Philosophy, to most, seems to belong to the posh intellectualisms of eccentric librarians and their wondering orations. Of no more immediate importance than what is the spring fashion for any given year. People often think of philosophy as the pointless splitting of words into irrelevant constructs that have no basis except in the imagination of its authors. And in some sense, this definition is true. In some estimations philosophers have seemed the abusers of reason. Where truth appears not to be the goal but rather an irrelevance. What philosophers have often offered us is a mere cleverness of words, like a court Jester, recklessly leaping between wit and abandon.

Yet philosophy is for us of the most critical importance. By it we define our world and choose our course in life. Out of philosophy emerges the issues of our hearts. Declaring our judgments while also pointing to the standard which we have chosen for our selves. Though our choices are not always born of a cognitive imperative, their consequences are in no way less arresting. Namely, we do not aways intend the results of our actions. Yet even so, consequence will arise with or without our approval.

Philosophy is the hand maid of our cognitive process. Its issues are manifold and is often allied with our motivations. And while it will send its roots into our subconscious mind, its attributes are available for us to choose and form. Its realities are very much a waking construct. By reason we may grapple with its implications. It is inevitable that we will aligned our selves with one premise or another. That we will gravitate to one believe system or another. Whether as a result of the leading of our social environment or by an effort of our own will. Philosophy will find us. And we will be found having represented the philosophical implications to which we have aligned.

We can not live without a world view by which to inform our direction. An individuals world view certainly draws from many influences. Our philosophical dispositions, no doubt, bare up the sort of view of life with which one becomes accustomed. And though this relationship between philosophy and experience seems organic and of natural consequence, philosophy can be the starting point for madness and human darkness. Undeniably, many philosophical constructs have ended in death and destruction for their purveyors. A malicious philosophical system becomes the vehicle for violence to manifest in the real world. The consequence of ideologies and systems of belief billow behind men as a wake. We call this history.

Indeed, philosophers seek to make sense of experience. Philosophers seek to discover the language of reality. Those parameters of existence which buffet and shape our lives. The schools of thought which have emerged in the fields of philosophic inquiry are varied and divided. Thus earning for it self the reputation of obscurity and uncertain proofs. It seems strange, when so many other fields of inquiry; mathematics, physics, medicine, engineering, the sciences, etc. have secured sound and trusted storehouses of knowledge, having established a basis of agreement by which their fields are founded. While philosophy has for the most part remained a divided house.

This is true because mathematics, physics, medicine, etc. are realized to be objective certainties. They are observed to have their basis in reality. Philosophy, on the other hand, seems to be the pass time of whimsy. A field of inquiry wroth with opinion and disagreement. Certainly not the established keep of objective truth. And yet the element in question seems to be not philosophy in and of it self. As though the credibility of philosophy as a worthy subject were in doubt. But rather, the term in question is objectivity. The presence or lack there of.

Objectivity implies that actual reality as opposed to thought, superstitions, feelings. It denotes the external, observable reality. Its terms have not always been born of clean, unobstructed fact. But as is the case with many observations, objectivity has been subject to interpretation. That is to say, the interpretation of the observer upon that which is observed. That which the observer believes is being seen or perceived. Or rather, the observers interpretation or understanding of the world in which he/she perceives. Needless to say, objectivity seeks to know what is knowable. What has its basis in factual, evident, sober reality. Certainly the observers sense of life or world view has an impact on what is coined objective. An observers world view will invariably be accompanied by the observers preconceived notions.

Objectivity dose not arise from preconceived notions. One can not already have an answer in mind and then go looking for the sort of questions which will arrive at the intended outcome. Certainly people will have their own orientations from which they view life. Objectivity requires not an inward attention but rather an outward attention. It, there for, may be necessary to let go of some preconceived notions. From this perspective an objective observer must have a flexible sense of life. His/her world view must be willing to be impacted by what is observed. Accentually, ones world view must be willing to grow and change as what is evident demands our attention.

The relationship between the observer and the objective reality is not that of a camera and its subject matter. For mankind, objectivity is not simply a matter of mechanically perceiving information and then integrating it. What is in the middle of this circumstance of perception is the human soul. The souls capacity to relate to and belong to reality is a relationship wrought with conflict, error and injury.

