But what of Sri Chinmoy (1931–2007)? He lived comfort ably but not lavishly in apparently modest circumstances in Queens, New York, championed the cause of global peace, and was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He met with famous politicians such as Mikhail Gorbachev, and other influential individuals including Princess Diana and Mother Teresa, not to mention a long line of celebrity disciples that included Carlos Santana.

Was Sri Chinmoy a genuine spiritual leader the New Age movement could finally look up to as an altruistic champion of peace and tolerance? Or is there more to the story in this case, as there so typically has been with others? Cartwheels in a Sari: A Memoir of Growing Up Cult by Jayanti Tamm seeks to shed some light on Sri Chinmoy, not as a detached analysis or evaluation, but as a memoir written by a former disciple. Tamm, in fact, was born into Chinmoy’s religious circle and observes that her memoir “isn’t the definitive account of Sri Chinmoy; it is my own remembrance” (author’s note). Nevertheless, along the way Tamm offers several insights that are helpful in understanding not only Sri Chinmoy and his followers, but also the characteristics of cultic organizations and, consequently, how best to interact with adherents.

A Guru and His Ways. Tamm’s parents, an American mother and an Estonian father who immigrated to America with his family, became disciples of Sri Chinmoy, also known as Chinmoy Kumar Ghose, while unmarried. Chinmoy summarily informed them they were to “marry but remain celibate” (p. 7). When Chinmoy learned that Tamm’s mother had become pregnant, he first scolded them for “indulging in ‘lower-vital forces,’” but upon conferring with the Supreme (Chinmoy’s word for “god”), he announced a “special soul” would “incarnate as his chosen disciple” (7). This “chosen one” was named Jayanti, or, “the absolute victory of the highest Supreme” (9). Thus began Tamm’s experiences “growing up cult.”

As expected, Tamm’s firsthand recollections of life in the Sri Chinmoy Center make up the bulk of Cartwheels in a Sari. From her early devotion and commitment to everything guru to her later expulsion and banishment as she approached her mid twenties, Tamm covers a variety of topics.

Chinmoy’s ascetic teachings run throughout the book, with Tamm noting such restrictions as forbidding television, newspapers, pets, computers, interaction with the opposite sex, unnecessary interaction with nondisciples, dietary restrictions, and more. Chinmoy, however, made exceptions, particularly for himself. As a result, he kept an illegal “zoo” of exotic pets in his basement, cared for by disciples. While he forbade the watching of television, Chinmoy craved the attention of the media, often staging elaborate weight-lifting events—one of his many areas of interest—in order to draw attention. It pleased him to be photographed with celebrities of all kinds, and he often lured them by granting them awards.

Page after page, Tamm reveals the underlying purpose of Chinmoy’s disciples—to please him. Everything revolved around Chinmoy and his wishes, demands, restrictions, and interests. “The sole point of everything,” writes Tamm, “was Guru” (13). A self-proclaimed “avatar” who had reached “God-realization” at age eleven, Chinmoy repeatedly told his disciples that if they did not live according to his dictates, they would not only cause Chinmoy physical suffering, but would also bring down karmic punishment upon themselves. Unfortunately, Tamm’s parents offered little in the way of traditional or healthy parenting. “Ask Guru” seemed to be their primary response to every situation.

Chinmoy, with few exceptions, restricted the education of his disciples. Essentially, college was out of the question for any disciple. Chinmoy claimed educational pursuits empha sized the life of the mind over the life of the heart. Since he viewed the life of the heart as superior to the life of the mind, his restrictions on education limited the opportunities many of his disciples had. As a result of the unquestioned authority of Chinmoy, combined with total devotion, many disciples had no lives beyond Chinmoy, working for him or for “divine enterprises” (businesses owned, operated, and employed by disciples who were expected to give much of their income to support the guru). Employment exceptions were made when Chinmoy had other ideas in mind, such as having many of his disciples employed by the United Nations in order to curry the favor of the organization.

“Guru knows best” appears to have been the approach everyone was expected to take when it came to Chinmoy’s decrees. Tamm quotes Chinmoy as saying, “The Supreme acts in and through me. You do not question what I do or tell you to do on my behalf. All commands are coming from the Highest Supreme. I only take advice from the Supreme” (42). Elsewhere she writes, quoting Chinmoy, “True disciples never doubt their guru” (51).

While Chinmoy often presented one face to the general public—such as to the media, celebrities, and dignitaries— another face was seen far more often by devoted disciples. The media saw the kindhearted guru eager to foster peace and unity in the world, while disciples often saw a restrictive and severe teacher who fostered a sort of caste system among his own disciples, often causing them to vie for positions of power and turn each other in for the smallest infractions. According to Tamm, “Guru enjoyed competitions that set up disciples against one another” (102). Ex-disciples were shunned, even by family members. Tamm’s brother, for instance, severed all contact with Tamm following her banishment from the Sri Chinmoy Center (276). It was not uncommon for Chinmoy to sell items to disciples, expecting them to pay for signed photographs, books, and other materials, while also expecting them to donate any windfalls, such as inheritance money.

What did Chinmoy want from Tamm? “What he wanted and expected was my unconditional obedience and undying love” (69). Later Tamm adds, “No matter what Guru asked… I needed to carry it out, swiftly and obediently” (75).

Cultic characteristics. Tamm is not shy about deeming the Sri Chinmoy Center a cult, referring to it as “the cult of the short bald man in the flowing robes who declared himself to be God” (2). But did the Chinmoy Center fit the description of a cult? If the definition of a cult is based on theological and sociological approaches, several aspects of the center do indeed qualify it as cultic. Theologically speaking, Chinmoy’s teachings are clearly at odds with Christianity. He declared himself an avatar (a divine manifestation), believed in karma and reincarnation, believed human beings could achieve God-realization, held to an essentially pantheistic view of reality (all is divine), and viewed Christ as merely one avatar among many.

If we are to believe Tamm, the Chinmoy Center also fit the sociological description of a cult in a number of ways. First, Chinmoy served as the unquestioned authority. Tamm writes, “He was our avatar, the direct representative of our insignificant selves to the infinite pantheon of divinity. He was both father and God, the sustenance of our lives” (122).

Second, members were isolated from traditional surroundings, including contact with family members who were not disciples and with outsiders. As much time as possible was to be spent with Chinmoy or involved in related center activities, leaving little time to think or reflect on involvement.

Third, the center discouraged independent thinking. It promoted unquestioning allegiance to Chinmoy while discouraging the life of the mind.

Fourth, the center made it clear that ex-disciples were to be shunned completely. This cultic technique is particularly nefarious in that it plays on the fears of members, promising swift and severe separation for those who no longer belong.

Fifth, according to Tamm, Chinmoy was also a charismatic leader. This alone did not make his organization a cult, but it is a common characteristic of such groups. Tamm writes of his “beautiful presence. The waves of energy that surrounded him enveloped me completely, erasing all thought. This is what I loved about Guru. Being in his presence created a tangible change in me; it made me holy, better” (138).

