The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

crhoades · #17 (**permalink**) 05-23-2006, 01:28 PM

I don't have time to interact on this thread but I thought I'd toss out a source that has been neglected so far. After doing a search on the word paradox* in the Works of Van Til on CD-rom I came up with 438 hits. Of course not all of these are Van Til's own words but his interaction with others. It is the latter that this article is. It is from 1934 and is entitled: Christianity - The Paradox of God. It is Van Til arguing against someone else's use of the word paradox as irrational. Oh, the irony. It is 18 pages and is included for download.

Here is an excerpt: (emphasis mine)

Quote:

Kantian Antinomies

The root of the whole matter, as far as the conception of paradox goes, lies, we believe, in this fact that Dr. Mackenzie has not clearly distinguished between the apparently contradictory and the really contradictory. Dr. Mackenzie, as we have pointed out, began his argument about the relation of human freedom to God´s absoluteness, from experience. This forced him to introduce chance or the irrational as an element in the total situation. This would also naturally lead him to think that the apparent contradictions between God´s absoluteness and human freedom are real contradictions. In fact, it was only because he thought of these apparent contradictions as real contradictions that he could introduce the concept of chance at all. If the concept of paradox should mean no more than the harmony of the apparent contradictory it would not help to bring together the discordant elements of his theology.

Now it is true that Dr. Mackenzie has entitled one of the chapters of his book, Paradox as Apparent Self-contradiction. Yet, under this innocent flag Dr. Mackenzie has brought in the Kantian concept of a separation between one field, the phenomenal, in which the law of contradiction holds good and another field, the noumenal, to which the law of contradiction does not apply. [Chris: If Van Til is cognizant of this in McKenzie, then we should give benefit of the doubt that he is not doing it himself.]

Immediately following his statement that "œperhaps the day may come also when the scientific view of natural selection an the New Testament doctrine of election of grace may be seen to be both sides of God´s activity, and not the horns of an inescapable dilemma," Dr. Mackenzie says: "œThe philosophy of Immanuel Kant gave the prestige of that great thinker´s name to the inevitableness of paradox or antimony in all our thinking" (p. 81). Then he adds a little further on: "œI am not here attempting to defend all the Kantian antimonies, nor the justification of Hegel´s correction-but antimonies are not antagonisms either in the knowledge of nature or in the realm of theology" (p. 81). Here it seems plain that though Dr. Mackenzie does not defend all the antimonies of Kant, he does accept the Kantian concept of antimony. Now Kant thought that as far as the understanding is concerned as good an argument can be produced for the proposition that the world has had no beginning in time. This illustrates Kant´s conception of antimony. As far as the field of knowledge or science was concerned Kant held that A and not-A, though contradictory to one another, could be proved by arguments in which no such contradiction is found. From this inescapable dilemma in the field of knowledge, Kant sought refuge in the "œnoumenal" realm in which we need not be concerned with the law of non-contradiction. It was, according to Kant, with the noumenal realm that religion deals. Accordingly, the phenomenal is an aspect of Reality as a whole, religion need not be seriously considered with the law of non-contradiction. In Reality as a whole these contradictions of the realm of knowledge may, after all, each state an aspect of the truth. Reality as a whole is analytic but also synthetic; it is fixed and yet the absolutely new somehow appears.

Over against this Kantian view, as it largely controls modern philosophy, Reformed theology has maintained that God is absolutely rational, so that nothing absolutely new can exist for Him. Accordingly when we face what seems to us to be antimonies, we do not seek refuge in the realm of the irrational where something absolutely new may emerge, with the result that both of our contradictory statements may yet be approximations to the truth. Reformed theology has never allowed that there is any sphere in which the law of non-contradiction does not operate. To do that would be to give up its conception of God who "œfrom all eternity did by the most wise and Holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain (s) whatsoever comes to pass." Thus we maintain that the world has had a beginning in time and we deny that it can, with an equal show of truth, be held that the world has not had a beginning in time. In short, Kantian thought denies whiled Reformed theology affirms that Christian theism is intellectually defensible.
Kantianism and Reformed thought may both say "œantimonies are not antagonisms." For Reformed thought that is true because, if taken in the Reformed sense, antimonies are only apparent contradictions which are resolved in God. On the other hand, if taken in the Kantian sense of real contradictions one of the "œantimonies" is true while the other is false. For Kantianism this phrase is true because in the totality of things the intellectual or phenomenal realm in which the antimonies operate is, after all, only one aspect of Reality as a whole. For Kantianism antinimies are not antagonisms because for it truth is relative; for Reformed thought antimonies are not antagonisms because for it truth is absolute. Kant´s position implies an ultimate Irrationalism while Reformed theology is based upon the conception of God as an absolute, self-conscious and therefore wholly rational being.
There can be no peace but only war between these two types of thought. One will look in vain for a clear distinction between these two lines of thought in the writings of Dr. Mackenzie. The main impression created is that he has sought to combine the Kantian-Kierkegaardian and the orthodox-Christian lines of thought, that he has fought to combine the ultimately rational and the ultimately irrational. That was my main criticism. I brought out something of the results of such an effort by pointing to things that lie on the surface. In the present article I have tried to show that the difficulty lies at the very roots of Dr. Mackenzie´s theology.

If I have time, I will collate a few more quotes of Van Til on paradox. Discuss away.