I've been reading C.S. Lewis' "The Discarded Image", an introduction to Medieval and Renaissance literature. Now don't glaze over on me here... stay with me. Lewis does a wonderful job explaining the Medieval World View. They especially had a love for the written word...ANY written word. If something was written in a book, it was considered to be true. At the same time, they believed that ALL this disparate information must somehow fit coherently into one, complex and harmonious mental "Model of the Universe". Any apparent contradictions, therefore, must be harmonized.
In constructing a theory for such a "Model", a few basic rules became established:
1) It was necessary "to save the phenomena/appearance", which meant that a Scientific Theory must "save" or "preserve" the appearances, the phenomena, it deals with - in the sense of getting them all in, doing justice to them.
2) Occam's Law/Occam's Razor added a 2nd Rule - Any theory of the "Model" should be able to do so with the fewest possible assumptions. The simplest theory is the most likely. For example, reading Shakespeare we discover that some plays are not written as well as other plays. Two possible "theories" might arise to explain this. Either (a) the bad plays were all put in by later adapters, or (b) Shakespeare wrote them when he was not at his best. Both Theories "save the phenomena/appearance", but Occam's Law would make us choose the one with the fewest possible assumptions. We know that there really was a writer named Shakespeare and that writers are not always at their best. We must, therefore, provisionally accept the 2nd Theory. If we can explain the bad plays without the assumption of a later adapter, then that is the better theory. [By contrast, today the "newness" of a theory often carries intrinsic weight!]
3) The third point is that any Theory is just that, a theory- which COULD be replaced in the future by a better theory. So, on the highest level, then, any theory concerning the "Model" was recognized as provisional.
Why am I bothering to go into all this? Because I can't help but compare it to the modern World View. Lewis writes, "In our age...the ease with which a scientific theory assumes the dignity and rigidity of fact varies inversely with the individual's scientific education." Ouch! How true! [Ever listened to talk radio? Read about "science" on the Internet?]
Two of Lewis' points particularly strike me:
(1) In our age people easily mistake "theory" with "fact"... and do so rigidly! [Ever heard of the theory of evolution?]
(2) Those with the least scientific knowledge are often the most dogmatic concerning what is true. [Ever consider the inadmissibility of "experiential evidence"?] And I certainly wouldn't limit this phenomenon to the field of science! [Consider Bible interpretation!]
Lewis brings out one further point. "The mass media which have in our time created a popular scientism, a caricature of the true sciences, did not then exist. The ignorant were more aware of their ignorance then than now." Ouch! How true!
We've actually institutionalized the notion that all opinions are equally valid. The idea of an "informed opinion" is archaic. Some of you may recall my mentioning the HS girl who critiqued Homer on amazon.com. I kid you not...this young lady felt fully qualified to tell Homer how "The Illiad" could have been improved! She knew absolutely nothing about Bronze Age Greek culture, she knew absolutely nothing about the literary structure, and she had read the book ONCE ... but she felt completely qualified to offer her criticism. As the ancient Greeks would have said..."What hubris!"
And we thought we had advanced since the Middle Ages?! Observations? Comments?
7 comments:
One irritating thing I hear all the time is reporters being consulted as experts or news analysts. Like Cokie Roberts has expertise equivalent to a professor of middle eastern politics or something.
I think this type of thing is grown out of a culture where "nice" is more important than truth. To correct somone or show them their error is considered rude rather than being helpful.
I believe a major contributor has been the institutionalization of "ego". We now have a generation who, in many cases, have received a "dumbed-down" education [SAT scores are dropping? Just change your bottom line!], who at the same time have been repeatedly told how smart and wonderful they are.
So now you have a population who, for the most part, have little, if any, background in history or the sciences, never mind world affairs, economics and politics - and they can't follow a news program like MacNeil/Lehrer Report...so you offer increasingly shorter stories, more graphics, more visuals, more polished, smiling heads...and when they can't concentrate on the "experts" being interviewed, you start interviewing other reporters, making THEM the "experts".
Sadly, the bar has been lowered to accomodate the politically correct view saturating our media and brainwashing our youth - postmodern tolerance, which is INTOLERANT of TRUTH - GOD'S WORD.
John MacArthur wrote, "And the Christian message simply cannot be twisted to conform to the vicissitudes of worldly opinion. Biblical truth is fixed and constant, not subject to change or adaptation. Worldly opinion, on the other hand, is in constant flux. The various fads and philosophies that dominate the world change radically and regularly from generation to generation. The only thing that remains constant is the world's hatred of Christ and His gospel."
Our culture is intolerant of absolute truth because they beleive they can individually determine what is truth in their own eyes.
Oooh, Beth. Which book are you reading?
John MacArthur's "Why One Way? Defending an Exclusive Claim in an Inclusive World".
I know that MacArthur has been especially concerned about the allegations of Post Modern philosophy, and specifically of the Emerging Church Movement as it attempts to reform the church in light of a PM philosophy. We're beginning to hear these philosophical presuppositions voiced among church members.
Which is a good reminder to us all that books are a "supplement" to our study...NOT the source of our Truth. We need to be studying the Word MORE than we're reading books written by men. Otherwise we're in danger of forming our theology from men, instead of from God's revelation to us. You can't discern the truth/error of what you are reading unless you have a knowledge of what the Truth is. We have lost our discernment skills because we no longer spend most of our time studying the Truth. [The printing press was a mixed blessing!]
I'd also like to comment that Medieval thought also lacked discernment skills. They could NOT differentiate truth from falsehood. Instead they attempted to fit both together into one organized, coherent model of how the Universe worked. Which is how so much ancient Greek pagan thought became interwoven with Biblical truth. I'm certainly not promoting that!
I probably should also point out that Lewis lived in the Modern age, but one which no longer believed in its own philosophies either, thanks to WW1&2. Mankind WASN'T increasingly improving [evolutionary expectation] and education apparently WASN'T the answer to everything. Actually his generation would have been in transition. Not believing in Modernism, but not having yet constructed a new universal theory.
Post a Comment