The following information comes from Francis A. Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. I must give credit for all information to him with the exception of otherwise sourced information and the thoughts of myself in the second paragraph of each section of history. The following is to be interpreted by me as what I believe Schaeffer's pivotal points in each period are. In no way is this a complete account of all of Schaeffer's thoughts.
Ancient Rome
The Ancient Romans are known for raising the bar to new heights as an empire. However, it was not all smooth sailing for the Romans. At first their republic failed. According to Francis A. Schaeffer, as a result of ceaseless arguing. Schaeffer also tells us that the Roman gods could not keep the people unified because they were finite. Their gods were not divine, but instead amplified humanity, or super-humans. Because of this, the Romans had no basis for morals. Out of despair from their declining elitist leadership, the Romans made Julius Caesar their dictator in the hopes of unifying the people as one whole. However, he was soon assassinated by close friends Brutus and Cassius. After Caesar's death Octavian took control and built the empire we know to be so great today. In the end the Roman society fell due to a number of causes. There was an increase in sexual perversion among the citizens, as well as an increased thirst for violence. (Most likely deprived from the bloody games that took place at The Colosseum) The Romans found it difficult to financially support their large empire and soon acquired a considerable amount of debt. Schaeffer says also that a decline of creativity led to the crumble of the empire.
In this chapter Schaeffer says that the Romans initially could not get a strong base for the great empire they formed. He says that it is because of a weak moral foundation along with governmental issues. As for the political portion of that I would have to agree with. But as for the religion and morality issue I cannot fully say the same. He says that they had no moral unification and that the gods could not unify the people as a whole. While I do believe that the Roman people did lack the unification needed to become a strong world power, I do not believe that religion played such a big role in that process as far as morality. Honestly, sculpting an ice lady and having sex with it does not necessarily mean the man who did it turn out to be a bad person (Frank Schaeffer: Part 3). Just because their gods were not able to unify the people as a whole I do not believe religion was their problem. If one was to look at societies like today's America, England, or European Nations one would see a mix of religions and morals, yet these world powers strive. The people all have different backgrounds and especially in America there is a diversity among morals. Tensions in some areas may be a little high in America, but I would say if it came down to it we as a people could hold strong together for the betterment of this country. I believe the real problem was in the government. To make another comparison to today’s society, look at some of the middle eastern countries. Yes, many of them are on a path to being unified, however many of them still engage in civil war and are not unified. But, many of these countries do follow the same religion and it is the small fabric that holds these countries together. In the end Schaeffer says the Roman society fell because of a lack of morality and eventually their thirst for blood and their ego in spreading their empire ran them out financially. Here I feel that Schaeffer has made a great point. I once again think he put too much of the emphasis on morality, but morality is still one aspect that drove them to their fall. I believe that the spread of their empire was the dagger to the heart for the Roman Empire. Once the empire became so vast though, I tend to think this was where morality placed a roll. The process of building their empire became an obsession of the Romans. This is where their thirst for blood hurt them. They were much too greedy when it came to land and continued to battle on savoring the victory and dominance. Once their economy started to bleed there was no turning back, and after all prostitutes are expensive.
The Middle Ages
The Middle Ages were a time of struggle for religion. The medieval church and true biblical teachings were beginning to be distorted. Schaeffer says, “With the breakdown of Roman order and the invasions came a time of social, political, and intellectual turmoil.” What this refers to is the beginning of modern humanity. This was the time period where the separation of nature and humanity begin to form. This was a time of increased education. Charlemagne, one of the greatest kings of the Franks was a prominent leader at this time. He was a man who built churches and founded schools. This was also the time that the university was founded. Also around this time the church started getting involved in the life of the people outside of religion alone. This is a key point because this will lead into the latter churches triumphing over government in some places during the Middle Ages. Churches of this time built hospitals and tried to enforce fair taxes and prices along with a number of other deeds to improve society. But eventually abused this power and became corrupt. Another key figure of this time period is Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas was a philosopher and scholar famous for favoring Aristotle's viewpoints. One key issue Aquinas and Aristotle disagreed with Plato on was the view of Absolutes. Like Aristotle, Aquinas did not view the, Absolutes or divine creations to be as important as the particulars or nature. This is another step towards modern humanity that separates man from nature. Aquinas says, “… the believer and the philosopher consider creatures differently. The philosopher considers what belongs to their proper natures, while the believer considers only what is true of creatures insofar as they are related to God, for example, that they are created by God and are subject to him, and the like.” (Summa contra gentiles, bk II, chap. 4) The last key issue of the Middle Ages was Byzantine art. Byzantine art is a simple two-dimensional painting style meant to show spirituality and convey images of true belief in God. The downside of this though is that because of the holy images it represents, it sets aside nature and humanity. This also will lead to the division of modern humanity. In the end the Middle Ages would die out due to the logical thinking and individual knowledge uprising of the Renaissance and Reformation. That in itself it caused by the ever corrupting church of the Middle Ages.
