What worries me to a great extent is the drive with which future church leaders are trained to be relevant to culture, and in the process forgetting about the message they are supposed to be relevant with. The problem isn’t that the church is irrelevant, or that the presentation is irrelevant (necessarily). The problem is that the church has retreated from culture. An inability to think critically will do the church in…
|
If a person changes from one position to another, in which this other position is antagonistic towards the first, I often find that the ensuing criticisms speak much more towards the persons (1) previously held beliefs and (2) reasons for belief, than of the position per-se in question. That if such a person were ever criticizing anyone specifically (and primarily), it would be themselves. I keep running across the question (or objection, depending on how it’s phrased), “Why does God hide himself?” or “Why does God reveal Himself to some people, but not to others”. In reply my answer is, ‘I’ll have to think about that’. Which in part means that I’m not going to accept out of hand that God hides himself, as I think that presumes too much, namely, that I know every way which God reveals Himself (also that I’m capable of recognizing them). As for why God reveals Himself to some but not to others, well, I think there are a number of reasons for that, probably most common is, “some people aren’t listening”, followed by “God doesn’t exist”. I’ve also hard it said that if God revealed Himself, He would be doing us a favor by clearing up all our religious confusion and misunderstandings of Him. But according to ancient Israel, that doesn’t seem to be the case (the same ancient Israel which refutes the free will explanation). For instance, what is to stop someone from asking, “How do I know this is God, and not some extremely powerful being?” That’s assuming we’re able to fully comprehend Gods revelation. Who is to say that such a revelation will end religious diversity? It hasn’t so far. Indeed, this is a deep question, but I’ve yet to come across a deep consideration of the issues involved. Perhaps something to consider and write on in the future… Recently I began thinking about John Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith (OTF), and I have serious doubts that it’s the ‘tool’ he believes it is. As a reminder (or introduction), the OTF asks believers to, “test [their] beliefs as if [they] were an outsider to the faith [they] are evaluating”… That “if your faith stands up under muster, then you can have your faith. If not, abandon it…” In other words, the OTF asks religious believers to test their beliefs as objectively as possible, with the presumption of skepticism.1 My initial thoughts are as follows: -=-=-=-=-=-=- (1) If as a Christian (or a Jew, or Muslim, etc.) I take the OTF and find my beliefs lacking, and as a result of taking the OTF reject these beliefs, then to what position will I ‘convert’? Supposing my aim was to verify the claims of the Christian religion, then I will have found the Christian God to be false. But I have not found other formulations of god to be false. Perhaps Judaism is correct, or Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, or some other religious system. If I’m to be intellectually honest, I must choose between theism or agnosticism, while continuing to examine other religious claims. Of course, this is different than the aim of verifying if God exists per-se; in this case, ‘disproving’ some formulations of god will be easier than others, some much harder (such as a deist god or the ‘god of the philosophers’). In this latter case two things seem most immediately apparent: (a) such a test requires intimate familiarity with different formulations of god and related theology — it will take a while, in other words — and (2) that if arriving at atheism, this sort of ‘atheist’ will have to acknowledge that there is the possibility of some formulations of god existing, though he doesn’t believe in these god(s) personally. He must still acknowledge the legitimacy of some forms of belief. If not, then presumably the ultimate argument against theistic belief must have been discovered, and he ought to share it. In the case of the former aim, I suspect that here it will be said that I have already taken the OTF with regard to these systems of belief (as a Christian I was presumably an outsider), and my finding them false still holds. But consider that in giving up Christianity, I will have experienced an enormous paradigm shift: it is my new belief that the Christian God no longer exists, where I previously thought he did. It is most likely the case that in examining other religious systems as a Christian, part of the reason I rejected them was because they contradicted the Christian formulation of God (i.e. I was working under the assumption that ‘X’ is false because the bible is true). With this formulation removed, part of my criticism has also gone missing and is otherwise invalid. If my concern is for the truth of my belief, then I am obligated to re-examine my criticism of these faiths following my rejection of Christianity. I’m not sure Loftus gives adequate weight to the change that occurs here between world-views. In the case of the latter aim, I suspect it will be objected that such a course of action is impossible. One cannot possibly go around testing every claim individually. My reply is only this: if your concern is for the truth, you will do whatever it takes to find the truth. This does not require testing every religious claim — I didn’t say it did — we could arrive at the truth before then. But as we only know truth through contrast, we are at least required to test a few systems of belief. Otherwise if truth isn’t the primary concern, it will be objected that such a course of action is impossible. (Keeping in mind that the OTF isn’t a guideline for what to do after one has rejected their faith, presumably one would keep taking the OTF if necessary.) (2) Arriving at a new belief through the OTF, I am now required to take the OTF with my new position if (a) I did not examine my new belief previously, only rejecting it them of hand or (b) my previous criticisms are no longer valid as a result of my new paradigm. To say it another way; my new position is a result of finding Christianity false, rather than finding my new position true. (3) Which leads me to my next thought — that atheists ought to take the OTF as well, an objection Loftus believes to have answered. He says:
This is where the name Outsider Test for Faith does more harm than good (we end up arguing semantics). If our aim is to verify our own beliefs as true or false, then we ought to verify those beliefs no matter what they are. Perhaps it might be best just to call the OTF the ‘Test for Truth’ (TFT), and the only requirement of the TFT is to ‘examine your beliefs as objectively as possible to see whether or not they are true’. This new formulation doesn’t require the presumption of skepticism; it merely presumes one is going to be honest in their self-examination (skepticism isn’t necessary, only honesty is). After all, it is only ‘fair’ that the atheist, who is an atheist because they grew up in an ‘atheist home’, test their beliefs. If this turns out to be objectionable, and the claims of the OTF be maintained, then I would simply suggest that the atheist choose the perspective of an outsider, that is, someone who doesn’t share his beliefs. It doesn’t matter which, so long as they, “test [their] beliefs as if [they] were an outsider to the belief [they] are evaluating”. Making no mistake, there are metaphysical beliefs that are tantamount to ‘faith’ for even the atheist. The sciences aren’t always the paragon they are believed to be; they only go so far. It is here that I believe Loftus’ unnecessarily restricts his test to religious faith. There is no need to, and it should be required of the atheist (not all atheists are critical, just as not all religious believers are uncritical). (4) Which brings me to Loftus’ formulation of the OTF in The Christian Delusion
Some thoughts on this formulation: –> 1) It is true that many people adopt their faith from their parents and cultural heritage, but it is also true that people (these same people who adopted their faith) reject it, which can take the form of conversion and / or outright denial. It is likewise true that people can and do adopt faiths which are not ‘native’ to their geographical area. These people did not necessarily engage in the OTF. I personally would not use the word ‘overwhelmingly’. –> 2) Depends what is meant by ‘overwhelming degree’. As anecdotal evidence, I don’t know many adults who believe something simply because their parents do. But again, it’s not objectionable to say that there are a variety of reasons why one may arrive at a particular religious belief. –> 3) This does not follow from (1) and (2). What does following is this: “Hence, the odds are highly likely that a religious believer has not critically examined their adopted religious faith”. The given conclusion overstates the reach of this formulation of the OTF. Elsewhere Loftus has said:
A lot of generalizations, but are the odds that good that the faith you have adopted is wrong? Let’s pretend there are 100,000 systems of belief which posit a god or gods, and 1 system of belief which posits no god — atheism. Are the odds that there is a god or gods, or that there isn’t? If I had to side with the disdained argument from consensus, I’d have to go with saying that the odds are that there is some sort of god. The fact that they disagree over what god does not overrule the fact that they agree there is a god. –> 4) My only thought here is that having the perspective of an outsider, or taking on the presumption of skepticism, isn’t necessary. It may have been how Loftus examined (and left) his belief, but it won’t be how all people examine their beliefs. (5) I’m not sure how honest (or objective) the OTF is, given Loftus’ regard of Evangelical intellectual honesty. Or the reality that he has a blog committing to Debunking (Evangelical) Christianity. Loftus provides the following example of what it means for a Christian to take the OTF:
T think this misses the point, and is itself biased. If I am to examine Christianity from a skeptical position, my second question should be, “what does Christianity teach” followed by “where does it teach this?”. These would be questions which fall under the umbrella — the first question — “is Christianity true?”. In answer to these questions it could be said that “Christianity teaches that Jesus’ death on the cross saves us from sins” and the “where does it teach this” would direct me to the applicable verses. This is part of a rational examination of the claims. As an outsider I would be required to quote the bible, even as just a point of reference for the claims being made inside Christianity (my quoting scripture should not be confused as defending the claim made by scripture). My next question would be, “are these claims true?” and I would proceed to examine the claims from there — which is itself a complex process, one I don’t believe Loftus gives full appreciation to. What I would not do, is try to rationally explain why Jesus died on the cross for our sins without recourse to the bible. The same is true of the other examples provided. After all, if I’m to be skeptical towards Christianity, I must examine the Christian scriptures. Otherwise, how will I know if they do not make sense, do not contradict each other, etc.? What Loftus suggests strikes me as being something of a Thrasymachus:
Thrasymachus has already made up his mind as to what the just isn’t, so he won’t accept those answers even if that’s what the just is. In the same way Loftus won’t accept quotes from the bible, because he has already made his mind up that it is false. But this is not the position a skeptic should take. A skeptic may doubt the claims of the bible, but that does not entail believing those claims to be false from the get-go (at least, my idea of skepticism… Which may be another problem with the OTF). God raising people from the dead is a pretty fantastic event, and one a skeptic will find doubtful. But it is an event that takes on new life when you consider the question, “If God exists, is it possible”. And in that sense, the skeptic ought to be asking questions, rather than assuming doubt. Conclusion In the end I think it better for the OTF to be either the ‘Outsider Test for Belief’ or the ‘Test for Truth’. There is no need to limit this test to religious belief, other than having a vendetta against religion. There is every reason for everyone to critically examine the beliefs they hold, assuming they are concerned with truth. As for Loftus’ current formulation of the OTF, I think it’s severely general, giving almost no weight to the considerations necessary to engage in the OTF. It acts as if moving from ‘A’ to ‘B’ is the result of a few simple steps. Otherwise I think Loftus has something on his hands, but it’s a something we’ve all known about for a very long time.
