This talk on Views of Truth was given on March 9 to the Chapel at Kingsmill. I regret that I had no control over the recording method–the microphone was far from the front of the room, so there’s room noise. It’s still audible and listen-able in spite of that, though.
[podcast]http://www.thinkingchristian.net/wp-content/audio/viewsoftruth.mp3[/podcast]
There have been a bewildering 170 comments so far in response to a post published here a week ago. The bewilderment, for me, has been that much of the discussion has been a debate on the Law of Noncontradiction. It’s hard for me to see how that could be controversial–or how controversy is even possible if the LNC is not an agreed principle–but it has been.
It started with the question whether there is such a thing as nonempirical knowledge. One commenter proposed this test:
“If you can’t check it (ie. test it), then even if it is true, you can never know that.”
This alone doesn’t assert that the test must be empirical (based on observation), but that’s the direction the discussion went. One example:
“I showed you a specific example of how logic is verified by observation. I’ll repeat: if the observations I laid out didn’t verify the logic, we wouldn’t believe in the logic, so the logic is directly dependent on those observations.”
All this time I’ve had a relevant resource in my list of waiting web pages–pages I saw when I did not have time study them, and bookmarked to return to later. A few weeks ago J.P. Moreland published a short article on Christianity and Non-Empirical Knowledge. Here’s a taste of it (he is using “see” as shorthand for “testing something with the five senses”):
First, truth (the relation of matching or correspondence between a thought/proposition and reality) is not something we can see, so if we are limited to our five senses, we can have no grasp of it. If I believe that a book I ordered is at the bookstore, and then go to the bookstore and see the book, I know that my belief about the book is true. I can see the book there, but I cannot see my belief that the book was there, nor can I see the correspondence relationship between the book’s being there and my belief that it was there.
(Emphasis added)
What does this have specifically to do with Christianity? I don’t know where Moreland is planning to go with it in his next article in this series. There is, though, a common belief that the only reliable form of knowledge is scientific knowledge, which is further believed to be all empirical. If this is true, then faith is excluded. Moreland shows that this is a false assumption.
For The Chapel at Kingsmill, where I’ll be speaking this morning, here’s a short resource list for learning more on the topic of the discussion:
Books To Start With
Websites
Outstanding Podcasts
Magazines
… all of this of course is to supplement the main thing, the Word of God.
I ended my last post with this:
Agree or disagree with what he has to say–either way, you’ll find a lot to learn in it.
I got to wondering as I wrote that: do you read authors you disagree with? I’m especially interested to know if atheistic/agnostic visitors here read good Christian authors. I commend you for visiting a Christian blog–that certainly indicates your willingness to grapple with opposing views. But this is a short form, and there are better authors than me.
I could not be confident in my own beliefs if I hadn’t read some of the best from atheists or strict evolutionists: Ehrman, Ruse, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Gould, Mayr, Forrest and Gross, Miller, etc.. Atheists and agnostics, have you read Moreland, Craig, Willard, Plantinga, Geisler, or Habermas (more than articles, that is)? Have you looked through MikeGene’s work on Intelligent Design, The Design Matrix? (I haven’t reviewed it yet, but it’s on the list. Here’s a preview: far and away, it’s the one book I would most recommend to ID skeptics.)
It comes down to this: are your convictions against Christian faith directed against the real thing? How do you know?
This ER clip on a dying patient’s intense spiritual questions has gone viral, according to viralvideochart.com, which ranks it at number 11 on their list this afternoon. (The list is apparently generated by the number of blogs referencing each video.)
This patient was asking for–no, demanding–straight answers to straight questions. The chaplain couldn’t answer (SteveK showed us additional context in support of that conclusion). The patient didn’t want maybe, didn’t want doubts, didn’t want what-ifs; he wanted certainty. What do we make of that kind of demand? Is it legitimate? Most believers in Christ would say “yes, absolutely!” We think there are real answers to his questions.
It’s terribly counter-cultural, though, to talk in terms of spiritual certainty* and “yes, absolutely.” We’re a pluralistic culture, especially in regards to religion and values. If the chaplain had told him, “You can find forgiveness only by placing your faith in Jesus Christ and His death for you,” she would have been violating one of the Western world’s cardinal rules: Never claim one religion is better than any other.
That’s a rule we followers of Christ break all the time. It’s one reason Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins think we’re so dangerous. We’re exclusivistic.
This is a great time to introduce Timothy Keller, senior pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. It’s a seriously New York kind of church. They have two classical worship-style services every Sunday, and three jazz services. Did I mention they have five services every Sunday? Close observers point out that the church has grown primarily by Keller’s taking New Yorkers seriously, especially intellectual New Yorkers. He has just published a book handling their most serious questions, and from the book’s website you can connect to a message (mp3)he gave on the first of those objections: Christian exclusivity.