I personally agree with everything Schaeffer says about this portion of history. This was a time of building for scientific knowledge and once the people of the Renaissance and Reformation realized the corruption in the church who until this time had been the people's only form of education, they wised up and separated themselves. However I somewhat feel that the church was set up to fail. The people hailed the Pope as infallible and almighty. So in the end they were bound to eventually have some problems whether the Pope got too greedy with the power or if the people tended to worship the Pope and not the religion. However the people made a strong comeback to the good side with the rise of reason. Although one thing I do not necessarily agree completely with is Schaeffer's view on Byzantine art. Schaeffer tends to believe that Byzantine art was a negative of the society of the Middle Ages. However, I personally feel that Byzantine art was a good thing for the people. The art helped unify the people under one religion since that was what the majority of the art was about. Schaeffer thinks that the flat images separate humanity and nature and the divine too much. I feel that the people of this time would not have considered it this way. During this time period not a whole lot of things were known about creating art. I do not really think much was known about painting three dimensional figures. Therefore I do not feel it was as much as a separation of humanity as a lack of skill. For the most part though, I agree with Schaeffer's feelings on the Middle Ages.
Renaissance
The Renaissance was a time of rebirth for humanity. The people of the Renaissance put behind the corrupt teachings of the church and accepted that man is great because of God. The Renaissance was a time of growth of teachings, everyone was beginning to be educated. Schaeffer argues that this will eventually lead into the idea of modern humanism that man is the center of everything. The art of this time emphasized nature and its equality to the world. One famous artist of this time was Michaelangelo. Although with the great strides of Renaissance teachers such as Da Vinci or Dante, Schaeffer will argue Michaelangelo had a negative impact on society. His greatest works such as the Sistine Chapel mixed Christian and pagan themes leading to a distortion of teachings. Also, maybe his greatest work of all time, David contributed to the distortion of humanity. While the David showed humanity and its greatness, some of his features were exaggerated to add emphasis on certain aspects of humanity. This also leads to the modern idea that man is the center of thinking. Another one of the great thinkers of this time was Dante Allighieri. (Pictured) The author of many great works such as The Divine Comedy, Dante united the people by writing his works in Italian. At the time Italian was a language everyone knew. However, he also mixed pagan themes in his work and thus also contributed to the distortion of humaity. Schaeffer also seems to agree with Da Vinci's idea that without God man is only a machine saying he, “...really grasped the problem of modern man” and “anticipated where humanism would end.” The Renaissance would eventually end with a mix into the Reformation world.
In the Renaissance chapter Schaeffer tends to believe the major thinkers of the Renaissance were not as good influences as people tend to think. He argues that people such as Dante or Michaelangelo, while influential to the time period, hindered the progress of the Reformation because of the pagan ideals they tend to depict. However I do not think that the pagan themes of Dante or Michaelangelo were fooling anyone. They used pagan themes for a reason. The people of this time were very aware of religious history and would have noticed these themes. So it is a little unfair to say that the pagan themes made art and literature of the time a negative. Dante unified the people by writing his works in Italian. The people would have then had to decide for themselves that they followed God or whoever their religion called for. In my opinion it would be the same affect as today's society watching a movie based on a true story. The gist of the story would be true, but a few things would be fabricated to make the movie interesting. I also do not completely understand where Schaeffer is coming from when he says that the Renaissance and Reformation lead to Modernism. Unless he means because this was when universities flourished he thinks the ability of the people to learn sciences and reasoning lead the people away from God.
Reformation
The Reformation was a time were the people individually took a step back and reviewed themselves after realizing the corruption of the church in the Middle Ages. At this time Martin Luther and John Calvin split from the corrupted church. Martin Luther tended to emphasis that the Bible is our only source of true authority. He based his belief on the key phrase “sola scriptora”, meaning “the scripture alone” This is key to this time period because it will separate from popular humanism and it puts God at the center of the world. According to Schaeffer the Reformation, “Refused to accept the autonomy of human reason.” This means the people of the Reformation believed that man was not independent and could not strive without the help of God. He also says that, “Man not only needs a God who exists, but a God who has spoken in a way that can be understood.” This was the trend of the Reformation and the people now believed that they were nothing without God. The people soon however, looked into reasoning too much and tried to reason away God; which will lead into the Enlightenment.
Most Christians look to the Reformation as a time of prosperity and a wonderful time for the Christian religion. While this is true, I think it should be noted that during this time there was not a whole lot of advancements as far as knowledge and thinking. According to Schaeffer the people of this time believed that man was not independent and depended upon God to survive. If you look at the Renaissance or the Middle Ages you will find advancements in the medical field or the founding of universities and a encouragement to gain knowledge. In my opinion Martin Luther's 95 Theses might not have been the best thing for Christianity. I do believe as far as humanity this was a tremendous thing. This separated the people from an oppressive and corrupt church. On the flip side when Luther split from the church it taught people one thing: question all authority and investigate for themselves. This is why I believe we have the Enlightenment where religion takes a backseat and science and reason get on their high horse and ride.
Enlightenment
The Enlightenment period was the time of the Bloodless Revolution in England, which was a movement by the British people to restrain the powers of the centralized government and give the people more power as individuals. This was a response largely to the free thinking movements brought about in during the Reformation saying that people should investigate themselves and not blindly follow our leaders. (i.e. the catholic church and Martin Luther) The Enlightenment was a time of scientific discovery and the rise of reason. The French philosopher Voltaire, known as the father of the Enlightenment, brought about new philosophies of humanism saying that humans were perfectible and science and reason was the meaning of life. Voltaire is quoted as saying, “those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” (Voltaire). This time was critical in the rise of modern humanism however, the people put less amount of focus on God and more upon reasoning. One key role the Enlightenment played in the disappearance of religion is by wiping out many of religious customs as they did not have reason. For example, the French re-dated the year 1792 as year one, they tore down many cathedrals and raised a statue of the goddess of reason at Notre Dame. They even went as far as having the goddess of reason personified by popular actress Demoiselle Candeille. The people of the Enlightenment also tended to believe more in Deism. Deism states that the world is like a wind-up toy and God created us and set us here to be for ourselves and does not interact. Eventually this will lead to the decline of religion as humanity started to fall more upon reason and less upon religion. Ultimately this leads into the fall of humanity after the rise of science.
I feel this time period follows on what I have said earlier about Luther and the distrust of the people. At the beginning of the Enlightenment we see the Bloodless Revolution. What is happening here? The people are revolting against the centralized government in England and pushing for more power to the people and less to the officials. As for religion I feel the people of the time could be compared to a couple who just found out their spouse was cheating. The people were hurt, confused, and angry. Not wanting to go back to the cheating spouse, The Church, the people looked to new significant others; reason and science. When this is considered I can see why the people fell away from the church and into the age of reason and science. This is the time period where we see the beginnings of our very own country of America. America of course was founded on the belief centralized government could not be trusted and originally some of the pilgrims came to the new world to get away from the corrupt church. In my opinion I think Schaeffer should have given the Enlightenment some credit in the formation of western civilization. After all his book is partially named The Rise and Fall of Western Thought and Culture. Instead he moves from the French Revolution, also caused by the Reformation confusion, and moves on to Russia and Communism. Do not misunderstand me! Communism is a pivotal period in the history of religion and culture of the world, but America plays a key role in the world here and I never saw the slightest hint at their influence in Schaeffer's text until we get to the hippies of the 60's.
The Rise of Modern Science
The rise of modern science can be associated as a combination of two other periods in history, the Reformation and the Renaissance. This is a time obviously, of science. Most of our fathers of scientific thought came from this time period such as Galileo, Keplar, Newton, Pascal, and Descartes. Schaeffer points out that the loss of faith left a hole in knowledge for the people of the Rise of Modern Science. No longer could unexplainable things be answered with God, now the people had to look for a reasonable cause. Out of this science was born. This is the time period where Keplar discovered that the planets have elliptical orbits and Newton discovered gravity and the speed of sound. In this chapter Schaeffer says that the Christian scientific world is worth finding out about, nature is free to be observed, and man has dominance over nature. In this chapter Schaeffer also states that the universe is an open system, meaning the possibility of anything to happen is out there. But, Schaeffer says that we still have cause and effect. The cause being the free will of anything that happens and the result of the action being the effect.
This is possibly one of the most confusing chapters in HSWTL. Not because of the history, but because here we see a lot of Schaeffer's thoughts on the battle between science and religion. However, I feel I would have to disagree with some of his beliefs. Yet, at the same time I agree with him. He says that nature is free to be observed and man has dominance over nature, but I believe this is only a half truth. The nature of the universe is definitely worth finding out about and making discoveries, but does man really have dominance over nature? I believe man has become acquainted with certain aspects of nature and have the ability to manipulate nature for the betterment of ourselves. For example, man can build a building and create his own new atmosphere inside the building. Therefore man has manipulated nature. Nature can tear the building down with an earthquake, fire, tornado, hurricane, etc. By no means is this dominance over nature. Again, man can defy gravity in an airplane, but that plane has to come down at some point. These are manipulations not dominance.
Another thing Schaeffer says that concerns me is what he says about the universe being an open system. Inside open system there is a possibility for anything to happen. But, we must not forget cause and effect. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction according to nature. But, he says god set us up and allows us to have free will with our consequences being the result of cause and effect. Most Christians agree though that God knows all and he knows whether we will be in heaven or hell before we are even conceived. Therefore our actions are a result of a false free will. We believe we are making our own thoughts and choices, but in the end God knew them before they entered our minds. Therefore a Christian could not believe we live in a true open system. A closed system where all our fates are predetermined and we acted as a gear in the machine would make more sense in this case. I believe that living in an open system under Schaeffer's idea would be more of a Deist ideal.
The Breakdown In Philosophy and Science
This chapter is mainly composed of Schaeffer's thoughts about modern humanity under the modern philosophical and scientific ideas. He starts by arguing that Plato and Aristotle's view on the absolutes and particulars must co-exist. He says we cannot have meaning as particulars without the existence of absolutes. Absolutes being an ultimate standard. This means that without an open standard there is no reason for morality or and kind of conformity and everything would be absurd. In this chapter Schaeffer talks about the three shifts that made modern humanity the way it is. These shifts were in science, philosophy, and theology. This chapter is about the time period when Darwin wrote his famous The Origin of Species. Schaeffer points out at this time that Darwin's theory of evolution could not have happened by mere chance based on pure chance. Schaeffer also says that this absurdity put forth by Darwin when applied to humans makes less sense and gave the Nazi regime a viable reason to treat humans the way they did. The rest of this chapter deals with the confusion of man on the meaning of life according to Schaeffer, which is that we are made to fulfill our purpose as Christians and be a part of God's Holy Army.
This is where I start to be confused on what I believe. This chapter basically discusses the meaning of life and its origins. Darwin is disproved because mathematically chance is impossible for the creation of man. Also Luis Pasteur disproves the big bang theory with pasteurization. He says life cannot be created out of non-life. Therefore it must be creation, right? Well the last time I checked God had life too. So he was created by life. Well eventually if you trace a family line it comes to an end. Cavemen or Adam or whatever other beliefs there are about the first human. Well where does God's family line end? He cannot create himself because before he was created he would have been non life. But this depends on what we define as life as to whether God would have to be created or not. Here I am going to end my analysis of this chapter because it is immensely confusing and I do not have the proper training and knowledge to argue any of Schaeffer's discussed beliefs in this chapter. I would like it to be noted that I am not saying God cannot exist because he does not have a creator as well. I am merely presenting an idea open for any kind of criticism because I am not well acknowledged in this subject.
Modernism and Our Society
Francis Schaeffer starts his discussion of modernism by discussing who he says is the most known existentialist, Jean-Paul Sartre. According to Schaeffer, “He held that in the area of reason everything is absurd, but nonetheless a person can authenticate himself by an act of will; everyone should abandon the pose of a spectator and act in a purposeless world.” (HSWTL 147). Schaeffer makes an analogy to explain his thinking saying that according to these principles you could authenticate yourself by helping an old lady across the street, or by running her over in your car. Schaeffer says that according to this reason is not involved and nothing can show you the direction you should take. Another man who Schaeffer discussed is Aldous Huxley. Huxley's ideas expanded on the ideas of another man named Karl Jaspers. Jaspers believed everyone had a final experience that determined an individual meaning of life for people. Huxley believed in drugs as a way to reach everyone's own final experiences whenever they pleased. He fist became known for this idea when he released it as a fictional society in his book Brave New World. In the plot of the book (this knowledge comes from the reading of the book by myself) everyone is genetically made in a laboratory. Everyone was given a drug named soma to determine their own purpose. The doses however, were adjusted based on intended purpose of the subject. Garbage men received less soma so they would be unintelligent and content with their unimportant job and never know the difference. Political leaders were given more soma to learn them and make them fit for a high priority position. Eventually Schaeffer says that Huxley became open about his view of drugs and exposed them outside of a theatrical concept. Hence Huxley opened the door to individual humanism. This idea caught on with the young people of the 60's and eventually rock music had been developed to express this. Later the art culture would come to express individualism and its thoughts. Salvador Dali, a prominent artist of modernism, is famous for inventing the art form known as Dada. Dada is known for believing everything is conceived as absurd and leaves room for one's own thoughts to determine meaning and reason. The last major thinker Schaeffer discusses is Frederich Nietzsche. Nietzsche is known for saying God is dead. According to Schaeffer though Nietzsche knew exactly what this meant. If god is dead, he is dead in all aspects about and meaning that God gives is dead.
