Randal Rauser has done another post defending the innocence of atheism. A few comments:
1. In his methodology, experience trumps Scripture. Of course, that doesn’t surprise me. That’s what I’d expect from Randal.
2. But at the risk of stating the obvious, God is the world authority on human nature. There is nothing illegitimate about my interpreting human behavior in light of God’s interpretation. To the contrary, that is far and away the wisest course of action.
Of course, if you don’t believe the Bible is God’s word, then that changes the presumption. And at that point you’re groping in the dark.
3. At the same time, it’s terribly gullible to merely judge men’s motives by their self-witness. Men have a vast capacity for self-deception. Indeed, the Bible has a word for that: hypocrisy.
The hypocrite is nota calculating conman. To the contrary, the hypocrite may be utterly convinced of his stainless rectitude. There’s a total disconnect between his self-image and reality.
I’m reminded of a book by Peter Schweizer entitled Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.
In fact, Randal is, himself, a textbook case of self-deception. He fancies himself a tolerant, empathetic individual Yet he unconsciously stereotypes those who disagree with him. He can’t resist drawing invidious comparisons between his own enlightenment and those benighted Christians on the right who just don’t know any better. They must be “angry” or “indoctrinated.” He prides himself on “critical introspection,” but he only applies that analysis to his theological opponents.
Many men are poor judges of their own character. And, ironically, some folks with the lowest morals have the highest self-esteem.
4. The question of whether a true Christian can suffer a crisis of faith is a red herring.
5. He says “I begin the book with an amazing scene from Woody Allen’s ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’ in which the uncle of the protagonist, a pious Jewish man, says he would choose God over truth. Yikes. No thinking Christian could (or should) ever say such a thing. No thinking person of any stripe should. If I’m wrong I want to know about it.”
Of course, that’s a false antithesis. At the same time, it betrays the superficiality of his outlook.
Truth only matters if God is real. Apart from God, truth is not a virtue. Indeed, when you lose God, you lose truth. For truth is grounded in the mind of God.
"In fact, Randal is, himself, a textbook case of self-deception."
ReplyDeleteCheck.
"Men have a vast capacity for self-deception. Indeed, the Bible has a word for that: hypocrisy."
Check. Randal is a self-deceived hyprocrite.
"the hypocrite may be utterly convinced of his stainless rectitude. There’s a total disconnect between his self-image and reality."
Check. Randal apparently cannot see that he is a hypocritical liberal Pharisee.
"At the same time, it’s terribly gullible to merely judge men’s motives by their self-witness."
ReplyDeleteSteve, are you also saying that you managed to avoid being gullible in regards to Randal Rauser's self-witness?
Look at what Professor Rauser writes about himself in the homepage of his blog:
"Randal Rauser is a systematic and analytic theologian of evangelical persuasion. He is driven by apologetic concerns and above all by the tireless pursuit of truth. The downside is that this requires him to recognize when he is wrong (which is often) for truth is complex and it offers us no guarantees that we shall always find it. At the same time, Randal does not despair of finding truth, for he believes that in a profound sense Jesus Christ is the truth.
For Randal, being like Jesus means knowing the truth, loving the truth, and living the truth. As Randal seeks to live the truth he promotes a culture of life that is anti-militaristic and pro-family, pro-environment and anti-abortion, anti-consumerist and pro-animal. A disciple on the way … alas, he is not half as smart or as good or as right as he thinks he is.
Randal blogs here on matters of apologetics, theology and philosophy and also on matters of faith and culture as “The Tentative Apologist” (at The Christian Post).
Randal is a supporter of Kiva, an organization involved in connecting people through lending to alleviate poverty."
"But at the risk of stating the obvious, God is the world authority on human nature. There is nothing illegitimate about my interpreting human behavior in light of God’s interpretation."
ReplyDeleteThat assumes you already have God's comprehensive, absolute interpretation of atheism, and therefore that your interpretation of the relevant passages is undoubtedly correct.
It's a poor scientist who always makes theory trump observation, and a poor theologian who always subordinates human experience to his preferred interpretation of the Bible. Neither are likely to get closer to the truth in the long run.
"At the same time, it’s terribly gullible to merely judge men’s motives by their self-witness. Men have a vast capacity for self-deception."
It's also terribly uncharitable and perverse to completely disregard someone's self-witness. Suppose someone came up to you and insisted you were not a true Christian, and that your own conviction to the contrary results from self-deception. What would you think of such a person? More importantly, how seriously would you take that claim?
"Truth only matters if God is real. Apart from God, truth is not a virtue."
But one's understanding of God may be mistaken. That God is the ground of truth is a formal axiom, and doesn't necessarily secure the content of more indirect inferences about God (such as His stance toward atheism).
"Indeed, when you lose God, you lose truth. For truth is grounded in the mind of God."
Even if there were no God, there would still be a 'way things are'. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this.
THE PRAYING MANTISS SAID:
ReplyDelete“That assumes you already have God's comprehensive, absolute interpretation of atheism, and therefore that your interpretation of the relevant passages is undoubtedly correct.”
Your faux chic skepticism is self-refuting. You don’t apply the same skepticism to your own objections.
“It's a poor scientist who always makes theory trump observation, and a poor theologian who always subordinates human experience to his preferred interpretation of the Bible. Neither are likely to get closer to the truth in the long run.”
The Bible itself is interpreted experience. Inspired interpreted experience. So it’s not comparable to raw experience. You commit a level-confusion.
“It's also terribly uncharitable and perverse to completely disregard someone's self-witness. Suppose someone came up to you and insisted you were not a true Christian, and that your own conviction to the contrary results from self-deception. What would you think of such a person? More importantly, how seriously would you take that claim?”
There’s no uniform presumption one way or the other. Some folks have an honest self-image while others do not. Moreover, certain classes of individuals have a presumptively dishonest self-image due to their membership in dishonest or deluded class. Take psychotics.
If you wish to be gullible, that’s your business. Just because you volunteer to be shark bait doesn’t mean I should follow suit.
“But one's understanding of God may be mistaken.”
Like atheism. Thanks for proving my point.
“That God is the ground of truth is a formal axiom, and doesn't necessarily secure the content of more indirect inferences about God (such as His stance toward atheism).”
You’re confusing two distinct issues: God’s “stance towards atheism” and whether atheism can even ground truth.
“Even if there were no God, there would still be a 'way things are'. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this.”
Truths involve true beliefs. Propositional attitudes. If there were no minds, there’d be no truths.
Likewise, truths involve a suitable correspondence between belief and its object. God exemplary knowledge supplies the touchstone.