The philosophy of definition, and the metaphysics of description

Are the definitions (and descriptions) we find in our dictionaries a neutral source of information? Let's take a look.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'It is sometimes suggested that though there is a basic difference between the Christian and the non-Christian explanation, there is no such difference in the mere description of facts. With this we cannot agree. Modern scientific description is not the innocent thing we as Christians all too easily think it is.' [1.]

This was the way I thought of things until recently. I now consider this to be too shallow a way of looking at things. (ie. I now agree with Van Til.)

B. Van Til speaks of Eddington's illustration [of the ichthyologist], and says of him, 'the only fish that exist for him are those that his net has caught. He makes bold to say 'what my net can't catch isn't fish'. That is to say, description is patternization. It is an act of definition. It is a statement of the what as well as of the that. It is a statement of connotation as well as that of denotation. Description itself is definition.' [2.]

Van Til is saying that what is presented as 'mere' description is usually more than this; that people slip ideas about x into their supposedly neutral descriptions of x. (Mere description morphs into definition if you will.)

C. 'Current scientific description is not merely explanation, but it is definitely anti-c. explanation. Current scientific methodology wants to be anti-metaphysical. It claims to make no pronouncements about the nature of reality as a whole.'

Consensus methodology claims to be neutral; as if denying God were somehow taking a neutral position. Materialism, to the contrary, is clearly a statement about reality. To deny this is so absurd a claim it's laughable.

D. 'It appears then that a universal judgment about the nature of all existence is presupposed even in the 'description' of the modern scientist.' [3.]

e.g. To claim man is an animal is Not a mere description of this creature we call man. It is rather a judgment on (or about) man. Not all descriptions are obviously judgments, but people need to be aware of this process of biased description. It's simply not true that Christians and non-Christians agree on description, and differ only (if they do) on explanation.
- Let's take an example; we go to the dictionary [AHD] and they give us what purports to be a neutral description/definition of man.
Man;
Zoology; A member of the genus Homo, family Hominidae, order Primates, class Mammalia, characterized by erect posture and an opposable thumb, especially a member of the only extant species, Homo sapiens, distinguished by a highly developed brain, the capacity for abstract reasoning, and the ability to communicate by means of organized speech and record information in a variety of symbolic systems.'

Is that a neutral description of man? is man a primate? is he an animal? is that an accurate description of man? does this give us the essence of man? if we didn't know man would we get a good picture of him from this? It's an idealized description for one thing; it gives us positive characteristics but not negative ones. It ignores what God says about man. It denies man is an eternal being; denies he is fallen, and so on.

Let's look at a different definition; this one from Webster's; 1913
1. A human being; [as] opposed to a beast.

This definition is far more accurate in my view, but is it a description? I don't think so. A Christian claims that man is not an animal, but he takes this as an article of faith. The bible tells him this is true, and he sees much evidence for it. If the bible is what it claims to be, this [the above] must be a true statement. (The biblical definition is a creature made in the image of God. That is the 'judgment' not of man, but of man's creator

Summary;
I believe that our common every day dictionaries are among the most anti-christian documents we have. Not only are they deeply biased against c. they're especially dangerous in that they are advertised as being neutral resources. While we do get basic descriptions (denotation) these descriptions are partial and biased, but pretend to be neutral and comprehensive. With these descriptions we also get definitions (connotation) which pretend to be neutral but are instead rooted in a materialistic and evolutionary model of the universe. When dictionaries talk about the essence and the nature of things they are referring to popular evolutionary theories on the one hand, and self-consciously denying the biblical model on the other hand.

I consider it a scandal that we have no contemporary christian dictionary. This in itself tells us volumes about how the intellectual leadership in the church views the world. i.e. they've bought into the neutrality model of knowledge and education. People once knew better; let's hope the church comes to its senses and realizes the dangers of the so called neutral method.

Notes;
1. Common grace and the gospel - Cornelius Van Til/p.3
2. The Philosophy of the physical sciences - Arthur Eddington/p.16
3. Van Til p.4
4. The 1828 dictionary of Noah Webster is still the best dictionary I know of; although it's badly in need of an update. The Century dictionary is the second best dictionary I know of. I'm not sure, but I think it came out around 1900, so it's more current.
- Let's hope some person or group will assemble a dictionary that conforms to biblical standards of truth. (I think most of the key definitions exist in various places; so the project would 'only' involve putting this scattered work together.)