More Trouble for the Alleged Faith/Reason Dichotomy: Acts of the Apostles
I am working my way through Acts of the Apostles (the first book after the four gospels), which chronicles the adventures of the early Church after Jesus ascends to heaven. Saul was a Pharisee who persecuted Christians (and approved of them being put to death), but then had his famous road to Damascus conversion, afterwards becoming the “Paul” who wrote epistles (letters) that are included in the New Testament.
Before I make my main point, I want to share this passage because it struck me as funny (Acts 17: 16-21):
The Philosophers at Athens
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. 17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. 18 Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?”
Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.
19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak? 20 For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. Therefore we want to know what these things mean.” 21 For all the Athenians and the foreigners who were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing.
I think the Athenians would have loved the blogosphere.
Now on to my main point. Note the verb I underlined in the passage above. And in the next chapter we read one of my favorite portions of all the Bible (Acts 18: 24-28):
24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; 28 for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.
Does this sound like the early Church operated on how loudly somebody said, “I really feel this is right!” ? Do you think when Apollos “vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ,” that he just kept waving them around, saying, “You have to have faith guys, c’mon!” ?
In fact, the passage above specifically says that Apollos greatly helped those “who had believed through grace.” In other words, Apollos came in and teaching correct doctrine, based on his “mighty” knowledge of the Scriptures, he accurately instructed people who had earlier just believed without really knowing why their beliefs were true.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not claiming Apollos was a scientist. What he taught, both before and after the Christians had equipped him with more knowledge, was not empirically based in the modern sense of the word.
Having said that, it is a complete misunderstanding of how serious religious people think, to say they don’t use their reason. The Book of Acts is replete with Paul in particular reasoning (the Bible’s verb) over and over with the people he is trying to convince that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures.
If atheists/agnostics want to continue justifying their stance by saying they have a monopoly on reason, I guess I can’t stop you. But you are demonstrably wrong. If you want to say theists use their reason very badly, OK fine. But it is simply not true that Christians (and other theists as far as I know) reject the use of reason.
I don’t think the idea is that theists never use logic per se, but rather that they reject it whenever inconvenient. Those who believe in the theory that aliens built the pyramids with the universal quantum chi energy that can be developed by drinking herbal tea and buying my book for $14.95 off amazon.com will use logic, but they can hardly be called logical or proponents of reason. It all makes perfect sense if you make incredible leaps of judgement, ignore contradictory evidence, and are discriminative in your application of skepticism and standards of evidence.
Anyway.
The history of Judaism has dozens of false messiahs, all of them claiming proof from the scriptures. They inevitably win a number of converts, usually the sort of people who, in another time and place, would have been persuaded that aliens built the pyramids. They come and go. Judaism continues. Jesus was, from the perspective of Judaism, just another false messiah whose cult happened to be selected by the Roman Empire as particularly useful.
The whole thing is pretty ridiculous anyway. It’s not as if any Jewish text has a list of The 101 Things That Will Signal The Coming of the Messiah. Messiah talk starts up whenever a bunch of Jews are feeling depressed. Then some rabbi tells them some nice things about the messiah. Then Isaiah got put in the biblical canon for some probably poorly thought out reason. And he became a half-official source on messianism, because…why not? Argh argh argh. It’s all so ad hoc.
I know it’s not what this post is about, but I want to make it clear that most Jews aren’t Christians just because they haven’t been exposed to the arguments of Apollos.
Tzadik wrote:
but I want to make it clear that most Jews aren’t Christians just because they haven’t been exposed to the arguments of Apollos.
Tzadik, you have no idea what arguments Apollos used. Are you admitting that you don’t need to hear any such arguments, because nothing even in principle could make you change your mind?
It almost sounds like your rejection of Jesus is based on faith.
Ok, you got me. I assumed he made arguments based on what has been written about Jesus Christ’s life. Maybe he had access to other information that has since been lost to time, like the part where Jesus isn’t killed by the Roman state and successfully brings peace to the entire world (OK, it’s a far fetch, but then again we don’t have to let Isaiah dominate the discussion, that jerk). But, if he can only make the same arguments modern Christians can make, he won’t persuade any Orthodox Jews. Every now and then you hear about a Reform Jew suckered into Jews for Jesus, though. That’s what you get for not knowing your rabbinic literature….
Tzadik, he was educated in the Torah!! At that point in time there had been nothing written about Jesus’ life. But Jesus is prominent in what we call the Old Testament. He shows up beautifully in chapters 1-7 of Leviticus.
See also Luke 24: 25-27, where, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus explained his presence on every page of the Torah.
Of course, Apollos had an advantage – he was educated and “fervent in the spirit”.
Richards
Sorry about my tone, by the way. But I really don’t like what Christian views of religion and Judaism do to the beliefs of young Jews. Jews thinking like Christians is very disturbing to me.
I think it is interesting that this post begins with a reference to Paul’s conversion. Paul (or rather Saul) only become a Christian after literally being stopped by God. Since we are quoting Acts: “And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven: and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” (Acts 9:3-9 ASV).
Similarly, Thomas, who knew Christ in life, only becomes convinced when he actually sees Him: “But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.” (John 20:24-28 KJV).
I think it is very interesting that Paul spends Acts, as you say, “reasoning (the Bible’s verb) over and over with the people he is trying to convince that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures” when he himself was not swayed by reason but actual contact.
Why should not all people say “Except I shall see” and be stopped on my road?
[Yes, in John 20:29 Jesus says to Thomas “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed”, but was Thomas not blessed, was Paul? Can I not legitimately say ‘Let me follow the example of an Apostle and a Saint! ]
Dr. Murphy, do you have a book you would recommend, besides the bible, that was influential in turning you to Christianity? I have never been a religious person and in the past I was very hostile and condescending towards it. I’ve never been an atheist but I have felt that organized religion was just a means to control people. Over the past few years I have began to doubt my former convictions. I now feel it is lazy and irresponsible for me to have so little knowledge on theology. If you have a recommendation as kind of a jump off point I would appreciate it.
Dan, I am very excited you are taking a second look!
The resources that helped me get a wonderful aspect on theology was ewtn radio. Found here. http://www.ewtn.com/radio/amfm.htm . Especially the program called “Catholic answers” from 5-7pm daily.
Also check out this website, http://www.catholic.com/video
(they also have a reading section)
Obviously these are all Catholic orientated arguments because I believe it to be the church Jesus Christ established. They have very good introductions to any category you choose.
Also ask Jesus in prayer that you may come closer to him.
Thanks Kyle, I actually come from a family that is primarily catholic although my parents haven’t been believers in years. Other than being baptized as a baby I’ve been to church maybe 3 or 4 times in my life. So I wouldn’t really say I’m taking a second look as much as I’m taking a first look.
Dan, I really like this free audiobook, “Jesus the Christ,” which is scholarly, approachable, and faith promoting. http://lds.org/mp3/display/0,18692,5297-60,00.html
or for ebook http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22542
Thanks Scott, I’ll take a look at that as well.
Is that the one where Jesus simultaneously appears in present day Missouri and Israel and also contains the part about Native Americans being a tribe of Israel? I saw LDS and that’s what sprung to mind.
Bob,
Your insistance on reason has motivated me to write down the philosophical underpinnings of my faith. Not that it would be worth reading. Just as a personal challenge.
Brian, if you wanted to share, I’d be curious to read it later in the week.
Does this sound like the early Church operated on how loudly somebody said, “I really feel this is right!” ?
Yes.
Do you think when Apollos “vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ,” that he just kept waving them around, saying, “You have to have faith guys, c’mon!” ?
Yes.
In fact, the passage above specifically says that Apollos greatly helped those “who had believed through grace.” In other words, Apollos came in and teaching correct doctrine, based on his “mighty” knowledge of the Scriptures, he accurately instructed people who had earlier just believed without really knowing why their beliefs were true.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not claiming Apollos was a scientist. What he taught, both before and after the Christians had equipped him with more knowledge, was not empirically based in the modern sense of the word.
Knowledge based on what? What the scriptures say? Even hard core non-believers can know what the scriptures say.