Leaving a Cult. Cartwheels in a Sari is instructive in many respects. While Tamm’s memoir is candid and at times more explicit than some readers would be comfortable with, it does serve the purpose of helping readers better understand cultic involvement. Christian apologists and countercult ministries are right to point out doctrinal deviations of cults and new religions, but Tamm’s book illustrates the reality that many disciples of such groups are not involved primarily because of doctrine, but because of relational needs the group is meeting. We are to test doctrine and compare it with truth, but not at the expense of neglecting human needs. Apologetics and evangelism require “gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15), but they must be reasonable and relational. Piles of theological evidence against a cultic organization will do little to sway the follower if the relational aspect is neglected.

Tamm’s memoir also serves to underscore the many challenges that an adherent of a cult or new religion must overcome in order not only to leave the group, but move beyond it to some sense of normalcy. After being banished from the Sri Chinmoy Center, Tamm explains, “As far as I knew, no manuals or instruction guides were readily available on how to create a life and how to function in a post-Guru world….Nothing from my past was available for me to rely on—I was on my own” (280–81).

Leaving a cultic organization is rarely easy. In Tamm’s case it resulted in shunning not only by disciples, but also by members of her immediate family. With her entire life spent serving Chinmoy, leaving the group meant literally starting her life over from scratch. What Tamm needed at that point in her life was not a tract or tirade about the theological errors of Chinmoy— though they were many—but love and kindness. Tamm’s memoir is also instructive to those involved in counseling former mem bers of cults and new religions. We need to keep in mind the many hidden scars that such individuals may carry with them even years after their cultic involvement.

Although Sri Chinmoy passed away in 2007, his legacy and that of countless other Eastern gurus lives on. In many respects, Eastern mysticism has become mainstream. The teachings of such groups, however, are not only at odds with God’s revelation and human reason, but also with our very humanity.

—Robert Velarde

Robert Velarde is coauthor of Examining Alternative Medicine (InterVarsity Press) and author of Conversations with C.S. Lewis (InterVarsity Press) and The Heart of Narnia (NavPress). He is completing graduate studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

– Anthony Robbins

Standing at six feet, seven inches, Anthony “Tony” Robbins is an imposing figure. His overly large hands and feet, the result of a medical condition, make him appear somewhat awkward. But as he takes the stage, it is clear he is a confident individual, speaking clearly and with conviction. Robbins talks of harnessing personal power, our innate ability to do nearly everything we would like to do, and offers eager audiences around the world simple steps for achieving unparalleled success. A bestselling author and popular motivational speaker, Tony Robbins began his rise to fame while still in his twenties. His first book, Unlimited Power: The New Science of Personal Achievement² (1986), further propelled his success, as did Awaken the Giant Within (1991). Grabbing media attention by including firewalking in his seminars, Robbins soon turned his speaking engagements into a media empire, adding motion picture appearances to his portfolio as well.³ In addition, NBC announced early in 2009 a new television series, Breakthrough with Tony Robbins, while his seemingly endless speaking schedule takes him from his private Namale Resort in Fiji to Canada, Rome, Singapore, the United States, and elsewhere. Conference titles include “Date with Destiny,” “Life Mastery,” “Wealth Mastery,” “Leadership Mastery,” and “Unleash the Power Within.” Robbins also is well represented online, where he has more than a million followers on microblogging site Twitter4 as well as his own website, www.tonyrobbins.com, where a variety of related products and services are sold.

Nevertheless, Robbins has faced his share of controversy. In 2001 his fifteen-year marriage ended in divorce, with Robbins remarrying later that same year. Some critics pointed to his divorce as an example of the failure of his teachings, noting, for instance, that at the time of the divorce Robbins was leading workshops on the subject of healthy relationships.

Another controversy involved accusations by financial “guru” Wade Cook, who claimed that Robbins used material from Cook’s book Wall Street Money Machine, including specific terms and phrases, without permission. Cook filed a lawsuit and, in 1998, was awarded more than $650,000 in damages.

The National Council against Health Fraud, a private health agency, has also questioned some of the health and dietary advice offered by Robbins including dubious breathing techniques, “misinformation” about combining foods, and more, noting, “Robbins reveals his ignorance about physiology as he misinforms readers about how the body rids itself of metabolic wastes.”⁵

What is the substance behind the teachings that draw throngs of adoring crowds to Anthony Robbins’s events? Are his ideas compatible with biblical theology? Are they logical and coherent? The remainder of this article will address two key foundations of his ideas (pain/pleasure and neurolinguistic techniques), as well as his views of truth, theism, and his firewalking practices.

IF IT FEELS GOOD…

The two foundational concepts that form the basis of the ideas of Anthony Robbins are his views on pain and pleasure and his ideas in relation to neurology. We’ll begin our assessment of his teachings by exploring his views of pain and pleasure.

Robbins is quite clear about his belief that success in life is determined by our views of pain and pleasure. Indeed, changing our perspective of pain and pleasure, according to Robbins, is key to succeeding in life. Calling it “the force that shapes your life,”⁶ Robbins explains, “There is undoubtedly a single driving force behind all human behavior. This force impacts every facet of our lives, from our relationships to our finances to our bodies and brains. What is this force that is controlling you even now and will continue to do so for the rest of your life? PAIN and PLEASURE! Everything you and I do, we do either out of our need to avoid pain or our desire to gain pleasure” (emphases in original).⁷ He adds, “The secret of success is learning how to use pain and pleasure instead of having pain and pleasure use you. If you can do that, you’re in control of your life. If you don’t, life controls you.”⁸

Are these claims true? Is everything we do motivated by pain and pleasure? Robbins offers Donald Trump and Mother Teresa as examples of being motivated by pain and pleasure. Despite their obvious differences in goals— with Trump seeking accumulation of wealth and worldly success, and Mother Teresa having sought to help the poor—Robbins claims they are both, in fact, motivated by pain and pleasure.⁹ However, Robbins fails to factor into his assessment that in the case of a Christian living biblically, motivations are not based on responses to pain or pleasure but are instead rooted in God’s love. As a result, multitudes of Christians have endured pain and hardship for the sake of Christ, rather than avoiding pain in order to seek pleasure. The gospel of Christ has a way of turning our attempts at interpreting human behavior upside down.

Robbins’s descriptions of pain and pleasure actually have much in common with hedonism. Hedonism, as used here, does not refer to the casual term associated with an exclusive emphasis on pleasure through self-indulgence or even debauchery. Rather, as classically defined in philosophy, hedonism is broadly concerned with maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. In a sense, this form of hedonism is eudaemonistic, meaning that it views happiness, in this case resulting from pleasure, as the highest good. Pleasure in hedonistic thinking is always good, while pain is always bad.

What may be termed psychological hedonism places the emphasis on human motivations in seeking pleasure, with some forms indicating that our foundational drive is to seek pleasure. Ethical hedonism, however, while it may involve elements of psychological hedonism, is more concerned with pleasure seeking as being morally right.

Hedonism has been criticized for various reasons. One interesting critique is known as “the hedonistic paradox, which may be put as follows. Many of the deepest and best pleasures of life (of love, of child rearing, of work) seem to come most often to those who are engaging in an activity for reasons other than pleasure seeking. Hence, not only is it dubious that we always in fact seek (or value only) pleasure, but also dubious that the best way to achieve pleasure is to seek it.”¹⁰ In other words, at times significant pleasures in life involve pain, but we do not avoid these pains, and, in fact, often pursue them.

Within the Christian worldview, Christ is our highest good and our best pursuit, not our own pleasure. Christ told his followers not to focus on themselves, but to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him (Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 10:39). This hardly sounds self-centered or in line with the avoidance of pain and the seeking of pleasure. Christ did not promise “success,” as the world defines it, but hardship that is worth enduring.

NEUROLOGICAL NONSENSE?

Combined with his views of pain and pleasure, Robbins’s other key belief has its roots in neurolinguistic programming (NLP). Although he now prefers the term neuroassociative conditioning (NAC), for all intents and purposes the terms are synonymous.¹¹ According to Robbins, it is not enough merely to understand his perspective on pain and pleasure: “If you and I want to change our behavior, there is only one effective way to do it: we must link unbearable and immediate sensations of pain to our old behavior, and incredible and immediate sensations of pleasure to a new one.”¹² The intent is to be able to create nearly instant change in any area of life, thus creating a changed “state,” as Robbins calls it. Consequently, a problem that may normally take much time and effort to address, such as a phobia, can supposedly be cured rapidly by applying Robbins’s NLP-inspired techniques. Robbins, in fact, claims that “all changes are created in a moment,”¹³ misquoting 1 Corinthians 15:51–52 in the process (“Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye …”).¹⁴

Robbins, however, does not like the term “programming” in NLP, finding it misleading: “It suggests that you could come to me, I would program you, and then everything would be fine.”¹⁵ Not wanting to repeat the same “mistake” made by other motivational teachers, resulting in minimizing personal responsibility and placing all the success on the technique itself (as well as the teacher), Robbins opted to drop the term “programming”: “As a result of this new perspective, I decided to change the metaphor for what I do. I stopped using the word ‘programming’ because while I continue to use many NLP techniques, I believe it’s inaccurate. A better metaphor for long-term change is conditioning” (emphasis in original).¹⁶

How can NAC help change behavior and thus lead to success? NAC is primarily concerned with perceived links between neurology, language, body language, and resulting behavior. Prior to dropping the term “programming” in favor of “conditioning,” Robbins defined NLP as follows: “NLP is the study of how language, both verbal and nonverbal, affects our nervous system. Our ability to do anything in life is based upon our ability to direct our own nervous system.”¹⁷ Modeling, a technique of NLP and NAC, is important. By emulating or modeling someone successful, claims Robbins, we begin to condition ourselves to succeed.¹⁸ Changing “states” is also significant, with the goal being to foster empowering sates rather than disempowering states.

There are a number of questions one might ask about NAC. Is it true that, as quoted earlier, “there is only one effective way to” change our behavior and that way is via the techniques of NAC? Certainly there are other ways to change behavior. Robbins’s hyperbole aside, what he probably is suggesting is that the fastest and best way involves the techniques he offers. But there are a number of competing theories of human behavior. To state that his method is the best is somewhat naïve given the history of human psychology and the fact that techniques such as NLP, which inspired NAC, have only been around some thirty years.

Moreover, for the Christian, changing behavior is not about reprogramming or reconditioning our neurology via language, but about reliance on Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Scripturally speaking, we can do everything through Christ and the strength he provides (Phil. 4:13). Robbins’s approach also leaves out the concept of human sin and depravity. If indeed we are sinful, fallen beings, then much of what we think we want to succeed at in life is probably skewed by this deleterious condition, meaning that much of the time, influenced by sin, most of us don’t really know what is best for us. Robbins leaves this out of his technique entirely.

In addition, the concepts promoted by Robbins are essentially presented as quick fixes for some deep issues. Can we just snap our mental fingers, as Robbins claims, and instantly change our behavior? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, which appears to be seriously lacking in reference to neurolinguistic/neuroassociative techniques. Furthermore, there are some “states” that we are better off not changing instantly. For instance, God may wish to use pain, guilt, remorse, and other circumstances in order to help us mature as individuals, lead us to Him, and, in the long run, make us better people rather than desiring us immediately to vanquish such feelings.

Finally, the neurolinguistic/neuroassociative techniques Robbins presents are suspect. As Stephen Barrett, longtime critic of questionable alternative medicine practices, has written, “Scientific studies have demonstrated no correlation between eye movements and visual imagery, reported thoughts, or language choices. A National Research Council committee has found no significant evidence that NLP’s theories are sound or that its practices are effective.”¹⁹

TONY’S TRUTH

In addition to pleasure-pain theory and neurology, Robbins also makes comments that touch on the philosophical. Specifically, some of his remarks addressing belief systems relate to truth and epistemology (knowledge). In Awaken the Giant Within, Robbins writes, “The question is: which one of these beliefs is the true belief? The answer is that it doesn’t matter which one is true. What matters is which one is most empowering.”²⁰ In other words, at least as far as Robbins’s template for success is concerned, truth is irrelevant. Followed to its logical conclusions, then, if someone finds pantheism empowering, then that’s just fine. If another individual finds atheism empowering, then that’s fine, too.

This sort of approach to truth results in logical contra dictions. The pantheist claims that everything is divine, while the atheist denies that anything divine exists. Yet within the epistemological framework that Robbins has established, such contradictions don’t really matter. While this sort of ideology may help Robbins reach broader audiences with his message, allowing him to avoid criticizing or excluding his audience’s beliefs or traditions, it is epistemologically untenable.

How then do we fit truth into the ideas Robbins presents? He adds, “We can all find someone to back up our belief and make us feel more solid about it. This is how human beings are able to rationalize. The key question, again, is whether this belief is strengthening or weakening us, empowering or disempowering us on a daily basis.”²¹

There are a number of problems with such a perspective. Who is to say whether a particular belief is empowering, disempowering, strengthening, weakening or not? The ideology lacks a foundation, not only in the area of knowledge, but also in the area of ethics.

Moreover, what if a terrorist were to adopt the advice offered by Robbins? The implication is that the belief system of the terrorist, regardless of whether it is true, is acceptable to follow to its conclusions so long as the terrorist “feels” empowered. Granted, Robbins nowhere endorses terrorism, but the concern here is the rational implications and consequences of ideas. Given what Robbins has said about truth, belief systems, and empowerment, there is nothing to stop a terrorist from being empowered to continue to terrorize.

Another consequence of Robbins’s view of truth is the question and significance of truth itself. Robbins summarily casts truth aside in favor of empowerment. Rather than seeking to understand the nature of truth and seeking to determine whether a particular truth claim corresponds to reality or not, Robbins simply casts the matter aside and moves on. But truth is not so easily ignored. Robbins’s view of truth is only valid if truth actually does not matter. Truth, however, does matter, particularly in relation to explanations of reality. Indeed, the consequences of the truth or falsity of worldviews such as theism, atheism, and pantheism are metaphysically monumental. To ignore truth claims of this magnitude and simply say, “Whatever works for you is fine,” is to cast aside human intellect in favor of what may very well be temporal pleasures that could result in dire eternal consequences.

From a Christian point of view, Robbins’s ideas in the area of truth could very well lead people eternally astray. The truth claim, “Jesus is Lord,” is either true or it is not. Whether it is “empowering” or not is irrelevant to the question regarding its truth or falsity.

SOFT THEISM

This leads to another question regarding Robbins. Is he a theist?

Before addressing this question, it will be beneficial to offer a brief definition of theism. In its most rudimentary sense, theism holds that a personal God exists. Traditionally, theists also tend to hold that this personal God created the universe, sustains it, is involved in it, and is a loving being. By definition, theism rules out competing worldviews such as atheism that denies that God exists, pantheism that denies that anything else exists besides God, and deism that affirms that God exists but denies that He is actively present in His creation or in human affairs.

Robbins does appear to be a theist, but a sort of “soft” theist who avoids getting into specifics. For instance, Robbins refers to “God” on occasion, as well as to a “Creator,” and acknowledges the power of prayer, but not in any detail. Given his views on truth, as addressed earlier, it would seem that if indeed Robbins is a theist he is of the mindset that theism is not supremely important in one’s worldview. If it were, Robbins would not be so cavalier about the question of truth.

Given the underpinnings of his teachings, asking whether Robbins is a Christian seems an odd inquiry. However, given the soft theism mentioned by Robbins, it is perhaps a valid one. While no one is in a position to judge the salvation of another person, we are in a position to judge teachings. Although there appears to be an undercurrent of theism in what Robbins believes, it is indeed vague. Moreover, his teachings are clearly at odds with biblical Christianity.

In addition, while Robbins quotes from a variety of sources, including the Bible, he also cites Buddhism, other religions and religious figures, and, on a number of occasions, American transcendentalist writers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Walt Whitman. Merely quoting such sources does not suggest explicit endorsement of everything they believed, but, when taken as a whole, the citation of non-Christian sources does not bode well for the exclusive claims of Christ and Christianity.

For instance, when Robbins praises A Course in Miracles,²² a book that is overtly at odds with the Christian message, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to fit such citations into the framework of theism, much less Christian theism.

Given the lack of emphasis on truth and the variety of citations from contradictory religious sources, Robbins appears to be a religious pluralist. This means that he is not concerned with the truth or falsity of any particular religion, but instead seems to view all religions as valid so long as they “empower” and “strengthen” the adherent.

Robbins’s primary emphasis, however, comes across as sympathetic to Eastern religious ideas. Specific phrases and ideas are also reminiscent of “New Age” spirituality such as when he writes, “Your reality is the reality you create.”²³ One of his Twitter posts quotes Taoist philosopher Lao-tzu: “There are many paths to enlightenment. Be sure to take one with a heart.”²⁴

Ron Rhodes has written of Robbins: “In his books he approvingly cites Eastern and New Age types like Marianne Williamson, Bernie Siegel, Deepak Chopra, Andrew Weil, Confucius, Mahatma Gandhi, Emmet Fox, and A Course in Miracles. Other New Age indicators involve his use of Native American chants, and his idea that mystical secrets locked in the right side of the brain can be unleashed using his techniques.”

Robbins’s religious eclecticism is also, as Rhodes observes, “in keeping with his New Age leanings. On a number of occasions, he acknowledges many ‘great teachers’—including Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, and Lao-Tzu.”²⁵

TRIAL BY FIREWALKING

More than any other teaching or practice, firewalking is what initially drew the media to Tony Robbins. Does Robbins still promote firewalking? Yes. During his “Unleash the Power Within” conferences, for instance, attendees walk barefoot across a bed of hot coals that is some twelve feet long (taking about five or six steps to complete).

The term firewalking is itself a misnomer in that one does not walk across literal flames, but hot coals. Critics are quick to point out that walking across hot coals without getting burned is not a matter of positive mental thinking or religious mysticism, but merely physics. Just as placing your hand inside a hot oven will not burn you while touching metal in the oven will indeed burn, the solution to safe firewalking has to do with heat conductivity and thermal conduction. There’s also the factor of time. Firewalking over ten or twelve feet is literally over within a matter of just a few seconds or less — hardly enough time for hot coals to burn through the soles of the feet of the average person.²⁶

Robbins, however, does not present the firewalking experience as religious. Using his techniques, if someone is in the proper mental state, then firewalking becomes a metaphor about being able to accomplish the seemingly impossible. For Robbins, overcoming fear through positive action is the purpose of the firewalk. Robbins explains: “The firewalk has fascinated the media to the point I fear its message is getting lost. The point is not to walk on fire.…Instead, the firewalk is an experience in personal power and a metaphor for possibilities, an opportunity for people to produce results they previously had thought impossible.…When I conduct a firewalk, it’s not part of any religious experience in the conventional sense. But it is an experience in belief. It teaches people in the most visceral sense that they can change, they can grow, they can stretch themselves, they can do things they never thought possible, that their greatest fears and limitations are self-imposed.”²⁷

For the Christian, firewalking for religious or motivational reasons is unnecessary. Our source of motivational ability is not within our own fallen nature, but in Christ.

THE REAL GIANT WITHIN

Tony Robbins comes across as an amiable, caring, and sincere individual. His Twitter posts, for instance, often convey joy, encouragement, and a delight in life. In addition, he is not a hoarder of his wealth, having established a variety of venues to offer philanthropic assistance in various forms. Neverthe less, good intentions, no matter how sincere, are not enough to outweigh serious logical and theological deficiencies. The foundational principles underlying his philosophy are on shaky ground, to say the least. The purpose here, however, has not been to attack Robbins as an individual, but to assess his ideas. As he himself has said, “Don’t blindly accept everything ^I say, either!”28

Unlike human potential thinking that is often deeply self-centered, Christianity calls followers to be Christ-centered and other-centered. This does not mean neglecting ourselves, but rather placing ourselves in the proper context of God’s will. With God and others as our primary focus, we can begin to become the kind of people God wants us to become—not self-centered individuals seeking wealth and other forms of worldly power, but instead humble individuals seeking to share the love of Christ. There is nothing wrong with success, per se, so long as one remains Christ-centered and pursues success with godly intentions and within godly parameters, but wealth and an easy life are not guaranteed for the Christian. Instead, we are told we will face hardships and endure suffering for the name of Christ.

Our power is limited, but God’s power is not. We are flawed, fallen, depraved beings in desperate need of radical redemption that is Savior-centered, not self-centered. Being made in God’s image, we have the capacity for creativity and greatness, but we are also in dire circumstances that only Christ can save us from. The real giant within is not unbounded human potential, but our capacity to sin. What is the solution to our serious problem? It is not in us, but in Christ. As Paul wrote, “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God— through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Rom. 7:24–25).

Robert Velarde is author of Conversations with C.S. Lewis (InterVarsity Press, 2008) and The Heart of Narnia (NavPress, 2008), and coauthor of Examining Alternative Medicine (InterVarsity Press, 2001). He studied philosophy of religion at Denver Seminary and is completing graduate studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

notes

1 Anthony Robbins, Awaken the Giant Within: How to Take Immediate Control of Your Mental, Emotional, Physical and Financial Destiny! (New York: Free Press, 1991), 90.

2 Anthony Robbins, Unlimited Power: The New Science of Personal Achievement (New York: Free Press, 1986).

3 His image appeared briefly in the film Men in Black (1997), he shared a scene with actor Jack Black in Shallow Hal (2001), and he is featured in The Singularity Is Near (2009).

4 As of August 2009.

5 William T. Jarvis, “Anthony Robbins,” available at http://www.ncahf.org/articles/or/robbins.html. The NCAHF, co-founded by Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch.org, is a private organization “that focuses upon health misinformation, fraud, and quackery as public health problems” (http://www.ncahf.org/).

6 Awaken the Giant Within, 52.

7 Ibid., 53.

8 Ibid., 54.

9 Ibid., 55–56.

10 James A. Montmarquet, in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, gen. ed. Robert Audi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), s.v. “hedonism.”

11 Robbins prefers to spell it “Neuro-Associative Conditioning,” complete with a trademark symbol, perhaps to differentiate his approach from that of NLP and provide marketing branding as well.

12 Robbins, Awaken the Giant Within, 123.

13 Ibid., 108.

14 Ibid., 107. Robbins leaves off the “1” in 1 Corinthians and also fails to note that the passage encompasses verses 51 and 52 (he lists only verse 51). More significantly, he fails to grasp the meaning of the passage in context—Christians receiving imperishable and glorified bodies, not neurolinguistic changes of states. Robbins misquotes the Bible on several occasions (see, e.g., Ron Rhodes, “Anthony Robbins and the Quest for Unlimited Power,” SCP Journal (Summer/Fall 1998): 56–58).

15 Ibid., 111.

16 Ibid., 111–112.

17 Robbins, Unlimited Power, 26.

18 Ibid., 29.

19 Stephen Barrett, “Mental Help: Procedures to Avoid,” available at http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mentserv.html. As evidence supporting his critique of NLP, Barrett references Daniel Druckman and John A. Swets, eds., Enhancing Human Performance (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988).

20 Robbins, Awaken the Giant Within, 79.

21 Ibid.

22 Robbins, Awaken the Giant Within, 264.

23 Robbins, Unlimited Power, 67.

24 June 16, 2009; http://twitter.com/tonyrobbins

25 Rhodes, 55. Deepak Chopra, a monistic pantheist, is also a featured speaker at Robbins events such as “Life Mastery.”

26 See, for instance, a physics-oriented explanation of firewalking offered by The Skeptic’s Dictionary at http://www.skepdic.com/firewalk.html.

27 Robbins, Unlimited Power, 14–15.

28 Robbins, Awaken the Giant Within, 90.

“Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ,” reads Romans 10:17 (NIV), from which the title to Faith Comes by Hearing is taken. From the editors of Hell under Fire (Zondervan, 2004), this recent volume consists primarily of a series of essays contributed by nine scholars, including the editors. Throughout the book, the contributors seek to answer the above questions, as well as many others, in relation to inclusivism.

Not to be confused with universalism or religious pluralism, which posit ultimate “salvation” for all, inclusivism “is the view that, although Jesus is the only Savior of the world, one does not have to believe the gospel to be saved” (p. 12). It is in contrast to exclusivism, “the view that Jesus Christ is the only Savior of the world and that one must believe God’s special revelation that culminates in the gospel of Christ in order to be saved” (ibid.).

While some may think a simple quotation of John 14:6 is enough to rebut inclusivism, noting that Christ Himself claimed to be the only way to the Father, the book demonstrates that contemporary inclusivism is too intricate a theological system for such tactics. Fortunately, the editors have compiled excellent essays that will aid readers in understanding and responding to the inclusivism of such figures as Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Terrance Tiessen. Notable essays include, “General Revelation: Sufficient or Insufficient?” by Daniel Strange; “Other Religions: Saving or Secular?” by Eckhard J. Schnabel; and “Holy Pagans: Reality or Myth?” by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

A great place to begin to gain a better understanding of inclusivism is Chapter 11, “Answers to Notable Questions,” wherein the editors offer concise but cogent answers to important questions such as, “Is it just for God to send people to hell who never heard the gospel?”; “How are we to view non-Christian religions?”; “What are the purposes of general revelation?”; and “What is saving faith?” The chapter is particularly helpful because footnotes refer the reader to relevant essays in the book that address the questions in more depth. One response, though, came across as weak. This is in the section responding to, “What do we say to people who are troubled by exclusivism?” (251–52). The answer is too broad to be of much practical help. In short, they reply, “Our response will be shaped by multiple contextual factors” (252).

Nevertheless, Morgan and Peterson have compiled a fine work addressing contemporary inclusivism and offering a robust defense of exclusivism useful for apologists, theologians, and the layperson.

—Robert Velarde

Consequently, the editors of C. S. Lewis as Philosopher have brought together fifteen essays by several contributors, emphasizing the philosophy of Lewis in relation to truth, goodness, and beauty. The result is a rich and varied tapestry of writing that provides distinctly philosophical insights on The Abolition of Man, Miracles, The Problem of Pain, Mere Christianity, the Chronicles of Narnia, and many other works by Lewis.

In particular, Victor Reppert revisits Lewis’s argument from reason in an essay titled, “Defending the Dangerous Idea,” while David Horner updates an earlier paper, “Aut Deus Aut Malus Homo” (Either God or a Bad Man), which evaluates Lewis’s popular argument from Christ with specific responses to Lewis critic John Beversluis. In “To Reign in Hell or to Serve in Heaven,” Matthew Lee addresses Lewis’s perspective on hell as set forth in The Problem of Pain. Russell W. Howell explores “Lewis’s Miracles and Mathematical Elegance,” and Gregory Bassham addresses Narnia and other relevant works by Lewis in an essay on “Lewis and Tolkien on the Power of Imagination.” Many other essays round out this ambitious volume.

Several years ago this reviewer served as teaching assistant to Dr. Vernon Grounds, chancellor of Denver Seminary, for a graduate course on “The Philosophy of C. S. Lewis.” By the end of the semester, one thing was clear—the writings of C. S. Lewis proved a wonderful source of philosophical insight, but from a distinctly Christian worldview. As Tom Morris writes in the foreword, “Lewis brought a philosophical cast of mind to everything he did” (p. 10).

Lewis is often marginalized academically in relation to philosophy and his ideas dismissed off hand, as though he were a mere gnat circling the ivory towers of great philosophers. But as the contributors to C. S. Lewis as Philosopher demonstrate, Lewis has much to offer philosophy. As such, the book is a great addition to a growing body of literature about the intellectual and often philosophical pursuits of a “mere” Christian willing to use his mind for the glory of God.

