"And, I concur; considering the Bible and Christianity without a prior God belief is meaningless."
Commenter MS Quixote raised this point in the midst of a discussion on the blog Daylight Atheism.
I have seen this point raised so many times that I feel it is necessary for me to address this point directly, once and for all, on record.
First, what exactly does it mean to consider the Bible and Christianity?
I state here that I am assuming that what I mean by "considering the Bible and Christianity" is that I am considering whether I believe the spiritual claims are true. If this can be said more precisely, please let me know how I can summarize this in a more accurate way.
I assume that MS Quixote wants to know if the claims of the Bible and Christianity are true, and that he assumes that other people want to know if the claims of the Bible and Christianity are true, and that this is what he means when he says "considering the Bible and Christianity".
I hope I have made correct assumptions in determining what each of us is trying to accomplish when we consider the Bible and Christianity, because those assumptions are fundamental to this exercise.
In the comments section of the original entry by MS Quixote, I noted that Muslims do approach the Bible and Christianity with a prior god belief, but they still have different god beliefs than Christians.
MS Quixote was gracious enough to recognize this, and amended his statement to say that one needs a Christian god belief before considering Christianity and the Bible in a meaningful way. At least, I hope this is what he meant to say, and that I have correctly stated his position.
In suggesting an experiment with MS Quixote's line of reasoning, I am providing the following counter-examples for comparison:
"And, I concur; considering the Qu'ran and Islam without a prior belief in Allah is meaningless."
"And, I concur; considering the Book of Mormon without a prior belief in the revelations of Joseph Smith is meaningless."
"And, I concur; considering the Bhagavad-Gita without a prior belief in Krishna is meaningless."
I wonder if MS Quixote would have any objections to these lines of reasoning if he encountered them in a discussion from a fellow theist, albeit one of a different belief system than his own?
If Christianity can be a properly basic belief, then can Hinduism also be a properly basic belief? Can Islam be a properly basic belief? What about Mormonism?
According to the basic tenets of these religions, not all of them can be true. Therefore, if one can say that the followers of all of these religions have properly basic beliefs, one can say that out of a large number of the people who have properly basic beliefs, many of them have properly basic beliefs that are wrong.
I believe that this circumstance should give anyone who defends religious belief with the notion of "properly basic belief" a moment of pause.
If a large number of people who have properly basic beliefs about a subject are wrong, then one should acknowledge that having a properly basic belief alone is not good enough as a standard for one to be confident of one's conclusions about a subject.
The idea that only consideration of Christianity with a prior belief in the Christian god can be meaningful does not account for the way human beings actually believe in things and acquire beliefs about the subject of religion. I have given counter-examples of patterns of belief in other religious belief systems to demonstrate where I believe that this argument is deficient.
Lastly, there are probably many areas where I have said something that is not as precise as it could be, or I have said something which is a mischaracterization or a misinterpretation, or I have not been clear enough in articulating my ideas. I openly acknowledge the possibility of errors, and if someone can identify them, I will gladly revise my statements. I freely admit that I am a relative novice in discussions of religion and philosophy, but I hope to learn as much as possible as I increase in experience and practice, and to continue a civil and productive discussion of belief and knowledge and "life, the universe, and everything".
Posts
A Major Discussion of the Virgin Birth of Jesus!
16 hours ago
8 comments:
Tele,
I'd actually enjoy responding, but I need to finish up with my commitment at DA first. Thank you for the fair treatment today.
MS Quixote,
I understand that committment completely. You're a man of your word.
However, I hope that you can find the time to respond in the future.
Usually I don't get that much traffic, so this shouldn't get lost or anything. :P
P.S. - No problem. Sometimes I don't know if I'm being courteous enough, but sometimes you have to have say what you have to say. On the other hand, I hope I'd be treated respectfully if I were presenting to a Christian blog.
Tele, I followed your link from MS Quixote's blog out of curiosity. I do appreciate your courteous style in writing your post. I won't jump in to comment on the post itself, because I am not privy to the previous conversation between you to so I don't feel it's my place. But I will check out your other posts.