Philosophy, the handmaid of our cognitive process, the supporting roll in our thinking, the consequence of our soulful orientations, philosophy there for, in order to be objectively true, requires a depth of character from its participants. Demanding of us humility, honesty and moral courage. A flexible sense of life and objective perception must amount to these qualities. Otherwise flexibility can be mistaken for passivity. Where the observer merely watches, without conclusion, without conceptualizing what is perceived. Such a sense of life is not flexible, is not objective, but is with out participation. Amounting to sloth and a mind that can not understand what it is experiencing.

Humility is required because it is not deterred by the fear of a changing world view. Honesty is required because it is able to bare the exposure of confronting ones own internal contradictions. And moral courage is required because objective truth will engage the observer on a moral level. Critics will say that morality is subjective. Subjectivity means the observer chooses what is real according to his/her will. And yes, certainly morality, in general terms, is an amorphous subject. One persons convictions is anthers allowances.

And yet we see in reality a preference for value. As morality is an assessment of value. One quality being held to be good. Another quality being counted as regretful and disloyal. Natures value preference is most evident in the observed traits of species. Some traits are preferred and equate survival. Other traits are unable to stand up against the elements. Traits which are not preferred amount to death. Here in are objective values portrayed.

On a some what more complex level, reality which places value of survival, there by asserts the character of its a moral preference. Where in morality is an assessment of values. An objective morality may be defined as those traits which reality prefers. Such traits resonate with the human mind. And are conceptualized and understood to be noble, virtuous, upright, genuine, pure and of self control. Such character traits come at a price. They are born of human struggle. Reality, as it were, preferring these qualities. Goading us to contend, that to reality we may also belong. And not, our selves, to become the wreckage of liefs tragedies. Where by objectivity and its consequences ultimately require of us moral courage.

An objective world view may culminating in a sense of life which is sober from the deluge of wavering opinion. Objectivism is not a dogmatic statement of beliefs. But rather it seeks those affirmations and teachings where reality appears to engage us. Those evidences of experience which contend and goad against human disorder. Seeking, as it were, to turn men away from those paths which end in dissipation. Seeking, as it were, to approve those human characteristics which are aliened with virtues whose end is survival and success.

“Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit, but righteous delivers from death.” -- proverbs 10 : 2

The books of the Judeo-Christian Bible, scripture to scripture, chapter to chapter are rich with objective reason. Always affirming a world view whose outcomes are knowable. In many ways the Biblical scriptures are striving to affirm reason as a central necessity to human perception. Reasoning with men, as it were, that man might stand in agreement with what is real. Always drawing human thought out of the obscurity and delusion of superstition, contradiction and life-styles which breed madness.

“Wisdom has built her house, she has set up her seven pillars. She has slaughtered her beasts, she has mixed her wine, she has also set her table. She has sent out her maids to call from the highest places in the town; ' Whoever is simple, let him turn in here! ' To him who is without sense she says, ' come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. Leave simpleness, and live, and walk in the way of insight.'-- proverbs 9 : 1 – 6

The reason that if offered here is declared to be substantive. In that the wisdom offered is likened to bread and wine. Those elements which are consumed and life is derived from. Bread; suggesting sustenance and wine; suggesting fulfillment or richness of content. Stating plainly that from reason shall living be established.

Again, the wisdom depicted in the passage is shown to be established as an edifice of understanding; 'it is built as a house.' It deals with the fundamental questions of existence; 'It has set up seven pillars.' Its substance is not only sustaining but is strengthening; 'it has slaughtered its beast', implying a carnivorous sustenance or gorging nutrition. Its thoughts are mature and substantive and are ready to serve as mans sustaining reason; 'it's wine is mixed and its table is prepared.' It renders us capable to deal with the complexities of life. Implying that simpleness is not a desirable quality. Nor is it a quality which is able to survive or attain unto the demands of existence; 'leave simpleness and live.'

The passage in proverbs 9 does not explain the actualities of wisdom. Rather it points to wisdom as a valued quality. It is presented as a starting point but not an end in it self. It offers us an image of its necessity. It offers us its invitation. Affirming to us the evidence that this is reality. That these assessment are real, tangible, substantial. That these judgments indeed have their basis in the real world. And are not the passing customs of men and their wavering declarations.

