King's Business - 1946-10

A NEW BOOK entitled Education for Modern Man published in April, 1946, sets forth certain al­ leged reasons why education in a democracy is Professor Sidney Hook, head of the philosophy depart­ ment of the Washington Square College of New York University, is one of the younger disciples of John Dewey. Technically he calls his position agnosticism. He states that there might be a God, but contemptuously likens the possibility of His existence to the likelihood “that there exists a gingerbread castle on the other side of the moon.” We should say that if God is (in the Christian sense), then by definition He must be the basis of all that is good. We are justified therefore in using the word “atheism” to describe the view that faith in God cannot be the basis of education in a democracy. In Professor Hook’s terminology, belief in the actual existence of God is a question of metaphysics. We there­ fore use the word “metaphysics” in the following para­ graphs in that sense, that is, as a way of referring to the actual existence of God. In his new book, Professor Hook presents twd reasons for not believing in any metaphysical (theological) basis for education in a democracy: (1) The metaphysical bases suggested are divergent; and (2) The same meta­ physical bases have been proposed as foundations for social structures other than democracy. His actual words are: The metaphysical and theological premises from which the validity of democracy has been allegedly derived are of the most heterogeneous variety. Many of them are mutually incompatible. They have been offered by polytheists, monotheists, atheists; Jews, I Mohammendans and Christians; Catholics, Lutherans, and Unitarians; and by philosophers of diverse schools. This suggests that the conviction with which the democratic ideal is held rests not so much on alleged metaphysical presuppositions that are beyond the test of experience, but on the actual or anticipated values of democracy in experience as contrasted with

nondemocratic alternatives. It is interesting to ob­ serve that these nondemocratic alternatives histori­ cally have been justified by the identical metaphysical and theological presuppositions which have been ad­ vanced as the alleged premises on which democracy rests. And since these premises are compatible with social philosophies that are mutually contradic­ tory, the latter cannot be derived from the former (pp. lOf). The Christian would reply, “True, various metaphys­ ical presuppositions of a divergent nature have been ’ad­ vanced, but so have divergent theories of sanitation. Di­ vergence of theory is not' a philosophically worthy argu­ ment against the effort to find a metaphysical basis of things. Professor Hook’s own experimentalism is just one more suggested metaphysical basis for education. A Christian may accept this experimental metaphysical view, as far as it goes: ‘O taste and see that the Lord is good.’ ” That the religious metaphysical view has been ad­ vanced as a basis for nondemocratic social structure, is doubtless a veiled reference to the claim of the “divine right of kings.” It should be pointed out, however, that democracy itself has been claimed as a basis for tyran­ nies of various kinds. This does not prove that democ­ racy is “compatible” with tyranny. The Biblical doctrine of God does not claim to sup­ port majority rule, right or wrong. It does claim to sup­ port human liberty under liberal stable government. Professor Hook gives an excellent definition of “ the central idea underlying democratic institutions,” as the idea that “we should treat individuals of unequal talents and endowments as persons who are equally entitled to relevant consideration and care" (p. 11). History shows a positive corrblation between Biblical theism, ahd de­ mocracy thus described. Anti-theistid metaphysics is lacking in historical per­ spective. American culture is in the stream of influence of Puritan democracy, the theistic metaphysics of which should be recognized as having been instrumental in T H E K I N G S B U S I N E S S

not and cannot be based upon faith irr God. Thfe author,

6

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker