Critique of Pure Reason: Glossary

Some terms from the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant (Cambridge edition, 1998)

apodictic (or apodictive) - Clearly established, necessary. Apodictic (necessary) judgments are contrasted with problematic (possible) and assertoric (actual) judgments.

Kant: "As far as certainty is concerned, I have myself pronounced the judgment that in this kind of inquiry it is in no way allowed to hold opinions, and that anything that even looks like an hypothesis is a forbidden commodity...For every cognition that is supposed to be certain a priori proclaims that it wants to be held for absolutely necessary...which is to be the standard and thus even the example of all apodictic (philosophical) certainty" (p102)

My thought: What can we really know with absolute certainty? Math and science have a necessity to them, and Kant wants to capture what provides that necessity and apply it to metaphysics. The result will be destructive, not constructive. We cannot have mathematical certainty about the most important things in life.

apperception - A subject's consciousness of itself

Kant: "Any difficulty in this depends merely on the question how a subject can internally intuit itself; yet this difficulty is common to every theory. Consciousness of itself (appreception) is the simple representation of the I" (p189) 

My thought: Descartes said, "Cogito ergo sum". I think therefore I am. But there is a wonder in the reflexive nature of our thought. We are conscious of our own consciousness. Cogito quod cogito. Kant is challenging us to see how precise and reliable our self-perception is.

propaedeutic - preparatory or introductory teaching (http://en.wiktionary.org)

Kant: "We can regard a science of the mere estimation of pure reason, of its sources and boundaries, as the propaedeutic to the system of pure reason. Such a thing would not be a doctrine, but must be called only a critique of pure reason" (p149)

My thought: Kant realizes he can't actually say that much. The best he can hope for is to draw boundaries and show the finite capacity of man's understanding. We go this far and no further.

subreption - unfair representation through suppression or fraudulent concealment of facts (http://en.wiktionary.org)

Kant: "Yet this [transcendental] ideality [of time] is to be compared with the subreptions of sensation just as little as that of space is, because in that case one presupposes that the appearance itself, in which these predicates inhere, has objective reality, which is here entirely absent except insofar as it is merely empirical." (p182) 

My thought: We can only think of time as real in reference to our own perception and thinking. A succession of observations, either physical or imagined, creates the essence of time. Our daily observation of the world dulls us to the thought.

transcendental - thought concerning a priori concepts, not objects or sense perceptions 

Kant: "I call all cognition transcendental that is occupied not so much with objects but rather with our mode of cognition of objects insofar as this is to be possible a priori" (p133).

My thought: It's always wise to back up and consider where you are. The Greeks challenged us, "Know thyself." Paul commanded, "Examine yourselves." I find Kant's transcendental philosophy quite compatible with Christian theology because it puts man in his place as a finite creature. Kant is looking at the metaphysical Tower of Babel and says: tear it down.

Christian Ethics and the Very Flame of the Lord

The following is a discussion of my Christian ethical convictions on clean language, modest clothing and loving homosexuals - and their connection to the nature of God.

Clean language

Ephesians 5:4 says "Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving."

Foul language is childish. Young boys like to say "poop", and adults say "shit". Young boys giggle and blush when they hear about sex, and adults pepper their words with "fuck". Young boys complain about mom, and adults say another person is a "son of a bitch". Not much difference when you think about it.

Foul language is also blasphemous. God commands us to not take his name in vain. If I casually toss around God-damn this and God-damn that, I should not be surprised if God actually does damn something. And he may begin with my violation of his command to not toss around his name like that.

In the end, a person's language tells what he really believes. Beliefs matter, so words matter. Crude talk about sex and flippant talk about God reveal a person's worldview. The opposite is also true: you can usually quickly measure a person's character and intelligence by his vocabulary and grammar. The Bible tells us that our words should be filled with thanksgiving. We should be grateful, humble, kind people, and our words will show that we are.

Also, there are no words which are categorically off-limits to a Christian. If a word expresses the right meaning at the right time, then use it. If someone sitting on a couch all day can be properly motivated to get up and work by calling him a lazy ass, then it might be best to speak the truth with words that can be heard. If a movie has lots of swearing, but it uses it to capture something true about life, then enjoy it for what it is. All things are ours.

