What do you think?
Rate this book
Foundations of Christian Thought (text only) by M. P. Cosgrove
Foundations of Christian Faith, Learning, and the Christian Worldview [Paperback]Mark P. Cosgrove (Author)
Paperback
First published July 24, 2006
15 people are currently reading
126 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
July 4, 2013
Full disclosure: I am a Christian, and this book was required for the Foundations of Christian Thought class I took. In fact, the class was taught by Dr. Cosgrove himself; I attend the college that he teaches at (Taylor University.)
With that introduction, you probably thought that I'd give a glowing review of the book. But actually, I wasn't too thrilled with it.
The biggest problem I had with the book was that it wasn't what I thought it would be. On reading the title, I thought that this book would explain the basic doctrines of Christianity, the "Foundations of Christian Thought."
But that wasn't what it was, at least 3/4 of the book. Instead it argued against three different worldviews, and to be honest I couldn't shake the feeling that there were strawmen set up. The last quarter of "Foundations" finally got into what Christianity was about. The book seemed to be more about apologetics than what the "Foundations of Christian Thought" were. Thus, to me, it was a case of false advertisement; it claimed to be something that it wasn't.
There's other things I could criticize about the book, but honestly, I don't need to; this was the biggest problem with the book.
EDIT, 7/4/13, 2:28 AM:
Late at night I was strolling through Goodreads when a thought occurred to me. I remembered another big problem that I had with this book, and I felt that I had to put it down here before I turned in, lest I forget about it. I planned to talk about this in this review when I first wrote it, but as I was writing it I forgot to include it.
The biggest problem with this book is that it over-intellectualizes the Christian faith. Now, don't get me wrong, Christianity has its doctrines (and they're very important) and Christians are called to worship God with "...all [their] mind." The problem is that in Foundations of Christian Thought, Dr. Cosgrove presents Christianity as a dry philosophy which men should live by.
The problem with this is that Christianity is personal; it directly affects who you are and how you live. It is not abstract, it is concrete. Jesus Christ isn't just some philosopher who teaches you and me how to live; he is the God-Man that died for your sin—for my sin—so that we may be reconciled with God, the Creator and King of the Universe, and become his beloved children. This personal sense of Christianity is not conveyed in this book at all.
Even when Dr. Cosgrove shares his conversion, it's due to him thinking that Christianity is "logical" and "makes the most sense." While true, I didn't get any sense of personality from it, and from this book. (Does that mean it's absent from his conversion experience? No, but it isn't conveyed in the writing.)
Ultimately, the problem with Foundations of Christian Thought is that it overemphasizes worship of God with "all your mind" and de-emphasizes worshipping God with heart, soul, and strength. Granted, it is much easier to accept the truth in your mind than believe it in your heart and live it, but Foundations doesn't solve that problem, it only makes it worse.
With that introduction, you probably thought that I'd give a glowing review of the book. But actually, I wasn't too thrilled with it.
The biggest problem I had with the book was that it wasn't what I thought it would be. On reading the title, I thought that this book would explain the basic doctrines of Christianity, the "Foundations of Christian Thought."
But that wasn't what it was, at least 3/4 of the book. Instead it argued against three different worldviews, and to be honest I couldn't shake the feeling that there were strawmen set up. The last quarter of "Foundations" finally got into what Christianity was about. The book seemed to be more about apologetics than what the "Foundations of Christian Thought" were. Thus, to me, it was a case of false advertisement; it claimed to be something that it wasn't.
There's other things I could criticize about the book, but honestly, I don't need to; this was the biggest problem with the book.
EDIT, 7/4/13, 2:28 AM:
Late at night I was strolling through Goodreads when a thought occurred to me. I remembered another big problem that I had with this book, and I felt that I had to put it down here before I turned in, lest I forget about it. I planned to talk about this in this review when I first wrote it, but as I was writing it I forgot to include it.
The biggest problem with this book is that it over-intellectualizes the Christian faith. Now, don't get me wrong, Christianity has its doctrines (and they're very important) and Christians are called to worship God with "...all [their] mind." The problem is that in Foundations of Christian Thought, Dr. Cosgrove presents Christianity as a dry philosophy which men should live by.