—Robert Velarde

Robert Velarde is author of Conversations with C. S. Lewis (InterVarsity Press), The Heart of Narnia (NavPress), and Inside The Screwtape Letters (Baker). He studied philosophy of religion at Denver Seminary and is pursuing graduate studies in philosophy at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

1 C. S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (Orlando, FL: Macmillan, 1980, rev. and exp. ed.), 28.

In an essay responding to a debate on the existence of God, Dallas Willard uses the phrase, “ontologically haunted universe,” adding, “It is haunted by unnerving possibilities.”¹ Willard suggests that a successful argument against atheism results in that worldview being ideologically haunted. Rather than merely reacting to atheism—or any sort of skepticism, for that matter— actively engaging in establishing a haunted universe in the world-view of the atheist is a critical component in making the case for Christian theism.

In the world of the occult or paranormal, a haunting refers to a recurring manifestation of a ghost, usually at a particular location such as a home or other building. Haunting can also mean to disturb or bother the sensibilities or mind. It is in the second sense that this article will provide “ghosts” for the atheist, not as occult phenomena, but as apologetic arguments intended to nudge atheists from their worldview in the direction of Christian theism by weaving cognitive tensions in the fabric of their view of reality. These tensions can fester, bothering atheists because their worldview becomes haunted by ideas that favor the existence of God.

The recent rise of the so-called new atheism and its associated overt hostility to religion, particularly Christianity, calls out for a rational Christian response rather than merely defensive posturing. While the temperamentally belligerent tone of much of the new atheism is disturbing, the arguments presented are anything but new. In fact, many of the arguments the new atheists present are of the traditional variety, albeit in the guise of antagonism rather than a cordial meeting of the minds determined to discover truth. As a result, many Christians are on the defensive. We are certainly called to defend the faith, but this does not mean always being reactionary, thus allowing atheists to set the tone and topic of discussion. We need to engage actively on our terms instead of theirs.

What figurative ghosts can Christian apologists provide to haunt the universe of the atheist? There are many, but I will briefly present ten, the first three being traditional natural theology arguments for the existence of God.

Ghost #1: Cosmology. If the universe had a beginning, and if everything that has a beginning has a cause, then what caused the universe? To state that the big bang caused it is not a sufficient answer, as the big bang, if accepted, is an event. But what caused the event? In short, this first ghost is a brief presentation of the Kalam cosmological argument.² It argues that the best explanation for the origins of the universe is God.

Ghost #2: Design. Is the universe fine-tuned to support intelligent life? Is it designed? Does apparent design in the universe, both at a macroscopic and microscopic level, suggest chance or design? This is a brief presentation of one form of the teleological or design argument. It suggests that biological life and other factors, such as a seemingly biocentric universe, point to the reality of an intelligent designer behind the cosmos.

Ghost #3: Morality. Do moral standards exist? If so, where do they come from? If they are mere inventions of beings who themselves are the result of time and chance, then there are no real standards of right and wrong. The result is moral relativism or variations of a sort of social contract theory of ethics. Whatever the atheist explanation, it falls short of having ultimate and transcendent authority. If God exists, however, we have a real and transcendent standard of right and wrong.³

Ghost #4: Evil and Suffering. Atheists often appeal to the reality of evil and suffering as an argument against God. If God exists, the argument goes, then why does He allow so much evil and suffering in the world? But where does the atheist get the idea of evil? Where does that sense of injustice in the world come from? To call something evil requires some understanding of the reality of good. But where does this standard come from?

Ghost #5: The Intelligent Christian. Another ghost that may haunt the universe of the atheist is the existence of the intelligent Christian. When I was an atheist, I was under the impression that most Christians were idiots. Unfortunately, most of the believers I encountered were intellectually ignorant, unable to articulate why they believed what they believed, much less able to engage with an atheist on more than a superficial level. When I began to encounter intelligent Christians, however, both through their writings and in person, I was haunted by a problem: how seemingly intelligent people embrace Christianity? Yet history is filled with individuals possessed of obviously great intelligence who also embrace Christianity as being “true and reasonable” (Acts 26:25 NIV). Christian thinkers are unlikely to compare to the intellectual greatness of the likes of Augustine. Nevertheless, we can model an intelligent and reasonable Christianity as an example for atheists not of a blind faith, but of a reasonable faith.

Ghost #6: Atheism as Nihilism. Followed to its logical conclusions, atheism ultimately leads to the despair of nihilism. In the end, there is no lasting meaning to life within atheism because within its framework there is no God, no real grounding for morality, no reason for human existence, and no lasting meaning to anything we do. In this regard, atheism has nothing truly positive to offer the world. This is why traditionally it is Christians who help the needy, establish hospitals, and care for the hurting. Atheism has no real foundation to offer help to the world, unless its foundation is borrowed from a justifiably moral worldview such as what is found in Christian theism.

Ghost #7: Reason and Intelligibility. Why are we able to reason? If we are merely the products of randomness rather than intelligence, why do we think our reasoning abilities actually have the power to arrive at truth? This is a version of the argument from reason.4 A somewhat related argument is one from intelligibility, related to the design argument. As Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli wrote, “Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.”⁵

Ghost #8: Pascal’s Anthropological Argument. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) argued that Christianity offers the best explanation of the seeming paradox of human greatness and wretchedness. Why is it that we are capable of such greatness, but also of such wretchedness? The explanation is found in Christianity. The doctrine of the Fall accounts for our capacity for wretchedness, while being made in the image of God accounts for human greatness.⁶

Ghost #9: Explaining Christ. Another ghost for the atheist involves explaining Christ. Given that Christ existed and the New Testament Gospels are accurate accounts of His life, what explanation do atheists offer for Christ? This argument involves going beyond the traditional “Lord, liar, or lunatic” options presented in some popular apologetic works, as there are other options to consider.⁷

Ghost #10: Christianity’s Positive Influence. The new atheism revels in pointing to the many supposed failings of Christianity. While there are excellent responses to the typical critiques,⁸ this ghost for the atheist concentrates on Christianity’s many positive influences throughout history in areas such as humanitarian aid, the arts, philosophy, social reform, science, literature, and more. Far from being a negative influence on the world, Christians have sought to love their neighbors, doing to others as they would have others do to them. The Golden Rule and God’s love as the key foundations of Christian ethics are hardly negative, but vastly positive.9

Atheists who become Christians generally do so as the result of a series of progressive steps that ultimately lead to theism, then, perhaps after interludes exploring other worldviews, Christian theism. The interludes pose a danger in establishing a haunted universe for the atheist. The atheist may be diverted by another false worldview instead of making it all the way to Christianity. That is why the Christian apologist cannot merely offer arguments for the existence of God without ultimately pointing to Christianity as the solution and best explanation of reality.

Not all atheists, moreover, will be haunted by the same ghosts. An incremental approach to dialoguing with atheists offers a variety of rigorous and well-crafted arguments that will create intellectual tensions in their thinking. Over time, these tensions may move the atheist closer to theism. If Christians can haunt the atheist universe by presenting reasonable arguments, that is not an apologetic defeat, but a significant step towards belief and acceptance of Christ.

—Robert Velarde

Robert Velarde is author of Conversations with C. S. Lewis (InterVarsity Press), The Heart of Narnia (NavPress), and Inside The Screwtape Letters (Baker Books). He studied philosophy of religion and apologetics at Denver Seminary and is pursuing graduate studies in philosophy at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

notes

1 Dallas Willard, “Language, Being, God, and the Three Stages of Theistic Evidence,” in Does God Exist? The Great Debate, ed. J .P. Moreland and Kai Neilsen (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 207. The book has since been reprinted by Prometheus Press (1993), while Willard’s essay is available online for those who wish to read the original context of his comments: http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42

2 Perhaps the most vocal evangelical Christian proponent of the argument in our time is William Lane Craig. See his book The Kalam Cosmological Argument (London: Macmillan, 1979). An example of the cosmological argument used by Craig in debate with an atheist may be found in God? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).

3 There are many variations of the moral argument. C. S. Lewis presented a popular version in Book I of Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952).

4 C. S. Lewis presents the argument from reason in chapter 3 of Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1960). It has since been reexamined and defended by Victor Reppert in C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

5 Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 66.

6 A more detailed presentation of the argument is found in my article, “Greatness and Wretchedness: The Usefulness of Pascal’s Anthropological Argument in Apologetics,” Christian Research Journal 27, 2 (2004).

7 See, e.g., Kreeft and Tacelli, chap. 7.

8 See, e.g., Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) and Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett, Christianity on Trial (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2001).

9 See my booklet, What Christianity Has Done for the World (Torrance, CA: Rose Publishing, 2007).

Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who critiqued the traditional view of epistemology (the study of knowledge) and sought a compromise between rationalism and empiricism. Rather than primarily or exclusively relying on human reason or experience to arrive at truth, Kant instead sought a philosophical synthesis of these approaches. In so doing, Kant’s philosophy resulted in skepticism such that what we can actually know about God is severely limited, if not entirely crippled. Kant jettisoned traditional theistic proofs for God as utilized by natural theology, but sought to ground ethics, in part, in his concepts of categorical imperatives or universal maxims to guide morality, rather than rooting ethics in God’s love and revealed truths.

Writing of the incarnation of Christ, the Gospel of Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14: “’The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’—which means, ‘God with us’” (Matt. 1:23 NIV). Although philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) bore the name meaning “God with us,” his ideas resulted in skepticism that places God beyond us.

But who was Kant? What was the historical context in philosophy that moved him to form and develop his ideas? How do we respond to Kant’s philosophy? How are his ideas relevant to contemporary Christian apologetics?

Before addressing such questions, it will be beneficial to cover briefly two points. First, we need to address why we should study philosophy at all, particularly the variety that tends to harm rather than help Christianity. Second, we must become familiar with the basic vocabulary and concepts of philosophy.

Space does not allow for a thorough defense of the value of studying philosophy, so only brief points are made here. The objection is sometimes raised that the Bible prohibits the study of philosophy on the basis of passages such as Colossians 2:8: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” Note that the caution offered concerns the need to be discerning combined with a warning against “hollow and deceptive philosophy.”

Being discerning of philosophy requires some level of familiarity and understanding of it. Moreover, not all philosophy is “bad.” As C. S. Lewis succinctly put it, “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”¹ Learning to interact with, and respond intelligently to, philosophicalideas is part of the Christian calling to love God with all of our minds and to defend the faith (see Matt. 22:37 and 1 Pet. 3:15).

Philosophy is the “love of wisdom.” Wisdom includes the ability to make correct judgments based on a proper understanding of reality. Any thoughtful study of philosophy requires familiarity with the basic terms of the discipline. Three questions summarize main areas of philosophical study: (1) What is ultimate reality? (2) How do we know? and (3) How should this knowledge of ultimate reality guide our conduct?

The first covers metaphysics, sometimes called ontology, which attempts to go beyond the physical realm to understand and answer questions such as, “Does God exist?” If so, what kind of God?

The second question covers epistemology, or questions regarding knowledge. Epistemology asks questions such as, “How is truth justified? What is knowledge? How do we know anything?”

The third question relates to ethics, the branch of philosophy concerned with right and wrong (what ought or what ought not to be done) and, consequently, how one should or should not live. As we shall see, Kant’s major contributions to philosophy are in the areas of epistemology and ethics, but they also touch on metaphysics.

KANT, RATIONALISM, AND EMPIRICISM

Influential philosophical ideas rarely if ever simply fall out of the heavens and into history. They are, rather, the result of the philosophical milieu of the time. For Kant, this included tension between two significant philosophical systems and how they relate to knowledge: rationalism and empiricism.

As its name suggestions, rationalism focuses on reason as the primary or, in extreme forms, the only means of arriving at truth. Historically, key rationalists include Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Christian Wolff. It may be said, then, that rationalism is an a priori philosophical approach, meaning that a philosophical proposition is said to be determinable prior to sensory investigation or experience.

Empiricism, on the other hand, as a philosophical approach to knowledge, is a posteriori, viewing sensory experience as paramount in determining truth. Historically, key empiricists include Francis Bacon, John Locke, and David Hume.

One of the key philosophical goals Kant wanted to accomplish was to synthesize rationalism and empiricism intelligently in order to arrive at a better system of epistemology. In short, Kant wanted to arrive at “a Copernican revolution of the theory of knowledge.”²

KANT’S LIFE AND WORK

Are Kant’s ideas the result of his personality and personal life? They may or may not be to a certain degree. We should not, however, seek to understand Kant’s philosophical ideas primarily on the basis of personal aspects of his life. C. S. Lewis referred to this sort of emphasis in approach to understanding poetry by understandingthe personal life of a poet as “the personal heresy,”³ because of potential pitfalls. Applying a similar concern toKantian studies, Winfried Corduan writes, “Perhaps too much has been made out of the fact that Kant spent his entire life in Königsberg, East Prussia [Germany], leading a regular and disciplined life.”⁴ Corduan goes on to write, “[Kant] was far from insular in his thinking.”⁵

Kant’s family background was Lutheran, of a particularly pietistic variety. He began his studies at the University ofKönigsberg at the age of sixteen, where he studied the rationalism of Leibniz and Wolff. His studies of empiricist thinker David Hume would later spur Kant’s thinking in reference to synthesizing rationalism and empiricism.

In 1755, Kant accepted a lectureship with his former university, but the position was unsalaried (Kant’s students paid him directly). His fifteen years of service in this capacity resulted in the university appointing Kant, in 1770, to a position in logic and metaphysics. Kant’s inaugural address made note of his desire to reconcile rationalism and empiricism, something he worked on for many years until the publication of The Critique of Pure Reason(1781). Other key works include Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (1783), Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (1793).

Kant never married or traveled far, but his ideas influenced the history of philosophy, traveling the world and spreading what Kant believed was his Copernican revolution in epistemology.

KANT’S KEY IDEAS

A thorough presentation and critique of Kant’s philosophy is beyond the scope of this article.⁶ Much time, for instance, would have to be spent just on explaining Kant’s unique definitions of terms such as synthetic, phenomenal, noumenal, transcendental deduction, ampliative, antinomies, and more. Fortunately, the fundamental concepts of Kant’s philosophy and their particular relevance to the Christian worldview and apologetics can be presented in a straightforward manner.