Other verses: Ephesians 4:29, Colossians 3:8, Matthew 12:34

Modest clothing

To be modest means to not be boastful or to call attention to oneself. In clothing, modesty typically means avoiding sexually suggestive clothing, and this is primarily a concern for women. God made man to be attracted to a woman's body. This is good and right, but it is a gift from our Creator to be used wisely. As a dad, I want my girls to value themselves and not give themselves away for cheap. Showing lots of leg, or low-cut tops, or see-through mid-riffs is an easy way of getting attention from guys - and usually the wrong attention from the wrong guys. Instead, by wearing beautiful clothes which show style and self-respect, they are more likely to attract the attention of young men who will see and value their character and thoughtfulness.

So, modesty is not about being a kill-joy, but about seeking better and lasting things over the quick and easy thrills of the world. 1 Timothy 2:9 says "Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness - with good works." We should interpret this thoughtfully, not simplistically. A Christian girl can wear gold and pearls, but it should be in moderation and not for attention-seeking. Instead, pay attention to what really matters.

Other verses: 1 Peter 3:1-6, 1 Timothy 4:1-5, Romans 13:11-14

Loving homosexuals

The Apostle Paul wrote "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost" (1 Timothy 1:15).

God's love extends to sinners, otherwise I would be lost. And it extends to the worst of sinners, otherwise I would be lost. If this is true, then God's love reaches out to homosexuals, and so should I.

Paul also wrote, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

It's also true that I tend to minimize sin. I like to talk about love and grace, but don't get the same joy talking about condemnation and wrath. But the Bible presents both: there is love and mercy, but only for the repentant; for the unrepentant, God will be an unrelenting judge.

In the last 10 years, homosexuality has been normalized in our culture. When I was a boy, it was there (as it always has been) but was rarely mentioned on TV or in the news. But now, not only is it normal to see it in pop culture, you are publicly shamed if you say anything negative about homosexuality. The world talks about tolerance, but they will settle for nothing less than approval. Historic Protestant churches have largely approved of homosexuality. I predict evangelical churches will be challenged and split over this issue within a few years. So the pressing issue for us is not loving homosexuals, but the authority of God's Word to define sexuality.

Strangely, I think this will give Christians a tremendous opportunity to show the love of God. The world wants to approve of homosexuality, but the average person has a natural aversion to it, which will lead him to say cruel and harsh things about homosexuals. In contrast, Christians cannot approve of homosexuality, but we know that each person is made in the image of God and is deserving of respect. We should love homosexuals.

Other verses: Romans 1:26-27, Galatians 5:16-24, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8

Wrapping it up

In each of these ethical concerns, the immediate issue is human sexuality and the ultimate issue is submission to God's authority. The sexual urge that drives our most passionate language and strongest attractions and family structures - where did it come from? Is it just our animal nature? If yes, then it boils down to atoms and physics and math. Find whatever pleasure you can, but it all adds up to nothing in the end.

The Bible says that human sexuality comes from the nature of God. It is strong because God is strong. Solomon wrote, "Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm, for love is as strong as death, jealousy is fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord" (Song of Solomon 8:6-7).

God made us and put his image into us. He made marriage between a man and a woman to reflect Christ and the church. He has also given us an instruction manual for all his work. I've learned that when I ignore instruction manuals, the toys usually end up broken. To get the most and best out of it, let's follow the instructions.

Critique of Pure Reason: Human Pride and Foolishness

In the Introduction to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant describes the foolish and blind ambition of man to make dogmatic assertions about things of which he has no experience. His antagonist is the philosopher of metaphysics with his abstruse proofs for the immortality of the soul, the freedom of the will, and the existence of God. Kant thinks these are true, but he denies they are attainable by man's reason. "I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (page 117, Cambridge edition, 1998).

Since then, modern man simple denies them.

And he claims Kant as one of the decisive turning points for making an absolute separation between faith and reason, then leaving faith in the dustbin.

I'm only a little ways into the Critique, but I see two foundational ideas from Kant that my age has missed: the foolishness of the educated, and the wisdom of the commoner.

About the metaphysicians Kant says: "Captivated by such a proof of the power of reason [from mathematics], the drive for expansion sees no bounds. The light dove, in free flight cutting through the air the resistance of which it feels, could get the idea that it could do even better in airless space. Likewise, Plato abandoned the world of the senses because it set such narrow limits for the understanding, and dared to go beyond it on the wings of the ideas, in the empty space of pure understanding. He did not notice that he made no headway by his efforts, for he had no resistance, no support, as it were, by which he could stiffen himself, and to which he could apply his powers in order to put his understanding into motion" (p140).

