That uncomfortable subject, religion …
| April 11, 2009 | Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design |
Things have been a bit quiet here recently, but in case you wondered, that’s because most list authors are Christians and this is the Triduum (last three days) of Holy Week.
Some are busy with religious matters and others won’t post on principle. I am also indexing a book (always a rush job in principle because the index is the only thing that keeps a book from the press at that point – so no one cares that it’s Holy Week for me).
But as this is Holy Saturday, I am going to talk briefly for a moment about … Religion.
One of the dumbest things I hear “new atheists” say is that faith means “belief without evidence.”
I don’t know what kind of a sheltered life such people can have lived, but their views might have something to do with tenure at tax-supported universities.
Religious doctrines are believed for a variety of reasons. For convenience, I’ll refer only to my own, Catholic Christian, tradition, and this is by no means an exhaustive list, just five reasons for now:
1. Some doctrines are based strictly on evidence. The existence of God, for example, is attested by the nature of the universe. A revealing moment in the Expelled movie was when arch-atheist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein that space aliens creating life and multiple universes were alternative ideas he’d consider.
What? That’s the best they’ve got? Well, let’s see if I can fiddle the dial and find the Back to God Hour. Glad it’s still on the air …
2. Some doctrines are based on logic. For example, why are there not Two Gods? Well, what happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object? The point is, it can’t happen. So there are not Two Gods. Or Many.
3. Some doctrines are based on reason. One of the sillier new atheist arguments is “Who designed the designer?” Well, any series can have a beginning. If, as most now think, the Big Bang started the universe, there must have been a wider context. It is reasonable to think this context was the will of God, based on the fine-tuned universe we actually see.
The question of God’s origin, if even askable, lies outside this universe and outside anything the human mind can think. That is why God was traditionally called, in philosophical contexts, the First Cause. That’s like the number 1. Don’t ask which natural number comes before it. The answer is none.
4. Some doctrines are based on the testimony of reliable witnesses – sane, stable people with no record of deceit, who would rather lose their property, liberty, or life than deny what they saw or heard, and have nothing to gain from promoting a story that would cost them all that. The usual way they explain it is “We must fear God rather than men.”
5. Some doctrines are based on experience – a form of evidence. I have observed that a great many people who come to an active faith later in life had an experience that they could only account for by returning to the practice of their faith (or finding a new one). An unexpected healing, perhaps?: The doctors have pronounced the patient’s case hopeless but the patient has decided to try prayer and repentance, and suddenly the burden of illness lifts. After that, the patient takes little interest in the views of new atheists, or the views of any atheists at all, on a permanent basis.
By the way, since I am here anyway, this may be a convenient time to make a “hint” announcement: I will shortly be offering a contest in which interested contributors may win a free copy of the Expelled vid or other works, as arranged. I will ask a question, based on a news story, and all responses will be judged. I will try not to be too partisan; I am mainly interested in rewarding the best contribution in 400 words or less.
More details later, once I get this index out of my life.
199 Responses to That uncomfortable subject, religion …
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Re: All of KF’s posts comments above.
KF is appears to be a knowledgeable person both about the history of the NT and probably the ancient world in general. He/she has provided some interesting points to ponder over (interesting to note that he/she assumes I’m a he but I haven’t said one way or the other). I appreciate too the time has been put into the replies. As for myself I’m certainly not a qualified NT scholar, and neither really an amateur either. I have a passing interest in this topic, along with many other interests, but claim no expertise.
Clearly somebody like KF can probably run circles around me in coming up with hypotheses on how we can determine the veracity of the NT. I in turn could go and follow the many useful links KF has provided and start my own research (and I have looked up some of them). Or I could simply take KF’s word for it (whoever he/she is) and convert to Christianity. That’s probably not going to happen, not just because I don’t accept the authenticity of the NT, or the issues with morality with the OT, but because these topics represent only a couple of the many issues and challenges I have with Christianity (not least of course is the actual content of the message itself).
Now Mauka has joined the fray and shares a similar distaste for the atrocities outlined in the OT. KF’s primary response seems to be that we have not undertaken a proper and careful reading of the OT, and/or have not read sufficiently widely in consulting OT scholars to properly understand the context in which these things are written. Or that we don’t understand proper debate or worldviews. Perhaps so, but if that’s the case it yields some very useful information. It tells me that the OT (and probably the NT too) are not self-evident documents. If we were discovering the OT manuscripts for the first time today, I wonder what our response would be? Would we come to the conclusion that the God of Israel was on the whole a righteous and good God and that He was wholly justified in the violent acts performed both against His chosen people and their enemies? Somehow I doubt it – I think a casual reader is going to be quite shocked and alarmed at much of the barbarism presented. Sure, we might be somewhat impressed with some of the poetry of the Psalms and wisdom in the Proverbs, but I cannot think the overall impression would be a negative one (and one of extreme violence).
