Positivism

One of the topics I talk about is Positivism. Do you recall when Jack @ Sigma Frame and Bruce Charlton temporarily came together for a short dialogue in “Is the Σ Frame Blog Positivistic or Prophetic?” Jack is a big fan of Bruce Charlton. Charlton’s blog features prominently on Sigma Frame’s blogroll. This is kind of funny because their teachings are not really compatible. For example, consider these quotes:

Here we have the absurd situation where Jack views Sigma Frame as rejecting positivism while Charlton believes that the form of Sigma Frame is the most positivistic he has ever seen (a big claim!). He also stated that their “fundamental (metaphysical) assumptions are not shared.” Moreover, Bruce had this to say about Catacomb Resident (of Jack’s and Ed Hurst’s Radix Fidem):

Radix Fidem teaches that so-called “Western” modes of understanding—the mind, intellect, and reason—are fleshly, fallen, and an “obsession with ‘propositional truth'” (as Ed Hurst says). This is the same claim as Jack’s that the West is positivist and that mysticism is the path to truth.

But, as I pointed out in “Dr. Michael Heiser,” the biggest complaint of the modern church is hardly that it is too closely following scripture according to rigorous intellectual or propositional standards.^[1] The idea that modern Christians are overly rational is mind-boggling absurd. Indeed, “Western” Christianity (specifically) and leftism (in general) are characterized by a rejection of reason and absolute truth for the embrace of self-refuting and contradictory ideologies.

Nobody thinks that the modern church is actually ruled by reason.^[2]

What gives? Charlton provides the answer:

The essence of positivism is not the use of math, physics, or logic, it is in the denial of metaphysics and God. And, this is the key point: it is self-refuting. It is contradictory. It is logically invalid. Thus, when positivism is worked out in actual practice it manifests in irrationality. When one rejects reality (i.e. metaphysics and God), the only thing that can replace it is unreality.

Positivism constitutes an implicit rejection of propositional truth. Of course it does! It must. Positivism undermines the metaphysical foundation of truth. The rejection of propositional truth is the logically necessary outcome of an inherently contradictory philosophy. That’s why Charlton concludes:

Modernity is not built on an embrace of science, mathematics, physics, logic, and reason. It is based on a contradiction. It is not rational, but irrational.

Now, I’m going to put this very, very clearly, so there is no chance of a misunderstanding: irrationality is not of God. Irrationality is a rejection of God. The rejection of propositional logic for the embrace of irrationality is an implicit rejection of God, because God is truth and God cannot contradict himself because he is truth.

No one can explicitly reject rational thought—a rejection of God—while claiming to (fully) follow God. These are mutually contradictory positions. This is the situation that positivists find themselves in. It’s why being a positivist undermines science.

Let’s briefly consider an example.

A Brief Aside

When Jack reads the work of Charlton, he concludes that he himself is not a positivist and that Charlton has joined Jack (and Radix Fidem) in rejecting the legitimacy of science, logic, and mathematics. But this is far from the truth!^[3] See, Charlton wrote a short book called “Not Even Trying: the corruption of real science.” In that book, Charlton goes to great lengths to show that real science has been progressively replaced by fake science, by falsehoods and outright lies. Far from rejecting the legitimacy of science, he laments its steady destruction by positivists!

NOTE: Jack considers the discussion of metaphysics to be a derailment of the explicit topic at hand.

Faith

Now consider faith. Google’s Oxford Languages dictionary defines it this way (emphasis added):

This could be described as ‘blind faith’ or even a rejection of reason. How can such faith be positivist if faith is a belief which doesn’t require science, math, or logical proof? Because this kind of faith—along with positivism—is inherently irrational.

Scripture itself defines faith for us, and it isn’t the positivist definition given above:

The ancient Hebrews had an expectation, confidence, faith, and conviction about what the Messiah would one day bring. This confidence was rooted in their complete trust that God would fulfill the promises that he made.

How can we describe faith? Faith is the full assurance that God will do what he said even when we do not yet see it unfolding. There is nothing blind—or unclear; uncertain; mysterious—about faith. Faith is about justified confidence. It is about what you know to be true. It is inevitable.

By contrast, faith—the positivist blind kind—elevates to the status of “truth” that which cannot be known, which cannot be shown, which cannot be proven, which is not inevitable.

Mysticism

Much of Western Christianity is characterized by blind faith, by an explicitly mystical approach to doctrinal truth. The largest Western denomination is Roman Catholicism, which is steeped in mysticism. As we saw in our series, most mystics are strongly influenced directly or indirectly by Roman Catholic mystics. This includes John Providence, of Radix Fidem. But, this is not limited to Roman Catholicism. Such mysticism has been common throughout American Protestant Christianity for decades (see: “The Occult in the Mainstream Church“).

Now, the difference between Radix Fidem, Michael Heiser, Jack @ Sigma Frame, and the Western Church is not that just one of them is specifically “propositional” or “rationalist.” This claim doesn’t even make sense, since rationalism—using reason alone and nothing else to determine truth—implies positivism. It is very obvious, in fact, that the modern church derives truth claims mystically: without respect to reason and the senses. Some variation of “you must believe it on faith,” “faith is blind,” and “it is a mystery of faith” has been heard from thousands of pulpits across America. I’ve attended hundreds of churches and never once has a preacher felt obligated to deductively prove to his audience whatever he (or she) wanted them to believe.

So why does Radix Fidem, et al., reject the modern church as being too propositional and rational when this is clearly not the case?

The modern church believes that it has spiritually apprehended truth. So does Radix Fidem, et al. The doctrines they hold are derived from various revelations that each denomination and group has received. And, obviously, they are all hopelessly contradictory with each other. But, since they are not governed by rationality, these contradictions don’t require them to reevaluate their beliefs, nor subject them to a thorough examination.^[4]

The only difference is that each group is sure that its own mystical revelations are the correct ones. Radix Fidem, et al., for example, has a (pagan influenced) Ancient Near East worldview. They are very clear that these assumptions are why their mystical experiences are correct and that others with their supposed “Western” modes of understanding are incorrect. The rejection of (pagan influenced) ANE assumptions by the modern church has nothing to do with a devout allegiance to propositional logic. That’s just a red-herring.

This is most clearly demonstrated by the inability or unwillingness of the members of these various groups to discuss their differences without resorting to ad hominem (especially personal attacks, insults, and passing judgment) or histrionics. It is not possible to follow Paul’s instructions to thoroughly examine what is received if one cannot perform the examination without condemning the fellow examiners.

An Objection

Given this…

…one objection might be raised:

Positivism is an inherently contradictory position. It is irrational. The belief the God exists coupled with the belief that he does not exist is a contradiction. Anyone who is both a positivist and a Christian holds mutually contradictory belief systems, a functional belief in unreality. There is no way to reconcile them. No one who is, in reality, a positivist can, in actuality, fully embrace faith in God, because both cannot be true at the same time. It doesn’t matter what they say: a contradiction doesn’t become valid by protest or insistence.

When a Christian first embraces positivism, he tries to balance his faith in God with the belief that science, math, logic, and reason do not support God. This is why “blind faith” has become so popular in the West. It is an attempt to keep God while simultaneously rejecting the metaphysical basis for God. Thus, one’s being is bifurcated into the two pieces: the private faith side and the public (secular) science, math, and reason side, “may they never meet.”^[5]

But no man can serve two masters. He must love one and hate the other. This is why, in 2020 and 2021, we saw what happened to the majority of God-professing denominations, churches, and their members when they were forced to choose between obeying God and obeying the government. No longer were they legally permitted to hold contradictory views at the same time. It was one or the other, and they made their choice loud and clear for all to see.

Ultimately, positivist Christianity makes its true master clear, sooner or later. By the time it is revealed, the supposed embrace of science, math, logic, and reason—which was always an illusion^[6]—will be gone. It may have started with this claim, but because positivism is irrational and self-defeating, it will inevitably result in a rejection of (real) science, math, logic, and reason.^[7] It is a complete inversion.^[8] The destruction—and politicization—of science and religion demonstrates this.

How can you identify a “late-stage” positivist? Subjective truth claims, including an emphasis on personal experience, perceptions, or emotions. Irrational claims and beliefs. Hostility towards objectivity and reason, including mystically-dominated approaches to truth. Leftist tactics, including smearing, cheating, censoring, and ad hominem. Tribalism and “othering.”

If you are paying close attention, you’ll realize that this describes the so-called Eastern modes of thinking. I point this out merely to note that the “Western” vs. “Eastern” designations are illusory distinctions. While there are certainly different ways of thinking about things, influenced by different cultural assumptions, truth isn’t subject to a cultural filter. “Western” thinking has decayed into “Eastern” thinking.

Before Israel took possession of the Promised Land, God warned them not to try to incorporate the occult practices of their neighbors. And what did they do? They embraced the occult practices of their neighbors. Of course Israel was, by definition, an Ancient Near East culture. So how is it that the decline of Western culture has been so closely associated with the incorporation of occult practices and the “Eastern” modes of thought? Food for thought.

We’ll ponder these questions some more in the next post.

Footnotes

^[1] Heiser affirmatively cites many of the scholars who subscribe to Higher Criticism, which includes the JEPD hypothesis (he does not believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch). This is a Postivist—rationalist—position that denies biblical inerrancy and inspiration. This academic, positivist position is rejected by conservative Evangelical Christians.

^[2] Terms like “Churchianity” and “the cult of nice” reflect this. Bloggers, like Dalrock, spent much of their time describing how the modern church has “cucked” to leftism (including feminism). The modern church is widely considered to be feelings-based, especially with regards to sexual morality and who can be ordained.

^[3] This is the formal fallacy known as “Affirming the consequent.” Charlton rejects positivism so he rejects (modern) science. But Jack thinks that rejecting (all) science is a rejection of positivism. But this is not the case. Notice, too, the equivocation. Jack’s error leads him to falsely conclude that science, logic, and reason oppose truth.

^[4] As I wrote in “Eschatology Q&A:”

Heiser’s worldview deemphasizes rational examination and leads to a more subjective approach to truth. Properly, logically invalid beliefs sound bad even if the assumptions sound good. But Heiser often fails to recognize objectively logically invalid beliefs, particularly those that involve fallacious reasoning. This is reflected in the self-refuting nature of his hermeneutical methodology.

Heiser thinks that you can just start with a set of assumptions and build a reasonable system on top of it. Of course, that’s precisely what he does with his Ancient Near East assumptions. This, ironically, demonstrates his inability to detect logically invalid beliefs.

^[5] Consider how the meaningless “moment of silence” has largely replaced public prayer outside of the walls of the church.

^[6] Richard Dawkins pioneered positivism in the field of science. His writings contributed heavily towards an abandonment of God in favor of a naturalistic explanation. Yet, when he objected to transgender sports players, he failed to see how his own positivism logically led to a rejection of biological reality.

^[7] This is why modern ‘science’ is called ‘scientism’ and bears more in common with propaganda than with the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

^[8] The political analog is the “Separation of Church and State.” Originally this meant that the state couldn’t mandate religion onto the people, but it turned into preventing religious people from stopping a state-mandated secular religion. The only-the-secular-is-valid assumption is positivism. Religion turned into a private matter.