
People take strong issue with me, not so much because of my positions – this also is an issue – but because I express a high level of certainty and claim that these issues can be proved. One respondent stated, “I hate it when anyone claims that they can know something for certain!”
Although few will be so transparent about their inclinations, I sense that this cultural bias has been deeply instilled into our corporate Western consciousness. Even Christian scholars will write in very couched and carefully formulated terms to avoid the charge that their faith directs their scholarship and that they are over-stating their case. Others go further and disdain any talk of proofs and certainty. In “The Myth of Certainty,” Daniel Taylor writes,
• “When people defend their world view, they are not defending reason, or God, or an abstract system; they are defending their own fragile sense of security and self-respect.” (25)
According to this statement, it’s all about personal mushy stuff, and questions of truth don’t seem to matter very much. Many postmodern philosophers claim that assertions of truth are no more than our own subjective constructions, employed to exert power and influence. This assertion represents a dismissal of any defense of truth, including the defense of the Biblical faith as mandated (Jude 3; 1 Peter 3:15).
We might conclude that Taylor also wrote his book to support his “own fragile sense of security and self-respect.” However, he explains that the reason is not to convince anyone of the Christian faith, but instead to reassure those who, like himself,
• “Have found in God, and in Jesus Christ, a proposed solution to the human dilemma to which they have made, with varying degrees of confidence, a commitment. At the same time they have been blessed and cursed with minds that never rest. They are dissatisfied with superficial answers to difficult questions, willing to defend faith, but not its misuse…Their relationship to this [church] subculture is complex, and only partly conscious, and they are both indebted to it and victimized by it.” (11)
Is Taylor’s problem the result of “difficult questions” or the wrong presuppositions, the wrong starting point? Has he started buttoning his shirt with the wrong button, finding that every subsequent button is in the wrong hole? Of course, the mind is experienced as a “curse” whenever our worldview fails to congeal, leaving us in confusion and resenting the professed assurance of others. Sometimes the resulting dissonance represents a failure in reconciling the “dissonant” elements of the faith; sometimes it’s a matter of failing to reconcile our faith with the prevailing culture. Which way do we go? Do we reconcile the Bible with itself and then find ourselves even more at odds with the culture? Or do we try to reconcile those most central and important parts of the Gospel with our public lives and leave aside some of the harder edges of Biblical revelation?
A common strategy emphasizes the “spiritual” and personal aspects of the faith, those parts that can be reconciled with our public lives and secular culture. Often, this conceptualization divides life into two non-overlapping or non-competing orbs of influence. The spiritual orb pertains to what I do at home and in church. It’s about faith and worship. The other orb is the public one, which involves science and provable facts. Since the faith isn’t “provable,” it’s to remain private, until someone asks us about it. Then, our defense largely revolves around sharing our own personal experiences, rather than evidences and proofs. It also entails some degree of conformity to secular norms – evolution is a fact, we can marry whomever we want, and Islam doesn’t pose a threat since they will become secularized as the rest of us.
There is going to be cognitive struggle with whatever strategy we adopt. Although the latter solution is culturally more comfortable, it has its own problems. The conceptualization of non-overlapping orbs of life is highly artificial. For one thing, in both orbs, value judgments are part of every decision we make – whether we’re conscious of them or not – and Christian values and beliefs aren’t the same as secular values. When the orbs collide – and they will – this means dissonance. Here are some other costs of this latter option:
1. Peace with the world is enmity with God. By reconciling our faith with the secular world, we heighten the conflicts within our own Christian worldview. This will only cause greater discomfort with the message we hear from our pulpits. Younger Christians are leaving the more traditional churches in hope of finding a message or theology in more seeker-sensitive churches with which they can experience affirmation. This includes finding relationships with more like-minded people.
2. Certainty is undermined. These conflicts aren’t resolved by finding more affirmative churches. They reappear whenever we pick the Bible or even turn to God in prayer.
3. The secular formulation of non-competing orbs marginalizes and silences Christianity. How could it not! If Christianity is no longer about proof and certainty – and these belong only to the orb of science and provable facts – then there isn’t much to say in defense of the faith or even in defense of our Christian values and opinions if they conflict with secular norms. Our tendency will therefore be to adopt values which we can vocalize or else suffer marginalization.
