TheDiddleyMan

Have any of you atheists read any of his works like "He is there and he is not silent" or "The God Who Is There"? Any thoughts?

Kevin

Zenaphobe

I am an agnostic, if that distinction makes any difference.

I have Schaeffers works in 5 volumes, and at one point had read through most of them.

If memory serves me correctly, most of his writings center on presupositionalism, which I haven't the ability to critique on a philosophical level.

I also think he was an inerrancy advocate, but I dont remember for certain.

It seems that his writings were good at bolstering my once held beliefs, but when they began to give way, he didnt seem so pursuasive any more.

Wyrdsmyth

I read The God Who Is There.

Schaeffer writes:

"Humanism... is the system whereby men and women, beginning absolutely by themselves, try rationally to build out from themselves, having only Man as their integration point, to find all knowledge, meaning and value."

This concept of humanism, and what it gets contrasted with, is central to the theme of Schaeffer’s book. He tells us that moving below the “line of despair” is to give up on humanism as a knowledge-building endeavor, when we realize it cannot deliver this unity. The metaphor used here for what we are all supposedly after is an all-encompasing circle that can encapsulate, embrace, and unify all knowledge, meaning and value (pp. 29-30).

The alternative Schaeffer offers is that humans can only achieve this unity by reaching outside of themselves, by structuring their system of knowledge on something not originating in Man. Of course Schaeffer means God, specifically the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Schaeffer wants to show that when we (humanity) don’t do this, we’re doomed to failure, and ultimately, despair. He gives several historical examples to support this thesis, taken from philosophy, art, music, and the general culture. His conclusion? All purely humanistic endeavors towards unity end in failure and despair... disintigration, chaos, meaninglessness, oblivion and —- if not always in the physical sense, at least the spiritual sense -- suicide. According to Schaeffer, these humanistic endeavors fail, not because their goal of unity is inherently unattainable, but precisely because they are humanistic endeavors —- secular, worldly, finite.

My reply: What knowledge, meaning or value that humanity has does not come from humanity? How can we “reach outside of ourselves” to structure our system of knowledge on something not originating in man? Obviously, to Schaeffer the answer is God. But my reply -- the old, old reply, is: How do you know the concept of God did not originate in man also, just like all other concepts? How can you validate that some concept or meaning or structure of knowledge comes from “outside” of man?

To many agnostics and atheists, part of growing up is accepting that there will always be unknowns. Does this breed “despair,” as Schaeffer claims? No. Hope doesn’t have to rely on the existence of some Ultimate Thing, a Prime Mover, or a God, or even an afterlife. People have to find their own meaning in life, which is a lot harder than being told by others what is meaningful. It is much more difficult to think for yourself than to have others think for you. To Schaeffer, this is metaphoricallly “crossing out all the circles” and realizing from the purely human origin point, that chasing after an all-encompassing unity is chasing a transcendental illusion—a mirage we couldn’t help but pursue. Sounds like a pretty good description of theists chasing after god, to me.

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

bgponder

Well done, Wyrd. You ought to be a critic. It kind of makes me want to read the books just to see what it is I don't agree with.

Peace, cornbread Barry

Wyrdsmyth

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed my comments.

sidewinder

I read "The God Who Is There" and I thought it was a good read, better than most Christian apologetics. Yet, as Wyrd has already mentioned, I kept thinking the same thing, that the idea of Gods have always come from man. So, what he's actually saying is that man should reach out and embrace a predefined belief system, one that has been defined by those who came before us. In his case, he's promoting the Christian belief system which includes a transcendant God. He's saying that man is not capable of building his own system of beliefs and values, or that man will fail and fall into despair, if he trys to build his own system.