Life's Ultimate Questions (text only) by R. H. Nash

by Ronald H. Nash

Life's Ultimate Questions [Hardcover]Ronald H. Nash (Author)

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theology, Religion, Christian, Christianity

Hardcover

First published August 1, 1999

About the author

Ronald H. Nash (PhD, Syracuse University) was a longtime professor at Western Kentucky University, Reformed Theological Seminary, and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

He was an heir of the theological tradition of Carl F.H. Henry, and was an lifelong admirer and student of Augustine of Hippo, his favorite philosopher.

He was the author of numerous books, including The Concept of God, Life's Ultimate Questions, and Faith and Reason.

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nash, Ronald. Life’s Ultimate Questions.

I think I have figured out the problem with “worldview.” It was originally meant to be used as a tool. We have turned it into an end-goal. No, the situation is even worse. We have turned it into a commodity. That is why worldview talk today is basically useless. We hear a lot about how “this is in conflict with a Christian worldview.” Rarely do we hear anything of how belief-forming mechanisms work or exactly why socialism always leads to shortages and gluts. It did not always have to be this way. There was once a better way to talk about worldview analysis. Ronald H. Nash offers one such model.

For the moment–maybe forever–let us put aside the term “worldview.” We will use “system” instead. Nash argues that the case for or against Christian theism should be made and evaluated in terms of total systems. A system must meet several tests: the law of noncontradiction, outer experience, internal cohesion, and practice. Could there be more criteria? Possibly, but the above are a good start.

Naturalism

A naturalist believes “the physical universe is the sum total of all there is.”




The most intuitive problem with naturalism is the process of reasoning itself. C.S. Lewis and most recently Alvin Plantinga point out that reasoning exceeds the bounds of nature, or at least it is not clear how biological reactions can create the law of non-contradiction.

Moreover, it seems naturalism reduces to physicalism, and this is a problem. “If truth, a proposition, or a thought were some physical motion in the brain, no two persons could have the same thought.”


Plato

Nash updates Platonic language by speaking more of sets than forms. This is a clear gain. We can now rephrase Plato to say “that every class of objects in the physical world has an archetype or a perfect pattern existing in the immutable, eternal, and immaterial world.” We do not need to accept Plato’s conclusions–indeed, until we get to St. Augustine we are better off not accepting him–but he does provide the reader with a number of conceptual tools. For example, “An essence is the set of essential properties without which a particular thing like this squirrel or that tree would not exist as a squirrel or tree.”

Plato’s realm of forms is too neat. It works in some areas but not in others. For example, “One could not know that a and b are equal unless he already knew the standard, Equal itself.” We know universals prior to the particular. Unfortunately, finding out how this knowledge arrives leads to some problems, namely reincarnation.

Aristotle

Our discussion of Aristotle will turn mainly on his definitions of terms, since much of Aristotle will be repeated in Aquinas. Nash summarizes Aristotle’s view of substance as “any given thing that exists or has being.” A substance is composed of matter and form, the latter being the “set of essential properties that makes it the kind of thing it is.”

An essential property is a property of x, which if it lost, x would cease to be x. A common property “is any property that human beings [for example] typically possess without also being essential.” For example, the property of having ten toes is common, but not essential.

Plotinus

Of all the ancient philosophers, Plotinus is easily the most interesting and most powerful.

Main idea: the One necessarily expands downward. The next level is the Nous, or the One’s thinking. Then there is soul, and finally bodies or matter.

The One is so “one-ish” that attributing any property to it compromises its unity. As Nash notes, “If we say ‘The One is x,’ we introduce dualism into the One via the distinction between subject and predicate.” Even saying the One is unknowable does not help, for already we seem to know quite a few things about the One.

If this One is “God,” then how do we relate to it? As best one (sorry!) can tell, you can only relate to it by some mystical catching up into it.

Plotinus’s universe

Is Matter evil for Plotinus? No. It would be a mistake to call him a Gnostic. Matter does represent some sort of fall in being, but that means it is less good rather than evil.

Augustine

Although much of this is familiar material, Nash has some helpful charts for explaining Augustine’s thought. Nash does a fine job explaining, for example, Augustine’s epistemology. It is more than simply “faith seeking understanding.” It is illumination. It is a correlation of being and knowing.


Illumination: God, Soul, and Sun

In a familiar metaphor, Augustine believes “God is to the soul what the sun is to the eye. God is not only the truth in, by, and through whom all truths are true….He is also the light in, by, and through whom all intelligible things are illumined.”

Aquinas

I am going to skip much of this thought. Although presuppositionalists have done a uniformly terrible job at explaining Aquinas, Nash seems to get it right.

The Law of Non-contradiction

Simply put, A cannot be B and ~B at the same time and in the same relationship.


So far, so good. B represents the class of all dogs (or humans). Non-B is its complement, everything else in the universe that is not a dog. Nash explains by way of a lengthy quote from Gordon Clark:

“If contradictory statements are true of the same subject at the same time, evidently all things will be the same thing. Socrates will be a ship, a house, as well as a man. But if precisely the same attributes attach to Crito that attach to Socrates it follows that Socrates is Crito. Not only so, but the ship in the harbor, since it has the same list of attributes too, will be identified with this Socrates-Crito person. In fact, everything will be the same thing. All differences among things will vanish and all will be one.”

But does this apply to God? Would not this reduce God to human logic? Nash responds:

“If God does operate according to a different logic, a higher logic in which B and non-B are indistinguishable, nothing would prevent God at the final judgment from announcing that there
is no difference between believers and nonbelievers and between God’s keeping and breaking his promises. But there is no need to get upset, because on such grounds there can also be no difference between heaven and hell.”

But one may still object that God may be internally contradictory, having his own sort of logic where the law of non-contradiction need not apply. If that is true, then they could not know it, for communication presupposes this very law.

Possible Worlds

This is where it gets fun. Before proceeding, one should define a number of terms.
Proposition: that which is expressed in a sentence’s meaning.
State of affairs: an inadequate definition would be that which obtains if a proposition is true. It is better illustrated in the following diagram:



The above is fairly common sense. Some pious Christians might balk at what follows: true propositions are eternal entities. This seems to follow from one’s definition of truth. If truth is unchanging, then it seems to be eternal. Such truths would be in the mind of God.

Possible world: a possible world is a way the world could have been. All that one needs is for a state of affairs a) to be different and b) logically consistent.
Book: for every possible world, the book is the sum total of all true propositions.

Lest we get too excited, not every counterfactual state of affairs is a possible world. More likely, it is only a slice of a possible world.


Lest this get too abstract, there is a very real pay-off: possible worlds allow us to define essential and non-essential properties, so necessary for Christology (to name but one example). An essential property is one that I possess in every possible world. Let’s apply this to discussions of God.

According to Nash, “A divine attribute then is a property that God could not lose and continue to be God; it is an essential property of God, existing in every possible world.

Epistemology

Nash, although a Clarkian of sorts, seems to hold to the correspondence theory of truth: “Truth is a property of propositions that correspond to the way things are.”

How, then, do we arrive at true beliefs? It is to Nash’s great credit that he draws upon the Reformed Epistemology school’s use of Thomas Reid. He quotes Wolterstorff on Reid: “At the very foundation of Reid’s approach is his claim that at any point in our lives we have a variety of dispositions, inclinations, propensities, to believe things–belief dispositions we may call them. What accounts for our beliefs, in the vast majority of cases anyway, is the triggering of one and another such disposition.”

On open theism: “When I think about this view of God, I often find myself in a situation wanting to pray for this God. I would probably do that, except under the circumstances, I’m not sure who I should pray to.”

Ethics and Emotivism

Problems with emotivism:
Every ethical judgment is correct, for how can my feelings be wrong?
All moral actions are good and bad at the same time
No one actually disagrees over moral issues
It implies a contradiction: if someone says, “I like to get drunk, but I know it is wrong,” he actually means “I like to get drunk, but I don’t like to get drunk.”

Conclusion

This is probably my favorite text on worldview. It is somewhat technical in parts, so it might not be the first text to start with.

