary news that they cannot live like this. If you are an adult living with a perpetual adolescent, stop enabling them. Stop enabling them to be irresponsible and unproductive. 

Second, provide experience. I cannot emphasize this enough. There is no formula to building character and instilling grit. It must happen through experience. I humbly suggest the adults of young children take them camping, start out easy, but make it harder as you gain experience. Go to a local campground or state park first, and build from there. The mere experience of having to set up a tent before sundown instills more character than can be described. When you cannot camp, hike. Go cycling. Do hard things, and make them progressively harder so your child has to grow. 

Third, if you are not committed to a local biblical church, do that. Why would those around you show commitment and take responsibility when you will not? Further, the community is invaluable. I know COVID has been disruptive, but work it out.

Fourth, stop debating this on social media (I say this, frankly, as a hypocrite; but it must be said so forgive me). Make your point. Some people won't agree. Ignore them and continue making your point. This isn't a debate, and we don't have time to get the theory perfect. Again, we are up against the clock. Better to take decisive action, even if some of it turns out poorly, than to do nothing as the ship sinks. 

Finally, recognize that reality is your ally. God created the world this way, getting back to it is not nearly so hard as maintaining the facade. 

In Christ,

Josiah

(Mis)Using Scripture in John Frame's Apologetic

 In John Frame's article "Presuppositional Apologetics" he presents a very succinct and straightforward definition of the methodology. What is interesting is his use of Scripture. Surely, whatever other support the presuppositional method has, it MUST have strong Scriptural support. 

Frame offers the following (paragraph 4):

What about religious faith, as an assumption governing human thought? Scripture teaches that believers in Christ know God in a supernatural way, with a certainty that transcends that obtainable by investigation. Jesus himself reveals the Father to those he chooses (Matt. 11:25-27). Believers know God’s mysteries by revelation of his Spirit, in words inspired by the Spirit, giving them “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:9-16, compare 2 Tim. 3:16). So, by believing in Jesus, they know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:7).

Here, it seems to me, Frame is basically correct. Believers in Christ do indeed "know God in a supernatural way, with a certainty that transcends that obtainable by investigation." I think the Scriptures Frame cites here are, more or less, correctly applied. Please note that Frame wrote this article as an entry in The New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics so we are not expecting exhaustive exegesis of each passage. But, on the whole, I think he uses these passages correctly. As Christians our knowledge of God is supernatural, dependent on the Holy Spirit and His revelation in Scripture. 

Now we get to Frame talking about the apologetic implications, and Frame says this (paragraph 11):

"Only by trusting God’s Word can we come to a saving knowledge of Christ (John 5:24, 8:31, 15:3, Rom. 10:17). And trusting entails presupposing: accepting God’s Word as what it is, the foundation of all human knowledge, the ultimate criterion of truth and error (Deut. 18:18-19, 1 Cor. 14:37, Col. 2:2-4, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 1:19-21). So the apologetic argument, like all human inquiries into truth, must presuppose the truths of God’s Word."

Did you catch the shift there? It was subtle, almost unnoticeable. We went from 1. The believers' knowledge of God through faith in Christ is supernatural (a point with which I agree) to 2. Saving faith requires presupposing the truth of God's Word; and 3. All apologetic arguments must presuppose the truths of God's Word.  

These points are not all the same. And while I think Frame established (1) well enough; (2) and (3) are sorely lacking. First, the Scriptures Frame cites are, at best, only tangentially related to the sweeping claims he is making. Interestingly Scripture does not really claim, at least in a straightforward way, that it is the foundation of all human knowledge. Frame's best case here is something like Colossians 2:2-4, but even here saying all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ is quite a different claim from Scripture is the foundation of all human knowledge. 

But there is a larger problem for Frame here, and that is a problem of circularity. And I'm not talking about epistemic circularity. I'll leave that to other writers (for now). No, Frame has introduced circularity with respect to salvation and its relation to presuppositions. Remember in the first paragraph we quoted from Frame he said "Believers know God’s mysteries by revelation of his Spirit, in words inspired by the Spirit..." but then Frame also says "Only by trusting God’s Word can we come to a saving knowledge of Christ (John 5:24, 8:31, 15:3, Rom. 10:17). And trusting entails presupposing: accepting God’s Word as what it is, the foundation of all human knowledge, the ultimate criterion of truth and error".

So, according to Frame, we must:
1. Presuppose the truth of Scripture in order to have saving faith; and,
2.  Have the mysteries of God regarding salvation confirmed to us directly by the revelation of the Holy Spirit.