The problem with this is that Christianity is personal; it directly affects who you are and how you live. It is not abstract, it is concrete. Jesus Christ isn't just some philosopher who teaches you and me how to live; he is the God-Man that died for your sin—for my sin—so that we may be reconciled with God, the Creator and King of the Universe, and become his beloved children. This personal sense of Christianity is not conveyed in this book at all.
Even when Dr. Cosgrove shares his conversion, it's due to him thinking that Christianity is "logical" and "makes the most sense." While true, I didn't get any sense of personality from it, and from this book. (Does that mean it's absent from his conversion experience? No, but it isn't conveyed in the writing.)
Ultimately, the problem with Foundations of Christian Thought is that it overemphasizes worship of God with "all your mind" and de-emphasizes worshipping God with heart, soul, and strength. Granted, it is much easier to accept the truth in your mind than believe it in your heart and live it, but Foundations doesn't solve that problem, it only makes it worse.
June 8, 2023
Short Summary: Mark Cosgrove gives a philosophical overview of how to integrate faith and learning along with a variety of worldviews in an attempt to help readers to examine their own and other worldviews. He does this by laying a foundation for understanding how faith and learning may be integrated and then reviews a number of worldviews through testing them against three tests; the test of evidence, the test of logical consistency, and the test of existential repugnance.
Key Takeaways:
Author doesn't put much stock in the belief of Eastern religions that claim that reality is an illusion because the majority of people do not live in a way that reflects this reality and if we do, the person is no longer around to make a difference to this conversation.
Author indicates that faith requires learning to test its validity and that learning depends on faith assumptions.
Sole Authority Integration Model - Faith and learning are opposed to each other.
Separate Authority Integration Model - Faith and Learning are complimentary sources of truth.
Equal Authorities Integration Model - Faith and learning correlate with one another and should be combined to arrive at a fuller truth.
Foundational Authority Integration Model - Faith is the foundation on which we interpret understanding.
The Test of Evidence Does the worldview fit the facts we can discover about the world? This is the test of evidence. Is there any evidence to support what I claim to be true? (Location 874)
The Test of Logical Consistency This test asks whether every belief in the worldview agrees with every other belief in the worldview. Why should we accept an inconsistent worldview—one that holds contradicting beliefs? (Location 878)
The Test of Existential Repugnance This test asks whether it is possible to live the worldview in the world as we know it. (Location 884)
In other words what if you rejected the law of noncontradiction (a thing and its opposite cannot both be true: it cannot be both raining and not raining)?
Atheistic naturalism explains away human nature by reducing man to mere nature. Pantheism explains away human nature by raising all of nature to the "universal spirit" level of existence.
Modernism and postmodernism represent the unspoken, undefended “feel” of what reality is all about. Modernism and postmodernism are “zeitgeists,” or spirits of the times. They represent the direction of culture, which is leaning away from traditional belief in God and toward the cold, empty world of atheism or the spirit-charged worldviews that take many forms. (Location 998)
Postmodern thought is not just what came next in the human attempt to know all things. Rather, it is the end result of failures latent within modern thought without God.
Logical positivism is sometimes called positivism. It is a branch of philosophy that embraces radical empiricism, which says is that if you cannot get an empirical answer to a question, then it is a meaningless question to ask. (Location 1162)
Reductionism is the naturalistic philosophy that says you can reduce the complicated in human beings to mere biology or animal behavior. There is no real love, just animal sexual responses. Religion is just superstitious behavior. (Location 1167)
Secular humanism will, therefore, pass the test of evidence by admitting to the evidence for human personhood and feelings of value. However, it will fail the test of logical consistency because it says, “All reality is just matter and I am a part of reality, but somehow I am more than mere matter.”
How does atheistic existentialism fair on the three tests of a worldview? It passes the tests of evidence and logical consistency, but fails the test of existential repugnance. (Location 1435)
This worldview is also called pantheistic monism because the oneness of the cosmos is composed of only spiritual or nonphysical stuff (as opposed to the atheist’s materialistic monism—all is physical stuff). The word panpsychism(everything is mind or soul) also has been used to describe reality for the pantheist. Mind or soul to the pantheist does not mean a personal mind like ours but an impersonal force.