Keller displays a C.S. Lewis-like ability to explain complex topics clearly and cleanly. My summary here will not do his message justice, so I urge you to listen to it yourself. It boils down to these points:
I’ll take these up in turn. Please continue to bear in mind this is just a brief version.
1. Religions generally teach that one attains one’s spiritual goal (however defined) by doing what’s right. If I believe I’m on the right spiritual path, then, I must also believe I have a better sense of what’s moral and ethical and right than you do, if you’ve chosen a different spiritual path. If I think I’m making any progress at all on that path, I’m bound to believe that I’m behaving more morally and ethically and rightly than you are. Now, if evangelical Christianity is the first thing to pop into your mind when you hear that, please consider 2:
2. Every spiritual belief is exclusivistic. Evangelical Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the one answer. Muslims believe theirs is the one answer. Hindus do too, at least in the home of Hinduism–the apparently pluralistic version we know in the West is considered heretical back in India. But what if you take a more inclusivist view? Then you are bound to believe that we Christians and Muslims and Hindus are all wrong–and that you’re right! The chaplain on this ER episode considered it wrong to take a definite spiritual position–but in so saying, she was taking a definite spiritual position.
Furthermore, your belief system entails an ethical system to go with it, for example, “It’s rude and odious and wrong for Christians to say Jesus Christ is the one answer.”
I could go on, but I’m really just trying to whet your appetite to listen to Keller, whose next point is:
3. Given that all spiritual belief systems are exclusivistic, which one is most likely to produce peace in human relationships? The true uniqueness of Christianity shows its importance now. First, let’s take honest note of the moral exclusivisity of pluralism. It is genuinely a sin–and frequently punished–to deny pluralism. Try disagreeing with homosexual practice on a modern campus if you doubt this. The hammer will fall.
What about Christianity? We are committed to a belief in the goodness of Christ, a conviction from which we cannot budge. We are not, however, committed to believing in our own moral or intellectual superiority. Far from it. We believe that Jesus Christ had to die just because of our moral weakness, that we were enemies of God, that intellect has nothing to do with salvation, that one of our chief callings is to love those with whom we differ and disagree, and to treat them well. The apostle Paul summarizes it (emphasis added):
Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit,serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. To the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
No one has lived up fully to this ideal since Jesus Christ himself. Keller is very forthright on this, both here and in other messages in this series of his. I could point out, with tears, many examples of our failure. The greatest Christian heresy down the ages has been legalism, the belief that one’s own actions actually can lead one to the goal, and that one actually can some kind of moral superiority over others.
This is where the beliefs of Christianity essentially aim, however. Jesus Christ took such a strong stand against legalism (or moralism) that the ones He was opposing had Him executed to get Him out of their way. (It didn’t work.) The more thoroughly one adopts the exclusive message of Jesus Christ, the more peace his or her life will display. The fully believing Christian will contend for the greatness of Jesus Christ and for the unworthiness of self. Humility, not superiority, is written deep into Christian exclusivity.
What about Christians’ calls for Biblical morality? I did not say we believe that no moral beliefs are better than any other. I said that we believe no one of us is more morally qualified before God than anyone else is. We stand for what we believe in. By God’s grace, we also strive to act accordingly. We fail. Often. We rely on God’s grace to pick us up from there.
So to summarize my summary, all belief systems are exclusivistic. One of them, though, at its very core, leads to humility rather than de-humanizing superiority. And for the man on ER, the same one could have showed him how to be forgiven.
Keller (need I say it again?) covers it all far more thoroughly. His talk will be well worth the time you spend listening to it.
*I must qualify what I mean by “certainty.” It’s not that I can prove my beliefs are true, or that they are as demonstrably certain as the fact that George Bush is the current President of the United States. For me, they are certain enough that I can feel confident and comfortable staking my whole life on them. I know I could be wrong; but I’m certain of it enough that if I had to, I would be willing to die for my beliefs.
Science and Christianity–are they at odds with each other? Is science the kingly road to knowledge, and is religion a matter of mere belief? Do they speak to each other, or do they occupy (as Gould said) non-overlapping magisteria? To the heart of the point: can a Christian really take her faith seriously in this scientific age? Can a scientifically-minded person take religion seriously?
I’m convinced the answers to these questions all point in positive directions for both Christianity and science, properly understood. My convictions come in large part from J.P. Moreland’s Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation. First published in 1989, it is the best non-specialist’s overview of these issues I have yet seen. There is a 1999 edition available, but my dog-eared earlier version–which though it predates the term “Intelligent Design” remains relevant to all today’s issues–has been my standby.
