Jacob Stump on "God as Hypothesis"

Jacob Stump was a frequent commenter on this blog for a while, and with his consistent postmodern stance he was often in the unusual position of having everyone disagree with him--theist and atheist alike. That was fine and in many ways his different perspectives added to the interest of our discussions for a time. But we ran into a long-term problem in which, over a period of several discussions, he failed to engage the content of what was being said.

He has initiated and we have maintained email contact since then, and he has asked for the opportunity to re-join the discussion here. I've appreciated his friendly and gracious approach all along. I've provisionally agreed to allow him back as a commenter, in hopes that it will go better this time. He will, I'm sure, continue to present a postmodern viewpoint, and I'm sure several of us will continue to disagree. I have no problem with that as long as the discussion doesn't get bogged down or go badly off course.

And to kick off the return he has requested, I'm going to respond to a piece he has written elsewhere: "God as Hypothesis?"

"A primary way [says Jacob] that more modern-minded brothers and sisters in Christ evangelize is by proclaiming the Words of the Bible to accurately fit the world 'out there.' Thus, we see books like Josh McDowell’s mega-popular: Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In this book, McDowell lays out the empirical evidence that attests to the validity of the Christian faith. McDowell justifies the Christian faith by testing the Word against the historical and archaeological record. Although McDowell draws from a rich tradition of apology and argumentation, the weight of the arguments seem less impressive to an emerging belief.

"One significant problem is that followers of Jesus implicitly set modern scientific practice (testing words/concepts against empirical evidence) as the standard the Bible and its Words must pass before its validity is affirmed. Let me say this differently: testing the Word against empirics is akin to making God into a hypothesis. The result is that God and the Christian faith are framed as either 'true; or 'false' propositions that are ultimately affirmed or denied on the basis of empirical evidence."

The current question does not seem to be so much whether Josh McDowell is right in the way he handles historical evidence. Jacob's concern is what it does to our conception of God that we would consider historical matters relevant or important. Jacob's concern is that:

1. It sets modern scientific practice as the standard for validity

2. It makes God into a "hypothesis"

3. The truth or falsity of God becomes dependent on empirical evidence.

Jacob says later in this piece that "religious truth is of a different order." Now, in past conversations, Jacob has said that truth is a "metaphor of value." He rejects the correspondence theory of truth (roughly, a proposition is true to the extent that what it affirms stands in correspondence to independently existing reality). So it's unclear what kind of "truth" he thinks he is defending, as he stands up for the kind of truth that applies to God. Taking it back a further step, it's unclear in what sense we would want to take the assertions he makes as true.

(The problem I keep having with this postmodern formulation is the implication that we should consider it true that truth is just a metaphor of value. What on earth could that possibly even mean? Does it mean that we should personally value that value is of value--metaphorically, that is? That doesn't seem to get us very far, does it?)

But yes, religious truth is of a different order than scientific truth (and now I'm switching to the way I understand "truth"). Scientific truth is limited to what can be handled empirically. It would be absurd to supposed that truths about God could be contained in just that. There would be no truth about God prior to, or apart from, creation. He would have had to create himself to be a true entity! To make God's reality dependent on empirical facts would be idolatry. Even to make knowledge of God's reality dependent on empirical facts would contradict his ability to reveal himself any way that he might choose. To this extent Jacob is right.

But I sense--I worry about there being--a deadly false humility in this. Jacob is very concerned that we not make God too small, that we not reduce him to empirics. It seems laudable. What it is instead is another instance of what happens when people run too far with just a piece of what God has revealed about himself.

I must speak from my perspective as a Christian. Christianity (and Judaism before it) is fully rooted in history, by God's own choice. It makes claims about events that happened in real places at real times. Joseph was sold into slavery and later became a ruler of Egypt. David led a kingdom, and his son Solomon succeeded him, building a temple, amassing great wealth, and making grave mistakes with his power and money. Daniel was a young Israelite who became highly influential in Babylon. Esther risked her neck to save her fellow Hebrews. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, preached throughout Judea, Galilee, and Decapolis. He angered religious leaders who conspired with political authorities who had him killed, but three days later he rose from the dead. A movement known as Christians, represented by churches in many cities, began under the leadership of Christ's followers and one latecomer, the apostle Paul.

These are all examples of historical events that either did or did not happen. If they did happen, especially if the events attributed to Christ, then they lend tremendous credence to our trust that there is a God. They also tell us most of what we know about God's character, the kind of God that he is. Historians can assess the evidence for these historical events. Solomon's temple has been found. The church was founded at about the time of Christ and has remained one of the world's most enduringly influential institutions. Those are uncontroversial. There is also considerable--though admittedly controversial--reason to believe the New Testament gives a true history regarding Jesus Christ.

Does it reduce God to discover these things? Hardly! It helps us to know that he did what he did--or more to the point, that he did what his word says he did. God did not have to reveal himself in this historical fashion. If he was concerned about it belittling him, he could have done it any number of other ways. It wasn't our decision that he worked this way, it was his. So Jacob's apparently humble concern for God is a serious contradiction of God's own chosen way of working in the world! It seems so spiritual, to take this knowledge of God out of the realm of the touchable and tangible, and to be sure, part of what is true of God is far beyond our physical world. But the kind of spirituality this represents was tried by the Gnostics (explained in the first part of this Word document from Stand to Reason). It is not real Christianity--Christianity is not an other-worldly-only thing, it is a this-world-and-beyond religion.

What if history did not support the claims of the Bible--in fact, what if a reliable reading of history and archeology completely contradicted it, as for example it does with Mormonism's claims of a vast, ancient, unknown civilization in North America? If the story of Jesus Christ is not true, then he was not God, and he was no revelation of God. What we think we know about God from Christ would have to be discarded.

So do we need Josh McDowell and other historical apologists to help us with our knowledge of God? No and yes. My uncle Ike once said when we were picking strawberries together, "God could have made a better berry than the strawberry--but he didn't!" God could have revealed himself in any way he wanted to. He still can: he could have given us all visions if he had wished. But he didn't. Or he could (and often does) give a person total confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible without help from apologists or historians. But here is what God could not do: God could not give true and valid confidence that the Bible is true, if the history contained in the Bible is not true. It cannot be both true and not true at the same time and the same relation. (Jacob, I know from prior discussion that you don't think highly of the law of non-contradiction, but there it is.)

So if a believer believes without aid of historical apologetics, fine. Fine, that is, as long as what he or she believes is actually true. If it's actually true, then the historical record (and all other truth) ought to be consistent with it--as in fact it is.

Jacob said also,

"Don’t point to a piece of empirical evidence and say: 'look here, my faith in God is proven.' Rather, demonstrate to me the validity and trustworthiness of your faith by showing me the fruit that it bears. Show me truth, love and justice in your everyday life."

Allow me to substitute a word here: instead of "proven," let me say, "supported." I could never claim that God is proven, at least not to the point that it absolutely forces assent. I can agree with this from Jacob, if we understand it in terms of a strong sense of "prove":

"So, in short, we need to make the break and realize that faith in God is not dependent on some empirical piece of evidence and no amount of evidence is going to prove God or the Christian faith to be valid or trustworthy."

But I can point to a piece of empirical evidence and say my faith is strongly supported. And I hope also to show you fruit through my life. I do not accept that this is an either-or proposition; I do not accede to the false dichotomy presented here. Historical apologetics provide information about what God has done in the world. It's information that, for those who learn it, supports and strengthens faith and increases our understanding of God.

Posted: Sun - June 3, 2007 at 05:12 PM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

Jacob Stump on "God as Hypothesis"

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson