As Americans this type of philosophy is all around us. I recently read from Erickson’s Christian Theology about its view of truth as the common factor within several varieties of pragmatism. This is what Erickson had to say:
“Traditional philosophy was concerned with a quest for absolute reality as such. Science was seen as pursuing the same goal, but utilizing a different method. Pragmatism emphasized that there is no absolute truth; rather, the meaning of an idea lies solely in its practical results. Peirce concentrated on the repeatable experiments of the community of scientists. James, on the other hand, stressed the particular beliefs of the individual as a human being rather than as an intellectual investigator.
The goal, then, is not metaphysical truth, statements about the nature of ultimate reality. Rather, the meaning or the truth of a proposition is its experienceable consequences. Peirce observed, for example, that there really is no difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant views of transubstantiation. For while the adherent of two views maintain that they are describing different metaphysical conceptions, they actually agree as to all the sensible effects.”
It is easily understandable that within a worldview that says there is no absolute truth this methodological approach is all that one’s has to work with. However, to see this as the foundation to most of our theology within the American church is rather disturbing. These tenets are at the core of most practices within evangelical churches and is the center of most theological discussion. Where does such teaching led to, consider what Erickson says about John Dewey’s thought concerning pragmatism.
“Dewey’s instrumentalism stressed that logic and truth are to be understood in terms of the capacity to solve problems and of their impact on the values and moral development of human beings. Religion, in his view, has the instrumental value of bringing persons together in a unity of communication, of shared life and shared experience. Religion that does not contribute to this unity, for instance, institutional and creedal religion is to be rejected.”
Unity is the supposed result of such teaching, which is an admirable goal, but the unity is around communication, life, and experience. In my view, such unity is swallow for it is only a result of life experiences; therefore, if one doesn’t share the same life experience, is there unity among those two individuals. Biblically, unity goes deeper than what is on the surface.