I run the risk of contradicting myself by my own actions here, for I want to persuade you to buy the book, study it, and absorb it; for a full, extended treatment is well worth your time. Yet I am also going to blog from the book, in a series beginning with this post. If I cannot convey the range and depth that the book can, I can at least raise some issues for discussion and whet your appetite for more.
Moreland begins by asking what is the definition of science. That’s certainly still relevant: Is Intelligent Design science? How would we know? What characteristics must it have to qualify as such? What is it about ID that causes so many to declare it is not science, and do these characteristics really disqualify it? Ideally, there would be some descriptors of science that, taken together, would clearly mark out what it is and does, and exclude other fields of study.
An early “creation science” trial, the McLean case in 1989, shows that the answer is more elusive than many think. Judge William R. Overton wrote in his opinion,
“More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are: 1) It is guided by natural law; 2) It has to be explanatory by natural law; 3) It is testable against the empirical world; 4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and 5) It is falsifiable.”
Presumably what meets these criteria is science, and what does not meet them is not. But the first one is ambiguous: does it mean that science seeks to explain by natural law? If so, it is redundant with (2). Does it mean “motivated by a desire to find a natural explanation”? Moreland reminds non-scientists may have the same goal, for example philosophers seeking to find a natural explanation in evolution or the brain for morality. On the other hand Carl Linnaeus’s (1707-1778) pioneering work in taxonomy, while clearly science, was “motivated and guided by his belief that no natural explanation was available for the existence and nature of living organisms.”
Mathematicians often refer to non-supernatural laws of mathematics and logic, yet their work is not science. And scientists often appeal to brute fact, not law, as explanations: the Big Bang and various physical constants being examples. (The discovery, after Moreland wrote this edition of the fine-tuning of these constants adds extra interest to that point.)
Do Overton’s points (1) and (2) mean that science only deals with “the world of physical things having only physical properties that are part of one spatio-temporal system?” If so, it’s not at all clear that psychology is a science. Whether it deals with just physical properties and events is a matter of considerable controversy. If it were someday settled that thoughts, feelings, morality, the unconscious, etc. are not just physical, would that mean that every psychologist in history had been a non-scientist? Hardly.
Overton says that science involves empirical testability, apparently meaning that theories may be subjected to observational confirmation or disconfirmation. But theories may be empirically equivalent, for example, certain competing views of quantum phenomena, or (some forms of) theistic evolution compared to naturalistic evolution. More crucially, there is no such thing as observation independent of theory, so testability just by observation alone is impossible. Further, other disciplines appeal to observation: history, literary scholarship, and philosophy.
Is science defined by being tentative? Since Moreland wrote this, we have been treated to the Michael Ruse’s terribly tentative shout that “Evolution is fact, FACT, FACT!” Apparently evolution is not science. Moreland asks, “Was Newton tentative about his belief in the existence of forces? Would any contemporary scientist seriously question the theory that blood circulates?” And is science the only discipline that uses a principle of tentativeness? “Christian theologians are often tentative, that is, open to new evidence about a number of issues ranging from interpretations of specific passages to the inerrancy of the Bible and the existence of God.”
Finally, is science necessarily falsifiable? Many of us are skeptical of evolution’s falsifiability. Evolutionists say that one good fossil anachronism would be sufficient to falsify it. But they remain impervious to failed predictions, like Darwin’s prediction that the fossil record’s gaps would be largely filled in, or that there would be at least one observable instance of a new structure or function evolving under laboratory or field conditions. Moreland if extremely helpful on this.
The nature of falsifiability in science is often difficult to clarify. For example, seldom if ever are individual scientific propositions tested in isolation from other propositions or theories…. let H stand for [a given hypothesis], and let Ci – Cn be the various auxiliary assumptions involved. Then these are related to the experimental observations O in the following way:
(H & Ci & Cj & . . . Cn) –> O
___________Not - O__________
Therefore, Not - (H & Ci & Cj & . . . Cn)
The experiment shows that H or Ci or Cj or … Cn is mistaken. Which is it? Falsifiability is not always as simple as it seems. I learned in high school that the famed Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 proved that light does not propagate through an ether. In fact, the ether theory lasted a long time after Michelson-Morley as scientists adjusted their auxiliary hypotheses to fit. It took Einstein to finally settle the question; and it took several years before Einstein’s theories were observationally vindicated. They’re still working on the cosmological constant, in fact.
Other disciplines can point to falsifiability as part of their criteria. Historians’ theories can be falsified by new documents. Christianity could be falsified by the discovery of Jesus’ bones, though identifying them would be hugely problematic. Moreland clarifies,
Now, world views can be falsified in principle, at least some of them can . . . but doing so is very difficult, because their epistemic support is so multifaceted. Broad research programs in science are like this as well, and they are not unscientific for that reason.
