Escape from Reason

Rating:
Summary: Is God Personal?
Review: "Escape from Reason" is a clear and straightforward look at modern thought and reason or the lack thereof. It is a powerful argument for the validity of christian ideas. Schafer's arguments are based on the existence of a personal God. If you doubt that God cares then you remove the foundation on which the book is based. Whether or not you agree with Scheafer the book is excellent reading.

Rating:
Summary: A prescient work
Review: A penetrating analysis of trends in modern thought. We now realize Schaeffer was writing about Postmodernism -- as a Christian well ahead of his time. This is truly classic.

--The Discerning Reader (@zShops)

Rating:
Summary: A prescient work
Review: A penetrating analysis of trends in modern thought. We now realize Schaeffer was writing about Postmodernism -- as a Christian well ahead of his time. This is truly classic.

--The Discerning Reader (@zShops)

Rating:
Summary: Schaeffer diagnoses modern-day ills and prescribes cure
Review: Do you value liberty, reason, science, individualism and progress? If so, read this short book by Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer to learn why these and other western values are hanging in the balance today. Schaeffer offers an explanation of the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment that is in agreement with the traditional view of history that our most cherished western values are fruits of our Judeo-Christian tradition. This view has been promoted by such thinkers as Burke, Tocqueville and Acton. An excellent modern defense is given by M. Stanton Evans in his book The Theme is Freedom. Schaeffer's treatment is philosophically deep and historically broad, although the book's short length severely limits consideration of detail.

Schaeffer sees the true beginning of the humanistic Renaissance in the work of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas' dualistic Grace/Nature scheme was useful in many ways, but its critical flaw was in failing to recognize man's fallen intellect along with his fallen will. Aquinas saw man's intellect as essentially undamaged by the Fall. This had the unfortunate consequence of setting up man's intellect as autonomous and independent.

Aquinas adapted parts of Greek philosophy to Christianity, perhaps most importantly (and with the most negative consequences) the dualistic view of man and world as represented by the Grace/Nature split. As Schaeffer stresses, the main danger of a dualistic scheme is that, eventually, the lower sphere "eats up" the upper sphere. Another way to say the same thing is, once the lower sphere is given "autonomy," it tends to deny the existence or importance of whatever is in the upper sphere in support of its own autonomy.

Schaeffer explains how the Grace/Nature dualism eventually became the Freedom/Nature, then the Faith/Rationality split. He introduces his interesting idea of the Line of Despair, which began in philosophy with Hegelian relativism. Kierkegaard was the first major figure after this line. The line of despair is the point in history at which philosophers (and others) gave up on the age-old hope of a unified (i.e. not dualistic) answer for knowledge and life.

This new despairing way of thinking spread in 3 ways; geographically, from Germany outward to Europe, England and finally much later to America. Then by classes, from the intellectuals to the workers via the mass media (the middle classes were largely unaffected and remained a product of the Reformation, thankfully for stability, but this is why the middle class didn't understand its own children). Finally, it spread by disciplines; philosophy (Hegel), art (post-impressionists), music (Debussy), general culture (early T S Eliot)...then lastly theology (Barth).

Once this way of thinking set in, Schaeffer explains the need for "the leap," promoted by both secular and religious existentialists. On the secular side, Sartre located this leap in "authenticating oneself by an act of the will," Jaspers spoke of the need for the "final experience" and Heidegger talked of 'angst,' the vague sense of dread resulting from the separation of hope from the rational 'downstairs.' On the religious side, we have Barth preaching the lack of any interchange between the upper and lower spheres, using the higher criticism to debunk parts of the Bible, but saying we should believe it anyway. "'Religious truth' is separated from the historical truth of the Scriptures. Thus there is no place for reason and no point of verification. This constitutes the leap in religious terms. Aquinas opened the door to an independent man downstairs, a natural theology and a philosophy which were both autnomous from the Scriptures. This has led, in secular thinking, to the necessity of finally placing all hope in a non-rational upstairs" (p. 53, thus the book's title). This is in contrast to the biblical and Reformation message that even though man is fallen, he can and must search the scriptures to find the verifiable truth. Schaeffer devotes alot of space in his book to illustrating the many ways modern men have taken this "leap," assuming there is no rational way upstairs.

Schaeffer ends with a call to reject dualism and return to the reformation view of the scriptures, which is that God has spoken truth not only about Himself, but about the cosmos and history (p. 83). In order to do this, man must give up rationalism (i.e. autonomous reason), but by doing so he can retrieve rationality. "Modern man longs for a different answer than the answer of his damnation. He did not accept the Line of Despair and the dichotomy because he wanted to. He accepted it because, on the basis of the natural development of his rationalistic presuppositions, he had to. He may talk bravely at times, but in the end it is despair" (p. 82). No area of life can be autonomous of what God has said, since this will inevitably lead to the destruction of all value (including God, freedom and man). By placing all human activity within the framework of what God has told us, "it gives us the form inside which, being finite, freedom is possible" (p. 84).

God created man as significant, and he still is, even in his fallen and lost state. He is not a machine, plant or animal. He continues to bear the marks of "mannishness" (p. 89): love, rationality, longing for significance, fear of non-being, and so on. He will never be nothing.

The author emphasizes the existence of certain unchanging facts, which are true regardless of the shifting tides of man's thoughts. He challenges Christians to understand these tides and speak the unchanging truth in a way that can be understood in the midst of them.

Rating:
Summary: Schaeffer evidently didn't read primary sources
Review: First, I have to express appreciation for Schaeffer. When I was in high school, I read through all of his books with great interest and avidity. He (along with C. S. Lewis) was a great example to me that you could be a Christian and still have a brain. I thought. Unfortunately, his books led to actually read the individuals he discussed. I went on to attend Yale University and the University of Chicago, studying theology and philosophy at both places. At Yale I met several Christian grad students who, like me, initially became interested in philosophy through reading Schaeffer. Every single one of us was grateful to Schaeffer. Every single one of us agreed: Schaeffer probably never read any of the people he discusses.

If you have just a little background in philosophy or the history of theology, and you look carefully through the footnotes of any of Schaeffer's books, it becomes fairly obvious that his reading was restricted almost entirely to secondary sources. He didn't read Aquinas so much as books about Aquinas. He seems to have been especially indebted to books by Dutch Reformed scholars. Most of his discussions of the great figures in the history of the church are travesties of their actual thought.

An example: Kierkegaard. Most of my graduate work both at Yale and Chicago was on Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard is a widely misunderstood scholar, but virtually everyone who has studied his work at any length will acknowledge that he was not a theological innovator, that he in no sense was trying to undermine Christian faith, and that he was utterly orthodox in his thought. It is impossible to find a single orthodox Christian doctrine that Kierkegaard attacks. In no sense is Kierkegaard an opponent of Christianity. Being as generous as possible, I think the most I can say is that Kierkegaard was a puzzlement to Schaeffer. The tragedy is that there are a very large number of excellent scholars, even Dutch Reformed scholars, who could have helped Schaeffer in his misunderstandings.

We can contrast this with C. S. Lewis. Lewis was not perfect as a thinker, but Lewis at least read the people he discusses. Had Lewis ever read Schaeffer, he would have been angered and disgusted at Schaeffer persistent misreadings of people like Aquinas (who I would also disagree with, but for very, very different reasons). Lewis was a perceptive and penetrating reader, and to discuss at length anyone without having studied their work at length would have been anathema to him.

Folks, Schaeffer's understanding of philosophy is not even up to the level of a good undergraduate. I am grateful to Schaeffer for having introduced me to the world of philosophical thought. Hopefully others go on to read the figures he discusses. If so, they also will see that Schaeffer is guilty of profoundly misrepresenting their thought. But I profoundly regret that others do not go to read any of the figures that he critiques. I regret this. I regret it as a Christian, and I regret it as a philosophy.

I especially regret it as a Christian because Christ and the Christian faith is not served by the distortion of the truth.

Rating:
Summary: Schaeffer filled a void in the 80's, but not anymore
Review: Francis Schaeffer's books filled a huge vacuum in evangelical thought. In the 1980's, Schaeffer broke new ground by giving Christian fundamentalism an intellectual voice that it otherwise did not have at the time. For thoughtful Christians, Schaeffer was like a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, Schaeffer's rationalism only creates more confusion about the nature of Christian truth. He correctly talks about the "line of despair" in Western culture, but he draws it in the wrong place. He tends to demonize Kierkegaard in a way that is less than helpful. He shows a complete misunderstanding of Karl Barth -- a burden that Schaeffer passed onto evangelicalism in a way that continues to keep many evangelicals from appreciating Barth's radically orthodox Christological insight for a postmodern age. The best I can say about Schaeffer, for which I am truly thankful, is that he opened up the door for a new generation of Christian thinkers who can engage the challenges of contemporary thought in a more accurate, compelling and compassionate way. Schaeffer was just about all you could read 20 years ago that was intellectually and evangelically insightful. I'm just thankful that there is better stuff available now.