The rationalizations that try to explain this sound empty and hollow; in fact, the reader is blamed for not properly appreciating the wickedness of the Jewish people, or having a right understanding of the cultural mores of the day, or appreciating the sovereignty of God and His ultimate end-game. It’s rather reminiscent of the argument that some in the US has used recently in justifying torture to interrogate terrorists. In their minds they can make a strong moral case and point to a “higher cause”. But for many of us (and I hope the majority of American citizens), there is no situation or even the most horrific of terrorist acts that should cause the US to negate or dilute their values. I think the same applies to the OT; the case of Abraham & Isaac is a good example of this. No amount of sophistry or theological wrangling should ever justify a God asking for a human sacrifice. If this is a “higher way” than count me out. I remember going to church and hearing sermons on this – even when I was more sympathetic to Christianity I inwardly cringed. I remember reading an apologetic on Elijah and the bears that were set up on the boys that laughed at him. It was a sophisticated argument that drew upon the culture of the day, the background to the story. It was very learned. But in the end it does little to disarm the fact that God (the same God that’s worshipped) today felt it was a suitable punishment to have a few kids mauled by a wild animal. If this means that I’m not sophisticated enough to properly understand this things or don’t have the right understanding of “worldviews”, then I think I would be glad of this, rather than have to stoop and rationalize such abhorrent acts.
If then, the only way we can come to a proper understanding of the true nature of what happened in the OT, is by consulting various ‘enlightened’ scholars, what does that tell us about God? How is this truly compatible with a God who anxiously seeks reconciliation with a lost people, who apparently gave up His own Son? Why does it seem that these things are so hidden, cryptic, ambiguous and so buried in history that the reality is we’ll probably never know anything with much certainty? I know I’m going to be accused (again) of begging the question, but I do think it’s a valid question to ask? If God so loved the world, why has He provided us such a murky, impenetrable message when it was clearly in His power (and His motivation) to do otherwise? Just look at this very conversation we are having. Was this God’s intent that His people would spend countless hours arguing of His (managled) Word, when surely He real aim is salvation?
It’s the same story with the NT – through careful exegesis, apologetics, assumptions. and reconstructions (linking this verse to that verse etc), we could convince ourselves that this is indeed an accurate history (although my own research shows there is no uniform consensus here by any means – it’s not hard to find an equally competent scholar who can easily refute everything KF is saying – after all KF is only quoting mostly scholars who are sympathetic to his own position).
It tells me that for whatever reason, the only way we can make sense of all of this is through elaborate, sophisticated, post-hoc argumentation – often so arcane, complex, and involved that the lay person becomes really quite bewildered. Of course we could do as many do, just simply “believe” but unfortunately that is not an acceptable alternative for many of us.
JTaylor:
Again, you’ve ruled out your own lack of understanding as a possibility.
That our ability to perceive right and wrong is enhanced or limited by our knowledge or lack thereof is an unchangeable fact.
My 3 year old son might want ice cream in the morning, or he wants a toy that everyone else has. Can’t go swimming even though I promised? That’s the greatest injustice ever, even if there is lightning.
He doesn’t know what I know, and he can’t see beyond the next five minutes. So to put aside what I know and replace it with his wisdom and reasoning would endanger him and his long-term happiness.
I’m trying not to be tactless or offensive by making a direct comparison to the discussion at hand, but you can read between the lines.
ScottAndrews:
“Again, you’ve ruled out your own lack of understanding as a possibility.”
Yes, it’s possible I don’t understand. But what is also incomprehensible to me is that there actually couldbe a viable explanation of some of the acts in the OT. I know that this is the “argument from moral outrage” that KF described above; but nevertheless it would be similar to saying that there were mitigating circumstances in what the Nazis did to the Jews in WWII. Sadly, there are people in the world that do in fact make those arguments. But well-balanced and rational peope do not, and know that line would be crossed should they attempt to go there. How is the OT any different?
So if I follow the parent-child analogy, then it follows that the God of Israel is permitted to conduct genocide (sorry there isn’t a better word for it), and that my objections to this are really akin to those of a child who doesn’t see the “bigger picture”? Are you going to be comfortable sharing all of your eternity with this Deity? What if He changes His mind (again?)
ScottAndrews wrote:
Scott,
The parent-child analogy only works if we
a) know that God exists,
b) know that he is all-powerful, perfectly good, perfectly loving, and perfectly wise, and
c) know that the Old Testament is his word.
If we were certain of all three of those things, then of course we wouldn’t question the morality of the Old Testament.
The problem is that all three are highly doubtful; and even if we assume for the sake of argument that a) and b) are true, c) remains a huge problem.