All of Judge Overton’s criteria fall short. And so do several other definitions of science Moreland offers as examples. Now, lest you think this conclusion is just the anti-faith position of some Christian apologist, in fact Darwinist Michael Ruse came to the same conclusion in the 1996 edition of But Is It Science, the volume he edited in the wake of the McLean case. There is an updated edition of this book available, too, but it’s very new and I have not read it yet. It’s unlikely to say anything different, for philosophers have agreed that the demarcation problem–finding what clearly demarcates science from other disciplines–has no one simple solution.
In the end, Moreland, one of whose degrees is in chemistry, is not saying we can never tell science when we see it. He’s saying that the charge, “It’s not scientific” may not be as clear-cut as we have thought. More than that, though, he’s laying a careful groundwork to begin his investigation into Christianity and the nature of science. We’ll continue to follow him through that investigation in future blog posts. On the way, we’ll also take a short detour into a more recent court’s definition of science.
Related, February 26, 2008: On Blogging a Philosophy Book
My guest column in the Newport News Daily Press appeared again today, under the headline “God answers it all.” It’s on Charles Colson’s provocative assertion that “Christianity is the explanation for everything.”
(The above link will disappear in 1-2 weeks, after which you may still access the article in PDF form here.)
Because of limited space, I could not address all the questions I knew my article would raise. My focus was not so much on whether Colson’s statement was true, but on what it means. To summarize: God, through His self-revelation, has given us a structure of knowledge and a background of information by which we must interpret and understand everything.
Whether this is true obviously matters, too, though; so I wrote:
This is but one brief illustration of what Colson was getting at….
But was his statement true? Is Christianity really the explanation for everything? Again, space will not allow me to address that question here the way it deserves (though I’m happy to do so at www.thinkingchristian.net).
Real Knowledge of God Makes All the Difference
The question surely comes down to this: did God create the universe, and did He reveal His ways to us through the Bible such that we can understand what He has said? Do we have real knowledge of the Person and purpose by which the world was made and we humans came to be the way we are? If so, that knowledge must make all the difference.
This does not mean that we do not live in a natural world where ordinary things happen in ordinary ways. It means rather that we have a different perspective on those ordinary things: they can often have extraordinary significance under God. Every choice matters.
It also does not mean that we ought actually to use the word “God” in every explanation, as for example (using Ohm’s Law for electricity),
Voltage equals current times resistance, because God made it that way (and we hope He doesn’t change His mind too often!).
No, for when we’re looking in the natural sphere, natural explanations are generally quite sufficient for the purpose. In the background, though, we can bear in mind that all this came from a Person who created a world where we can count on natural events happening predictably in natural ways. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, provides a great example of that mindset:
As a scientist who is also a believer, virtually everything that we uncover day after day about the human genome and how it works is also a glimpse of God’s mind. My work is a celebration of our understanding of nature, but more importantly a celebration of what God has done.
Open For Questions
Again, though, do we really have knowledge of God and His purposes? The controversy on this is undeniable. My position is that God has given us considerable and very sufficient evidence that He is real, through the record of the Bible, through His work in history, through what He has created, and through His work in the lives of many, many followers.
There’s a space limitation here in this blog, too, but in the right-hand column of this web page you’ll see a link for “Evidences,” which will refer you to much additional information on this (or just click here). There is also another set of evidence-oriented blog entries you can reach from the right-hand column here, the former home page of this blog.
And to save you the trouble of searching for specifics, the comments section below is open for your questions.
(Thanks to Mark D. Roberts for the Francis Collins link.)
Updates have been posted on one of the best online theism/atheism debates: God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence
I missed some of this as it was going on. Thanks go to Fides Quarens Intellectum for the reminder. Not sure when I’ll get a chance to read this, though, since I’m in the middle of a couple very busy weeks at work.
Chris, at Nihil Fit, and John DePoe, at Fides Quaerens Intellectum, are both blogging about something I was thinking about a while ago: Is it wrong to believe your beliefs are true? I phrased it as the question, “Come to the wrong conclusion, or wrong to come to a conclusion?”
Some people consider it an affront that Christians think Christianity is true, and especially that if Christianity is true, then contradictory beliefs cannot be true.
We could try this on for size instead:
No person should hold to a belief about religion that suggests their own beliefs are better than others’.
Which suggests three questions in response:
Is that a belief?
Is it about religion?
Do you think it’s better than the belief I hold?
Here’s a question asked by Jeff Johannsen on the Orange County Register’s online opinion page, regarding the James Corbett incident.
Do we really want a homogenous Christian theocracy in this country?
The answer is no. The question I have for Mr. Johannsen is how he thinks holding to Constitutional separation of church and state–as it is currently interpreted by the courts–would present that risk. I’m afraid he is making the same mistake made by other Corbett supporters: not thinking through the issue.
Technorati Tags: James Corbett