What evidence did Apollos show, other than…the scriptures? I don’t know what “not empirically based in the modern sense of the word” means. What is “empirically based in the ancient sense of the word”? Has the human mind changed in its logical structure in 2000 years? Was Mises wrong that epistemology is insuperably intertwined with action, in that 2000 years ago people could acquire knowledge in such a way that no human today has the capability because they were not limited to action and had a sixth sense?
Given last week’s topic, a higher understanding of the bible seems to be positively correlated with learning of the bible’s mistakes/errors.
Having said that, it is a complete misunderstanding of how serious religious people think, to say they don’t use their reason. The Book of Acts is replete with Paul in particular reasoning (the Bible’s verb) over and over with the people he is trying to convince that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures.
If atheists/agnostics want to continue justifying their stance by saying they have a monopoly on reason, I guess I can’t stop you. But you are demonstrably wrong. If you want to say theists use their reason very badly, OK fine. But it is simply not true that Christians (and other theists as far as I know) reject the use of reason.
There is a huge difference between doing something, and merely SAYING you are doing something. If I was doing the rain dance, praying to “Gods” that my crops will grow, and you asked me what I am doing, then if I said “I’m using my reason to learn of a way to grow the crops” then I would be “rational” only in the Misesian conception, namely, I’d be using scarce means to achieve a desired goal. My means could be wrong, but they are means. So sure, EVERYONE in the bible were rational in the Misesian sense.
But when non-Misesians use the term reason, they don’t mean it in the action sense. They mean it in the scientific sense. Logic and evidence. They would say that I am not using my reason to make my crops grow. They would say I am using my faith and religious beliefs instead. So they are quite right to say that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, and that Paul was not actually “reasoning” with the Jews, but instead he is PREACHING HIS FAITH to the Jews.
So EVEN IF the bible said that Paul “reasoned” with the Jews, that doesn’t mean that he was actually reasoning with them. He was showing them the bible and said “believe this through faith, because it’s true.”
When Christians are accused of rejecting reason, that accusation is not based on the notion that Christians positively reject reason consciously, nor is it based on the notion that Christians never seem to SAY they are using their reason. I can speak for myself, and I am sure many non-believers will agree, that the accusation that Christians reject reason is based on their chosen epistemology when they claim to have acquired actual knowledge. That chosen epistemology, faith, is not based on reason, DESPITE Christians believing they are using reason, DESPITE Christians saying they are using reason. That is the position of agnostics/atheists
Just like I will keep telling the rain dancer that he is not using reason in the non-Misesian sense, despite his belief that he is using reason and despite his claim that he is using reason, I will keep telling Christians the same thing.
So Christians cannot claim to be using reason when they preach about their belief in Gods, even if you find verbal mentions of “reason” in the bible.
Bob wrote: “Do you think when Apollos “vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ,” that he just kept waving them around, saying, “You have to have faith guys, c’mon!” ?”
MF wrote: “Yes.”
Well, you’re totally wrong then. Are you just being stubborn, or do you really think that’s what Apollos said?
Right now I’m in the middle of an email debate between two Christian guys (from different sects) on some doctrinal issue. Do you want me to forward you an example of their back-and-forths? They aren’t trying to one-up each other on who believes “harder” or whose faith is stronger.
To repeat, they’re not appealing to reproducible experiments to make their cases. But it’s not “anti-reason.”
In fairness, Bob, in this post you’re depending a lot the use of one particular word (“reasoned”) to make your point about the rhetorical methods of early Christians, which, well, doesn’t seem very strong. I’ve seen translations that use “debated” in place of “reasoned”, for example. And when you get to the point where you’re basing your “historical inferences about epistemology” on the translation of one Ancient Greek word, well …
OK let’s say it’s “debated” or “argued” or something else like that. My point is, they were having an argument. That isn’t possible, if really we think there is a categorical difference between faith and reason. (I suppose the only exception would be, if the argument were over whose faith was stronger.)
Arguing is not enough. A drunken brain damaged demagogue can “argue” until the cows come home.
Two people can argue over which nonsensical God is worth praying to over the other.
Two people can argue over whether working on Sunday deserves death (OT) or not death (NT), according to which biblical passage is “more right” than the other.
Two people can argue over all things anti-reason and faith related. It doesn’t mean they are being rational in the non-Misesian, positivistic sense.
Remember, people in the bible raped and tortured and killed innocent women, and tortured killed defenseless babies, plundered whole towns, because they couldn’t agree on whose faith was “more right” than the other and which faith argument really was the word of God and which wasn’t.
They didn’t use their reason at all in this, and instead thought something like “Kill them and let God sort them out.”
MF wrote:
They didn’t use their reason at all in this, and instead thought something like “Kill them and let God sort them out.”
You had me until that line, MF. I understood what you were saying (though I disagreed strongly with your overall view), but there you went off the deep end. This is not at all how people argue theology.
Suppose I think that George Lucas is setting us up for Luke to turn bad after Jedi, whereas you think I’m nuts. We argue about it. Would you say this necessarily involves the renunciation of our reason? No, it doesn’t. We might have a terrible argument, or we might have a great, well-reasoned argument.
It’s the same thing with theologians arguing over the Bible and what it means.
You had me until that line, MF. I understood what you were saying (though I disagreed strongly with your overall view), but there you went off the deep end. This is not at all how people argue theology.
I said people in the bible. Not secularized theists of today, who have access to secular morality and philosophy apart from the bible.
Consider yourself lucky, Bob. I have spoken with many Christians who do say that, and mean it. I mean, you do know about the “Christian right.”
If it came down to it, if a theist had to choose between abandoning their faith, or killing some innocent person who is not a believer, or who worships some other God, then many otherwise people peaceful people would choose murder, because in their minds they are thinking “murder and repent and get into heaven, or lose faith and go to hell and be in pain forever and ever.”
It’s why many Christian US soldiers have no problems killing innocent people in the middle east. They are hard core OT Christians.
Deep end? I am not the one calling for killing innocent people and letting God sort them out, the way I know many Christians do! You have to accept that Christians, many of them, are crazy. Take Callahan for example. That idiot is a walking violent threats troll. He has just recently again called for my death, this time by bombs. Are you saying Callahan is not a Christian?
You might be a good Christian, but your type is more rare than the bad types.
Suppose I think that George Lucas is setting us up for Luke to turn bad after Jedi, whereas you think I’m nuts. We argue about it. Would you say this necessarily involves the renunciation of our reason? No, it doesn’t. We might have a terrible argument, or we might have a great, well-reasoned argument.
The Star Wars saga exists. George Lucas exists. We know they exist through our senses and using our reason to identify them as real concepts.
Not a good analogy.
It’s the same thing with theologians arguing over the Bible and what it means.
It’s entirely different. The difference is that arguing over whether Lucas will turn Luke evil is based on the reality of Lucas and the reality of the Star Wars movies. They are known via observation. I can easily take you to Best Buy and SHOW you the Star Wars movies, and I can easily pull up videos, articles, and all other media to SHOW you the existence of Lucas.
So speculating on what Lucas might do, is based on reason, because the foundation is based on reason.
Arguing over what an invisible man in the sky will do or won’t do, is not based on reason, but on faith.
The key word is BASED in “based on.” Sure, you might be successfully using logic superficially when talking about the bible, but the foundation is faith based, so all the “logic” on top is also faith based and not based on reason.
“A drunken brain damaged demagogue can “argue” until the cows come home.”
An example of a self-confirming sentence!
Mr. Freedom wrote:
“Remember, people in the bible raped and tortured and killed innocent women, and tortured killed defenseless babies, plundered whole towns, because they couldn’t agree on whose faith was “more right” than the other and which faith argument really was the word of God and which wasn’t.
They didn’t use their reason at all in this, and instead thought something like “Kill them and let God sort them out.”
Number 1, what is your authority in stating the people did those things “because…”. How do you know that? I don’t imagine you were there.
Number 2, Ditto, how do you know “they didn’t use their reason and thought something…”? Is that just a guess?
Richards
Well, you’re totally wrong then. Are you just being stubborn, or do you really think that’s what Apollos said?