The parent-child analogy comes into play only once we’ve established that the Old Testament is the word of a loving, merciful, wise and all-powerful God. Why should we believe that it is? Why should we believe that chopping off a woman’s hand was ever the punishment that a loving God would prescribe for the “crime” of defending her husband? Why should we believe that “turn the other cheek”, “forgive thy neighbor”, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and “you shall cut off her hand; show her no pity” are all the words of the same loving God?
It makes no sense to me.
Onlookers:
Observe the deleterious impact of rhetorical approaches to worldview issues at work above: tangential issues are used to pull away our focus from the core matter on the table.
So, let us pause for a moment, and re-inject Ms O’Leary’s focal issue: One of the dumbest things I hear “new atheists” say is that faith means “belief without evidence.”
1 –> Underlying this, is the too often found (and sometimes uncivilly acted out) rationalist/ hyperskeptical presumption that those who dare differ with their latest “scientific” view of the world are “ignorant/ stupid/ insane/ wicked.”
2 –> As is now an often cited illustration here at UD [for all too excellent reason], Mr Lewontin — in reviewing Mr Sagan’s last book in the NY Review of Books in 1997 — has put that “scientific view” in an inadvertently telling nutshell:
3 –> Immediately, Mr Lewontin reveals his profound ignorance of the foundational history of modern science, as can be seen in for instance Newton’s General Scholium to the Principia.
4 –> Namely, that the Judqaeo-Christian theists who founded modern science saw themselves as studying the intelligible works of the God of order and plan, so that science was envisioned as manifesting his glory through revealing that order; “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” (And in that context, the miraculous, to stand out as a sign that points to God REQUIRES a general order to the cosmos, not chaos. Just that God the Creator- Sustainer, for good reasons, can act into that order beyond its usual course; especially connected to the works of redemption of a certain rebellious creature, man.)
5 –> having painted a strawmannish bogeyman, Mr Lewontin then resorts to censorship of science. So, he subverts it from being the unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) pursuit of the truth about our universe based on evidence, into an apologetic for materialism. This is censorship of the worst kind, and sadly it is now increasingly the official policy of major institutions of Science and Science education.
6 –> But underneath this, there is the issue of the presumption of materialism as The Unquestionable Truth about our world.
7 –> In short, a major worldview claim has been smuggled in and pushed into the foundation of science, while frankly censoring the opportunity to assess its merits on the comparative difficulties basis that is the best practice methodology of philosophical investigation. (Notice, onlookers just how consistently my invitation to address the matters at stake on the merits of such comparative difficulties is being dodged or ignored; in favour of new atheist talking points.)
8 –> But in fact, we can easily see that when we assert a claim A, it is in light of claimed evidence/argument B. In turn B needs C, D . . . (That is, we either find ourselves facing an infinite regress or else we must face a point of first plausibles F, out Faith-Point. So too, the imagined dismissal of faith as irrational is itself profoundly ignorant and irrational: it fails to observe and responsibly address the most basic structure of our reasoning.)
9 –> To escape the problem of worldview level circularity, we must then resort of comparative difficulties across the major alternative worldviews: all bristle with difficulties, so one must fairly summarise the live option alternative start-points for reasoning, identify the central warranting arguments for each, and assess the relative strengths, in light of the difficulties faced.
10 –> for instance, the credibility of the C1 historical basis for the Christian faith has been challenged, so the issue of historical warrant has been raised above, in light of the issue that one may not reasonably use selectively hyperskeptical standards to dismiss what one does not want to be so. (To that we see at the last point, the idea that records that are 25 years after the event, records in this case of solemn summaries of evidence listing up to 20 or so identifiable witnesses dating to within a few years of the events, can be simply brushed aside. If consistently applied, we would lose all of the history of classical times of consequence. [And, as someone who vividly recalls and could write down summaries of events of 1984, personal and general, I have excellent reason to understand that eyewitness lifetime historical record is about as good as historians are going to get for many things. "Extraordinary" events do not need Mr Sagan's "extraordinary" evidence; just adequate and reasonable evidence.])
11 –> Similarly, one of the most profound indicia of God acting into history would be prophecy. And, in the case of Is 52 – 53 put in parallel with Lk -Ac [plus the onward history of the church that triumphed precisely because of the unstoppable power of its witness to the resurrection of Jesus backed up by 500+ eyewitnesses and a steady stream of miracles of salvation, transformation and reformation, healing and deliverance down to this day . . . ] and 1 Cor 15:1 – 11, we have a pretty serious test case. (And we can see above, that the objection on “multiple interpretations” founders at once on the content of the C700 BC text; which BTW in the lead-up has an allusion to the then recent Assyrian invasions of Israel of the 700′s BC, i.e the context is self-dating; entirely apart form the DSS MSS and the Septuagint translation.)