The New Age movement worldview represents an attempt to make Eastern pantheism more acceptable and livable to Western culture. Western naturalism has given us a mechanical human being with no purpose or meaning to existence. Eastern pantheism, on the other hand, offers a spirit to infuse all life. The New Age movement attempts to add some spiritual potential to Western, atheistic, agnostic, or humanistic lives by offering some power and a future beyond physical death. (Location 1638)
Let me summarize the apologetic from desire. Human beings long for more than the natural realm. Therefore, we are either freaks in the universe, or the universe is not merely a natural place. Either we are dressed in tuxes and prom dresses when there is nothing to attend but a barn dance, or we are fit for a dance with the King of the universe. (Location 2064)
Application Points:
Regardless of how a worldview works out in an academic context, the reality is that the majority of people do not work through their worldview so systematically and thus will not agree with every tenant of the academic version of a worldview but will have varying degrees of agreement with a variety of worldviews.
Consider other questions that may be important to pose each worldview to and determine if these three tests that the author uses, evidence, logical consistency, and existential repugnance are the best tests to put a worldview to.
Key Takeaways:
Author doesn't put much stock in the belief of Eastern religions that claim that reality is an illusion because the majority of people do not live in a way that reflects this reality and if we do, the person is no longer around to make a difference to this conversation.
Author indicates that faith requires learning to test its validity and that learning depends on faith assumptions.
Sole Authority Integration Model - Faith and learning are opposed to each other.
Separate Authority Integration Model - Faith and Learning are complimentary sources of truth.
Equal Authorities Integration Model - Faith and learning correlate with one another and should be combined to arrive at a fuller truth.
Foundational Authority Integration Model - Faith is the foundation on which we interpret understanding.
The Test of Evidence Does the worldview fit the facts we can discover about the world? This is the test of evidence. Is there any evidence to support what I claim to be true? (Location 874)
The Test of Logical Consistency This test asks whether every belief in the worldview agrees with every other belief in the worldview. Why should we accept an inconsistent worldview—one that holds contradicting beliefs? (Location 878)
The Test of Existential Repugnance This test asks whether it is possible to live the worldview in the world as we know it. (Location 884)
In other words what if you rejected the law of noncontradiction (a thing and its opposite cannot both be true: it cannot be both raining and not raining)?
Atheistic naturalism explains away human nature by reducing man to mere nature. Pantheism explains away human nature by raising all of nature to the "universal spirit" level of existence.
Modernism and postmodernism represent the unspoken, undefended “feel” of what reality is all about. Modernism and postmodernism are “zeitgeists,” or spirits of the times. They represent the direction of culture, which is leaning away from traditional belief in God and toward the cold, empty world of atheism or the spirit-charged worldviews that take many forms. (Location 998)
Postmodern thought is not just what came next in the human attempt to know all things. Rather, it is the end result of failures latent within modern thought without God.
Logical positivism is sometimes called positivism. It is a branch of philosophy that embraces radical empiricism, which says is that if you cannot get an empirical answer to a question, then it is a meaningless question to ask. (Location 1162)
Reductionism is the naturalistic philosophy that says you can reduce the complicated in human beings to mere biology or animal behavior. There is no real love, just animal sexual responses. Religion is just superstitious behavior. (Location 1167)
Secular humanism will, therefore, pass the test of evidence by admitting to the evidence for human personhood and feelings of value. However, it will fail the test of logical consistency because it says, “All reality is just matter and I am a part of reality, but somehow I am more than mere matter.”
How does atheistic existentialism fair on the three tests of a worldview? It passes the tests of evidence and logical consistency, but fails the test of existential repugnance. (Location 1435)
This worldview is also called pantheistic monism because the oneness of the cosmos is composed of only spiritual or nonphysical stuff (as opposed to the atheist’s materialistic monism—all is physical stuff). The word panpsychism(everything is mind or soul) also has been used to describe reality for the pantheist. Mind or soul to the pantheist does not mean a personal mind like ours but an impersonal force.