In this postmodern climate, the expression of any certainty about our faith and its rational basis is met with disdain. We have overstepped the accepted boundaries! But how then can we communicate effectively with our culture? Are we relegated to merely a sharing of our feelings and experiences? Although our personal testimonies are important, they can’t be the entire story. Everyone has their own feelings and experiences. What makes ours any more valid than theirs? What then is the answer? It might sound simplistic, but this represents the core of our faith – “Trust in the Lord!”
Paul wrote about the contrary cultural climate of the last days and gave instruction to the church:
• “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus…Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.” (2 Tim. 3:14-15; 4:2)


Mann: “Younger Christians are leaving the more traditional churches in hope of finding a message or theology in more seeker-sensitive churches with which they can experience affirmation.”
ReplyDeleteI believe that traditional churches are not able or even willing to adjust to the experiences young people are facing in this day. I hear book knowledge and formal teachings coming from the pulpit of many churches and seriously even I get turned off. I do understand why younger or new Christians are looking for churches that can speak about today's issues and I find that a lot of these pastors are not willing to give up their pulpit and allow for more conventional teachings with the addition of the word of God. A young man in his mid 20's said to me that Jesus was 2000 or more yrs ago what does that have to do with him and how things are now. Tell me how one answers that when he is correct that the issues that people had in the days when Christ walked the earth are so different from today in the western world.
Lillian,
ReplyDeleteYou're right. We have many problems and a long way to go to make the church what our Lord requires.
Mann: Do we reconcile the Bible with itself and then find ourselves even more at odds with the culture?
ReplyDeleteDon't forget leaving yourself at odds with reality.
Mann: Or do we try to reconcile those most central and important parts of the Gospel with our public lives and leave aside some of the harder edges of Biblical revelation?
You forgot an option, Daniel. You can accept that the books of the Christians Bible are much the same as the holy books of other religions, that the various sects of Christianity are much the same as other religions, and go from there (seems that tends to lead to Deism, Agnosticism or Atheism).
1. Sounds like you need to deny the evidence of reality to find peace with your supposed deity. That doesn't seem like the rational position to take.
2. Why is certainty such a big deal? Why does it seem you're afraid of uncertainty, of not having the answers, of simply saying "I don't know"?
3. The problem with this claim is that Christianity could be about proof and certainty, if reality reflected the claims made. As it does not, I do not see a problem in marginalising Christianity (note: not the people, but the basis for claims) in the wider community/world. We don't tend to accept claims made by astrologers and psychics in the public sphere, why should claims based upon Christian fictions be given more credence? Simply because they are more popular?
Mann: In this postmodern climate, the expression of any certainty about our faith and its rational basis is met with disdain. We have overstepped the accepted boundaries!
Postmodernism as a world view is ludicrous, but the expressions of certainty of yourself and fellow Christians are not justified rationally. Just look at the steps someone like Plantinga takes to try to secure a rational basis for his belief - his "Reformed Epistemology" seems to leave the door open to almost any belief system, all in an effort to show how Christianity might be a rational position.
Mann: Paul wrote about the contrary cultural climate of the last days and gave instruction to the church:
2 Timothy is not generally accepted as being written by Paul, but even ignoring that, Paul seemed to expect the "last days" within his lifetime (or shortly thereafter - I expect he'd be rather taken aback knowing that it hadn't happened for 2000 years, nor showed any signs of happening). I'm not sure why his advice for 1st century converts expecting an immanent parousia is useful for us today, considering the parousia failed to eventuate.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteKnowing you have no basis for moral absolutes, I’m surprised at you – a good atheist – making such an absolutest recommendation:
• “I do not see a problem in marginalising Christianity (note: not the people, but the basis for claims) in the wider community/world. We don't tend to accept claims made by astrologers and psychics in the public sphere, why should claims based upon Christian fictions be given more credence?”
As you have demonstrated with your recommendation, we all have our values and moral positions. What makes yours any more valid than ours? Why are your moral convictions any less “fiction” than ours? Do you have proofs for your atheistic morality? Perhaps you’d prefer a totalitarian state where all religions have been marginalized except your own! You know, that this been tried a number of times, and the results haven’t been anything to brag about.