[ . . . ]
12 –> Onward, objections have now shifted to the idea that if a one-sided litany of case law and events from the history of Israel can be put up, the YHWH as moral monster thesis can be sufficiently made plausible that he can be rhetorically dismissed. Of course this ignores the basic principle that one responds to a true and fair view of a worldview, not a strawmannish caricature.
13 –> More importantly, it opens up an important issue. Scientism — the presumed most likely worldview stance offered up as an alternative [onlookers, notice the all too tellingly typical absence of articulation of such an alternative] — as we have seen, has serious problems grounding either morals or mind itself. So much so that if it acknowledges the reality of evil as the basis for justifiable outrage, then, as Koukl pointed out, that decisively undercuts the credibility of evolutionary materialism.
14 –> If on the other hand, it refuses or fails to ground the reality of evil on its presuppositions as the basis for outrage, it is plainly resorting to the emotional manipulation of perceptions, as it is an inherently amoral scheme of thought. For, as Hawthorne has aptly summed up:
15 –> To this key worldviews level issue, we can find nowhere above a serious engagement. Instead we see yet another rabbit trail leading out to yet another strawman, that the NT and/or OT documents are not “self-evident.” [FYI Onlookers, self-evident truths are those which on understanding what is claimed in light of our existence as intelligent persons in an intelligible world, we see that they MUST be so; on pain of absurdity. (E.g., a finite whole is more than any of its proper parts, or an asserted truth cannot be true and false in the same sense of the claim -- the law of non-contradiction. So also "error exists," and "All men are created equal . . .")]
16 –> The problem with the claim is that of course there is no such claim that the documents are self evidently true; and indeed you will see that we have addressed historical warrant as a basis for taking their claims about the state of the world in certain relevant part of our past seriously.
17 –> What instead is claimed — e.g. in Rom 1:19 ff — is that [a] God is self authenticating (just as your mom is self authenticating — if she was not, you would not be either . . .); and [b] he has left us sufficient evidence in the world around us and in the acts he has made into history and the current world that one may only deny his reality by suppressing what one knows to be so — or, worse, should know to be so. That is, we have no legitimate excuse.
18 –> E.g. cf. above on the issue and implications of the reality of evil and of our being thus morally bound to do the right, which was used in the failed attempt to indict YHWH as a moral monster. (The attempt presumes the reality of evil and morality, which fatally undermines the credibility of the new atheist worldview. the acceptance of evil as real, destroys th foundations of materialism, and the rejection of evil as real leads tot he implication that all that is going on is manipulative rhetoric in service to a dubious agenda.)
19 –> But on accepting that God wishes to redeem and restore his fallen creation, while respecting our freedom of mind and will [and the power of choice is the premise of being moral and capable of virtue, starting with love to God and neighbour], then the sort of picture of laying out covenantal principles that challenge culturally embedded praxis and ameliorating customary praxis towards reformation, makes a lot of sense. (They also outline a historically sounder strategy for getting to the sustainable good in the culture that the attempts of the past 250 years — rationalistic, ideologically based, secularist and/or neopagan revolutions — have as a rule ended in failure and oppression. the revolutions that have really worked were within the covenantal view of man, liberty and government under God, e.g. the Dutch, Scottish, Glorious and American revolutions.)
20 –> Indeed, the power of the softening of hard hearts approach comes out powerfully in comparing the Mosaic regulation of the EXISTING praxis of divorce [you must put it in writing so the poor woman has some proof of why she is no longer in your house] with Mal 2:16′s “I hate divorce says the LORD . . . ” and Jesus’ remark in Mt 19:1 – 6 that Moshe regulated divorce for the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so, as God made man and woman as mutually complementary for the covenant of marriage.
[ . . . ]
21 –> Other examples include how God provided for kingship among the covenant people though as 1 Sam 8 makes plain, he disapproves of it. He then worked with it, up to promising that Messiah would come of the line of David, and even — rather democratically — worked with the creation of a secessionary kingdom in response to foolish and arrogant oppressive taxation. (This of course comes right back to the foundations of the American republic for which the 2nd para of the DOI of 1776 is very parallel to the events under Jeroboam in response to Rehoboam’s oppressive folly. [Cf. 1 Kings 11:42 - 12:24.])
22 –> In such a context, we EXPECT to see that we have laws that regulate and ameliorate the culture of the times, and lay out the principles that make for the development of a better practice in a time when the culture (backslidings meanwhile notwithstanding) has matured enough to stand the reformation. A reformation process that is contingent on accepting the principles and ameliorative regulations that are the beginning of the process.