(1) The first group idealize and long for a return to the past, while complaining about how awful the present is: “You know this wouldn’t have happened fifty years ago!” (2) The second group idealizes the past and demonizes the present: “The world has gone down the drain, if there were more people like me this wouldn’t have happened”. Oh yeah, this group always take themselves to be the exception; savior’s in their own minds. The ‘out-of-the-box’ thinkers. (3) The third group idealize the future as an escape from both the past and the present. Progress will be the savior of all. I think to myself, how uncomfortable — and undesirable — it would be to have my knowledge of things completely corrected; to finally have all the answers to every question ever asked, to have nothing to think towards; to leave nothing negotiable, ‘open for discussion’. How much more preferable ignorance seems. But given immortality, having exhausted all possible contingencies of any problem (for surely, there are only a finite number of problems with a finite number of solutions, however innumerable they seem), surely having the answer will eventually become desirable when compared to an eternity of uncertainty…Why do I hold onto the idea of wanting to figure things out for myself. (Perhaps what follows is a bit of frustration?) I received a few of my coursebooks this morning, and among them was a bible, the (get ready for this): Fully Revised Fourth Edition, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version With the Apocrypha, College Edition, An Ecumenical Study Bible — if that isn’t a mouthful, I don’t know what is. I’ve been wanting a bible with an Apocrypha for a while now, so it’s nice that school was the way I came about it. But anyway; I immediately started reading the explanatory / study notes, and feel a hint of disappointment. Allow me to illustrate. Here’s a brief portion of the explanatory note on Genesis 1:1:
Now here is a study note from the ESV Study bible on the same passage:
I now own an NRSV which states (doesn’t show) that Genesis 1:1 does not describe creation out of nothing (however Gen. 1:1 is viewed), and an ESV that states (doesn’t show),that Genesis does teach creation out of nothing. The hint of disappointment that I feel is this unwillingness (as I take it) from interpreters to give due consideration to opposing interpretations when it is the case that competing interpretations have a considerable amount of support behind them. To say it another way — I want to decide for myself. In the preface to his commentary on Genesis, John Skinner, D.D., said (and I believe quite wisely):
With respect to how Genesis 1:1 should be taken, Skinner writes (and then proceeds to show), “In a note below reasons are given for preferring this construction to the other ; but a decision is difficult, and in dealing with v.1 it is necessary to leave the alternative open.” ‘This construction’ being the route the NRSV has chosen; ‘the alternative’ being the absolute sense of ‘in the beginning’ (ICC, 12). John H. Sailhamer’s commentary on Genesis in The Expositors Bible Commentary, affirms much the same as Skinner’s: “The interpretation given to v.1 rests on the traditional reading of… (beresit) in the absolute sense: ‘In the beginning.’ A strong case, however, can be made for reading the phrase as a construct and subordinating to v. and vv.2–3″. He then proceeds to discuss the case made for the subordinate sense, and the problems with it. In the same vein (is this getting redundant?), the NETBible says it as follows:
The NRSV and ESV not being commentaries, I can understand that they don’t go to the same depth a commentary would. However, being study bibles — for students, no less — I have to wonder if more detail should be included. Or perhaps the detail of ‘theological bias’ should be removed. If I’m a student who doesn’t understand all of the issues behind a text such as Genesis 1, and my beliefs are formed on the authority of others (who I presumably trust as competent scholars), then what I am to do when I learn that there is another view I hadn’t even considered, because those same scholars decided it wasn’t worth considering? What I’m left with otherwise is a view (“Genesis doesn’t teach creation out of nothing / Genesis teaches creation out of nothing”) with almost no clue as to why I’ve come to that view, other than ‘so-and-so’ said it in a book I once read. But what a silly complaint! Wanting to be properly educated for the amount of money I’m paying… An exorbitant amount of money at that.
