Wednesday, October 02, 2013

Is there a tipping point?


I'm going to examine an anxiety that some Christians may be struggling with. Christian apologists field many objections to the faith. But sometimes the intellectual objections to Christianity may seem to be overwhelming. When there are so many objections on so many different fronts, is there a tipping point at we should reconsider our original commitment? Even if we can explain–or explain away–each objection, one by one, yet when we find ourselves on the defensive so often, isn't there a point at which this becomes an exercise in special-pleading? If, even before we hear an objection, we've made up our mind ahead of time that any objection must be wrong, doesn't that mean we've put ourselves in a position where our beliefs are impervious to reality?

By way of response:

i) If Christianity is true, the truth of Christianity doesn't depend on our ability to argue for the truth of Christianity. If Christianity is true, we'd expect God to make the truth of Christianity accessible to believers who don't have prepared answers for every conceivable objection. Supporting arguments can be very useful, but they are not indispensable. 

ii) Cumulative fallacies don't add up to single cogent objection. Critics multiply objections to the Christian faith, but the objections are typically fallacious. Critics have fallacious expectations about the kind of evidence that should exist. Take the minimalist school of archeology, and its critics (e.g. Kenneth Kitchen). 

They have fallacious preconceptions about what inerrancy entails. For instance, when Craig Blomberg or Vern Poythress write monographs defending the inerrancy of Scripture, although they discuss specific passages of Scripture, they also give the critics a lesson in hermeneutics. They discuss the crude notion of error which critics bring to Scripture. 

iii) If the secular alternative to Christianity undermines rationality (e.g. Plantinga's argument against evolutionary epistemology), if the alternative undermines epistemic duties (e.g. moral relativism or moral nihilism), then we can safely ignore the alternative. If the alternative can't ground truth or logic (e.g. the argument from logic to God), then the alternative is a losing proposition. It's not worth pursuing. It commits intellectual suicide. 

Indeed, some atheists torpedo reason (e.g. Alex Rosenberg, Daniel Dennett, Paul and Patricia Churchland). 

Now, an unbeliever might counter that Christianity undermines intellectual standards. However, that's equivocal. That objection doesn't operate at the same level. Usually the atheist means one of two things. He may mean Christianity is false. However, there's a basic difference between claiming a position is irrational, and claiming a position undermines rationality. The latter is far more radical.

To say a position is irrational is to claim that a particular position is unreasonable. The position lacks sufficient evidence. Or the position runs counter to the evidence.

That's quite different than saying a position conduces to global skepticism. That questions the ability to know anything, the ability to prove or disprove anything. 

Or he may mean Christians have an irrational mindset. They are credulous. According to the popular caricature, faith is believing in the absence of evidence or believing in spite of counterevidence. 

And some Christians are fideists. But at most, that only means fideistic Christianity is irrational. 

Likewise, if atheism negates the obligation to be intellectually honest, then that too is self-defeating. 

Now, one could debate whether the secular alternative undermines rationality, but if it does, then objections to Christianity are not symmetrical with objections to secularism. 

iv) In addition, the tipping-point is bidirectional. When distinguished philosophers (e.g. Thomas Nagel, Jerry Fodor) and scientists (e.g. Stuart Newman, Denis Noble, James Shapiro, Richard Sternberg) who are sympathetic to evolution, or think something like evolution must be true, nevertheless lodge fundamental objections to the current theory of evolution, isn't there a point at which Darwinians should reconsider their commitment? 