23 –> And that is exactly what the OT lays out for us. Indeed, here is one of the most profound prophetic aspirations in it, given in the precise context of corrective judgements for backslidings:
And, of course, I cannot conclude this without adverting to the way Galatians extends this to all peoples:
Which in turn brings us full circle tot he prophecy in Joel 2:28, fulfilled all over the world since that fateful first Pentecost Sunday. here we see Peter preaching the very first ever Christian sermon, with thousands of eyewitnesses in Jerusalem, on the occasion of the first outpouring of God’s Spirit under the new covenant prophesied in Jer 31:
And so, to this day, the challenge to us is what we must do in response. Peter’s answer remains the call of the church to this day:
With the resulting first 3,000 converts int eh stronghold of the enemies of Jesus who had put him to death, and within walking distance [~ 1/2 mile at most] of his now empty tomb, the church was launched, an unstoppable force that — its many sins and faults notwithstanding (it is made up of cracked clay pots, sot hat the power and glory shining out through the cracks are evidently NOT from the clay!) — has utterly transformed the course of not only many lives and families but history for good.
__________
So, now, onlookers, we — all of us — have a choice before us.
GEM of TKI
kairosfocus writes:
KF, you disappoint me! I was expecting a lengthy disquisition on how chopping off women’s hands is all for the best.
Mauka:
Either deal with the serious issue seriously, or stand revealed as playing irresponsible rhetorical games.
That’s your choice.
GEM of TKI
KF,
When people believe that their God, whom they worship passionately and adoringly, has commanded the amputation of women’s hands, the stoning of recalcitrant children, and wholesale genocide, that’s a serious issue.
When they believe that God, in his Holy Word, told the Hebrews how hard they could beat their slaves (fatally is okay as long as they don’t die right away) — that’s a serious issue.
When a deeply flawed, obviously human work is taken to be the authoritative word of God, that is a serious issue for all of us, believers and non-believers alike.
You can ignore the issue and try to change the subject. That doesn’t make it any less serious.
It’s your choice.
Mauka
Sadly, your persistent twisting of what the OT and those who have tried to discuss with you have said into strawmen to serve a dubious rhetorical agenda show that you are not a serious participant in a worldviews level dialogue.
(As in, what part of “amelioration of current customary praxis that reflects hardness of hearts, joined to enunciation of the principles of further reform, is a stage to onward reform” do you not understand? As in, onlookers, you may wish to observe the relatively peaceful abolition of first the slave trade then slavery in the British empire across C18 – 19 in the teeth of entrenched opposition, as an illustrative example; one largely driven by Evangelical Christians acting in the specifically Biblical worldview. As in, i tis the heritage of Jerusalem that served as the prophetic counterweight to Western culture, reforming its worst evils across time: a gift from Jews and Judaism to the world, especially through those far-seeing C1 Jews, Jesus and Paul. In short we see here a twisting of the record of history that scapegoats Jews and Christians for the ills of the world. (I invite serious onlookers to read here to see just a first level corrective of the slander, on the rise of modern liberty and democracy. Ask yourself why the original sources cited and the specific citations used are not a usual part of the way we typically learn that history.))
Above, even though it is on a tangential matter [and raised to hijack a thread from dealing with obviously unwelcome and inconvenient truths on the arrogant assertion by new atheists that those who differ with them are irrational or ignorant or stupid at best and evil at worst], several of us have taken time to reasonably address any legitimate concerns you may have.
You, even more sadly, have chosen — a la classic village atheist — to insist on strawman and question-beggingly loaded language tactics that utterly misrepresent and slander Jews, Judaism, the Bible, Christians and the Christian faith; not to mention the God of the Bible.
[Onlookers, all of M's latest accusations are patiently corrected above and in onward links, from several participants. As well, the basic issue that new atheists refuse to address, at worldviews level, is put up for our consideration: if evil is real, their materialism falls apart. By contrast: if evil is not real, then they are simply playing on our emotions through manipulative rhetoric. Until they resolve that dilemma, we need not take them seriously.]
You, M, have unfortunately made it plain that you are not a serious participant in worldview level discussions.
I have no interest in entertaining selectively hyperskeptical rhetorical games that boil down to dragging distractive red herrings across the track of truth, led out to strawmen soaked in slanderous ad hominems and turnabout accusations, and ignited to cloud and poison the atmosphere.
And, enough has been said for those who want to find out a serious approach to serious issues, to find a way forward.
So: Good bye.
GEM of TKI
JTaylor –the reader is blamed for not properly appreciating the wickedness of the Jewish people
Actually, it’s more like the reader is blamed for not properly the wickedness in himself or herself.
KF: “One of the dumbest things I hear “new atheists” say is that faith means “belief without evidence.”
Speaking for myself I would restate this as “belief without sufficient evidence”. There’s a difference and that’s the gist of my argument – do we have sufficient evidence to belief or is there reasonable doubt?
KF: “Onlookers – Observe the deleterious impact of rhetorical approaches to worldview issues at work above: tangential issues are used to pull away our focus from the core matter on the table.”
