In article <Apr.17.01.11.29.1993.2278@geneva.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:  >Someone called `REXLEX' has claimed that there IS a way out of the loop, but >he did not bother to explain what it was, preferring instead to paraphrase >Sartre, ramble about Wittgenstein, and say that the conclusion of my argument >leads to relativism.  I will answer this as I find time.  > >`REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not Silent_, by >Francis Schaeffer.  I didn't think very highly of it, but I think that >Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many Evangelical Christians.  Somebody >else might like it, though, so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it. > >If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On Certainty_, by >Ludwig Wittgenstein. > > >Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu >"If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some > Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood* > some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon >  Notice what I said about this book.  I called it "Easy reading."  The reason I dropped philosphy as my major was because I ran into too many pharisaical Simon's.  I don't know how many walking encyclopedia's I ran across in philosphy classes.  The problem isn't in knowing sooooo much more than your average lay person, the problem comes when you become puffed up about it.  Schaeffer is just fine for the average lay person.  That was who he was writting to.  I suppose that you would have criticised John that his gospel was to simple.  I've talked with Schaeffer one on one.  I've been in lectures with the man when he was being drilled by philosphy students and prof's from secular as well as Christian universities. (ND alone would fill both those catagories)  His answers were enough that the prof's themselves often were taken back and caused to re-think what their question was.  I saw this time and time again at different open forums.  So yes, Schaeffers books are by in large, well, simplistic.  It certainly isn't grad level reading.  But we must get off our high horses when it comes to recommended reading.  Do you seriously think most people would get through the first chapter of Wittgenstein?  I may have more to say about this secular scientist at another time.  Also, one must finally get beyond the doubt caused by *insistent* inquisitiveness.  One cannot live his life constantly from a cartisian doubt base.    Look, the Christian wholeheartedly supports genuine rationality.  But we must add a qualification to give this balance.  Christianity is second to none in keeping reason in its place.  We never know the value of a thing until we know its limits.  Put unlimited value on something and in the end you will exhaust it of all value!  THis is why Xianity is thoroughly rational but not the least bit rationalistic.  It also explains the curious fact that it is rationalism, and not Christian faith, which leads to irrationality.  If we forget the limits of a thing, we fly in the face of reality and condem ourselves to learn the simple ironic lesson of life:   "More without limits is less;  less with limits is more."    Or as I have so often stated it, freedom without form soon becomes form w/o freedom.  Let's put it another way.  The rationality of faith is implacably opposed to absurdity but has no quarrel with mystery. Think about that.  It can tell the difference between the two if you will let it.  Christianity's contention with rationalism is not that it has too much reason in it, but that it has very little else.  When a Christian comes to faith his understanding and his trust go hand in hand, but as he continues in faith his trust may sometimes be called to go on by itself without his understanding.  This is where the principle of suspended judgment applies.  At such time if the Christian faith is to be itself and let God be God, it must suspend judgment and say, "Father I do not understand you but I trust you."  Now don't read all your objections of me into that statement.  I wasn't saying I do not understand you at all, but I trust you anyway." It means that "I do not understand You *in this situation* but I do understand *why I trust You* anyway"  Therefore I can trust that you understand even though I do not. The former is a mystery unrelieved by rationality and indistinguishable from absurdity.  The latter is a statement of rationality of faith walking hand in hand with the mystery of Faith.  So.... the principle of suspended judgment is not irrational.  It is not a leap of faith but a walk of faith.  As believers we cannot always know why, but we canalways know why we trust God who knows why and this makes all the difference.  Now, there is one obvious snag to all this and this is where I have parted company with philosophy- what is eminently reasonable in theory is a rather bit more difficult in practice.  In practice the pressure of mystery acts on faith like the insistent "whying" of a 3 year old.  It isn't just that we would like to know what we do not know but that we feel we *must* know what we cannot know.  The one produces frustration because curiosity is denied; the other leads to genuine anguish.  More specifically the poorer our understanding is in coming to faith the more necessary it will be to understand everything after coming to faith.  If we do not know why we trust God, then we will always need to know exactly what God is doing in order to trust him.  Failing to grasp that, we may not be able to trust him, for anything we do not understand may count decisevely against what we are able to trust.    If, on the other hand, we do know why we trust God, we will be able to trust him in situations where we do not understand what He is doing. (Too many Xian leaders teach as if the Christian had a window in the back of his head which allows for understanding at every foot fall)  For what God is doing may be ambiguous, but it will not be inherently contradictory!  It may be mystery to us, but mystery is only inscrutable; what would be insufferable is absurdity. And that my friend, was the conclusion of Nietzche both in theory and in practice.