And so it begins, gearing up for back to school. This post will (hopefully) remain at the top, and will eventually serve as an introduction but for now will fulfill its purpose in saying only that as the school year is beginning, my free-time has greatly diminished. As a result, the time I have available to me to write has greatly diminished. Such that while I’m in school, I expect a minimum of one post a week, so we’ll set the expectation there… Until I edit this post, that is it
This will be the first of my multi-post review of John Loftus’ The Christian Delusion (Overview, review of each section, conclusion? Seven parts altogether?). This portion of the review will serve as a general and very brief overview of the book, and then in subsequent posts I will more critically examine a few of the claims of the book, section by section (rather than chapter by chapter). I was originally going to do only the critical examination, but that didn’t strike me as the best ‘book review’ — so I’ll do both. The Christian Delusion (hereafter TCD) is a collection of essays, edited by John W. Loftus (ex-Evangelical and primary contributor to the website Debunking Christianity), which attempt to show that Christianity is a delusion. When I first heard of TCD my immediate thought was, ‘here we go again: another book making massive claims it won’t be able to fulfill’. That this turned out to be the case was not surprising, given that — I hope — the title was more publicity than actual hope on the parts of the authors. That is not to say that the essays aren’t well written, in most cases, they are. Nor is it to say that this book isn’t worth reading, it is. Part of the reason that the book fails in showing Christianity to be a delusion (as well as failing to show why faith fails) is that it confuses Christianity with a particular expression of Christianity, such as American Evangelicalism. Showing some of the notions of Evangelicalism to be false — not that TCD necessarily has — does not mean that Christianity as such has been shown to be a delusion. Christianity has been practiced many different ways since its inception, and to show it to be a delusion means to show its core beliefs to be false (such as the resurrection, or claims of Christ, which TCD does address). This is an fault of the book that perplexes me, given the focus placed on culture in the opening chapters. However it is not a fault such that TCD should be ignored. TCD is divided into fifteen chapters spread over five sections: Why Faith Fails; Why the Bible is not God’s Word; Why the Christian God is not Perfectly Good; Why Jesus is not the Risen Son of God and Why Society Does not Depend on Christian Faith. In a way, TCD strikes me as a response to books such as God is Good, God is Great (B&H), Passionate Conviction (B&H) and Contending with Christianity’s Critics (IVP); books which are themselves edited collections of essays which address popular arguments advanced by New Atheists against Christian theism. Arguments which until The Christian Delusion had not been collected in one place (as far as I’m aware). Some sections are stronger than others (Why Faith Fails is particularly weak), but the questions raised are well worth reading. I had two hopes going into TCD: (1) that this book wasn’t going to be typical internet / infidel ‘New Atheism’ fare and (2) that the essays — all of them — would be well written. By ‘typical internet / infidel New Atheism’ I mean the certitude expressed in arguments which aren’t deserving of such confidence. Unfortunately, that is present to an extent, though it isn’t a major distraction. The essays themselves were certainly well written, though some of the conclusions didn’t follow from the premises given by the authors (such as the opening chapter, which aside from a bad conclusion wasn’t all that disagreeable) — this was really my only complaint about the book. In that regard, if you’re interested in books such as this — apologetics and counter-apologetics? — then TCD is worth reading (much more than say, The God Delusion) . It’s not amazing or extraordinary, as some people are billing it, but it is a good collection of material that will get anyone thinking, believers and nonbelievers alike. It doesn’t show Christianity to be a delusion, and it doesn’t show why faith fails, but it doesn’t have to. Contributing Authors:
Many thanks to the people at Prometheus and Ed Babinski for providing a copy of this book for review purposes. An interesting (and factually correct) video I first saw over at Maverick Philosopher on the concepts of Abrogration, Shara’i law and Taqiyya in Islam. It’s worth a watch if you aren’t aware of what these concepts are. |
|
|
Copyright © 2009 - 2010 Contemplations Along The Way - All Rights Reserved |
|
Popular Posts