Living in the time of modernism I feel very strongly about this subject. As far as Sartre goes I believe he is partially right. I do not feel everything is absurd and has no meaning. I believe everything has meaning. I believe in reason. But, I do agree an act of free will authenticates ourselves. Yet, not just one act of free will, but every act of free will. Huxley and his views also mean a lot to me. This is the culture I grew up in and live in. In a way I would have to say I agree with Huxley. People will always have individual truth. I promise if the ten greatest religious leaders of history were compared, none of them would have the same idea about truth and meaning. Or the ten greatest theologians of history even probably would not share the same views. My point is that Truth does exist in our heads. What I believe expands from the beliefs of Karl Jaspers. I do not believe in one final experience that determines meaning to ourselves, but in EVERY experience determining meaning. In my opinion drugs may or may not be a way to achieve a heightened state of awareness of these experiences. Certainly I believe that every experience defines our individual meaning, and the experience of the effect of drugs certainly have the possibility of helping us realize our meaning at the current time according to our beliefs of meaning. Obviously doing drugs like meth to get high alone and nothing else would be bad. But, Huxley obviously used them for the experience and feeling of truth of religious feeling. Never would it be good to do something harmful to your health but if it bring us closer to understanding meaning I cannot see how it could be a bad thing. I feel this is especially true in drugs like marijuana where one does not lose his sense of reality under the effects of the drug. I could even understand using drugs in a Christian belief system. If drugs bring us closer to understanding meaning, then what is the harm in using drugs to find our meaning in God's world. If drugs bring about a religious experience as claimed by people like Huxley, then what is the evil in using them to have the experience to be on a new level closer to God? I do not condone the use of illegal drugs however. Please do not misunderstand me. Many drugs are harmful to one's health. I am simply saying if (emphasis on IF!) they bring about religious experience, I do not see the harm in the use of them to be closer to God. I feel it would be like any other religious ritual used to become closer to Him through an experience.
Moving on, Frederich Nietzsche I believe is often misinterpreted. Schaeffer himself calls him brilliant. (HSWTL 178) He says God is dead, but he completely understands what it means if God is dead. But I feel people go too far when they say if God is dead then there cannot be morals or values in absolutes because all things about God are dead. If I were to die tomorrow, everything I have said in this essay until now would not automatically be void. George Washington for example is dead, but the precedents he set are still very active in American politics. Never did Nietzsche say there was a God and he died. The context he meant it in applied to a society. In the modern society God is dead. Individual experiences determine our meaning, not God as in the Reformation or Renaissance. So I think it is important to remember we still have the ability to reason, and before we throw out slanders like that of Nietzsche, or anyone and anything for that matter being crooked, we should take the time to stop and think to use the ability to reason to find the truth.
In conclusion, one could see that in some ways I personally agree with Schaeffer's thoughts and in some ways I do not. Schaeffer in my opinion is a great thinker and has undoubtedly shaped our society, especially Christian thinking. The wonderful thing is there is never any way to be absolutely sure that my thoughts, Schaeffer's thoughts, or anyone’s thoughts and beliefs about world view are correct. That is left at the transgression of God, or in the circumstance he does not exist, it does not matter because we would all be right in our own heads.
Works Cited
Anderson, Joel E. "Frank Schaeffer: Part 3." Web log post. 4 July 2011. Web. 6 Oct. 2011. <resurrectedorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2011/07/frank-schaeffer-part-3.html>
McInerny, Ralph. "Saint Thomas Aquinas." 2009. Web. 2011. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/>.
Schaeffer, Francis A. How Should We Then Live?: the Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. Old Tappan, NJ: F. H. Revell, 1976. Print.
"Thomas Aquinas: Contra Gentiles: English." The Priory of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies. Web. 07 Oct. 2011. <http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm>.
"Voltaire | Author and Philosopher." Lucidcafé Interactive Café and Information Resource. Web.
*note: for some reason my computer would not allow me to correct the font color on the last citation, it allowed me to do it on the rest but I'm not sure why it did not on the last one.