The New Age movement worldview represents an attempt to make Eastern pantheism more acceptable and livable to Western culture. Western naturalism has given us a mechanical human being with no purpose or meaning to existence. Eastern pantheism, on the other hand, offers a spirit to infuse all life. The New Age movement attempts to add some spiritual potential to Western, atheistic, agnostic, or humanistic lives by offering some power and a future beyond physical death. (Location 1638)
Let me summarize the apologetic from desire. Human beings long for more than the natural realm. Therefore, we are either freaks in the universe, or the universe is not merely a natural place. Either we are dressed in tuxes and prom dresses when there is nothing to attend but a barn dance, or we are fit for a dance with the King of the universe. (Location 2064)
Application Points:
Regardless of how a worldview works out in an academic context, the reality is that the majority of people do not work through their worldview so systematically and thus will not agree with every tenant of the academic version of a worldview but will have varying degrees of agreement with a variety of worldviews.
Consider other questions that may be important to pose each worldview to and determine if these three tests that the author uses, evidence, logical consistency, and existential repugnance are the best tests to put a worldview to.
April 25, 2014
Had to read this for a class. It was a bit too biased in defense of Christianity for me, using flawed logic and shallow arguments. There are definitely better texts which could be used for this type of class.
July 30, 2011
This book is utter rubbish, I do not feel it has an accurate depiction of Christianity as well as other religions. I would categorise the book as being a cult like read leading to a frenzy of deranged fundamentalists.
January 29, 2014
Good book. Balance between Christianity and Universalism.
December 21, 2016
I finished this book for my Fall 2016 course at University of Mobile. I loved reading about the idea of a worldview. It's easy to overlook and simply keep living and thinking a certain b/c of habit or routine. Cosgrove challenges the reader to consider our own worldview and how it either helps to or hinders us from knowing our Creator and what his creation can teach us. Great book and very much worth the read
November 9, 2022
Pretty good, but very limited in scope and a bit too dismissive of a few viewpoints the author doesn't fully understand
May 29, 2015
This book was required for a summer faculty development course I took on integrating faith into teaching. Cosgrove has a PhD in psychology from Purdue. This book explores the various worldviews (atheistic existentialism, secular humanism, etc.) and tests each world view by whether it's possible for people to actually live it out and whether it has any logical inconsistencies. He shows where some worldviews have thinking that align with a Christian world view, and where their thinking differs. It ends with a brief apologetic demonstrating that only the Christian worldview passes all tests.
The book illustrates the importance of incorporating faith into our teaching, but how we shouldn't be afraid to embrace secular strains of thought where they conform with Scripture. He talks about the importance of learning and knowledge--how all Christians should be scholars and not take anything for granted.
The book is written for the layperson, sort of like a "Dummies' Guide." Almost every page has a question box to address a common objection to a case he's making. (This becomes annoying over time...) Cosgrove writes very humbly and with humor, and the book is short.
I give this book 4 stars out of 5. I've not seen as concise a summary of other world views in a format that would be easy to share with a non-Christian scholar.
The book illustrates the importance of incorporating faith into our teaching, but how we shouldn't be afraid to embrace secular strains of thought where they conform with Scripture. He talks about the importance of learning and knowledge--how all Christians should be scholars and not take anything for granted.
The book is written for the layperson, sort of like a "Dummies' Guide." Almost every page has a question box to address a common objection to a case he's making. (This becomes annoying over time...) Cosgrove writes very humbly and with humor, and the book is short.
I give this book 4 stars out of 5. I've not seen as concise a summary of other world views in a format that would be easy to share with a non-Christian scholar.
September 28, 2009
I spent a long time starting and stopping on this book, but I'm glad I perservered. The author uses a metaphor of the jigsaw puzzle that is very helpful. All the "stuff" in the world is like the puzzle pieces and your worldview is the picture on the box. No matter how many puzzles there are, the pieces are all the same because reality is always the same. The pictureson the boxes are different but only one picture matches the reality of the pieces. His view (and mine) is that that is Christian theism.
November 7, 2010
This is a pretty decent intro to Christian worldview, from a comparative approach of other worldviews. I use this text in a course I teach, it would not be my first choice; but there is some good work here.
March 7, 2011
just started it for my Christian worldview class
September 3, 2011
An interesting look at other worldviews beside my own. Mark Cosgrove does not have the same Christian viewpoint as my own and reading the book did not influence my own beliefs in any way.
December 2, 2012
good book but hard to get into...
August 11, 2013
Wonderful and insightful little book! 5 *****
January 4, 2015
Out of the three books I had to read for Christian Worldview this was the least boring. Still not a fun book and I didn't completely read it all.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews