Review of “Voices of Concern” . . . No. 8

THE WISDOM OF THE WORLD
JAMES D. BALES

The “unity in diversity” of Voices embraces Dr. Thomas P. Hardeman who still has an “aversion to traditional theism” (pp. 5, 93, 99). As he immersed himself in political science, literature and philosophy, his desire to save people diminished, until now philosophy, not Christ, is his master. The wisdom of the world, which believes that man does not need divine revelation, has crowded out Christ and His word (Lk. 8:7, 14; I Cor. 1:18. 2:16).

Hardeman maintains that “philosophy yields up its secrets only to men with time and will to contemplate.” (p. 91) First, what secrets has philosophy revealed to him? Second, what reasons does he have for believing that these secrets are true? What are his criteria? Third, what motivation does philosophy give one to live by these truths? Fourth, what truth is there in philosophy which is not in the Bible?

The World’s Self-Defeating Wisdom

Several attempts to contact Dr. Hardeman by mail failed; perhaps my letters never reached him. Thus, I have no express statement from him as to his exact philosophical position, but his questioning of and aversion to the whole of traditional theism, his attitude toward the supernatural, and his statement about humanism, indicate that he is some sort of naturalist.

God has so constructed reality that when man denies God, he denies his own rationality and humanity. First, if matter in motion is the sale reality, it is absurd to glorify the mind since all man’s thoughts are but motions of matter put in motion by Other non-rational motions of matter. To say “I think” is to describe a physical sensation just as when one says “I itch.” In such a case, there is no reason to believe that these physical sensations, physically produced, can be insights into reality. Second, if naturalism is true, although one could not know that it is, why should man search for truth? Consistent naturalists deny the reality of truth; and even if there is truth, why is man obligated to search for it? Third, most naturalists say that we ought to be intellectually honest, but since consistent naturalism embraces moral relativity, what is meant by honesty; and whence the obligation to be honest? Fourth, some affirm that all is relative; therefore, we ought to be tolerant of one another? Why? What proof is there that tolerance is preferable to intolerance? Fifth, some say that even if there is no God to serve, we can serve humanity. (a) For the Christian, service to God involves service to humanity. (b) The humanitarian impulse of the naturalist is not derived from, nor sustained, by his naturalism. (c) Why are we obligated to serve humanity? (d) Who is this humanity? If man is but matter in motion, and merely a short-lived animal, why should anyone be mindful of man?

The Fatal Blow

As far as I can discern, from what is expressed in his chapter, Dr. Hardeman says his faith was slain by a point pressed by his opponent in a debate on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. “Literate and skilled, this professor led me into an examination of the very concept of evidence for ‘supernatural’ events. My brethren wrote high praise of my efforts, but Sara and I questioned the basic presuppositions of my arguments.

“Having no definite criteria for determining the supernaturalness of historical events, how could I be so sure that a given event was supernatural? I wondered, and I wonder, despite the arguments of A. E. Taylor, C. S. Lewis, et alia.” (p. 89).

What shall we say to this? First, is this a sound argument, or is it just how Dr. Hardeman happened to vibrate as a result of motions made by another vibrating lump of matter—the professor. If it be said that Dr. Hardeman is not a materialist—and whether he is or not, I do not know—I reply: What definite criteria does he have for determining that materialism is not the truth about life? What definite criteria does he have to prove that there is any moral obligation and any moral law? What criteria does he have to prove that we ought to serve humanity? What proof does he have which shows humanity is of any value?

Second, if Dr. Hardeman states that he is not a materialist, what definite criteria is there for determining the reliability of his testimony? How would he prove that he is whatever he is?

Third, what proof does he have, what definite criteria, to establish the reality of any historical event?

Fourth, what is the definite criteria which Dr. Hardeman uses to prove the naturalness of any historical events; how can he be sure that a given event was natural? After he has stated his criteria, someone can always state that he was not there, so how does he know that a supernatural force was not at work? And even if he witnessed the event itself, how does he know that its cause was not supernatural. Although I do not know just what Dr. Hardeman will say, I assume that he would ultimately conclude that he proves the naturalness of the event by showing that it can be explained in terms of present day processes, which we call natural.

If, on the other hand, an event clearly cannot be explained in terms of present day ,natural processes, we are justified in concluding that the explanation is not natural, but supernatural. One would be justified in accepting such an explanation, especially when the event is not only inexplicable in terms of natural forces; but is also in opposition to what we know about natural forces. The universe, Christ, and the Bible, cannot be adequately explained in terms of present day, natural processes. Men who die, and are buried as was Jesus, do not come forth from the tomb. Natural processes result in the disintegration, not the resurrection, of the body. Christ was not held by the power of death; therefore, something above and beyond the natural was at work. His resurrection is not explicable in terms of the natural.

It may be replied that it would take supernatural testimony to establish the reality of a supernatural event. This is not so. What the apostles testified to was not some theory of the physical changes in the body of Christ. They did not have to explain how God could do it. What they testified to was as simple, basically, as my testifying that I saw a friend several days ago, and that I saw him again today. They testified that they had been with him and knew him; that he had been put to death and buried; and that a few days later they saw Him, walked with Him, talked with Him, ate with Him, and recognized the impact of that familiar and beloved personality. They had scientific evidence that He was alive. This was the evidence that came through the seeing of the eye, the hearing of the ear, the touch of the hand, and the impact of personality on personality.

