jeffma (04/30/83)
Is anybody home?
So far the response to my request for REASONS to believe that
Christianity (Islam, Hinduism, what-have-you) is valid hasn't exactly
been spectacular (see "Taking the Plunge" posted a few weeks ago). Why
should net.religion readers bother diddling with the implications of
specific tenets of a belief system until one has even a minimal motivation
to regard the belief system as valid?
To be specific, there have been exactly ZERO explicit responses (excluding
some much-appreciated compliments). To be fair, one individual has
promised that he will respond, but so far nothing has surfaced (I
suspect he's having trouble with his mail system). The response to
my challenge to "scientific creationists" has been equally uninspiring
(getting Larry Bickford to publicly discuss "scientific" creationism
is like trying to pull teeth and discovering none were there in the
first place ... believe me).
I HAVE seen some things which appear to be indirect references to my
request; at least they appear to address similar issues. Perhaps I'm
imagining it. For example, from Dennis Feucht (see teklabs.1936):
"Also, it won't do to appeal to EVIDENCE as a support of
unprovable beliefs since evidence is never labeled as such,
but is recognized to be evidence only *after* assuming (without
proof) the criteria for evidence. In other words, you don't
get out of facing up to the acceptance of unprovable beliefs
by appealing, a priori, to evidence. It just isn't until you
hold beliefs by which you can recognize it as such."
I think a slightly more economical way of saying this is "you can't
prove unprovable beliefs." If the "criteria for evidence" are
only assumed after adopting the belief system, then those pieces
of "potential evidence" which become "evidence" after adopting
the belief system also become quite useless in the process: what use
is evidence for something you already believe in? Arguments for, say,
the existence of God don't become "evidence" after adopting a belief
in God; they become useless baggage. In order for "evidence" to
have any use at all it must provide a knowledge "lever;" i.e. the
criteria for evidence must be external to the beliefs being defended.
Thus to say:
"In other words, you don't get out of facing up to the
acceptance of unprovable beliefs by appealing, a priori, to
evidence. It just isn't until you hold beliefs by which you
can recognize it as such."
only implies a dilemma if the criteria for evidence are inseparable
from the belief system being addressed. And this, again, really serves
only to say the obvious: you can't prove something which is unprovable.
This observation, however, does not provide Christians with an escape
from explaining their motives for choosing THIS "unprovable belief"
over another. If Christians are satisfied with the assessment that their
beliefs are the result of a random, spin-the-dial sort of choice, I will
be quite surprised. Even if I curbed the randomness of the assessment by
suggesting that their beliefs are the result of a combination of socio-
cultural and psychological pressures stemming from a desire to relieve
certain anxieties, I doubt that they would enthusiastically agree.
The statement of faith subscribed to by all A.S.A. members indicates
a clear acceptance of the scientific method for exploring the natural
world:
(1) The Holy Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, the
only unerring guide to faith and conduct.
(2) Jesus Christ is the Son of God and through his Atonement
is the one and only Mediator between God and man.
(3) God is the Creator of the physical universe. Certain
laws are discernible in the manner in which God upholds the
universe. THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH IS CAPABLE OF GIVING
RELIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD.
(emphasis added)
Point 3 clearly states that A.S.A. members believe that the scientific
approach represents a sound strategy for investigating the natural
world. Thus IT IS CLEAR that A.S.A. members are making an ADDITIONAL
CLAIM over and above the natural realm addressable by science; i.e. they
are claiming the existence of a supernatural entity (God) who has given
man a "guide" by which he should lead his life (point 1), and that
Jesus Christ was his Son and performed an act of supernatural significance
through his death, as well as denying the "validity" of any other AD prophets
such as Muhammed (point 2),. Are they not obliged to justify these EXTRA
claims? If I say that I see no reason to believe in MORE than the natural
world accessible by science, which A.S.A. members fully acknowledge in
point 3, is the A.S.A. not making an ADDITIONAL claim over and above
my own position, and thus are they not the party bearing the burden of
justification? Must I first justify beliefs that they hold as well? In
other words, can they both concede a belief (the accessibility of the
natural world by science) as well as use the acceptance of that belief
as a weapon against others who challenge their additional beliefs?