Jeremiah 10 reads; “Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the people are false.” Here the scripture rejects the subjective superstition of human invention. Regarding it as untrustworthy and flawed. The passage goes on to describe the customs of the nations as the practice of idolatry. Which, in fact, was the overwhelming philosophic practice of the day in which the passage was written. And not only of the day but was representative of all of antiquity.

The worship and veneration of idols involved a world view in which cosmological mythology and the deifying of nature were the central vision of reality. Why this view of existence is not considered harmless can be summed up in the human sacrifice it would result in at its philosophic apex. The idolatry, polytheism and syncretism of the ancient world is a diverse and large subject matter and is not the intent of this discussion to explore in length. But it is a historical factuality that nature, natural history and science could not be what we know it to be today until mans world view was emptied of the divinity to which it assign the natural realm. This emptying was the result of monotheistic faith. Here science and natural history, both objective fields of inquiry, became possible when nature was thoroughly demythologized.

This objectivity had its foundation in the continuing passage of Jeremiah 10; “There is none like thee, O Lord; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O king of the nations ? For this is thy due; for among all the wise ones of the nations and in all their kingdoms there is none like thee.......But the Lord is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting king.......It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.”

This passage and scriptures like it establish in mans mind an awareness of the scope of reality to which man must deal. It places God above all, before all and eternal. It allows meaning to exist is reality because God exists. It allows value judgments to exist it reality because God exists. Giving objectivity a realm in which to operate. It allows nature and experience to be discernible. Because in nature an observable order is present, not dread and magic. And our experiences have validity in reality because wisdom exists to give meaning to our existence.....”who established the world by wisdom.” No longer was nature the dark cave of unknowable gods and mythological imaginations. But nature was now at our level, part of creation. To be understood and investigated, to be admired and utilized. It became objectively tangible, touchable, knowable.

Fundamental to Christianity is the person at its center, Jesus Christ. A man whom we know not only by the biblical accounts by by the historians records of the era. As well, credibility is given to the testimony and historical record of Jesus Christ by the strength of His young church against unrestrained violence it suffered. Why would so many die for a person who was not credible. In the length of the pages of human history there has not been the birth of a faith that was so wholly resisted and persecuted by that powers that be that did not there by fade into mediocrity.

Jesus Christ himself would not have his reputation be the tabloid of urban myth. When, in Mark 8 Jesus asks, "Who do men say that I am?" And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Eli'jah; and others one of the prophets.” And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ." And he charged them to tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. -- mark 8 : 28 – 32

It is, no doubt strange, that Jesus would tell his disciples not to spread the fame amongst the masses that he is the Christ, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior foretold in old testament scriptures. And yet he follows the verse with what is to happen to him and what it is that he is going to do. The emphasis is upon the record of events. This is what happened, this is what he did. As apposed to saying, this is what we think of him, this is our onion of his teaching. Jesus wants what is to be known of him not to rest in the word of those close to him. Rather he wants the record of himself to have its credibility in what was said to have happened. These are the events as we observed them. This is the objective record.

“The works that I do, I do in my Fathers name, they bear witness of me.” -- john 10 : 25

It is not as though the word and teaching of Jesus had fallen short in some way and so he placed attention on his actions. As though his words were fallible and the works were a diversion. On the contrary;

“they were astonished at his teaching, 

for he taught them as one who had authority...” -- mark 1 : 22

&

“When Jesus had finished saying these things, 

the crowds were amazed at his teaching” -- mathew 7 : 28

No doubt, the criticism that the teachings of Jesus needed his works to lean on is unfounded. Certainly his teachings would have easily stood on their own without his works. And had the works not been, he still would be counted a most significant, powerful figure in humanity. Yet what we have is his words and his works. One is not in need of the other, but as he himself said, “the works that I do ... bear witness of me.”

Would Jesus Christ be less credible without the works for which he is know. Certainly not. And yet his works serve to add a fullness and power to what we have known of him. As his works were profound, gracious and greater than life.