22 comments:

  1. One problem I've noticed over the years is that people often underestimate the evidence for Christianity to a large degree. That includes many conservative Christian apologists. There's too much focus on a small handful of issues, such as philosophical arguments for God's existence and historical arguments for Jesus' resurrection. People often want to make one issue, like Jesus' resurrection, or a small group of issues the determining factor. That sort of approach has the advantage of simplicity, but it's also simplistic. In reality, the evidence for Christianity is far more vast than is usually suggested, including some lines of evidence that usually aren't included in apologetic presentations (modern Christian miracles, like the ones documented by Craig Keener; the Shroud of Turin; the miracles of the apostles; etc.). Prophecy fulfillment isn't as neglected as the other lines of evidence I just mentioned, but even prophecy is frequently ignored. Some people seem to want to discuss little or nothing other than Jesus' resurrection. While the resurrection is an essential issue among others, it's far from the only evidence we have for Christianity. I think many Christians have made the mistake of being overly focused on the resurrection, sometimes with one or some other overly small number of issues added to it. Then there are the people who aren't focusing much on any evidence, because they're so unconcerned about evidential issues. Or they're so defensive, so focused on objections to the faith, that they don't put much effort into studying the other side of the argument. There are a lot of Christians, including many in leadership positions, who need to stop being so defensive and stop being so focused on a small percentage of the evidence. The objections to Christianity don't seem so significant when you realize how weighty the other end of the scale is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BTW, here is another collection by (as far as I'm aware) evolutionists who find modern evolutionary theory problematic, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When there are so many objections on so many different fronts, is there a tipping point at we should reconsider our original commitment?

    The following quotes from Pascal's Pensées might help some Christians deal with that burden.

    Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications [or "signs"] of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.

    and...



    What's great about these quotes is that most Christians can agree with their basic points (even if not what they exactly state). Most Christians, whether they hold to prevenient grace (i.e. theologies that are Arminian-like) or sufficient grace (i.e. Calvinistic-like) can utilize these quotes.

    See also, my blogs on the Hiddenness of God HERE and HERE might help.


    Even if we can explain–or explain away–each objection, one by one, yet when we find ourselves on the defensive so often, isn't there a point at which this becomes an exercise in special-pleading?

    See the above quotes/links coupled with Prov. 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." cf. Jam. 1:5-8, Jer. 33:3; Jer. 29:13; Jas. 4:8; Ps. 145:18; Luke 11:9-10; Heb. 11:6 coupled with John 12:37-40; Matt. 13:10-17 (and its parallels Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:8-11).

    Continued in next post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If, even before we hear an objection, we've made up our mind ahead of time that any objection must be wrong, doesn't that mean we've put ourselves in a position where our beliefs are impervious to reality?

      There is that issue that presuppositionalists rightly (though sometimes "over") emphasize viz., the Myth of Neutrality. No one can be truly objective and unbiased in their examination of the evidence. Even atheists admit this. For example, Loftus has MULTIPLE blog posts where he argues that both believers AND NON-BELIEVERS/ATHEISTS/SKEPTICS are never completely objective. Along with multiple posts on cognitive dissonance and biases (often linking to THIS Wiki article). The Myth of Neutrality is especially the case if (since) Christianity is true. Also, while Christianity is't the only form of theism, if atheism is true, then intellectual honestly ultimately matter (as Steve has pointed out multiple times in the past, and did so in the latter part of this blog post). Also, it can be argued that the case for Christian theism is much stronger than the case non-Christian forms of theism.

      If Christianity is true, we'd expect God to make the truth of Christianity accessible to believers who don't have prepared answers for every conceivable objection.

      That's why Reformed Christians (and surprisingly William Lane Craig) emphasize the "Inner Testimony of the Holy Spirit" as a defeater to all possible defeaters of Christianity. Here's a LINK to my blog where I list EIGHT W.L. Craig links on the subject of the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. I also recommend listening to the first 15 minutes of Craig's video "Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?" which is also linked there. He shows why apologetics is NOT [sic] absolutely necessary.

      Supporting arguments can be very useful, but they are not indispensable.

      Amen. Again, see the link above (or re-posted HERE).

      Delete
    2. Opps, I meant to quote Pascal a second time. I only quoted him once. Here's the 2nd quote:

      The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it.

      More quote can be found HERE. The additional quotes will be useful to those who believe in unconditional election, not to those who reject it.