3rd time lucky trying to get this comment through :-)
ReplyDeleteMann: Knowing you have no basis for moral absolutes, I’m surprised at you – a good atheist – making such an absolutest recommendation:
By "moral absolutes" I assume you mean some kind of "objective morality"?
You've been corrected concerning this on a number of occasions. Why do you continue to promote what you know to be a falsehood?
Mann: As you have demonstrated with your recommendation, we all have our values and moral positions. What makes yours any more valid than ours?
Apart from your claims relying upon ancient superstition, myth and a failure to take reality into account, nothing in particular makes other ethical systems "more valid" than your own.
Mann: Why are your moral convictions any less “fiction” than ours?
It's not that your moral convictions are fictions (I don't doubt that you have them), it's that you base them, or claim they arise from something which is fictional - ie. Yahweh|Jesus.
You could probably derive a more consistent ethics from positing an omnibenevolent being (as Christianity often claims to do) and reasoning from there to what results (you'd probably end up with something similar to Kantian ethics).
Using the writings of logically illiterate peoples from thousands of years ago has lead modern believers to claim an ethical system which is inconsistent and self contradictory (and that's not even taking into account the fictional nature of the purported "basis" of your morality).
Mann: Do you have proofs for your atheistic morality?
Daniel, when we've discussed morality in the past I've given you all sorts of pointers you could follow to educate yourself on the matter. Time and again it seems you have completely ignored what has been offered.
That you continue to trot out the "you have no basis for morality" demonstrates your reluctance to do any research of your own, as well as your reluctance to take on board anything which doesn't agree with what you already believe is "truth".
Mann: Perhaps you’d prefer a totalitarian state where all religions have been marginalized except your own!
Why would you think this were the case?
What makes you think I have any sort of religion or religious affiliation?
You seem to be trying to make an ad hominem - ignore my arguments by claiming that I'm some kind of totalitarian/authoritarian.
Mann: You know, that this been tried a number of times, and the results haven’t been anything to brag about.
Totalitarian regimes (I assume you're referring to Stalinist Russia and Maoist China here) show more resemblence to religious institutions than anything I might advocate (or have advocated on this blog) - Stalinist Russia was authoritarian in a similar fashion to Czarist Russia before it (which happened to be a Christian Monarchy, I believe).
When Christians have tried similar sorts of things, there were also problems.
Perhaps the issue is not one of athiesm (or even theism), but rather of a denial of reality (Stalin's adherence to Lysenko's biology was a direct cause of widespread famine in Russia, for example).
Havok,
ReplyDeleteYou erroneously dismiss the fact that you are religious: “Why would you think this were the case? What makes you think I have any sort of religion or religious affiliation?”
The fact that you don’t believe in a higher spiritual power or even a spirit world are religious stances. Your moral assertions about what I should or shouldn’t do are also religious in nature. Your use of logic and reason also betrays your religious presuppositions of uniformity and continuity. Even worse for you, this use betrays a religious borrowing. While your worldview can only account for molecules-in-motion and lacks any basis to believe in and use the unchanging and uniform laws of logic and reason, you secretly prostitute yourself by borrowing presuppositions of uniformity and immutability from the Christian worldview. Hence, you exercise a double-standard.
This is God’s world, and therefore, circumstances coerce you into acknowledging it through your beliefs and very life:
• Romans 2:14-15 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.
Havok, you’re like a lion in a zoo, roaring about his strength and independence, but in complete denial that he is a kept-creature.
Mann: The fact that you don’t believe in a higher spiritual power or even a spirit world are religious stances. Your moral assertions about what I should or shouldn’t do are also religious in nature. Your use of logic and reason also betrays your religious presuppositions of uniformity and continuity. Even worse for you, this use betrays a religious borrowing.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have a very strange notion of "religious" Daniel.
Mann: While your worldview can only account for molecules-in-motion and lacks any basis to believe in and use the unchanging and uniform laws of logic and reason, you secretly prostitute yourself by borrowing presuppositions of uniformity and immutability from the Christian worldview. Hence, you exercise a double-standard.
Firstly, "molecules-in-motion" is all that needs accounting for. Secondly, if you want to play the borrowing game, your Christian worldview borrows those concepts from Hellenistic philosophies, not all of which entailed deities.