And in his Preface to the same edition, he compares the monopoly of the schools, with their dogmatic proofs, to the simple and obvious understanding of the average man who believes in the immortality of the soul "on that remarkable predisposition of our nature, noticeable in every human being, never to be capable of being satisfied by what is temporal...leading to the hope of a future life". Or on the freedom of the human by "the mere clear exposition of our duties". And finally on the existence of God by "the splendid order, beauty, and providence shown forth everywhere in nature leading to the faith in a wise and great author of the world."

Kant calls this practical reason. It is not mathematical and can't be reduced to equations. But it is real and it is reasonable. It is an approach to reality rooted in the humility of being a creature. We cannot directly perceive the immortal. It is beyond our human ability. But what we can perceive reliably leads us to true thoughts about what or who the immortal is.

Bill Nye "the Science Guy" gave an interview to the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/02/bill-nye-universe-exclusive-interview_n_5233555.html). Asked about the most compelling scientific mystery, he answered:

"The whole thing puts me in awe when you start talking about the Big Bang. But as Einstein said, perhaps the most remarkable thing about the universe is that we can understand it at all, that we can make any sense out of it, is really amazing. I mean we’re these animals running around on this planet and we can understand that. What is the nature of consciousness? What is the nature of your mind? What goes on that I have a mind? I’d say I have a mind. It seems like I have a mind. You know, I speak with dogs frequently. They don’t really talk, but I feel they’re communicating. I just don’t think that they’ve asked these questions. But still they have emotions--they’re happy, they’re sad, they’re tired, they’re energetic in ways like people, but I don’t think they’ve asked a lot of questions. I don’t think they do a lot of calculus, not formally anyway."

What a wonderful answer. I have another term for this: the image of God. I think his hesitation comes because he knows he's giving a theological answer to a supposedly scientific question. But it's a human question. The answer cannot be reduced to space and time and mathematics, but my perception and understanding of space and time and mathematics presupposes a "me" that is doing the perceiving and understanding. And in a world without faith, or without practical reason, there's not much of a "me".

With greater education and understanding, human pride puffs up and then confuses and forgets the most basic truths about our existence as creatures. I think this is what Kant has in mind by setting limits and bounds on the capability of pure reason, and yet we use his very arguments to prove that this life is all there is, man is essentially an animal, and there is no God.

The Good Old Hymnal

The evangelical church has struggled with its worship music for decades. Should we sing the old and great hymns that Christians have been singing for years, or should we sing contemporary songs with modern tunes and lyrics? The issue has largely been decided. Very few churches stick to just the old hymns. I'm pretty sure most evangelical churches don't even have hymnals. And for churches offering two styles, often in two services, it's just a matter of time before the old guard dies off.

I'm 43 right now. I grew up on hymns. I've also sung and played and enjoyed plenty of contemporary choruses over the years. But, given the choice, I'll go Watts over Tomlin. But I also prefer a Chopin etude over Kanye West, and I'm much more likely to watch Columbo than CSI (is that show popular still?) I think I'm already one foot into the dinosaur camp.

There is the reformed crowd, hunkered down with the regulative principle and liturgy. But even that has its gradations: only chanted Psalms with no instrumentation, or metrical Psalms with simple instrumentation, or metrical Psalms plus traditional hymns like A Mighty Fortress, or maybe A Mighty Fortress updated to modern musical tastes like a steady 4/4 beat. And the variations stretch all the way to the contemporary reformed music of Sovereign Grace Ministries.

I don't think the challenge for evangelicals is traditional vs. contemporary. I don't think it's a choice of hymns or choruses. I suspect at the center of the problem is simply the loss of the hymnal. We have rushed to the digital age with hardly a thought of the consequences. If we can project some lyrics from a laptop, isn't that better than being stuck with the old and fraying hymnal we can't afford to update? Clearly there are advantages to the digital age, but I think the dangers are easily overlooked.

A central feature and flaw of contemporary music is that it is consumed. It's easy to change, so we do change. We no longer have a tradition of songs which shape our faith and form our community. Instead, each generation has its own music: the youth sing a totally different set of songs than the adults, and their kids will surely sing another. And because the music is changed quickly and easily, the criteria for that change are light. Hardly any effort at all. It's easy to pick a song because it has an appealing sound, or has lyrics which really speak to us, or is the newest release from a publishing group or worship band we really like. The consequences are that our worship music must constantly change to follow the popular sound, the lyrics are increasingly experience focused, and Christian music corporations report quarterly profits and losses on the NYSE. We consume our worship music like we consume just about everything else in this digital age.

