lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (10/15/84)
<>
Attention has turned, of late, to the question of evidence for and against
the truth of Christianity. Proffered evidence has included appeals to
historical events, psychological experience, rationality, empiricism, and
almost any other aspect of human existence. Unfortunately, it seems
that neither side has succeeded in convincing its opponents.
The British philosopher Anthony Flew was involved in similar debates in the
course of his career. In 1950 he wrote an essay titled "Theology and
Falsification" (available in his _Essays_in_Philosophical_Theology_).
The concluding paragraph of this short essay follows:
Someone tells us that God loves us as a father loves his children. We
are reassured. But then we see a child dying of inoperable cancer of the
throat. His earthly father is driven frantic in his efforts to help, but
his Heavenly Father reveals no obvious sign of concern. Some qualification
is made - God's love is "not a merely human love" or it is "an inscrutable
love," perhaps - and we realize that such sufferings are quite compatible
with the truth of the assertion that "God loves us as a father (but, of
course ...)." We are reassured again. But then perhaps we ask: what is
this assurance of God's (appropriately qualified) love worth, what is this
apparent guarantee really a guarantee against? Just what would have to
happen not merely (morally and wrongly) to tempt but also (logically and
rightly) to entitle us to say "God does not love us" or even "God does not
exist"? I therefore put to the succeeding symposiasts the simple questions,
"What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a
disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God?"
Flew's point is, I think, quite obvious. An assertion is a rational/logical
argument only when it's opposite can be rationally/logically evaluated and
rejected. Otherwise it is a statement of personal preference/emotion/hope.
On the basis of this, let me suggest a challenge:
To those who wish to wish to establish the truth of Christianity on the
basis of evidence (of any type), first set forth what type of evidence
could conceivable count against your assertion. Note that this hypothetical
counter-evidence must be accessible (e.g. if the only evidence against the
resurrection of Christ would be to produce the body, thousands of Palestinian
worms have made this assertion inaccessible). Note the counter-evidence
must also be communicatable (e.g. an experience of spiritual conversion is
by definition a private matter. If every counter argument is rebuffed by
"I know what I feel," this is a statement of emotion, not evidence).
To those who wish to deny the truth of Christianity on the basis of
evidence (turn-about is fair play), the same criteria apply. What evidence
would you accept as proof that, e.g., God really does exist, or that Jesus
really rose from the grave. Note that the hypothetical counter-evidence must
be logically possible ("Produce the witnesses to the resurrection!" is not
likely to qualify this side of science fiction), and it must not rule out the
possibility of Christianity in advance ("I must see a miracle, and since
I don't believe in miracles, I'll not be persuaded").
My guess is that a lot of Christians and non-Christians alike have mistaken
their own world-view and personal philosophy for rational/logical evidence.
Let the Christian who wishes to argue on the basis of evidence say what
evidence would convince him/her that he/she was wrong. Let the skeptic
likewise state what evidence would bring about a change of mind. And let
those unable to assert their belief (or unbelief) in a manner capable
of logical refutation (at least hypothetically) recognize their faith for
what it is - (in Flew's words) crypto-commands, expressions of wishes,
disguised ejaculations, concealed ethics, or personal values. Any takers?
Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa
The Divinity School
Duke University