But, wait a minute, which comes first? Do we presuppose in order to have faith? Or, having faith, does God reveal this to us by His Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9)? I think, being charitable, Frame can resolve this by saying at regeneration the Holy Spirit really does all of this in us at once but we grow in our understanding of it over time. That would be fair, and consistent with Frame's view of the order of salvation (see here). Unfortunately for Frame, this renders his application of these passages to all human knowledge entirely useless. That is, to avoid the conclusion no one could ever come to have saving faith since said faith would require presupposing the very thing that must be revealed in order for us to presuppose it, we have to limit our understanding of the passages Frame cites to the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration (and perhaps sanctification).

However, limiting our understanding of the passages in this way means Frame cannot then claim these passages support the notion all human knowledge presupposes Scripture. These are Scriptures about the process of salvation and what happens in the believer when the Holy Spirit does His work. To try to read into them claims about all human knowledge depending on Scripture is to render it impossible for anyone to ever know anything. If all knowledge depends on Scripture, and our knowledge of the truth of Scripture depends on direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, how could we have knowledge of what the Holy Spirit is revealing to us? To know what the Holy Spirit is revealing would require knowledge. But that knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit revealing it to us. Now we have arrived at the epistemic circle.

The answer, at this point, reduces to mere subjectivism. And elsewhere Frame admits as much, discussing the order of salvation as a pedagogy Frame notes (paragraph 9) "Indeed, there is a similar subjective dimension to all human knowledge, for knowing itself is, from one perspective, a subjective process that goes on in the mind." Frame and his presuppositionalist allies can appeal to direct revelation all they want. But that revelation must occur inside the human mind, and if there is no ground outside of direct revelation by the Holy Spirit in the process of regenerating and sanctifying believers, then we have no grounds for actually trusting the process of revelation that occurred inside of our own minds. 

Now, there is much, much more to be said. But it is late, and I am tired. Notice, however, that presuppositionalism as presented here (and we'll see this elsewhere too) really boils down to the Holy Spirit's revelation of Christian truth to the believer. On this view, it is unclear why apologetics is needed at all (evangelism, certainly, but apologetics, why bother?). But even more significantly, it is entirely unclear to me how Frame and other presuppositionalists avoid infringing on the very sufficiency of Scripture since Scripture itself relies on an internal subjective process of revelation to be known with certainty. But more on that in the future. 

The World Gives No Quarter: Vigilance for Christian Families

 

[Image courtesy of Nadine Doerle, open source]

There was a time when American Evangelicals thought it would be possible to run our institutions parallel to their secular counterparts. We have established Christian schools, Christian universities, Christian businesses, Christian banks, Christian health shares, all in an effort to live in ways that align with our values and commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. 

But modern technology renders it nearly impossible to reduce or eliminate the influence of the world on Christian families. Your children can spend every waking moment inside of Christian institutions, but if they have an internet connection, they will be assaulted by the world. That assault will come through channels we've considered before, such as TV programming or music. But much more likely, and far more spiritually (and at times physically) dangerous, it will come through social media. 

For worse, social media today is the single greatest influence on our country, on the social and moral formation of our children, and on cultural development. And that influence is profoundly negative and depressing. 

Now I am aware of the irony of this situation. I write this on a blog, and most of my readers will read it by following a link shared via social media. Such is the reality of modern life. You have to fight the battle on the battlefield where the fighting is taking place. 

The point is it is nearly impossible to shelter your children. Yes, you can restrict what they watch (and you should do so). You can limit the places where they spend time. But unless we prohibit entirely their contact with social media, we cannot eliminate the worldly influence that WILL come through it. 

By "worldly influence" I don't predominately mean popular movies, music, or even advertisements. I mean social media culture. Social media culture is a distinct subculture, if not the dominant subculture, of American life. And it will enculturate you and your children into an irrational world of emoting, randomness, superficial relationships, and disconnectedness. It will give the illusion of emotional connection to others while making the reality of such connection impossible.

I write this based on experience. I routinely have young men tell me they have "girlfriends" they have never met, and are in "relationships" mediated entirely over social media. And I think these relationships are substantively different than the long-distance relationships of the past carried on via letters. Neil Postman famously argued you cannot separate the medium from the message. We are trying to use the medium of social media for messages it is incapable of truly conveying. The result is a severe disconnect between intent and reality. The more people depend on social media to convey messages it is not capable of conveying, the greater that disconnect becomes and the more harmful to our psyche the result. 

Social media, in its essence, is a denial of the human soul. It effectively says the message can be divorced from the person conveying it and the person to whom it is conveyed. It says there is nothing more to the message than what is written or filmed or photographed, and it says this by promising a level of connection that it simply cannot deliver. Remember that websites like Facebook are designed, and they are designed for certain purposes. What is that purpose? According to Mark Zuckerberg, “We want to help 1 billion people join meaningful communities. If we can do this it will not only reverse the whole decline in community membership we’ve seen around the world… but it will also strengthen our social fabric and bring the world closer together.” This stated purpose, however, is self-defeating; social media doesn't reduce social isolation and may actually increase depression and anxiety. 

I'm not saying that you should never let your kids on the internet or use any form of social media. Being conversant with technology is necessary to function in our broader society. I am saying we need to exercise careful vigilance with respect to how our kids use social media, what apps they have on their phones and other devices, and how much of their life is mediated through a screen. Further, we must carefully watch what effect all of this is having on their heart. Jesus said where our treasure is, there our heart will be also (Matthew 6:21). 

What I am really saying is the most concerning impact of social media is how it enculturates us. What does it teach us to think about relationships, about communication, about entertainment, about what really matters in life? Social media is answering those questions for your children, and the answers it is teaching are not good. Social media lies to us about human nature, about what it means to relate to one another, and about what is ultimately important in life. And it doesn't tell this lie with explicit banners or nihilistic memes (though those exist). It tells this lie by teaching us to behave in a certain way, by teaching us to crave likes, notifications, and attention. It tells this lie by consuming time that should otherwise be spent in vigorous activity, in face-to-face relationships, and in true communion with God and with one another. 

My parting thought is this:  Social media often makes us think it is the most important thing in our lives. Yet it provides no means of relating to God, and indeed it *cannot* do so. If we aren't careful, unmitigated and thoughtless social media use leads us to practical atheism. 

Why Classical Theism Matters

 In recent history, theological discussions that might otherwise be relegated to the ivory tower have spilled over to the popular level. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is how blogs, social media profiles, and podcasts influence subsequent social media interactions. Now, at both the academic and popular levels, there is a clear line of demarcation between classical theism and theistic personalism.

Even this terminology raises questions. Most theistic personalists do not self-identify as such. And many people have no idea what a term like "classical theology" means. 

For simplicity's sake (pun intended), classical theism refers to the view of God widely shared over the course of history that sees God as simple (not composed of parts) and immutable (unchanging in His being). This leads to many further assertions, such as God is pure act, the unmoved Mover, being itself, etc. In contrast, a relatively recent view has quickly attained consensus among many modern scholars. That view is theistic personalism, which holds God must be personal in some sense in the same way we are personal, and this typically results in either denying or reformulating classical views of simplicity and immutability. Subsequently, questions are raised about the very nature or possibility of natural theology, apologetic method, and ultimately the nature of fundamental reality itself. 

While my paragraphs above are gross oversimplifications of the relevant issues, I don't want this post to focus on the academic debate but on why this matters on the popular level. Why should the average Christian care about what seems like such a distant scholarly concern? Or, stated differently, why does classical theism (or its denial) matter in the day-to-day pursuit of Christ? 

There are more answers to this question than I can list here, but I want to cover a few in summary form. 

First, classical theism inspires our worship. In The Knowledge of the Holy A. W. Tozer wrote that what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us. Our worship is a response to who God is and what He has done. Classical theism bears directly on the question of what we think about God, and thus on our response to who He is. Classical theism preserves God's greatness, His holiness, His justice, His love, without reducing them to a mere creaturely understanding of these words. Classical theism doesn't give us a complete understanding of God, in fact, it affirms we cannot attain that. But it still allows us to understand the truth about God in a way that inspires our worship with reverence and awe (Hebrews 12:28). This is especially the case when we consider how entirely holy God is in light of the fact the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This is not to say theistic personalists cannot worship God, but the more creaturely we envision God the less of a mystery things like the Incarnation become. 

Second, many modern objections to the Christian faith simply don't exist given classical theism. One of the key mistakes the New Atheists made was critiquing a version of theism that for the majority of Christian history wasn't actually upheld by the Church. For a Cartesian dualist the problem of interaction becomes a significant challenge to belief in the soul. On classical theism, someone can raise the problem of interaction but it's pretty easily answered given a solid understanding of form/matter. Similar things can be said with respect to objections to the Trinity, where the distinction between essence and person becomes crucial. 

