Responding to some questions I was asked.
Broadly, I’m a presuppositionalist (though I make adjustments, as does everyone).
That's intelligent. Good to be discriminating.
Often I have read modern proponents like Anderson and Oliphint defend the essentially Christian nature of God that must be in place for knowledge to even be possible against other theisms like Islam by pointing to problems in those worldviews. For example, in Islamic sources Allah is capricious.
That's ambiguous. In presuppositionalism, knowledge is possible without belief in God, but the justification of knowledge is impossible without the Christian God. My questioner may intend that, but was speaking laconically.
1) Can a skeptic assert that the Christian is in no better epistemic place than a Muslim as in the Bible God allows people to be deceived (indeed sends deceiving spirits) and, in the case of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, robs a man of his reasoning? Can the skeptic take this further and argue the Christian is no better place than he is because just as we assert he can’t trust his reasoning faculties because they were formed by random, unthinking processes, we can’t trust our because it’s always possible we’re deceived?
i) The thought-experiment is incoherent. The appeal to biblical passages about divine deception presumes that Scripture is true and we know what it means (at least the passages under consideration). If, however, God deceives the reader, then that nullifies the appeal to biblical passages about divine deception, which the thought-experiment requires. If God deceives the reader, then he can't trust what the text appears to say about divine deception. So the argument never gets started. It can't be delusion all the way down.
ii) Biblical passages about divine deception refer to a subset of wicked human beings rather than human beings generally. They don't refer to the epistemic situation of Christians.
iii) The comparison is disanalogous. The allegation is not the abstract possibility that reasoning faculties formed by random thinking processes may render reason untrustworthy. Rather, that's taken to be an implication of naturalistic evolution. An actual defeater rather than a hypothetical defeater.
2) What if someone decided that all they need is a God who is trustworthy, but not necessarily the Biblical God. I would say those attributes can’t be separated from the Biblical God, but what if they countered that perhaps Christianity is the best we have right now, but we might have a better candidate in the future?
Is a God trustworthy who hasn't revealed himself in any recognizable religion, who hides in the shadows while false religions proliferate with no corrective?
//i) The thought-experiment is incoherent. The appeal to biblical passages about divine deception presumes that Scripture is true and we know what it means (at least the passages under consideration). If, however, God deceives the reader, then that nullifies the appeal to biblical passages about divine deception, which the thought-experiment requires. If God deceives the reader, then he can't trust what the text appears to say about divine deception. So the argument never gets started. It can't be delusion all the way down. //
ReplyDeleteThat works for an internal critique that assumes the truth of the worldview for the sake of argument, but what about an external critique? Couldn't the skeptic say, "Even though I don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God, you do. Yet, your own source says God deceives people. If you don't arbitrarily and gratuitously assume inerrancy, then how do you know that your God isn't like [or is] the Cartesian Demon? Isn't this a kind of counterpart to the EAAN?"? I've even heard a skeptic argue (something like) regeneration and the Inner Testimony of the Holy Spirit is a terrible way to know or gain confidence that one has arrived at the truth because it bypasses warranted justification by merely being "zapped" by a more powerful being to believe certain things. That he couldn't imagine a worse way of having justified knowledge.
I think the above problem shows the superiority and need of defending Christianity in a presuppositional way. Because, non-presuppositionalists wouldn't justifiably be able to make use of the assumption of inerrancy, internal consistency, God's goodness, omnipotence, justice and truthfulness. The Cartesian demon isn't bound to tell the truth or to treat people justly. Whereas the Christian God is bound to tell the truth and behave in accordance with the truth [Himself *being* the Truth], even though He does at times deceive people (which isn't a form of propositional lying) as a form of judicial punishment in this Age for the especially hardened and wicked. The objection also misunderstand the nature of the Inner Testimony of the Holy Spirit. Since it provides objective [not merely subjective] knowledge of the truth of Christianity [see Alvin Plantinga's works and William Lane Craig's modifications and simplifications].
//The allegation is not the abstract possibility that reasoning faculties formed by random thinking processes may render reason untrustworthy. Rather, that's taken to be an implication of naturalistic evolution. An actual defeater rather than a hypothetical defeater.//
Is it a necessary implication of naturalistic evolution? I'm not sure it is. It seems to me at most EAAN demonstrates or (more modestly) suggests that it's highly unlikely Evolutionary Reliabilism is true. Not that it's impossible. And that's assuming the uniformity of nature. But given non-theism, the [epistemological and/or/both metaphysical?] chances of a uniform reality versus a reality that is sufficiently metaphysically contingent and chance-like are 50/50 (since we can't beg the question that our experiences of a seemingly uniform world are reliable, precisely because that's the very issue that's up in the air and to be determined). So, whatever the probability is that Evolutionary Reliabilism is true given naturalism [which I think is VERY low], that number would seem to have to be divided by half [given the 50/50 possibility of radical non-uniformity]. Making the number MUCH lower.