[Clark Goble · Rating 4 out of 5]

Author Ronald H. Nash begins this text by stressing the value of “worldview thinking.” Nash defines a worldview as “a conceptual scheme that contains our fundamental beliefs [and] the means by which we interpret and judge reality” (Nash 14). Once Nash has established what constitutes a person’s worldview, part one of his text explores the worldview of naturalism and those of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine and Aquinas. Nash justifies his examination of worldviews with the claim that “a possession of [such] knowledge, specifically being conversant with the systems of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, used to be considered a requirement for being considered an educated person” (Nash 190). Nash makes the additional claim that the study of worldviews as presented in part one of the text is required to prepare the reader to get “much more” from an examination of important problems in philosophy as presented in part two of the text (Nash 191). In this manner, Nash’s text seems to build upon itself; culminating in the study of non-contradiction, possible worlds, epistemology, God, metaphysics, ethics and human nature.

I found Nash’s examination of competing worldviews to be very illuminating and easier to digest than other philosophy books I have read. This may be because Nash was, “primarily interested in the worldviews of each thinker, [and felt] justified in paying less or no attention to certain aspects of their thinking” (Nash 35). Rather than providing the reader with a detailed analysis of each thinker, Nash chose instead to focus on “noting links between the systems … and facets of Christian belief” (Nash 35). This tactic works to the reader’s advantage. I found the most difficult concepts were easier to digest as I considered their impact on the formation of modern Christian thought.

Of the worldviews presented by Nash, I found myself most impressed by and attracted to those of Plato and Augustine. It is probably no mistake that both of these thinkers are described by Nash as rationalists by virtue of believing that “some human knowledge does not arise from sense experience” (Nash 93). Although Plato’s stance was more extreme than Augustine’s, I find the rationalist worldview much easier to justify than the empiricism of Aristotle or Locke. The most impressive aspect of Nash’s choice to begin with an examination of worldviews is that it trains his readers to think philosophically. The structure of the text caused me to internally subject each worldview presented to Nash’s tests of reason, outer experience, inner experience and practice (Nash 25). Indeed, Nash’s tests helped me evaluate the merit of each worldview. In addition, the examination of worldviews prepared me for the study of philosophical problems found in part two of the text.

Of the problems examined in the second part of Nash’s text, two chapters seemed to impact me the most. First, Nash’s presentation of the Law of Noncontradiction seemed flawless to this reader. Upon reading Nash’s examination of logic I found myself eager to subject opposing worldviews to the test. Nash provides examples of this law in action by proving that the concepts of skepticism, logical and scientific positivism, evidentialism and deconstructionism are self-refuting. After examining Nash’s take on logic, it seemed ominous when the author observed that “at the end of the twentieth century, it appears that the real irrationalists in the world include many enemies of religion” (Nash 201). Secondly, Nash’s study on the erosion of objective truth in Chapter Ten struck a major chord. The author makes a strong case for the necessity of objective truth and rips apart the postmodern notion that somehow truth is relative to human preference.

In summary, Nash’s text is wonderful introduction to philosophy that provides the reader with a brief history of philosophy’s major players and encourages one to “think” philosophically and to examine thought through the lens of worldviews. In short, I am grateful for this text.

[Dave Betts · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read several introductions to Philosophy, but this is the best one yet. The first half of the book focuses on the worldviews of a few prominent philosophers. It was profoundly helpful in connecting some of the dots and concepts floating around in my mind from prior studies.

The latter half focused on philosophical concepts, and was notably weaker than the former. However, there is still a wide range of helpful material to be found. It's an exhausting read; I definitely felt I was dragging my heels by the end, but having said that, I'm not sure I've ever highlighted a book more than this one. That must be a good thing!

[Daniel Alvers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book! This is my new favorite textbook of Philosophy.... Every Christian should read this.

[Matthew C. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This hit the spot for me. The structure of the book--providing an overview of major philosophical paradigms of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, and Aquinas before engaging in topical sections--worked surprisingly well. Nash is also a master at communicating complex systems in comprehensible language. I plan to read more of his books going forward.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this. Nash’s books are always informative.

[Cynthia · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is not an easy read. Philosophy is not my field. His habit of asking leading or sarcastic questions is sometimes confusing. Is he rebutting the opinion of the philosopher he is telling us about or is he illustrating an opinion of the philosopher? I got lost in that question a lot. Learning new vocabulary is hard. So is the twisting way that philosophers use logic to verify their opinion. You have to accept their definition of words to understand what they are saying and then follow their lead through the woods (the turns and twists to define the boundaries) to understand their point.

Nonetheless, the information about how to form and state one's world view (introduced in the beginning of the book) was very useful. The rest of the book tells you about the history of philosophy and helps flesh out one's world view. So, although I started out with about 1.5 pages identifying issues of my world view, by the time I finished the book I had 8 pages!

You form your world view by listing what you believe in from these five topics:
1. God (beliefs about)
2. Metaphysics (Study of existence, objects and properties, space and time, cause and effect, possibility, categories of being and the universe)
3. Epistemology (Knowledge: What is knowledge and how is it acquired? What is truth, belief and justification? Why does someone holds a belief (rationality and probability))
4. Ethics (Systemizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior)
5. Anthropology (How do we understand human nature?)

I'm glad I read it but also glad it is finished.

[Doug · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great text for personal use or the classroom; it was the first textbook that I taught philosophy from. Nash does an excellent job of dividing the subject up into worldviews, starting with the Greeks and then trekking through time, considering eventually Augustine and Aquinas, and the modern influencers Hume and Kant. His suggestion that the pre-Socratics were precursors to modern philosophy has much merit considering their functional materialism. He favors the Reformed epistemological approach, and while I found myself objecting to some of his conclusions, more frequently I agreed. I really appreciated his concern to make philosophy accessible. He largely accomplished that through this excellent monograph.

[Grace Eidman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent explanation of basic philosophy, its history, and how it compares and works with Christian philosophy. Goes into some hard concepts but it does a good job of explaining them, even really tough theological ones like omniscience (for real, the explanation of that one seriously changed my perspective on life and built up my faith).

[Nickolas Wingholt · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's hard to describe how exciting this book was for me. Nash masterfully outlines six important worldview systems that are essential for understanding any sort of contemporary philosophy, then proceeds to address essential questions that every diligent thinker must, at the very least, consider and do business with. My heart and mind was stirred with a fresh understanding of Plato's forms, Augustinian rationalism, and Reformed epistemology. Stellar intro textbook. A bit dense at times, but by and large, incredibly accessible and readable. The only knock I have on this book is that it is difficult, especially towards the later chapters, to discern whether he is repudiating an argument or espousing it - but that is probably due to it being a teaching resource that was meant to be coupled with live lectures. That said, I do yearn to have sat under Nash's teaching in person while he was still around. I thank God that much of his works are still in print, and I specifically look forward to digging into his book on Augustine's rationes aeternae. 1st time read. 4/5.

[Warren Tutwiler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very clear overview of primary competing worldviews (Part 1), as well as important philosophical topics (Part 2) and how those topic are, or fail to be, answered by various worldview systems. Written at an academic, but entry, level, with no prior philosophy background necessary for understanding. Though written from a Christian worldview perspective, the book is not heavy-handed or polemical, and seems to treat other views with respect and thoroughness, while also giving valid reasons to reject them.

[Joshua Lawson · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Life's Ultimate Questions, Ronald Nash provides a general overview of the course of Western philosophy from pre-Socratic days to the common era. His own views bleed through many of its pages, but that's to be expected, I suppose. This is a good entry level work.

[Alexander Young · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! Part one covers six conceptual systems of philosophical thought, while part two covers eleven issues within philosophy. Nash is readable, logical, and very helpful; definitely would recommend.

[Philmont · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book

Had to read this for a class it gave me the basics written well, but not my favorite subject but helped me grasp some stuff.

[Dr. Jon Pirtle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent resource for clear thinking in clear writing.

[Catholic · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found "Life's Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy" by Ronald Nash to be a thought-provoking and informative exploration of the major philosophical questions and debates from a Christian perspective. The book is a comprehensive and accessible guide to the history of philosophy, and its relevance to Christian apologetics. It’s become my go-to reference work for anyone who wants a recommendation for an introductory primer on philosophy.