My proposal is for the evangelical church to create a modern hymnal. Not a bound book of old songs, but a well-defined list of songs that communicate our faith and form a church tradition. Put it on the web site or Power Point projector, but make sure "it" is actually defined. The list should include traditional and contemporary music. It can change over time, but do not let it change lightly. Musicians will play a key role in the formation of the hymnal, but it cannot be left only to them. Give our hymnal the full attention and scrutiny of the pastorate, including our best theologians. It doesn't mean you can't ever sing outside the hymnal, but choose to make it the exception. I'm calling for a robust theology of music and its role in the church, embodied in a collection of songs.

Colossians 3:16 says "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." This is not a command to only sing old hymns. But it is clear teaching that the Word of Christ ought to be planted deep within us through the songs we sing with each other and to each other. What do our songs teach us about our faith? What do they say we believe? Or how we should live? Let's sing it. It will help to shape us as Scripture moves in and through our minds and hearts.

Every age group in the church should learn the new hymnal: children, youth, adults and seniors. We sing it together. And learning includes not just the words but the music. Just like everyone can learn to read, everyone can learn to make music. Don't leave musicianship for just the few on stage. To achieve this vision of a broad musical literacy requires notes on the page, not just words on the screen. Do you want to learn how to play the guitar or piano or trumpet? Here's our hymnal; let's work on it together!

I also believe that if our singing was given the full weight and consideration it deserves, we will also see the need for a broader, richer musicality. We can't always sing happy, upbeat music. We need a broader palette. Our music can help us feel and truly believe the weight of our sinful condition and the mournful condition of the world. But these musical considerations will naturally follow from a proper attention to the Word of Christ dwelling richly in our lyrics.

Finally, what about music as outreach? What will be welcoming and attractive to the outside world to come in and hear the gospel? Whatever it is, I don't think a hip musical style is the answer. Rather, let's be concerned about what kind of people our music is forming us to be, and trust that God will use the living witness of a people who are joyful in God, mournful over their sin, loving towards each other, and thoughtful in their faith and living.

Moneyball

Michael Lewis's book Moneyball tells the story of how the Oakland A's outperformed most other baseball teams year after year with one of the lowest payrolls in the game. It's a lively narrative with characters like Billy Beane, a under-performing ball player turned over-performing general manager, and Bill James, a nightwatchman with a quirky interest in baseball stats who rejected conventional wisdom and built a new discipline called Sabermetrics.

Conventional wisdom says that a great baseball player has a 0.300 batting average, knocks in 100 RBI's and hits for 30 home runs. But according to James the most important number on the field is three: that's how many outs you can get until the inning is over. And until the inning is over, you can score. So the most important thing when you come to the plate is to not cause an out. From that perspective, batting average has a glaring hole: it doesn't count walks. And why not? Because early baseball statisticians, like Henry Chadwick back in the 1850's, regarded the walk as a pitcher's mistake, not a batter's skill. But he was wrong. That mistake has led thousands of baseball experts to miscalculate a batter's value, and that miscalculation creates an opportunity.

James and Beane and others re-examine all manner of strategies and statistics: sac-bunts and stolen basebases (aka small ball) are statistically not worth it, RBI's are a poor measure of performance compared to slugging percentage, good fielding isn't best measured by errors but by all fielding chances, and that maybe fielding hardly needs to be measured because good batting far outweighs bad fielding. All of this in an effort to find under-valued players and build a low-budget team that could win.

It's the story of how the information age, with the ability to gather and grind all kinds of stats, can overturn time-honored beliefs based on appearances and feelings, not on cold hard reality. And Lewis points to how this is much bigger than baseball. After reviewing James's work he says, "There was but one question he left unasked, and it vibrated between his lines: if gross miscalculations of a person's value could occur on a baseball field, before a live audience of thirty thousand, and a television audience of millions more, what did that say about the measurement of performance in other lines of work? If professional baseball players could be over- or under-valued, who couldn't?" (page 72)

Well, software engineers for sure. In my 20+ years of churning out code, I've seen countless projects go poof, tens of thousands of lines of code that will never ship, and all kinds of people trying to be productive - or managers hoping they are productive - but without any way of knowing how to measure it. We are working with deterministic computational machines, yet the best we can do is estimate and hope that what we're attempting is worth it. It's a sobering exposure of our ignorance.

But it creates opportunity. If something appears to be guesswork, you can step back, find some metrics, and possibly get a new and better view. If you can see where everyone else is miscalculating, you can jump in and make something better. Cold hard reality has a wonderful quality to it: it's real. You can count on it. Once you see it rightly, you can do something wonderful with it. So the only thing that turns out to be truly cold and hard is just our ignorance and stubbornness.

PS. No, I've not seen the movie. People tell me it's great. Brad Pitt and all that. Maybe someday.

Teaching the Whole Vocabulary of God

In Acts 20:27, Paul told the Ephesians that he did not shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God to them. He was not selective. He was faithful to pass on all that had been delivered to him.

Today, the idea of teaching the whole counsel of God includes teaching through every book of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and teaching all the doctrines or teachings of the Bible without avoiding what our modern world finds offensive or uncomfortable or just irrelevant. It is that same faithfulness to pass on all that God has delivered to us in his Word.

Evangelicals are known for loving the Word and for submitting to its authority. We are less known for "teaching the whole counsel of God" because that involves a doctrinal thoroughness we fear may choke out the desire for evangelism and practical Christian living. But it also seems that we evangelicals, even though we love the Word of God, are losing our love for the words of God. We find ourselves saying that words like sanctification, justification, incarnation, predestination, or atonement are "big words" which require unappealing intellectual discussions. But these are words in our Bible!

Furthermore we often replace the vocabulary of the Bible with the vocabulary of the world. Instead of loving one another, we talk about cultivating personal relationships. Instead of avoiding fornication, we talk about abstaining from premarital sex. Instead of pursuing righteousness, we talk about promoting family values. Maybe the world can recognize these secular terms a little easier, but do they really communicate the same truths? And does anyone know what family values are?

We still have a Bible-infused culture because we are still the People of the Book. Whatever shift is going on, it is not complete. But it is real, and it seems to be gaining momentum.

To turn the tide, we need to teach the whole vocabulary of God. There is no word in the Bible that is too big. Each one can be understood. And should be understood. If we hit a word or phrase or teaching we don't get, we should aspire to learn it. We have dictionaries. We have schools. We have the Internet. They are all God-given tools. The reformation doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture - that Scripture is clear and can be understood - presumes that God's people care enough to use the tools he has given them to understand it.

We are wrong to think that advanced learning is all about knowing obscure things that aren't useful. It's the opposite: greater learning is needed so that we can be sure to know the things that are most important. The wise man can discern the times; the ignorant man just goes with the flow.

Let's love the Word of God as well as the words of God and get busy understanding what they are. The world is consumed with Netflix-streaming iPads: let's be consumed with God's Word, believing that it will enable us to live as a testimony of God's grace and love to those around us.

Jesus wasn't popular

Think of all the effort we spent in our teenage years thinking about popularity. Who was cool? What should I wear? Who are my friends? Even if you weren't popular (thinking of myself here), it was on your mind, shaping your thinking. And what was that popularity we craved? An odd mix of following the world and hoping that others follow you. It's trying to be like everybody else so that everyone else will want to be like you.

Maybe I'm over that now. But probably not. My guess is it's been morphed into a more subtle, more adult form. The desire for worldly approval is rooted deep in human nature.

I was reading Luke chapter 4 and it struck me: Jesus wasn't popular. After an initial tour of preaching and healing, he returns home. At the local synagogue he reads a passage in Isaiah and takes a seat among family and friends. Then he makes an audacious claim that this prophecy, and by extension countless others, are fulfilled "today" and "in your hearing."

And what's the reception? They like his style. A smart, articulate young man. But just a man. Jesus is ordinary. "Is not this Joseph's son?" This is not the conquering king we're ready to follow. We don't believe you. And we don't want you and your type around.

How does Jesus respond? Jesus doesn't try to assuage them or give them a few more points to establish his legitimacy. He confronts. He challenges their arrogant presumption of being in God's favor just because of their lineage. And for that he's run out of town and nearly flung off a cliff.

This must be because Jesus was supremely confident of who he was and because he was laser focused on his mission. He would preach and teach for a season, then he would go to the cross. And after his resurrection, he would establish a church that would go out into the world. He saw past momentary problems to the grand view of God's kingdom.

And Jesus calls us to do likewise. So we probably need to go about it a little like him: with enough confidence and purpose to look beyond the approval of the world. Keeping our eyes on the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of man. It may make a little more brash, a little more tell-it-like-it-is, a little less appealing to those around us. But we can cultivate an eager expectation of hearing "Well done, my good and faithful servant", which is all the approval we'll ever need.