"In the twentieth century the fundamentalists, in varying degrees, advocate a faith without reason. Although they stress Bible study more than the pietists and the anarchical prophets did, they frequently inveigh against philosophy and “mere” human reason. Even in doctrine they do not ordinarily go beyond half-a-dozen fundamental beliefs. Anything further is dry-as-dust theology. If it is inaccurate to categorize the positions of these groups as that of faith without reason, it is because the disparagement of the intellect always involves a certain amount of inconsistency. It takes a little intellectual argument to justify the disparagement. And particularly in the case of the fundamentalists with their zealous defense of a few doctrines, reason cannot be wholly abandoned. Some use and acknowledge more, some less. Such variation and inconsistency make it difficult accurately to classify all these groups under one heading. Nevertheless, the mystics (at least in what they consider most important), the pietists and fundamentalists, and still more another viewpoint to be mentioned in a moment have the common tendency of a faith without reason." ~ Gordon H. Clark. Religion, Reason and Revelation (Kindle Locations 1677-1687). The Trinity Foundation. "This other viewpoint, so popular and powerful at the present time, is often called by the name of Neo-orthodoxy. It is even more anti-rational or anti-intellectual than either pietism or fundamentalism. Its background and motivation are also different. Instead of being a dilution of original Protestantism as fundamentalism is, Neo-orthodoxy descends from post-Hegelian philosophy. To understand it, therefore, and to see where anti-intellectualism may lead one, it will be necessary briefly to trace certain strands of nineteenth-century thought, even though it is not all distinctly religious. In the previous chapter, the Renaissance attempt to justify knowledge without appeal to revelation has been quickly surveyed. The Rationalism of Descartes and Spinoza, British Empiricism, and Kant and Hegel have been adjudged failures. Though their brilliance evokes our admiration, their results cannot be accepted. The judgment that Hegel failed is not a biased judgment of a Christian whose ulterior motive is to defend revelation; it is also the judgment of those who were more eager to destroy Christianity than Hegel was." ~ Gordon H. Clark. Religion, Reason and Revelation (Kindle Locations 1688-1697). The Trinity Foundation. Gordon H. Clark was an adamant critic of esotericism and mysticism as ineffable nonsense. If God is basically unknowable then the result is skepticism and atheism, not faith. Clark was also a critic of theological liberalism and neo-orthodoxy for similar reasons. The neo-orthodox view that the Bible is not literally a direct revelation from God univocally but only contains the word of God by way of an analogy also leads to skepticism, not faith. Although he was Presbyterian, Clark taught at the Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Philadelphia for a brief time in the 1940s.