Rating:
Summary: Escape From Reason should be called Escape From Reality...
Review: Schaeffer's work, Escape From Reason, leaves much to be desired in the way of 'penetrating' thought. Quite honestly, he doesn't leave room for thought of any kind.
This book reads like the Christian version of "Final Exit," reeking of the nihilistic determinism of death, though in the first half of the book, he blames everybody and everything for the "theological shift," he claims, that has occurred.
Countless times, (I gave up trying to count them all), he parlays that knowledge is by revelation ONLY, that reason is the cause for all of man's problems and difficulties; a conclusion which is patently false, because as the Bible states, sin is the cause of all of man's problems.
He engages in a fallacial logical argument, where he negates at predicate twice to call it identity. For instance, instead of A is A as identity... He says that A is NOT Non-A. The statement A-> ~(~A) is false when using quantitative reasoning, something to which Schaeffer objects.
As a Christian, I was outright offended by the statement he makes, that unless you have the content of the meaning of the name of Christ that the people of the Reformation had, then Christ's name is meaningless, or so says Schaeffer.
I also found that many questions I had while reading this were not answered, and some altogether avoided:

If knowledge (wisdom, intelligence) is only gained by revelation, and only the select few are entitled to that revelation, should the rest of us remain ignorant? Schaeffer would say yes.

If reason is so bad for man, why is anti-reason not the answer either?

He goes through the line, Nature is bad, the principle of mechanics is bad, humanism is bad, freedom is bad, which would lead to the conclusion that intelligence is bad.

He asks the question, "How can unity exist when differences in thinking exist," to which I initially and facetiously replied "Marriage."

In his analysis of the Renaissance, he faults Thomas Aquinas for what he believes is the introduction of "humanism" into the doctrines of the church. Then he faults Leonardo da Vinci for Neo-platonist tendencies in Leo's works. "Curse those inventions of Leo's mind," Schaeffer seems to say. The list could go on and on, but it occurs to me that the only theophilologer to which Schaeffer completely defends is Immanuel Kant, whose whole premise was that reason should be completely abandoned for man to survive, and then so what if he doesn't.

So what Schaeffer really believes is that we should abdicate our minds, that things like this review have to be knowledge anomalies; that Christians are designed to be dumb and solfidious, (Justification by Faith Alone). Even when he clings to the existentialism of Karl Barth, Jean-Paul Sartre, (and Camus), he is forced to admit that his theory needs help from humanism, or else mankind has no redeeming value to himself or to God, (determinism, or in Christian circles, nihilistic pre-destination). It reminded me of the song, "Gloom, Despair, and Agony on Me."

Perhaps he should have read James 2:18, "I have faith and you have works; show me your faith, and I will show you my faith by my works." Unfortunately for Schaeffer, works would require that man know how to do things, a concept called intelligence and learning.

This is ultimately a terrible book, offering no new thoughts or solutions, (how could he? the solutions have to be THOUGHT out.) to the continuing predicament in Christianity.

Rating:
Summary: The prophet of the 20th Century speaks
Review: This is a rather small book. Including the index, it has only 96 pages. But the contents of 'Escape From Reason' delivered on its claim as a penetrating analysis of trends in modern thought.

Francis A. Schaeffer had the insight to see into the near future by analyzing popular thought and showing that by bringing them to their logical conclusions, they usher in an era of chaos and moral irresponsibility. He demonstrated how the escapism of modernism and post-modernism only leads to absurdity and madness. The only way Schaeffer saw that anyone can transcend the absurd is the belief in a personal God who loves, expressing this love in God's Son Jesus. Good advice from a legendary saint.

I recommend this book to the student of philosophy, history, apologetics, and any Christian who wants to see a clear and well thought out discourse of Christian thought.

Rating:
Summary: The prophet of the 20th Century speaks
Review: This is a rather small book. Including the index, it has only 96 pages. But the contents of 'Escape From Reason' delivered on its claim as a penetrating analysis of trends in modern thought.

Francis A. Schaeffer had the insight to see into the near future by analyzing popular thought and showing that by bringing them to their logical conclusions, they usher in an era of chaos and moral irresponsibility. He demonstrated how the escapism of modernism and post-modernism only leads to absurdity and madness. The only way Schaeffer saw that anyone can transcend the absurd is the belief in a personal God who loves, expressing this love in God's Son Jesus. Good advice from a legendary saint.

I recommend this book to the student of philosophy, history, apologetics, and any Christian who wants to see a clear and well thought out discourse of Christian thought.

Rating:
Summary: Highly Literate Sophomorism
Review: This is a well written but ultimately sophomoric disquisition on the concept that if you don't have faith in the supernatural, you have no reason for hope.

Many scientists and science writers, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, have shown by example that religion and rationality need not be foes. It appears that, in contrast, Schaeffer in this book champions not religion or spirituality, but authoritarianism. People who think that religion is necessarily authoritarian may find that this book re-inforces their beliefs; it's up to you to decide whether that is a good thing.