Hey Tele,
I did notice that you reposted your question, and I do intend to return here with a full and detailed commentary. No worries.
For what it's worth, I've seen no evidence to suggest you're discourteous, and I sure would hope that Christians would extend you the same courtesy, though I know that's not always the case.
We could use more courtesy from both sides, though I fault the Christians, not the atheists. Will report back soon...
MS Quixote,
Thank you! I await your response. I know how tough it can be to find time to respond to questions, as I am still trying to find time to respond to some of Karla's questions on my blog. So I sympathize with you, and appreciate what you're doing.
I am glad that we are having this discussion. I will do my best to participate when I find a chance.
"MS Quixote was gracious enough to recognize this, and amended his statement to say that one needs a Christian god belief before considering Christianity and the Bible in a meaningful way. At least, I hope this is what he meant to say, and that I have correctly stated his position."
Hey Tele,
Hope things find you well. Let's start out by affirming that I was not particulalry gracious in that recognition, though I appreciate your graciousness in phrasing it that way. To be more specific, I mistated, and you identified properly what I should have written. It was an excellent catch on your part, I thought, and I was very pleased to set the record straight.
I don't think this is anything for anyone to be ashamed of. If you write enough, you're going to make mistakes, and you should be thankful when someone picks you up, whatever their background may be.
Here's another good clarification from your post:
"First, what exactly does it mean to consider the Bible and Christianity?"
When I invoked this phrase, I did not intend that those who do not hold to the Christian faith cannot examine the factual or historical truth claims of Christianity. Such claims, say, the dating of the book of Acts, or the existence of Hittites are readily available to anyone to consider regardless of any other factors.
What I did intend, however, is that faith in the Christian God, if He exists, entails illumination from the Holy Spirit, and without this illumination, which only comes after faith, the Bible is foolishness. It's a dead book without it, so to speak.
To your counter examples then, it would appear that hindus would probably not make this claim, as it's difficult to imagine an impersonal force acting in this manner. I think it's certainly true of Mormons, and I'm not sure of Muslims. My guess is that Allah does not interact with his faithful in this manner, but I would defer to someone a bit more steeped in Islamic doctrine before being adamant in this assertion.
At any rate, I would not object to a believer of another faith making this claim. To me it appears to be a claim that relies on the de facto truth of the system as a whole, and that question would need to be settled first before we could ever really know.
"If Christianity can be a properly basic belief, then can Hinduism also be a properly basic belief? Can Islam be a properly basic belief? What about Mormonism?"
I think the answer to this question most likely is yes, though it does not follow that therefore all systems are warranted, for instance pink unicorns or the FSM.
"one can say that out of a large number of the people who have properly basic beliefs, many of them have properly basic beliefs that are wrong."
I agree, and some beliefs, thought properly basic, are certainly wrong, that is they maintain no correlation to an objective truth. Someone might think they have a headache, when in reality they do not.
"then one should acknowledge that having a properly basic belief alone is not good enough as a standard for one to be confident of one's conclusions about a subject."
I readily acknowledged this repeatedly, and was astounded at the subsequent inability of many to separate my admission of an awareness of God with an argument for God's existence. The two are not identical, and, after all, we were discussing the reasons why many people belive or not. I still maintain that many theists equate an awareness of God with a basis for his existence or a reason to believe. I'm not one of those, though obviously it doesn't make faith more difficult.
Tele! here's the rest. You've got some kind of limiting restriction on post size, and i was forced to cut my comment in two:
"The idea that only consideration of Christianity with a prior belief in the Christian god can be meaningful does not account for the way human beings actually believe in things and acquire beliefs about the subject of religion."
I'd be interested in how you arrive at this conclusion.
"I freely admit that I am a relative novice in discussions of religion and philosophy,"
IMO, you were one of the more rational participants, Tele...
This should be a good start if you wish to pursue this further.
Post a Comment