      Delete
    3. TYPO CORRECTION:

      Also, while Christianity is't the only form of theism, if atheism is true, then intellectual honestly ultimately [DOESN'T] matter (as Steve has pointed out multiple times in the past, and did so in the latter part of this blog post).

      Delete
    4. I also want to point out that in all likelihood most apostates hardly sought God will all their hearts and minds. How many of them have seriously attempted to study the issues involved? How many of them have seriously fasted one or three or five days straight seeking God on their knees? I suspect very few. If they can't even fast two days straight searching for God, then what kind of a faith or commitment is that? I'm reminded of Heb. 12:4 "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." Here's a link to a(n admittedly hokey, but poignant) classic Christian music video about being committed to Christ. Unfortunately, the singer Ray Boltz now considers himself (wrongly) a "gay Christian." Nevertheless, the point of the video stands.

      Delete
    5. I think that first quote by Pascal would be very useful especially for Christians who have a more Arminian-like theology because one can draw some conclusions based on an incomplete understanding of Arminian-like theologies which can lead people to doubt God's existence. For example, if one started with the two premises that 1. God wants everyone to be saved and 2. God has/is doing ABSOLUTELY all He can to bring people to saving faith, then the fact that the evidence for God's existence isn't coercive or isn't just short of coercive/compelling can lead someone to conclude God doesn't exist. Because it's relatively easy to think of ways God could have provided much more evidence for His existence. Yet, it's not the case that the evidence is stronger. However, and in fact, even in a full-orbed Arminian-like theology, there's a place for such a view of 1. man's depravity and 2. God's intentional hiddenness which can account for why there isn't as much evidence as there could be. It's to provide the freedom to exercise uncoerced seeking after, faith and trust in God. Even a Calvinist can affirm this in some (limited) sense despite the fact that Calvinism implies libertarian free will in humans doesn't exist. Since, the causal, rational and psychological nexus is ordained by God (i.e. "the means"), not merely "the end" of psychological faith (in the absence of secondary causes and rationale).

      Delete
  4. Has anyone read Boyd's new book Benefit of the Doubt: Breaking the Idol of Certainty?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hopefully he'll apply his newfound doubt to breaking the idol of open theism.

      Delete
  5. "i) If Christianity is true, the truth of Christianity doesn't depend on our ability to argue for the truth of Christianity. If Christianity is true, we'd expect God to make the truth of Christianity accessible to believers who don't have prepared answers for every conceivable objection. Supporting arguments can be very useful, but they are not indispensable. "

    Steve, I have difficulty in understanding the weight of this statement mainly because this (seems to me) to be applicable to any argument. If we replace the word Christianity with atheism, I'm left wondering what's the real point? Perhaps I'm missing the real point of it then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Auggybendoggy, imagine a Christian living in Europe during the late Medieval period and not having apologetical material, nor even having a Bible or even being literate. Let's call him Abraham. His father was a Christian Crusader, his mother a Muslim who fell in love with his father in her homeland and followed him back to Europe. When it comes to the Bible and the Gospel all he has is the fragmentary stories he's heard from his local priest about God sending Jesus to earth to save sinners like himself. All around him there's tragedy, plagues, sickness and tyranny and his "friends" try to convince him, like Job's wife to curse God, renounce Christianity and become an atheist like himself. "Besides" they say, "there's no evidence that the world even ever began [i.e. a beginning to the universe]." Note that even Aquinas had difficulty arguing for a beginning of the universe armed as he was with Aristotelian philosophy. Since the expansion of the universe was not scientifically detected until the 20th century. Day after day his atheist friends bombard him with arguments for atheism; and in addition to that he wonders about the truth of Islam (the religion of his ancestors on his mother's side). What is a person like that to do? How can someone like that become or maintain being a Christian? That's why the doctrine of the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit is not only necessary apologetically, but in actuality. See THIS LINK to articles and videos dealing with the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit (mostly by W.L. Craig). This is also why the doctrine of election makes a lot of sense as well. Hmmm...I think I'll add this hypothetical scenario in that blog.

      Delete
    2. and become an atheist like himself. = and become an atheist like [themselves]

      Delete
    3. I just realized the scenario I presented sounds kind of like an episode of Cadfael I once saw. Here's a link to it on youtube: http://youtu.be/wVrEFUwTLX8

      Delete
    4. Here's the moving scene at the end of the episode: http://youtu.be/l0iFIwF2DDM?t=1m21s [SPOILERS!!!]

      Delete
    5. Pinoy, I'm not really sympathizing with atheism. I'm only saying that it seems that on one hand it's true that if Christianity (theism) is true, then whether or not we can prove it bears no affect on it's truth. But that can be said of anything, for example, if atheism is true, then proving atheism or proving that there is no God has no affect on the truth of atheism. Thus it seems like it doesn't accomplish much for anyone, neither theists or atheists. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

      Delete
    6. Auggybendoggy, you said...
      Steve, I have difficulty in understanding the weight of this statement mainly because this (seems to me) to be applicable to any argument. If we replace the word Christianity with atheism, I'm left wondering what's the real point? Perhaps I'm missing the real point of it then?

      It seems to me that Steve's point wasn't that the veridicality of the actual state of affairs is true regardless of whether we can provide evidence for it or not. Since, it hardly needs to be said that "the truth is true" or that "it is true that the truth is true." I think Steve's point was that given the truth of Christianity, Christians (and the elect in general) aren't at the mercy of their own ignorance or inability or the shifting sands of evidence from time to time and place to place. In every age/era God has provided means by which faith in Him can be had and maintained irrespective of the external strengths and weaknesses of the arguments for or against Christianity. For example, there's general revelation that attests to the existence of God in an existential (though non-propositional) way, there's the built-in sensus divinitatis/deitatis that is re-enforced by the self-attesting internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. There's also the self-authenticating nature of Scripture (or Scriptural truth if one is illiterate or doesn't have a Bible) which the Holy illuminates and highlights in the minds and hearts of the elect. There's the work, witness, testimony and history of the Church (individually and collectively) that attests to the truth of Christianity. As well as other indicators which are sufficient to lead one to faith in Christ even if from a strictly rational point of view at any given era/age the arguments that can be rationally marshalled in defense of Christianity are weaker than the arguments against it.

      Delete
    7. typo correction:

      "...which the Holy [Spirit] illuminates and highlights in the minds and hearts of the elect..."

      Delete
    8. Thus it seems like it doesn't accomplish much for anyone, neither theists or atheists. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

      One thing is does accomplish is that it frees a Christian from being weighed down by the burden of evidentialism and/or internalism (i.e. an internalist constraint on knowledge). Otherwise, at any given moment a Christian's faith could be controverted or even refuted by some new argument or discovery.

      Non-Christians like atheists usually have an evidentialist and inductivist approach to epistemology. In which case, all knowledge will always be tentative and provisional. If the self-attesting and rationally justified internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is true, then Christians can have true (non-tentative) knowledge about some things (e.g. spiritual things) even though they remain fallible and finite in their knowledge about other things. Most non-Christian epistemologies cannot overcome the epistemological problem of all or nothing. It's the age old dilemma that either one knows everything or knows nothing at all. Since, to truly know the one fact X one must know it exhaustively. That is, in relation to everything else. One must know X in relation to A, and B, and C et cetera. But in order to know A, you have to know it in relation to B, and C et cetera. The same thing goes for B and C etc. The Christian is not limited to such a truncated epistemology. Given Christianity, one can legitimately use induction, deduction, reduction, abduction, innoduction and other forms of reasoning. That's because Christianity, with its God can make sense of making sense. The Christian meta-narrative can account for rationality, causation, explanation etc.

      Delete
  6. Auggybendoggy,

    Christianity and atheism are obviously be disanalogous in that respect, for atheism has no transcendent agent (God) to make truth accessible apart from human investigation.

    ReplyDelete