Onlookers – please note that these are not at all tangential issues. They were brought up in response to KF claiming that the OT is an authority we can trust in regard to prophecy. The counter-argument is that if this is so, then we must deal with the other baggage in the OT, namely the atrocities and violent acts performed by the Jewish deity. To many non-believers they are major issues and cannot be hand-waved away as “rhetorical” arguments.
It’s again interesting that KF brings up the prophecy quotes again. I get the impression that there is no issue taking these at face value, despite the fact that if these are read in proper context it is hard to see the prophetic element. Yet, apparently though if we try and take the more violent acts portrayed in the OT at face va;ie, then this is somehow breaking the rules and violating a “worldview” principle. It seems like a double standard and makes no sense.
KF said: “what part of “amelioration of current customary praxis that reflects hardness of hearts, joined to enunciation of the principles of further reform, is a stage to onward reform” do you not understand?
Is KF making a funny? Does anybody actually have a clue as to what this sentence really means?
KF: “And, as someone who vividly recalls and could write down summaries of events of 1984, personal and general,”
That’s impressive. Most of us can’t even remember what we had for dinner two days ago.
KF: “To escape the problem of worldview level circularity, we must then resort of comparative difficulties across the major alternative worldviews: all bristle with difficulties, so one must fairly summarise the live option alternative start-points for reasoning, identify the central warranting arguments for each, and assess the relative strengths, in light of the difficulties faced.”
I have no absolutely no idea what KF is trying to say here. It seems like tautology to me.
KF: “The problem with the claim is that of course there is no such claim that the documents are self evidently true; and indeed you will see that we have addressed historical warrant as a basis for taking their claims about the state of the world in certain relevant part of our past seriously.”
Unless of course we are talking about prophecy….
KF: “What instead is claimed — e.g. in Rom 1:19 ff — is that [a] God is self authenticating (just as your mom is self authenticating — if she was not, you would not be either . . .); and [b] he has left us sufficient evidence in the world around us and in the acts he has made into history and the current world that one may only deny his reality by suppressing what one knows to be so — or, worse, should know to be so. That is, we have no legitimate excuse.”
The problem here of course is the word “sufficient”. And of course the difference with God and my mom, is that I can touch her, see her and talk with her directly. As to the “acts made into history” – that’s the sticking point for a lot of us. When we delve into that history we find it ambiguous and lacking authenticity. God would have done better to arrive in the TV age. It’s not excuses then we are looking for but this “sufficient” evidence.
KF: “Instead we see yet another rabbit trail leading out to yet another strawman, that the NT and/or OT documents are not “self-evident.”
It’s not a strawman. It’s a very legitimate and serious question. Given that we know God wants earnestly to reach his lost ones, then why is it not self-evident? The delivery and reliability of God’s message is not congruent with a God who would do anything to win back his lost children. Instead we have a God who seems to delight in tautology and obscurity. After all, the very fact that we even have theologians is arguably indicative of a failure on God’s part to properly impart his truth. It seems God wants us to spend more time trying to understand His word rather than spread it. I have yet to see you seriously address this.
KF: “And, enough has been said for those who want to find out a serious approach to serious issues, to find a way forward.”
As I’ve said before if taking a “serious” approach means years of study, and reading endless tomes of dry academic exegesis, and that the Bible cannot be treated as a self-evident and accessible document, what does that ultimately tell us? I’m not sure I have the mental gymnastic capability to try make sense of it al!
Tribune7: “Actually, it’s more like the reader is blamed for not properly the wickedness in himself or herself”
Very insightful.
JT:
I will comment on a few points, as much for onlookers as for you:
1] Theme for thread
This was set by Ms O’Leary, whom I merely cited.
And, its relevance is that there is a known, notorious, atmosphere poisoning new atheist rhetorical agenda to accuse theistic, Judaeo-Christian thinkers of being “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.”
Such atmosphere poisoning is rude, unfair, slanderous and uncivil, to the point where in some regards it is dangerous to the health of our civilisation.
Above, I therefore called for instead a focus on a more serious approach to worldview choice, comparative difficulties. An approach that while indeed att he top level it calls fro top level examination, on the fundamentals is not that far from the average high-school educated person willing to invest a few hours of effort to start at the 101 level; especially since we need to clear the air from a lot of clouding and poisoning rhetoric.
2] “Insufficient” evidence vs selective hyperskepticism
Once we deal with the realm of matters of fact, we are unable to provide deductive proof relative to generally accepted axioms. And, even in mathematics, it now turns out post Godel that mathematical systems are themselves unable to provide certainty of conclusion.
We all must live by faith, so the issue is: how reasonable?
For that, on worldview issues, the question is that of comparative difficulties across live options, recognising that there are significant difficulties in ALL positions.