I’m totally wrong? Based on what? I think that quote you made is an apt paraphrasing of what he was doing and saying. It’s not necessary that he said those exact words! You’re sort of setting up a straw man when you say it’s either reason, or else “have faith people, come on!” in those exact words.
Right now I’m in the middle of an email debate between two Christian guys (from different sects) on some doctrinal issue. Do you want me to forward you an example of their back-and-forths?
Only if you say what goal you expect to come out of doing that, and I agree it’s worth taking the time to achieve it as well.
They aren’t trying to one-up each other on who believes “harder” or whose faith is stronger.
Oh really? Then why are they debating at all? If the topic is based on faith, then debating wouldn’t that strongly suggest that they each believe their faith is stronger and better than the other’s faith?
I think they’re just holding back. Let me have a go with them, and you might see their cool calm demeanor suddenly go to one upping each other, kind of like how we’re doing that right now. I mean, come on, when I say “Yes”, and then you say “Well, you’re totally wrong then”, how is that not one upping each other?
To repeat, they’re not appealing to reproducible experiments to make their cases. But it’s not “anti-reason.”
Then the problem must be their logic based on premises adopted by faith that they are making errors in as they propound their anti-reason.
MF I don’t know what else to say on this. It seems to me that you are saying by definition someone arguing about God, must not be using his reason but ultimately can only be using his “faith.”
If that’s your view, nothing I can say–and no empirical evidence of actual theists I can offer–can possibly sway you. Your view is literally non-falsifiable, which is sort of ironic given the context.
Maybe you’re fine with that; after all, your view that a bachelor is unmarried is also non-falsifiable, and that’s not a problem. But I just want to be clear that your view on theists and their (alleged) rejection of reason is in fact a definitional thing for you; you’re not observing them in action.
MF I don’t know what else to say on this. It seems to me that you are saying by definition someone arguing about God, must not be using his reason but ultimately can only be using his “faith.”
By meaning, yes, not by mere definition.
If that’s your view, nothing I can say–and no empirical evidence of actual theists I can offer–can possibly sway you. Your view is literally non-falsifiable, which is sort of ironic given the context.
Good thing it isn’t then.
Maybe you’re fine with that; after all, your view that a bachelor is unmarried is also non-falsifiable, and that’s not a problem. But I just want to be clear that your view on theists and their (alleged) rejection of reason is in fact a definitional thing for you; you’re not observing them in action.
Wait, you went from “if you are saying it’s definitional” to “you’re saying it’s definitional.”
That’s not really fair.
Only if someone is using faith in their arguments, are they abandoning reason in favor of faith. Since “God” is incoherent, it is necessarily required that discussing God requires abandoning reason in favor of faith. It’s not definitional that talking of God is talking faith. It’s the fact that one is abandoning logic and evidence.
At any rate, I used to be a participant in action, as in being a theist participant in action. So when I say that Christians reject reason when they discuss Christianity, it is not as if I haven’t observed them in action.
I can expose the faith in a Christian’s beliefs and where/how they have abandoned reason. It’s very easy to do. You’re speaking as if it’s insanely difficult to point to where people believe without logic or evidence that there is an invisible man in the sky.
I don’t want to be painted into a straw man corner where my arguments are dismissed on the basis that they are “non-falsifiable” and “definitional.” They are not.
For hypothetical, empirical propositions, the people who are espousing non-falsifiable claims are Christians, not atheists. Theists are saying God cannot be disproved on the basis of lack of empirical evidence. God exists, and that’s that. No empirical evidence is capable of refuting God. Have you even considered what WOULD disprove God, if you don’t think logic is enough? I bet no empirical event or events could ever do it, in your mind.
I guess my arguments are not that convincing, and I’ll accept that, but they are certainly not based on definitional claims. I mean, who’s saying that arguments necessarily mean the people’s assertions are based on reason and not faith? Who’s saying that passages in the bible that say “reasoned with” means they used reason and not faith? It’s not me. But those are “by definition” type arguments.
MF wrote:
Since “God” is incoherent, it is necessarily required that discussing God requires abandoning reason in favor of faith.