When Peter saw Jesus walking on the raging seas, mark 6 : 48, while he and his friends were in their boat, swamped with waves, fearing that the waters would swallow them whole. And here Peter sees this man, Jesus, walking on the torrent, in the midst of this gaping trouble of the world, a storm at sea. And Peter sees this man who is greater than this power that is the sea. Greater than the world even. This is the sense which we have in Christ of his works. That in Christ even death has no dominion. And this we have not as a poetic verse but as an objective reality, in that we have his works as evidence.

“If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” -- John 10 : 37 – 38

Here in is the intention of Christ Jesus, that our faith in God would have an evidential basis. That objectivity and reason are fundamentally significant in our relationship with God and with one another. That Christ is as wisdom it self, inviting us to come in from the cold abandon of simpleness. To come in and partake in what is significant, what is substantive, what has its basis in reality and by which we will live.

Christianity, is not doubt, in its substance and direction, philosophical. The force of Christian thought answers the major philosophical questions posed by the historically fundamental constructs of philosophy. These questions are gapingly human. And are shared by all mankind, past, present, future. These questions are primary to human life, whose answers define a mans picture of existence. To these fundamental questions, Christian thought is not obscure. This stands in sharp contrast to nearly every other religion, most of which either evade or obfuscate the issues of philosophy.

Philosophy asks us what is the nature of existence (Ontology), what is the nature of knowledge (epistemology), what is the nature of God (theology), how a person should behave (ethics), and what is the nature beauty or goodness (aesthetics).

Either directly or by inference every one of these questions are answered in a biblical Christian world view. These philosophical questions have been answered through God’s message to humanity for far longer than a reasonable system of defined philosophy existed. The God of the bible has been intensely interested in addressing these types of questions for humanity as well as many other ideas that philosophers tend to not address. God has not been silent and has signed His name to His work. The reality is that men have gone about silencing the voice of God. Here then is a brief overview of biblical Christian philosophy.

The nature of existence itself is the hardest question for humans to answer, we simply lack the capacity to truly objectify and therefore identify all of existence. Yet humans may identify the attributes of existence. And in hearing God’s Word on the subject, we may draw some modest conclusions. The Bible tells us that it is ‘In Him (God) that we have our height our width our depth and our very being’. Jesus told us ‘No man has seen God’. From these truths we identify that God is actually all that exists. And all that does exist, exists in God.

These truths meet the known facts of existence: A vast infinite universe syncs up with an eternal God. We see existence acting in an orderly fashion (physics) and much of what exists is knowable directly through the perceptual and conceptual faculties of man. No human whim or wish can alter time or the laws of physics, this too adds up. Simply put, all of this stuff is real and is in God.

Also we are told of another more solid kingdom called ‘the heavens’ or a spiritual kingdom. Like the physical universe this kingdom exits of and through God. This physical world is temporal, i.e. it is winding down. In this universe all things must pass. In the perfect kingdom this is not so, that kingdom is eternal as is the creator of heaven and earth. Simply put our ontological premise is: God exists eternally, all else exists of and through God.

All knowledge is perceived and integrated. Perceived in that we receive and learn what we come to know. Knowledge does not just jump forth from our minds as though it were animal instinct. Indeed, knowledge is built up in our minds as we grow and learn. The process of integrating knowledge in born of humans sensory capacity which forms our perceptual capacity.

Each perceived existent may be conceptualized as a unit. Due to our conceptual capacity humans may attribute characteristics to an infinite number of units. Our concepts are formed by identifying a perceived existent as having both distinguishing and integrating characteristics and omitting specific measurement therefore we may conceptualize infinite units. Only humans bear such conceptual skills. A beast cannot know that which it does not directly perceive. As a conceptual being, you can.