Rather than delve deeply into Kant’s metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, we will concentrate first on presenting a basic outline of Kant’s epistemology, offer an apologetic example of Kant’s ethics, and briefly note the importance and interconnectedness of Kant’s ideas in relation to metaphysics.

Studying with rationalists such as Wolff resulted in Kant’s initial rationalism, but his encounter with Hume’s empiricism, in Kant’s words, “first interrupted my dogmatic slumber, and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy quite a new direction.”⁷ Ultimately, Kant argued that the beginning of knowledge is experiential, but not exclusively so. Rationalism, too, has something to offer and the mind can help us know.

Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” in epistemology is “that the mind is so structured and empowered that it imposes interpretive categories on our experience, so that we do not simply experience the world, as the empiricists alleged, but interpret it through the constitutive mechanisms of the mind.”⁸

Knowledge, then, “is not the mind’s passive reception of orderly truth from outside itself, but the active work of the mind in formulating the very truths it is assimilating.”⁹ In short, Kant believed in the reality of knowledge, but wanted to know how we know.

Unfortunately, Kant’s epistemology for all practical purposes resulted in skepticism, effectively cutting off any valuable access to metaphysics and, hence, God. As such, in Kant’s philosophy, God is not with us, but beyond us. As Colin Brown writes, “In effect, Kant is saying, ‘Hands off metaphysics!’ For metaphysics are completely beyond the grasp of the human mind.”¹⁰

Ultimately, Kant’s philosophy also resulted in his rejection of natural theology and traditional “proofs” for the existence of God because Kant’s epistemology does not allow for apprehension of viable knowledge in the realm of metaphysics.¹¹ Despite Kant’s rejection of traditional classical arguments for God such as cosmological,¹² teleological,¹³ and ontological¹⁴ forms, it’s interesting to note Kant’s seeming recognition of at least the emotional impact such arguments may have: “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above and themoral law within” (emphasis in original).¹⁵

As we shall see next, Kant’s ethics offer some value for the Christian apologist.

KANT, CHRIST, AND THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Despite the resultant skepticism of Kant’s epistemology, his ethics offer an intriguing potential for an argument in favor of Christian ethics. This argument, presented here in brief, is particularly relevant in light of contemporary atheistic challenges to Christianity that claim, among other things, that Christianity is morally harmful.Christianity, for instance, is often accused of contributing to strife, violence, and suffering in the world. While it is true that some Christians in some instances in history and the present are responsible for such behavior, it is far from true of all Christians. This argument will utilize one form of what is known as Kant’s categorical imperative and apply it to some key ethical principles of Christ and Christianity.

As Kant explained, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (emphasis in original).¹⁶ Kant is stating in this succinct presentation of one form of the categorical imperative that our moral behavior based on a specific maxim or maxims should be tested against its results if it were to become universal. In other words, what if everyone behaved this way? Would this result in a positive situation or a negative one? Christ said we are to love God, love neighbor (Matt. 22:37–38), and, in this context of love, to do to others what you would have them do to you (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31).

Let us apply these Christian concepts universally.

What if everyone loved God, loved their neighbor, and would “do to others what you would have them do to you”?Would this result in a positive or negative situation in the world? Would it contribute to strife, violence, and suffering in the world, or would it alleviate it? Granted, not every Christian in every instance of behavior achieves or expresses the ideal maxims of Christ. Indeed, Christianity grants that we often fail. But the underlying moral principles of Christ and Christianity offer benefits to society, not detriments.

Are there similar universal maxims of atheism that would contribute as positively as those of Christianity? Atheism posits a godless universe that is the result of chance and time. Moreover, there are no transcendent and authoritative moral standards in atheism. Instead, the end result of atheism is logically that of despair in a meaningless universe, secular humanism notwithstanding. In short, atheism can offer no categorical imperative that would justify superiority to the moral maxims of Christianity. In fact, a case can be made that atheism does not on the whole contribute positively to the world.

KANT’S LEGACY, OUR OPPORTUNITY?

Despite disagreements with aspects of Kant’s epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, his efforts highlight the importance of using our minds in order to better understand reality. Far from being detached and irrelevant, Kant’s philosophy continues to influence the world of ideas, with some thinkers crediting him with the riseof subjectivism and “the subsequent arrival of phenomenology, existentialism and postmodern relativistic philosophies.”¹⁷ In addition, incorporating or adapting philosophical concepts such as one form of Kant’s categorical imperative, aids in improving our apologetic efforts.

Far from being a lofty, enigmatic, or impractical pursuit, philosophy plays a key role not only in our everyday lives in areas such as ethical decision-making, but also a practical and relevant role when it comes to evaluating and understanding worldviews. In reality, as we pursue such endeavors, God is not beyond us, but isindeed with us.

Robert Velarde is author of Conversations with C. S. Lewis (InterVarsity Press), The Heart of Narnia (NavPress), and Inside The Screwtape Letters (Baker Books). He studied philosophy of religion at Denver Seminary and is pursuing graduate studies in philosophy at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

notes

1 C. S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (New York: Macmillan, 1980), 28.

2 Louis P. Pojman, Classics of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 819. Kant’s own suggestion that he desired to bring about a Copernican revolution in epistemology is found in his preface to the second edition of Critique of Pure Reason (1787).

3 C. S. Lewis and E. M. W. Tillyard, The Personal Heresy: A Controversy (London: Oxford University Press, 1939). This book has recently been reprinted by Concordia University (2008).

4 W. C. Campbell-Jack and Gavin McGrath, eds., New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), s.v., “Kant, Immanuel.”

5 Ibid.

6 For more in-depth Christian critiques of Kant see Colin Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968); Gordon Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, 2003); and Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Volume VI: Modern Philosophy, from the French Enlightenment to Kant (New York: Image, 1993). Brown and Clark reject natural theology, but not for the same reasons as Kant. Copleston approaches some aspects of philosophy from a Roman Catholic perspective, but in general offers erudite and insightful Christian critiques. A useful secular overview of Kant is found in Robert Audi, ed., The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), s.v., “Kant, Immanuel.”

7 Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, in Pojman, 824.

8 Pojman, 821. See the second edition preface to Critique of Pure Reason (1787).

9 Campbell-Jack, s.v., “Kant, Immanuel” (entry by Winfried Corduan).

10 Brown, 95.

11 An evaluation of the apologetic efficacy of natural theology is beyond our scope. For a recent Christian defense of natural theology see James F. Sennett and Douglas Groothuis, eds., In Defense of Natural Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005).

12 Cosmological arguments claim God is the explanation of a causal universe (i.e., a universe that could not have caused itself ).

13 Teleological arguments point to evidence of design in the universe as indicators of God’s existence.

14 Ontological arguments claim the very concept of God supports the necessity of His existence.

15 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 2003), 360.

16 Kant, Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), in Pojman, 880.

17 Campbell-Jack, s.v., “Kant, Immanuel.”