CONTINUED
//What if someone decided that all they need is a God who is trustworthy, but not necessarily the Biblical God. I would say those attributes can’t be separated from the Biblical God...//
DeleteThis shows the need for Revelation. Otherwise it's mere supposition and speculation grounded in nothing actual or historical.
//...but what if they countered that perhaps Christianity is the best we have right now, but we might have a better candidate in the future?//
If Christianity is the best worldview at present that a person is aware of that best provides for the preconditions of intelligibility and human experience, then that's a reason to (at a minimum) tentatively/provisionally hold to Christianity until a better worldview presents itself. To do anything else would seem to be completely irrational.
But more than that. If the doctrines of 1. the self-attesting nature of Scripture, 2. the Testimony of the Holy Spirit to the truth of the Scriptures [which I assume is tied with #1], 3. the sensus divinitatis/deitatis, 4. General Revelation are true, then non-Christians are culpable for their rejection of the Christian Scriptures and/or the Gospel message [if for example they are illiterate or only hear an oral proclamation] if they have sufficiently read or been exposed to them.
//Is a God trustworthy who hasn't revealed himself in any recognizable religion, who hides in the shadows while false religions proliferate with no corrective? //
According to Christianity, the true religion and its adherents has/have been around since the beginning. It was never completely extinguished or diluted to the point of lacking the various sine qua non. Even at Abram's calling, there were independant believers in the Most High God [e.g. Melchizedek]. Moreover, even pagans who have never been exposed to Special Revelation are nevertheless exposed to General Revelation. Appealing to a hitherto unknown and yet to be revealed God who is good and trustworthy would require that that God also has provided a General Revelation like the Christian God has. But there's yet no reason to think that such a God has provided a General Revelation because He hasn't yet provided a Special Revelation that reveals and justifies a belief in General Revelation. Also, the Christian Scripture gives an explanation as to why it is that much of the world is ignorant of the true religion. It's a form of judicial punishment. Yet, the Bible also explains how the true religion is being spread to all nations through evangelism. The yet-to-be-disclosed-god hasn't yet given an explanation for why he hasn't revealed himself. It might be argued that he/she/it doesn't need to because we'll be judged by our conduct without a Special Revelation. Again, that's speculative and would only make sense if something like the Christian doctrine of the "work of the law" (Romans 2) and of the God given conscience is true. To posit that, one has to borrow from the Christian position to prop up that yet-to-be-disclosed-god to make the hypothesis more plausible. Without a "work of the law" and a God given conscience, there's no basis for a God to judge us and reward us with praise or blame for our works. As Paul said, "where there is no law there is no transgression" (Rom. 4:15; 5:13).
CONT.
Another possibility is that the true God who isn't the Christian God has provided a Special Revelation that has also spoken about a universal General Revelation, but that that religion is so small and obscure that it's unknown to the general public. But, again that's only a speculative possibility. There's no reason to think that's the case. Also, why in this time of mass communication, would such a God keep his true religion so secretive when over half of the world's population holds to an Abrahamic religion [Judaism, Christianity and Islam]. According to Wikipedia, "As of 2005, estimates classified 54% (3.6 billion people) of the world's population as adherents of an Abrahamic religion..." One might argue that it's because of election/predestination. The yet-to-be-disclosed-god only wants to save a very very tiny minority of humanity. But again, that's to appeal to a speculative doctrine that one derives from an already existing Special Revelation [the Bible]. Moreover, this possibIlity only works if what I said about 1. the self-attesting nature of Scripture, 2. the Testimony of the Holy Spirit to the truth of the Scriptures [which I assume is tied with #1], 3. the sensus divinitatis/deitatis, 4. General Revelation are false, and therefore leave people with an excuse for rejecting Christianity.
Deletetypo correction:
DeleteI wrote in the last paragraph:
//One might argue that it's because of election/predestination. The yet-to-be-disclosed-god only wants to save a very very tiny minority of humanity.//
Instead of "yet-to-be-disclosed-god", it should read something like "disclosed-and-revealed-god-who's-hiding-his-secret-religion-from-over-99%-of-the-world". [grin]