This is precisely the point where the rhetorical tactic of selective hyperskepticism seeks to dismiss by inconsistent and unfair criteria; usually in service to a position that is at least as difficult, if not moreso.
3] Counter claims vs distractions.
Onlookers, JT unfortunately distorts the record.
In response to the general issue as set above, SB raised the question of the 459 prophecies pointing tot he messiah whose life and passion culminating in his witnessed resurrection and its impact are the central warranting argument of the Christian perspective within the Judaeo-Christian worldview. his point being, that the One who predicts the future centuries in advance, provides authentication for the one who fulfills the predictions.
Within that context, I drew attention to the particularly important case Is 52 – 53, and its reported fulfillment as summarised in Lk-Ac and in 1 Cor 15:1 – 11; all of which are eyewitness lifetime record; about as good as historical evidence for classical times gets. There were then selectively hyperskeptical attempts to fallaciously dismiss the credibility of such records; on grounds that do not stand scrutiny – e.g. 25 years is historically speaking, an eyeblink, and is well within the lifetime of witnesses. Similarly, it is not hard to see — just read it — that the cited text discusses an individual who undergoes a specific series of experiences that are both beyond his control ["he is oppressed . . ."] and culminate in a resurrection from the dead in vindication of his despised, rejected and disregarded service to YHWH that triggers oppression to the point of unjust death.
Compounding this was the injection of the Dawkinsian “God is a moral monster” thesis, which served as an ad hominem laced distractor.
To this,the response was that we should distinguish between the warranting core of a worldview, and the general difficulties it may have; as the latter may best be addressed in light of the former, multiplied by the wider context of comparative difficulties. [In particular, Dawkins and co have no right to appeal to moral considerations until they can ground morality on their evolutionary materialist worldview grounds. This in turn points to a major and central difficulty of evolutionary materialism as a worldview: its origins scheme -- which happens to be its central warranting argument -- ends up undercutting the credibility of the mind and morality; i.e. it is evidently self-referentially absurd. And, we have a right to be able to make an informed choice with that issue on the table as well.]
In short, if we are reasonably confident on the reality of fulfilled prophecy tied to the passion and resurrection of the predicted Christ (who has poured out his Spirit in life-transforming, miracle working power for 2,000 years down to today — with millions of witnesses to the fact), it puts us in a much better position to reasonably address the difficulties that surround the theology of [1] reformation of the nations, and [2] judgement of defiantly unrighteous nations; the latter including [3] the historical judgements of Israel for its sins (including by the very same means of conquest that attended the Amorites once the cup of their defiant iniquity was full to brimming over). [It is not without relevance to observe that the nations of our own civilisation are pretty much at the threshold of destructive judgement for similar rebellious and resentful defiance of God in the teeth of many signs of his lovingkindness, today.]
4] Worldviews choice . . .
JT, You know or should know that I (and others) have repeatedlty said and warranted that all worldviews and their arguments have core unproved and unprovable assumptions, so we all MUST live by faith. The question is to have reasonable faith, as opposed to blind faith or the absurdities of seelectively hyperskeptical rhetoric.
And, as I have linked several times, the means to that is comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. The precise path I have repeatedly (and confidently, having walked the path myself for many years now) invited us to walk along together.
5] prophecy and self evidence
JT — sadly — distorts, again.
I have pointed out that history is a matter of fact, and so is prophecy of that history.
Was there a document that can be dated to c 700 BC? Does it contain a prediction that we can credibly show is before the fact? Is there reason to see that the facts align with the predictions? Are the reports on the facts trustworthy?
These are all contingent matters of fact, not self-evident issues of what (once we understand the terms and how they are connected to one another) we can see must be so, and — as a reasonably informed person — you should know that. Your dismissal rhetoric is strawmannish, unfair and unwarranted.
Specifically, self-evidence is a rather special category of claim, which is not directly relevant to most of the matters of fact on which we must make momentous decisions. (E.g. we usually assume and take for granted that A and NOT-A cannot be true in the same sense at the same time for the same object. We decide in irts light, not based on first proving it in every case. And, this and other similar cases are not capable of proof; e.g. this one is the key premise of all proofs.)
Thus, to in effect insist that matters of contingency that are matters of fact should now meet the criterion of self-evidence or they will be dismissed, is to play at selective hyperskepticisms.
[ . . . ]
5] God must prove himself to me . . . to my standard of proof, and that without much effort on my part
The basic biblical response to this hypersketpical theme is that — on the precise contrary — we have a duty to the truth we know or should know, truth that in fact is “not far from us” as “in God we live, move and have our being.”
