The Inescapable Question of Human Nature

I think of us as essentially normative beings, that what sets us apart from the other animals is our capacity to commit ourselves, our worrying about whether we are entitled to those commitments, whether it’s a cognitive commitment as to how things are or a practical commitment as to how things shall be. I think of us as discursive beings… We’re beings who engage in practices of giving and asking for reasons. And I think these two dimensions—the normative dimension and the rational dimension—are what set us apart from beings that can feel but can’t think. And I think of logic and philosophy as having the task of making explicit what is implicit in those normative and rational practices.

– Robert Brandom, Interview at The University of Leipzig (June, 2008)

This quote from the American philosopher Robert Brandom shows how inescapable the question of human nature is. Much Twentieth-Century philosophy was influenced by two related and significant movements: logical positivism and the linguistic turn. To over-simplify, these movements were characterized by attempting to set up strict boundaries about what it was sensible for philosophers to try to explain, and the method by which they would go about coming up with philosophical explanations was primarily through analyzing language – that is, sentences, words, arguments etc. This was, in some part, a reaction to a previous style of philosophizing that was metaphysically extravagant, postulating all sorts of entities, and taking diverse and slippery phenomena to be the subject matter of philosophy.

Any-hoo, a comprehensive theory of human nature that explained what a person is at essence, is exactly the kind of metaphysical and speculative theory philosophy tended to shy away from after positivism and the linguistic turn. What I like about the above quote from Brandom, a linguistic philosopher among linguistic philosophers, is that he tries to justify this focus by an appeal to human nature. To paraphrase, he says, ‘Look, focusing on language is the best way to philosophize, because at root, what separates humans from animals is the ability to communicate; to articulate, criticize and accept reasons.’

It is interesting to see that even within a philosophical movement that eschewed coming up with theories of human nature, and indeed often criticized Christianity on exactly this point, there were latent substantive metaphysical assumptions about what a human being really is.

Norms In Evangelical Reasoning

When really serious issues are at stake and talk of doctrines ‘upon which the church stands or falls’ begins to rumble like thunder, urging the search for resolution can seem like an invitation to capitulate, to concede essential points before beginning. It can seem as though Scripture is deemed to be inconclusive and ambiguous, so that either side is free to concede the possible right of the other’s interpretation. It can seem as though what is needed is an indefinite irresolution about everything important, in which there is no need for, and no possibility of, a decisive closure.

But that is all a trick of the light…

None of this is implied in the search for agreement. The only thing I concede in committing myself to such a process is that if I could discuss the matter through with an opponent sincerely committed to the church’s authorities, Scripture chief among them, the Holy Spirit would open up perspectives that are not immediately apparent, and that patient and scrupulous pursuit of these could lead at least to giving the problem a different shape – a shape I presume will be compatible with, though not precisely identical to, the views my opponent now holds, even if I cannot yet see how. I do not have to think I may be mistaken about the cardinal points of which I am convinced. The only thing I have to think – and this, surely, is not difficult on such a subject! – is that there are things still to be learned by one who is determined to be taught by Scripture how to read the age in which we live.

– Oliver O’Donovan, Church in Crisis: The Gay Controversy and the Anglican Communion (2008), p.32-33

Evangelical Christians believe that one thing which marks them out as distinctive from all other approaches to the Christian faith and tradition is their stance towards Scripture. That is, how they approach the Bible as an authority. This hallmark is not without its problems: Other sincere Christians from different traditions are likely to take offense at evangelicals latching onto this since it implies that other traditions don’t really take the bible seriously; it is also prone to misunderstanding, with the pithy sentence ‘taking the Bible seriously’ being reconstructed as ‘believing every word in the Bible is true, end of conversation’ which soon leads to the caricature ‘science is dumb and let’s legislate Old Testament morality’.

The above remarks from Oliver O’Donovan give a helpful elucidation of what evangelicals are trying to get at when they say that they take the Bible seriously.  O’Donovan’s quote rewards close reading. To those outside of the evangelical tradition, hopefully it should water-down some stereotypes. To evangelicals it should serve as a reminder and perhaps a call to repentance.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this quote.