Third, classical theism has a certain consistency and comprehensiveness that is unrivaled by theistic personalism. This plays out on questions of ethics, the nature of reality, culture, and the meaning of life. What is the good life? How do we live it? Why should we bother even thinking about it? Again, it is not that theistic personalism cannot answer such questions, but that the answers end up necessarily disjointed and (at times) contradictory because theistic personalism lacks an integrated understanding of essential reality tested over millennia. Classical theism gives compelling answers to questions of abortion, sex and gender, the dignity of the person, and the value of the family. Theistic personalism is only raising those questions in reaction to the depravity of the culture around us. It's not that their answers are wrong, it's that we don't even know what the consensus answers will be on theistic personalism. 

We could go on, but I hope this is enough for people to consider the importance of the topic. Whatever one thinks of the debate between theistic personalists and classical theists, I hope we can all see the important nature of it. Nothing less than the essence of Christian theology and discipleship is at stake. 

Logical Positivism

 

[Rubble, C/O Dan Seddon, open source]

In last week's "Whataboutery Wednesday" we discussed why science does not prove there is no God.

We left one challenge unexplored, however. What if all we can know is what is proved by science or true by definition? If all we can know is what is scientifically verifiable or true by definition, and God's existence is neither empirically verifiable or true by definition, then it would follow we could not know if God exists.

Now, we could respond to this several ways. We could say it is possible to prove God's existence is true by definition a la some version of the ontological argument. Or we could say, given that God is being itself, His existence is logically inescapable. 

But that answer would mire us in more philosophy than I have time to expound. 

What if there is a problem in the criteria itself? Do we really want to say ALL knowledge is either true by definition or scientifically verifiable? Well, that criteria itself is neither true by definition or empirically verifiable. That is, logical positivism is self-defeating, creating a standard it cannot itself meet. 

Further, logical positivism assumes epistemological methodism. That is, logical positivism asserts we must know how we know something prior to knowing what we know. The problem in this scenario is in order to know logical positivism as a method, we would need a method for knowing our method, and a method for knowing that method, and so on. As J. P. Moreland notes, this would land us in an infinite regress, having to justify each method of knowing with some more fundamental method of knowing. Eventually, we'd have to assert we simply know something, in which case we would have ceased being epistemic methodists at all. 

Logical positivism fails, setting up a standard it cannot meet, and relying on an assumption of epistemic methodism that falls into an infinite regress. And we have sufficiently disarmed the notion that science proves there is no God.

Fortuitous Friday - Communism as a Failed System

 

[Photo of a mural in Havana, Cuba; C/O Yerson Oliveres, open source]

President Joe Biden is making headlines for calling communism a universally failed system. He further noted that socialism is not an attractive substitute.

This is just too delicious to pass up. On the one hand, many of Biden's critics and supporters view him as a stepping stone on the path to socialism. For Biden to say what he did will no doubt delight conservatives who see the gaping fracture within American liberalism. It will also isolate the far left of his own party, including the so-called "Squad." 

However, we should not take this commentary with too much optimism. Biden was none too quick to strongly denounce the repressive and tyrannical regime of Cuba and his denunciation now is undoubtedly a political calculation. It has taken the near-collapse of the Cuban regime for US Democrats to awaken to the reality they need to stop flirting with communism. And so far many Democrats still have not recognized that reality. Bernie Sanders and AOC seem to think the US embargo on Cuba is to blame for the suffering of Cubans. This is a firm reminder that the people screaming most loudly about oppression have no idea what it is, where it comes from, or how to deal with it. 

This is also a real opportunity for us as a country to transcend political division and re-articulate the principles of government for which the people of Cuba now protest. It is an opportunity to remind ourselves and our fellow citizens of the natural law. The people of Cuba are created equal, equal to their government officials, and equal to all other people. The people of Cuba, like all people, are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Those rights have been infringed upon by a tyrannical communist government for far too long. In other communist states, like China, the rights of even more people continue to be brutally infringed upon. And the specter of communism or socialism remains a grim possibility of our own political future in the USA. We must remind ourselves that our republic is not self-sustaining, it must be purposefully maintained. We must know our principles and ideals, and we must deliberately pass them on to each new generation. We have too often failed to do this, and the result is a generation that doesn't know if we should support the Cuban protests or why we should do so. 

At the end of the day, it's nice that a Democratic president called communism a universally failed system and Cuba a failed state. But it's not enough. The real work is to be done in raising each generation up to fulfill its civic duty; and as Christians, we must do that in a way that honors Christ above all. We are watching the failures of communism before our very eyes, let us not waste the opportunity.