Starting from, our very existence in a cosmos that points to its designer [note, this goes beyond the science to the worldviews issues; cf. my always linked on the science], and our human nature as having minds and finding ourselves being bound by morality — OUGHT is real, in a world where the merely physical IS cannot ground it:
In short, God is not so much concerned that we get it all right — as finite and fallible, morally fallen and too often ill-willed creatures we can only strive and haltingly progress to the right, not fully attain it — but that we be found striving in the path of the truth and the right.
That implies a persistent struggle to seek and to live by the truth we know or should know, including moral truths and the testimony of the world around us and our hearts and minds within, which are plainly “not far from us.”
In our civilisation at this stage, that includes that we have had 20 centuries of witness to the reality of God in the face of Jesus the [predicted and manifested] Christ, who “according to the [prophetic] scriptures” died for our sins, was buried, rose — with over 500 eyewitnesses — poured out his empowering Spirit, and has unleashed an unstoppable tide of transforming, miracle working, healing, saving and liberating power, with literally millions of cases in point. A tide that not even the sins of the Church and of Christendom have been able to stop. A tide that continues to this very day, with literally millions of accessible cases all around us. That is, the gospel has the precise powers that it promises.
So, when we turn to the records that we so easily have in our hands [the commonest example of access to primary source documents in our civilisation, up to the fact of translation (and original language and MSS are accessible too . . . )], we are not looking at strange and remote dusty documents found in some cave and unknown to us otherwise. Not at all, we are dealing with the fair on the face and coming- from- good- chain- of- custody historical, eyewitness lifetime documented foundations of the most dynamic movement of our civilisation; one that for all its sins, has an unparalleled record of doing good.
So, selective hyperskepticism in response to such record is its own refutation.
However, what has happened is that for centuries, clever men have erected rhetorical and academic barriers [cf a few remarks on that here] to learning such in principle easily accessible truth: there are, after all, millions all around us TODAY who have come to know the God of Creation in the face of Jesus the risen Lord and Saviour. Just as the gospel promises.
So, despite the dismissals of those who would demand that there be “extraordinary” proof [by criteria which will never be met, this side of A Certain Day] — the life-transforming, miracle-working, culture transforming impact of that encounter down to today, is a well-known matter, with millions of instances. God is not at all locked up in dusty tomes, he is very much here and now, within reach of the penitent sinner. So, our challenge is to deal with what we do know or — worse — SHOULD know.
But, if our minds have been clouded by the selectively hyperskeptical rhetoric in today’s version of the classic platonic cave, the turning from the power-backed myths of the shadow-land to the evident truth is a hard and unpopular task; one that in some cases can indeed take years of effort. For, one of the worst features of believing a false view — such is the power of deception — is that it may lead us to systematically misunderstand, distort and dismiss the truth. As Jesus sadly had to warn many in his own day:
Instead, on worldview choice, let us insist on hearing out the key claims and issues surrounding the major options, with the comparison of difficulties. And, let us insist on the test of experience: what happens to the lives of those who live by these principles? For, if a view is the truth, it will have an impact on life — so this is a part of the test of factual adequacy.
6] Evolutionary Materialism’s core challenge:
This, I have summarised [a discussion is in App 8 my always linked]:
>> . . . [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.
But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as “thoughts” and “conclusions” can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].)
Therefore, if materialism is true, the “thoughts” we have and the “conclusions” we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited!
Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze?
In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . .
In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that “Right” and “Wrong” are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies.
“Truth is dead,” so Education has become a power struggle; the victors have the right to propagandise the next generation as they please. Media power games simply extend this cynical manipulation from the school and the campus to the street, the office, the factory, the church and the home. >>
In short, evolutionary materialism has a few difficulties to answer to, difficulties that they should not be allowed to suppress or dismiss unanswered.
Evolutionary materialism is not at all to be assumed true by default or by merely being able to don the lab coat of the scientist.
GEM of TKI
PS: Onlookers, if you have need, you may find above linked discussions on the OT morality difficulties that have been raised. (I again list: cf. here and here, as a start-point for a more balanced reflection on this secondary issue. Again, while the difficulties are real, a responsible approach will examine them in their specific context [as the just linked give a good basic introduction on], but also that of the core of the Judaeo-Christian worldview, and the comparative difficulties of the alternatives being put forth. [It is not without significance above, that the objectors seem very reluctant to engage in open comparative difficulties analysis, which here must include the grounding of morality and the judgement of what "evil" is. Notice that evolutionary materialism has the dilemma that if evil and moral obligation more broadly exist, such are non-material realities, and that if such do not exist beyond a matter of perception, community conventions and feelings, then appeal to reject something as "evil" is a mere matter of manipulation of perceptions. Think, very carefully, about where that points,and the history of what has happened over the past 100 years as worldviews based on such thought have gained power. Listen, especially, to the warning being moaned out by over 100 million ghosts from that history.] )
Onlookers:
Discussions seem to have shifted to here.
GEM of TKI