You're claims of a double standard on my part fall down. I'm not "borrowing" from Christianity. I don't claim the laws are immutable. I simply claim that as far as we can tell they haven't changed, and there seems no reason to think that they will/do. All of your protestations to the contrary have failed to demonstrate what it is that is being "borrowed".
Mann: This is God’s world,
So you claim, over and over again. I'm still waiting for you to actually justify this claim.
Mann: Havok, you’re like a lion in a zoo, roaring about his strength and independence, but in complete denial that he is a kept-creature.
Daniel, you continue making empty statements and avoid actually justifying your claims. Please, demonstrate that I'm this lion. Demonstrate that this is God's world (your specific God if you could). Demonstrate that morality requires transcendance. Demonstrate that any of the assertions you've made over the months in which I've been frequenting your blog ARE ACTUALLY TRUE (or at least likely to be so).
Havok,
ReplyDelete“I'm not "borrowing" from Christianity. I don't claim the laws are immutable. I simply claim that as far as we can tell they haven't changed, and there seems no reason to think that they will/do. All of your protestations to the contrary have failed to demonstrate what it is that is being "borrowed".”
Your materialist/naturalist worldview is not grand enough to embrace or explain many facets of your experience. I had pointed to your use of unchanging logic and reason. For one thing, you can’t explain their origins, uniformity, immutability or power to measure all phenomena, but that wasn’t really my point. Your materialism is only able to account for molecules-in-motion and can’t account for logic and reason, which are immutable.
Generally speaking, when a scientist finds that his paradigm is unable to embrace the phenomena, he seeks a new paradigm that better conforms to the findings. I would therefore invite you to become a Christian!
“Please, demonstrate that I'm this lion [in a zoo].”
You roar and you strut about without any awareness that you are a kept beast, having been given all of your extravagant needs on a gourmet platter – food, air, intelligence, language, a salutary environment, logic, reason, even a protective atmosphere. Instead of giving thanks to the zoo-keeper, you prefer the fiction that all of your blessings just happened by themselves, even though you acknowledge that the chance of all these things just coming together for you are infinitesimal. In this way, you are not obligated to anyone. You’re free! At least as long as you can deny the bars on your cage!
Regarding the other things that you want me to demonstrate, I have done this many times already.
Regarding the ontological status of logic/math, there is no reason to claim they can't be accounted for on physicalism, materialism, naturalism or atheism. For example, an atheist may believe in some sort of platonic ideal. Or a physicalist may claim some form of structuralism. For example, from Michael Resnik's "Mathematics as a Science of Patterns":
ReplyDelete"The ontological component of my realism is a form of structuralism. Mathematical objects are featureless, abstract positions in structures (or more suggestively, patterns); my paradigm mathematical objects are geometric points, whose identities are fixed only through their relationships to each other"
While he is discussing mathematics, his claims could certainly be extended to logic as well. This would account for the unchanging nature of these disciplines without the need for some deity.
Now, since you're making a string claim, that my world view cannot account for these things, rather than my world view has no account for these things, it's up to you to actually support that claim.
As I've provided some evidence that there are in fact accounts which fit my world view, I don't like you chances of actually providing an argument for your strong position (or even the weaker position), but I invite you to give it a try.
As for changing my position - as I've shown above, there is no reason to do so. ON the contrary, given all of the difficulties I've pointed out with your own position, I invite you to change it instead of flailing with ad hoc assumptions and rationalisations :-)
As for being in a cage, for all of your repeated claims and assertions, Daniel, you've shown me no evidence of a cage or zookeeper that exist in reality. Thus far all that can be supported is your "belief" in their existence - something I don't doubt.
Mann: Regarding the other things that you want me to demonstrate, I have done this many times already.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, think of the sort of detail which you'd require from a naturalistic explanation of the universe, or whatever else you're claiming for God, and this is the sort of detail you ought to aim for with your own explanation.
Of course the content will differ - you won't be able to provide mechanistic details, and so should aim for intentional details (which I've asked you to provide before) - but the level of detail ought to be similar.
Otherwise you're letting your inherent bias cloud your judgement, rather than approaching the questions in as fair and balanced a manner as possible.