Chris,
I think L is doing a fine job answering many objections. He even went as far as answering a few of your comments directed towards me. Thus, I am going to take a little bit of a detour. I don’t know you as well as L does and I would like to. So I am going to ask you a few questions, some that often are quickly looked over.
1. What lead you to agnosticism?
2. What would you consider sufficient evidence to believe that God exists?
3. What is your ultimate authority in dealing with issues of philosophy and religion? Mine is the Bible. Is yours reason or science or maybe something else?
4. If L or I or another Christian were to prove to you that God exists and that Jesus truly resurrected from the dead, would you worship Him and treasure Him as we do?
By the way, it is great having you here on this blog. Thanks for your participation.
Dane
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.” (Rom 1:19-22 ESV)
--
Addendum by L:
Dane, I sent you an invite to become a member of this blog, did you get it?
Sunday, September 10, 2006
To: Chris | From: Dane
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I hate to detract from the topic and probably your intention in posting this, Dane, but I want to ask how you know the Bible is an accurate representation of reality, and therefore an authority on religious and philosophical matters? It seems there are two possible ways to respond: either the Bible needs no justification whatever (maybe it’s self-justifying); or you think there are reasons to believe the Bible is true because of extra-biblical evidence confirm its veracity. It seems, though, since you’ve ruled out reason/science as an authority, the latter defense is not an option for you: using extra-Biblical data to justify the Bible is conceding the primacy of Reason over the Bible since the justification process is prior to and (more) fundamental than the Bible itself.
The only option left is the former: that the Bible needs not reason or any other thing to be justified because it’s self-justifying. But hopefully the Bible isn’t self-justifying merely because it seems to say so. That’s viciously circular: the contents of any book should never be considered true just because its author(s) say so. The response “well, God wrote it” won’t work either, because that begs the question: “How do you know God wrote it?” Once again, just because a book says “God wrote this” doesn’t mean He actually did, right?
Derek,
Thanks for the question. Your question is an important one and I wasn’t planning on answering it until after I had heard Chris’s response, but I don’t mind doing it now. I believe the Bible self-justifies its own authority and that extra-biblical evidence helps lend support to its veracity.
You are correct I do not believe that reason or science can be the ultimate authority in our lives. The Word of God claims its ultimate authority. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 4:4). The Word of God is living and it reaches and convinces sinners of its veracity. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27). “If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority” (John 7:17). While reason alone can get us to the understanding that God exists (General Revelation; Rom. 1:18-20); reason cannot bring one to the Gospel (Special Revelation). The man whose eyes have not been opened do not want to see the truth of the Word of God. Paul wrote, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Thus, it is the Words of God that convince its veracity.
Now you said that this conclusion is viciously circular. This conclusion is circular but it is not invalid. All attempts to explain and defend either explicitly or implicitly an ultimate authority are circular. For example, if reason or logic is your authority then you must use reason or logic to prove it’s the most reasonable authority. “Reason is my ultimate authority because it is the most reasonable option.” Do you see why this is not a typical circular argument?
Ultimately it is sin that keeps men and women from seeing that God’s Word is truth and that its demands are authoritative.
First of a lot of the verses you mentioned can’t do the work you’re trying to get them to do, even if they somehow can be seen to be meta-justifications of the text to which they are a part.
For instance:
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 4:4).
If context is important in one’s hermeneutic, it must be kept in mind that Jesus (in Mat.) cannot be referring to the book of Mathew for it hadn’t even been written yet. In Paul’s case too, by ‘scripture’ he most certainly had in mind the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) and not a collection of biographies and letters (the New Testament) yet to be canonized centuries later, some of which had yet to be written (I’m pretty sure St. John’s Gospel and Revelation, at the very least, were written years after Paul wrote his letter(s) to Timothy). If the intention of these verses were not the New Testament as we know it (even if true and accurate), then these verses won’t do the work of providing justification.
“The Word of God is living and it reaches and convinces sinners of its veracity. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27).”
The “Word of God”, according to St. John’s Gospel, is the Uncreated Divine Wisdom (in other words logic itself) that existed before any written documents ever existed, never mind the Bible, and would still exist even if there was never a Bible. I do think the Bible is a way knowing what The Word of God is like, but the Bible itself is not identical to Jesus Christ himself, and ought to be distinguished. The verse you mention is referring to the Word of God himself, and was spoken before the New Testament was ever written. Since the verse is not discussing the canon which didn’t exist yet, it can’t be thought to justify it.
“If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority” (John 7:17).
But this is true of anything whatsoever, not just the Bible. Without ad hoc qualification this means that as long as one seeks the will of God, one can know whether what anyone says is from God or not, even if the Bible never existed; which, once again, was written and was the not the reference at the time Jesus said these things.
“While reason alone can get us to the understanding that God exists (General Revelation; Rom. 1:18-20); reason cannot bring one to the Gospel (Special Revelation).”
But couldn’t reason combined with God’s enlightenment (or perhaps they’re the same thing) bring one to the Gospel, even without the Bible? For sure Paul’s ministry was such a case: he spoke the gospel without the Bible, and those with ‘ears to hear’ were able to see it was from God…
“The man whose eyes have not been opened do not want to see the truth of the Word of God. Paul wrote, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).”
I agree, but no direct bearing on the subject:
“Thus, it is the Words of God that convince its veracity.”
Once again, “Words of God” (sic), may again mean either the Bible, or Jesus himself, which are not identical.
“Now you said that this conclusion is viciously circular. This conclusion is circular but it is not invalid. All attempts to explain and defend either explicitly or implicitly an ultimate authority are circular. For example, if reason or logic is your authority then you must use reason or logic to prove it’s the most reasonable authority. “Reason is my ultimate authority because it is the most reasonable option.” Do you see why this is not a typical circular argument? “
I think it would be helpful here to make some more distinctions. I’m not opposed to self-justification in any way, but I think that reason (or logic, to be more specific) is a better candidate for such role, for various but related reasons:
1) The denial of logical propositions cannot even be conceived of as being false: it’s impossible for me to imagine something being both A and not-A.
2) Since logical truths are indubitable, they are true for all subjects whatsoever, and therefore universal in scope, in which case
3) Are more fundamental than all non-logical propositions- for the simple reason that unlike the principle of non-contradiction (PNO), it’s possible to imagine that Jesus never became incarnate, for instance, but never will it be the case that the PNC won’t be true. This is to say, one can argue all day about whether something beyond pure logic is true or false, but no one can even begin to argue against logical claims without defeating themselves in the process (i.e. I can say “the bible isn’t true” without contradicting my self but I can’t say “the gun is both shooting and not-shooting at the same time” without contradicting myself.
And this leads me to my final point:
You say: “You are correct I do not believe that reason or science can be the ultimate authority in our lives”.
Even if you don’t, and you aren’t convinced by anything I’ve said, in order for you to engage in a conversation with anyone who doesn’t already assume the Bible is veridical, you’ll be using logic to engage in conversation because it provides common ground for the conversation to get somewhere (it’s universal validity comes into play). Otherwise you’ve reached a logical impasse, and argumentation is reduced to diametrically opposed assertions. In order for you to show how the Bible is reasonably trustworthy to someone who has yet to think so, you’ll be tacitly assuming reason is more fundamental in order to engage the project.
Hey Dane,
thanks for this blog. i'm not ignoring it i've just been focusing on composing responses to other blogs. it's actually something i was considering writting anyway as i'm so far the odd ball (beliefs wise) in this collective and therefore arguably most in need of presenting my baseline worldview. i hope to have something together in the next day or two.
-C
Hey all,
Both Dane and Lou have asked me some questions regarding my beliefs. Many were similar so I decided to consolidate my reply.
1. What lead you to agnosticism?
-Dane
This one I'm still writting out and will post another time. Maybe we should all put together our own personal "history of belief" outlining what led us to our current set of beliefs.
I will say I didn't arrive at agnosticism because of a specific incident or failing of Christianity. A friend of mine says he lost his faith when his bike was stolen from in front of church while he was attending a service inside. It wasn't anything like that for me, though that story always makes think of the old joke:
A kid really wanted a bike so he did his best to be a good person, attended church every sunday, and prayed to God for one all summer. At the end of the sumer when he didn't get a bike it struck him that religion didn't work that way. The next day he stole a bike and then prayed for forgiveness.
2. What would you consider sufficient evidence to believe that God exists?
-Dane
What would you consider sufficient evidence to establish the rationality and credibility of Christianity as a modern world view, worthy of commitment?
-Louis
It's tough to say. It may be the sort of thing you aren't able to define until you've found. The analogy that comes mind is the cliché TV crime drama in which a veteran detecive is surveying a crime scence when his rookie partner asks, "what are you looking for?" The detective gruffly replies, "I don't know. I won't know 'til I find it."
Direct observation would be ideal, but the Judeo-Christo-Muslim god is notoriously supernatural and (presuming for the moment it exists) therefore may simply not be perceptable by the five physical senses. In that case, some indirect method of observation would work. A holy finger print, if you will.