Hey folks, just how much productive discussion do net.religion readers
think they can engage in if no obligation of justification can be directed
towards the party making additional claims? The result would be TOTAL
INTELLECTUAL CHAOS. Any rational net.religion contributor should realize
the devastating effect of waiving the necessity for claimants to justify
their beliefs. The fact that many network "adversaries" of religious
beliefs are seemingly waiving these preliminaries and diving directly into
the nuts and bolts of the belief system, as though the burden is on them
to find some nook or cranny to throw out as a triumphant refutation,
should not be taken to mean that the burden of justification indeed DOES
lie on them. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them have found this
tactic to be the only way to get people to even speak up. I'm sure
having a hard time!
In summary: if I stand back and look at the claims of science (which
are restricted to the "natural world") and the claims of the A.S.A.,
(which acknowledge the "natural world" and the validity of the
scientific approach, but ALSO add other beliefs) I see a very
clear EXCESS of claims being made by the A.S.A. I believe that the
A.S.A. is thus carrying the burden of justification FOR THESE EXCESS
BELIEFS. Obviously they are not adopting their religious beliefs in
OPPOSITION to their confidence in the scientific process, so it should
be obvious that any attempt to place these two paradigms in conflict as
a "Mexican Stand-Off" defense ("unless you justify your belief in
science I won't justify my belief in Christianity...") would be
terribly misguided. If anybody out there suffers from this affliction,
they should read Stace's "Religion and the Modern Mind," which, except
for a last-ditch waffling effort to "sort of" justify the validity of
mystical experiences, is a worthwhile book.
Fortunately Dennis' article seems to indicate that there are
indeed REASONS why one ought to adopt Christianity as a belief
structure:
"Those who fault "blind faith" - that is, naive incredulity -
I can agree with, but to rule out RATIONAL belief in unprovable
axioms is itself an indication of a lack of awareness of one's
own unprovable epistemological starting-point."
"For some of us, CHRISTIANITY BEST MAKES SENSE OF THE FACTS of our
total experience, even though we are aware that this (or *any*
view we hold) may be false - we may be DELUDED. But this risk in
the acceptance of any belief, including belief in the presuppositions
of science, is inescapable for finite and fallible minds."
(emphasis added)
It would seem no large assumption that a "rational" belief is one
adopted for REASONS. It is my sincere belief that much could be
learned from a critical appraisal of the "facts" which some believe
Christianity is better equipped to explain: can we not examine them?
The notion of having possibly been "deluded" certainly implies to me
that the belief system was adopted for WHAT APPEARED TO BE good reasons,
reasons which perhaps later could prove misleading. And if "blind faith"
is faulted, does this not suggest that one's "faith" ought to be motivated
by some sort of reason?
Speaking for myself, I will not ridicule any "reasons" which are put forth
for a religious belief. I will, however, subject them to a critical
appraisal, and will place this appraisal before the net.religion readers
as fair game for attack. Obviously, the above quotes imply that an
assessment of the "facts" prompted an acceptance of Christianity. Let's
not be shy about spelling these "facts" out.
There is one thing which I wish to make very clear: these issues are
not being raised with malevolent intent, but rather with a sincere
curiousity about a mode of thinking which is entirely foreign to me.
All I want to know is whether religious belief-systems such as Christianity
can be rationally defended, or are beliefs adopted purely for emotional
reasons. If the latter is the case, then the flavor of discussions on
net.religion ought to change dramatically, I would think. So far I have
been met with evasion rather than open discussion. To this fallible mind,
at least, such non-response has great significance.
C'mon, folks--let's talk.
Jeff Mayhew
Tektronixruss (05/03/83)
You say that you have a sincere curiousity about a mode of thinking that is entirely foreign to you and yet you will not respond to me by mail. I want to examine with you the limits of what you will accept. You don't seem to be actually interested in having someone enter into a dialog with you. Instead you seem intent on making grandstand claims that you are going unanswered.