If you read here that my window is open, though you cannot perceive my window you identify in your mind the existence of my very real window. No beast may employ such capacity. So when we read that God made man in His image we see that out of over 1,000,000 distinct species we are unique, just as the Bible said we were. Were another theory more true, like say the Neo Darwinian Theory then it would stand to reason that at least some other creatures would operate as primarily conceptual

beings. Yet it is not so. Our Christian epistemology is such that we see knowledge as the sum of what is revealed to and in us through our capacity to perceive and our capacity to conceptualize and abstract that which we perceive. Through these natures created by God, god reveals knowledge to us. Special revelation also is imparted, yet every recorded example of such direct contact plays through a prophet’s human capacity to perceive, abstract and conceptualize the revelation e.g. Daniel saw a finger write on a wall, Elijah heard a voice in the wind etc. Both now and in God’s eternal kingdom, we will use the tools god has designed in us to know Him and all He has made. Our conclusions then are this: We are designed to perceive what God has made, through our perceptual faculty we discover that which God has made. Our conceptual faculty orders and identifies distinguishing and integrating traits of that which exists and unitizes that which we know. We then have an object based epistemology, a thing is what it is: A=A that is the nature of that correctly identified acts according to its nature and finally: We are conscious in the capacity God made in us to be conscious and discover Him and all he has made.

Christians believe in One God who is in and about all that is, the God of the Bible is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent. We are designed in His image to reflect His glory. As such, our current state of our self absorbed nature is in fact a fallen nature. As humans it is impossible to consider God apart from the human relationship with God. In addition, it is impossible to objectify God, that is we cannot directly perceive God, we may only observe His attributes in that which he has made. His divine nature and eternal power are more and more evident with every step our technology takes. The God of the bible is a loving father to all of humanity. It is our fallen nature that has introduced corruption to creation and therefore we suffer, yet in our suffering He reaches out to us with comfort and hope of a new life in Him as resurrected and perfected persons. The fullness of His character is revealed in the one person of Jesus Christ, who was gentle and loving and yet intolerant of grievous and self serving theological error hoisted onto humanity by those who claim to be the very teachers of theology. If your personal understanding of God is not like the person of Jesus, then your theology is in error.

The supreme ethic of Christian conduct is fundamental, love others as you love yourself. Therefore the rabbinical ethic of ‘do no harm’ remains true, yet falls short of the Christian ethic. Ethics for a Christian rests entirely in the belief that (a) God is all good and indeed God is Love (b) Humans are designed by God and reflect (in part) the image of God (c) that sin has corrupted all men (d) Jesus redeems fallen man through the cross (e) Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to all who believe in Him, transforming those believers (in part).

This succession of the nature of the good and the state of man must be understood to understand the Christian ethic. While a Christian may attempt to keep God’s perfect law (the law of Moses) only an understanding of the state of fallen and redeemed man and an understanding that redemption only transforms an individual in part in this life time must be understood to explain the integration of mercy into the justice of God found in the theocratic law of Moses. In short, we are commanded as Christians to love one another. Love forgives. So the thought that we will be stoning sinners to death is not a part of a true Christian ethic. Rather the law of love requires that, on a personal level that we admit when we are wrong and quickly forgive those who fail to execute goodness with perfection. Then as a Christian the law of love compels us to not harm others, so the simple edicts like do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not covet and so on, are all still ideas we are bound to. The Christian however recognizes that as fallen souls there will be transgressions of edict to do no harm. The Christian is taught admit when they err, and to stop doing the harmful act. Furthermore Christians are expected to forgive such transgressions.

The Christian view of aesthetics is a value judgment. God is good. His goodness is beautiful. His goodness is represented in the living man that is Jesus Christ. It is true that God's beauty and excellence is displayed in the creation, yet the state of the creation is temporal. It is impossible for a human to truly grasp the incorruptible. Truly, God who is good is great and incorruptible. However we may indeed see beauty here in this time and place. As God is infinitely faceted, so then is beauty. To narrowly define that which is pleasing in any perceptual or conceptual context is to diminish the scope of the infinite possibility of beauty.

When a human hears, sees, tastes, touches or conceives that which is both good and does not degrade, one experiences the goodness of God. When we wrap our desire around that which diminishes and destroys, we (as corrupted men) pervert. Perversion then is not the antithesis of beauty. As a value judgment, perversion is the death of what is good. The corrupt state of a depraved mankind then should also cause us sorrow. In contract, the upright and noble goodness of godliness form in us fulfillment.

Corruption, disarray, suffering and death should serve to drive us toward a longing after goodness, yes, after God. The pleasing and beautiful should testify to us of God's goodness. In all things then we see a directing to the purpose of all creation as the revealing of the fullness of the glory of Jesus, and when that is fulfilled we shall know beauty indeed.