What makes this book so valuable is the way in which Nash incorporates a Christian worldview into his discussion of philosophy. He shows how the major philosophical questions and debates are relevant to issues such as the nature of God, morality, and the meaning of life, and he provides helpful insights from a Christian perspective.

In addition, the book demonstrates the importance of a logically coherent and consistent worldview. Nash shows how philosophy can help us to understand the logical implications of our beliefs, and to identify any inconsistencies or contradictions in our thinking. He emphasizes the importance of developing a logically consistent worldview that can stand up to scrutiny and critique.

Finally, the book provides a valuable introduction to apologetics, which is the defense of the Christian faith. Nash shows how the major philosophical questions and debates can be used to support the Christian worldview, and he provides helpful guidance on how to engage in apologetics in a thoughtful and respectful way.

Overall, "Life's Ultimate Questions" is an excellent resource for Christians seeking to deepen their understanding of the major philosophical questions and debates from a Christian perspective. It is a valuable reminder of the importance of developing a logically coherent and consistent worldview, and of the relevance of philosophy to Christian apologetics. I highly recommend this book to anyone seeking to explore the rich and fascinating field of philosophy from a Christian perspective.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ronald Nash follows through on his promise to provide the reader with enough philosophical knowledge to interact with the all-important concept of worldview. He gives the reader enough background information to competently engage the various systems of thought that are part of the world. By skillfully interacting with various perversions of reality in thought, Nash gives us the ability to see how every non-Christian system of thought in fundamentally flawed and unable to meet the worldview tests that he lays out (pp.25-28). Though Nash’s treatment was not a biblical exposition by any means, he remained faithful to the teaching of the Scripture. He provided the reader with enough material to be able to understand the main questions (and Christian answers) of philosophy. And for that, I commend his effort.

[Christian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very enjoyable read. I find the author quite helpful in his quite concise style in providing a good overview. Secular readers should be aware that on several occasions the author's apologetic nature breaks through, and indeed a christian theme is apparent throughout the book.
To me however this was very helpful. The author clearly offers his opinion but when he does he marks it such. Thus I don't agree at all with a different reviewer who claims that you don't need to think for yourself but just are expected to take onboard the opinion of Nash.

[Saz Jibson Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nash expertly deals with main philosophical ideas. He first gives the background of the main influential thinkers like Plato, Aristotle and a few others. In the second portion of the book, Nash discusses important areas of philosophy. With his experience as a philosophy professor, he knows how to approach hard-to-grasp ideas and terms. His word analogies and explanations helped me to remember deep concepts.

[Rowena Ivanhoe · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book for an introductory philosophy class. It did a great job of explaining rather complex philosophical concepts in a clear, easy-to-read way for non-philosophers like me. Written from a Reformed Christian perspective. I would definitely recommend it for someone who wants to get started in their study of Christian philosophy.

[Buyung Hadi]

Interesting sweep of survey on worldviews. Concise and engaging. Primarily an introductory text on phylosophy, it brought into light the inevitability of underlying 'worldview' in everyone's life, it may not be realized by the owner, may not even be consistent, but it's there.

[Adam Ross · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was our standard text in one of my first philosophy courses. It was better than okay and worked well in a secular class, but ultimately not impressive.

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

GREAT overview of philisophical thought. Then you can dig deeper into areas that strike a chord.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I disagree with his take on Immanuel Kant.

[Winnie Thornton · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was probably decent. I honestly don't remember.

[Kymberly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have really enjoyed this course so far. The philosophiers are some times hard to understand but this author has been very helpful!

[Kymberly · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very good book. I think I still had a hard time with understanding some theories but I think this was more me than the book.

[Juan David Correa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read it well. It has a lot on information,.

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the first books that I read that introduced me to history of philosophy and its interactions with Faith, a sentimental book for me.

[Kellon Edwards · Rating 4 out of 5]

First Philosophy book I have read. Very informative, covers a lot of ground. I will likely read it again in the future.