From one my earlier posts:
"What I am interested in finding, if it in fact exists, is some evidence of the deity be it empiric or reasoned. A logical, reasoned, irrefutable argument would do in lieu of empiric data. In considering the existence of supernatural propostions like god, argumentative evidence (I'm guessing) would be easier to come up with than scientific evidence so why not take the easier route."
4. If Louis or I or another Christian were to prove to you that God exists and that Jesus truly resurrected from the dead, would you worship Him and treasure Him as we do?
-Dane
If you were shown convincing arguments for Christianity, would you then believe in Jesus and commit your life to Him?
-Louis
If I came to believe that god exists as outlined in the Bible I'd be crazy not to worship him. I will add that I'm no easy sell. I'll concede it's a possibility but that I think its unlikely such an argument/proof exists.
3. What is your ultimate authority in dealing with issues of philosophy and religion? Mine is the Bible. Is yours reason or science or maybe something else?
-Dane
What is the biggest qualm you have with Christianity (if all other questions were answered, and this remained, you would remain convinced that Christianity is not true)?
-Louis
What parts of the Old Testament narrative do you reject?
(Ex: Do you believe that Cain killed Abel, that Noah existed, that there was a global flood, that Moses existed, that the Hebrews were enslaved by Egypt, that the Jews worshipped an idol at the bottom of the mountain, that they built a temple, that it was destroyed, that it was rebuilt, that prophets existed, etc.?)
-Louis
How do you think that the Old Testament was written; at what time, and by whom?
-Louis
What parts of the New Testament narrative do you reject?
(Ex: Do you believe that Jesus existed, challenged the religious leaders and was crucified, that the disciples existed, that Paul existed and preached the gospel, that a church developed and suffered under the Roman empire, etc.?)
-Louis
How do you think that the New Testament was written; at what time, and by whom?
-Louis
These six questions are all related and share a related answer. I'll talk about this topic in a separate post I'm putting together.
I wrote this before reading the exchange between Dane and Derek (even though i posted something after it). Though Derek may have thought his question to Dane was tangential, he was actually pursuing a line of inquiry I was going to. The difference is that he did it better than I would have because of his greater familiarity with the Bible. I agree with his conclusion on the matter and will add for myself that if someone hopes to convince me that Christianity is the way to go, there will need to be a sizeable extra-biblical component to their argument.
From Louis:
Can you give a brief outline of your epistemology?
Please clarify. Do you mean how do I decide what is fact?
Can you give a brief outline of your metaphysics?
Please clarify. Do you mean what do I believe exists? Are you asking if I consider ideas as objects?
Do you hold any explicitly religious beliefs? If so, what are they?
Please clarify. Do you mean do I believe in anything supernatural?
What are your goals for this forum?
(Ex: To convince all the theists to denounce their belief in God, to stop Christians from trying to spread their faith, to foster community, to engage in conversation for the sake of better understanding other people's beliefs and help them to understand mine, to encourage clear thinking, to modify Christianity, to entertain yourself, etc.)
To better understand why people believe what they believe. To hopefully gain a better understanding of different belief systems and work towards a realization of ultimate Truth, be it Monotheistic, Scientific or Other.
How can the Christians in this forum help you, serve you, give to you, and love you?
By doing what you're all doing. Being true to your beliefs yet keeping an open mind about new ideas and being open to questions and friendly debate. Also, helping me get rid of any misconceptions I have about Christianity so that I can see it clearly.
Are there any questions that you would like me or anyone else to answer?
I'm sure I'll come up with some.
Is there anything else that you feel needs discussion, clarification, or question in regards to the purpose and methodology of this forum?
I'll wrap up by speaking to the importance of defining terms. To facilitate efficient communication we all need to be on the same page when it comes to meanings of words. If when you say 'dog' you mean "typical canine" and when I say 'dog' I mean "viability of progressive agrarian policy changes in the former Soviet nations", we may end up talking about two different things and not at first realizing it. I suggest when we first bring up a term like 'metaphysics' or any of the '-isms' we provide a brief definition, ideally from a third party. This way we'll all know what the poster means and it won't be an ad hoc definition that doesn't apply outside of our discussion.
For definitions I'm fond of Wikipedia but or dictionary.com also work well, as would any major reference site. This in itself may prove illuminating. Sometimes when looking up a word to make sure I'm using it correctly I'm surprised to find that it means somethings different than I'd assumed from the way I'd heard it used.
-Chris
Somehow my last paragraph got messed up. It should read:
For definitions I'm fond of Wikipedia but answers.com or dictionary.com also work well, as would any major reference site. ...
-Chris
Thank you for your answers, Chris. I really appreciate it. I will work on some more specific questions on some of these things for later.
Post a Comment