In evaluating their testimony, there are three questions which we ask: First, were they in a position to know the truth concerning the matter about which they testified? Second, were they honest enough to tell the truth? Third, are the documents reliable? They meet these tests with flying colors; and the documents which enshrine their testimony meet the test that reliable documents must meet.

We shall take at least some of the very ways in which Dr. Hardeman seeks to discredit their testimony to the resurrection of Christ and discredit his own testimony when he says that he does not believe in Christ’s resurrection. We shall take at least some of the ways in which he discredits the documents, and show that we have no grounds for believing that Dr. Hardeman wrote his chapter in Voices of Concern. However, we would not have to do these things in order to show that we have sufficient reasons to believe in the testimony of those who saw the resurrected Christ.

Whence the Humanism?

Dr. Hardeman spoke of humanism which was “flowing from sources deep within me . . . “ (p. 88). He hopes that good people will get together and solve the pressing problems of man through the exercise of moral force, etc. (pp. 99-100). First, what does he mean by sources deep within him? Within the confines of his presuppositions, what can justify him in saying that there are sources deep within him or in anyone else? What criteria does he have to prove that such exist? So far as naturalism is concerned, all which flows within him are gastric juices, blood, and various other manifestations of living matter. Second, what is true humanism, and what criteria does he use to establish it in contrast with false humanism? In other words, as our first comment indicates, what is man? Communists maintain that Marxism-Leninism is true humanism. What criteria does Dr. Hardeman have to prove that they are wrong? If he cannot prove they are wrong, is there any objection which one ought to raise to their theory and practice of Communist humanism? Without God, man is just an animal and humanism is a form of animalism. Third, what does he mean by “good people” (p. 100), and what criteria does he use to prove that they are good people? How does he know that Stalin was not a good man, and that Mao and his likes are not good people? How does he know Hitler was not a good man? What is his standard of good? Where did he get it? What criteria establishes it? Is it upheld by, or undermined by, his philosophy of naturalism? If he is not a naturalist, why does he repudiate the super-natural?

Fourth, Dr. Hardeman’s humanitarian impulses came from his Biblical roots which he now severs in theory; although his humanitarianism is an effort to live by the sap of the tree of faith from which he has severed himself. It did not originate with his present world view, and it cannot be sustained by this world view. He speaks of their “obligation to society” (p.94), but whence this obligation? In the light of what criteria does he establish the obligation? What criteria can he use to establish the reality of a moral realm, moral law, and the reality of duty? He speaks of “doing the Lord’s work” in helping people (pp. 95-96). If there is no Lord, so how can their work be the Lord’s work? What is his criterion? He speaks of “experiencing a fulfillment of the old idealisms” (p. 96), but he does not show how he sustains it on the basis of his new faith. What is the criteria of his “idealisms”?

How does he prove it? He says that he does not have a felt need to do so, but that it will ultimately be proved. “I no longer feel the need to prove the rightness of these actions. Time, experience, and the judgment of God and men will do that.” (p. 96). Why ask us for proof of the resurrection? Could we not just asserr thar we are right; and that time, experience, and the judgment of God and man will prove it? What criteria, if one is going to more than assert, does he have to prove that these things will be thus proved? If one has no criteria to prove this, what is wrong with asserting that the opposite of his idealism is true, and that it will ultimately be proved? Does he think his case will be proved by a supernatural judgment of God? How can he affirm this, since he has rejected the supernatural events. Does he reject them in so far as the past, as set forth in the Bible, is concerned, but accept them for the future? How would he know that it was a judgment of God, and how would be know it approved what he does?

In the light of Hardeman’s naturalism—and some form of naturalism is evident from his aversion to traditional theism and his rejection of supernatural events in the past (p. 89)—how can he say that time will prove him right? If death ends all, time proves that the ultimate outcome is not changed regardless of whether one lived like Jesus and died an early death, or lived like Stalin and died in one’s old age after having killed millions. How can experience prove his position? Whose experience? Ecclesiastes shows that, viewed naturally, all is vanity; regardless of whether one seeks for meaning in wisdom, in mighty works, or in pleasure. It all comes to the same thing-death. How can the judgment of God prove Hardeman’s case? After repudiating God’s revelation in Christ, does Hardeman think that he will have some revelation from God which shows that a particular judgment is a judgment of God approving Hardeman’s work? On what philosophy has he fed that he should have an aversion to traditional theism, that he should reject the supernatural manifestations of God in history, and yet appeal to some future judgment of God as justifying the course Dr. Hardeman has taken? Besides, what evidences does he have for a supernatural Being, if he still holds to the professor’s position concerning supernatural events? Will the judgment of men prove his course? If so, which men? Millions of men will repudiate his course, so who is to say that the future judgment of men will sustain his course.

Without the light of divine revelation, Dr. Hardeman can have no assurance that life is anything but the “murmur of gnats in the gleam of a million, million suns.” If God has not spoken, who are we to care about the guttural sounds made by an animal known as man. Hardeman has laid the ax to the root of the tree, not only of Biblical supernaturalism, but also of morality and humanity. He may continue to live by the morality of a faith which he now denies, but those reared on his present faith will repudiate also the morality which ultimately is rooted in a supernatural world view.

Let me end on some agreements. First, I agree that it is possible for a young man to become proud because of his skill in debate and discussion. So can older men. Second, one ought not to look in contempt on others. Third, we should accept truth, regardless of who calls it to our attention.

May Dr. Hardeman come back to Him who is the way, the truth, and the life.—Harding College, Searcy, Ark.