How is this not a definitional thing? With statements like this, you sure make it sound as if the very concept of the Christian God is not something amenable to reason. Is that what you’re saying? Are you saying it cannot possibly be the case that the Biblical accounts are largely true?
How is this not a definitional thing?
It is not definitional because I am not defining “Christian God” as “anti-reason.” I am saying that the meaning of Christian God, and the meaning of reason, are antithetical according to the logic of human knowledge.
If I argued that rain dances are antithetical to reason (in the non-Misesean sense), then this is not definitional in that I am making a rather straightforward, simple statement. It is the outcome of understanding the meaning of having faith in some claim to knowledge that one’s dancing will communicate with Gods that control the clouds and rain, and the meaning of using one’s reason in some claim to knowledge about the world through logic and evidence, which in my worldview is ultimately grounded in the praxeological bridge between mind and reality, that enables me to distinguish between the two claims to knowledge, and enables me to know that they are mutually exclusive categories of thought. One rejects praxeological foundation of knowledge, the other does not.
Are you saying it cannot possibly be the case that the Biblical accounts are largely true?
I know that my mind, and all other human minds that are constrained to the same logical structure, cannot allow me to claim to know that logically incoherent concepts like “God” are true. Not unless there is some absolute foundation grounded in irrefutable praxeological reasoning.
To know something requires some irrefutable, necessary foundation the truth of which cannot be denied without contradiction.
Not a single person, to my knowledge, has ever provided an irrefutable proof that their religious faith is consistent with an irrefutable truth grounded in such irrefutable reasoning. In every debate I have, through persistent digging and prodding and constant asking of “why?”, every religious believer, EVERY SINGLE ONE, has been compelled to resort to the position that the ultimate “why” in their minds, the ultimate foundation, is “because I said so” or “because that’s what I believe” or, “it’s just something I believe is true”, or “because there is nothing better for me to go by” or, what really grinds my gears, they elicit the self-refuting claim “because mortal humans can’t know anything with the kind of absolute certainty you are demanding; all human convictions are ultimately based on faith.”
Then they make the certain conviction that they are sure God exists and that their faith is enabling them to have certain knowledge about reality! Argh!
I go to the bare bones. The ultimate foundation of human knowledge. When I do that, which I hope everyone would do, it is SO EASY TO KNOW how untenable and vacuous religious faith really is.
Nothing can be known that is beyond what the human mind is capable of learning. Does this mean that there are certain truths which we as acting entities cannot know? Yes. The fact that we are acting means we are learning. The fact that we are learning means we are learning truths about reality.
But does this mean that we can claim to have knowledge over that which is either there, ready for us to learn but not yet learned, or, in the case of incoherent concepts like God, go beyond the scope of the human mind;s logical constraints? No! It is a pipe dream. In the former case, you see atheists and theists make this mistake. In the latter case, you only see theists make that mistake. The difference is that the mistakes atheists make can in principle be rectified. Not so with those who reject the logical constraints of human knowledge, and thus reject the logic of human action, and thus reject logic based knowledge itself.
I am not, of course, saying you reject logic. I am saying you only reject it when it comes to religion. You want logic to be the arbiter in economics and everyday life, but you want faith to be the arbiter in metaphysics, the realm of reality which is beyond current human knowledge and action, or beyond human knowledge and action per se.
Putting this all together, when you say I am saying “Christian God is not something amenable to reason” I will respond and say that I am saying “Christian God is not something amenable to HUMAN reason.”
Maybe some superhuman entity with mental powers beyond our abilities whose minds are beyond the logical constraints of the human mind can know what humans can’t know. But we humans, with our special logical structure, we cannot claim to know what Christians are claiming to know when they espouse Christianity.
I sense in your writings the strong desire for returning to a lost paradise of ages past, when people were closer to creation temporally, and thus allegedly closer to the creator. From Plotinus to Boehme to Hegel to Marx to even Keynes, there has been throughout human history a desire to go back to when humans were allegedly more spiritual, more connected with the Gods. Time and division of labor and learning of distinct concepts puts in many people’s minds the intolerable notion of separation, isolation, and alienation.
Christians worship the bible and the people in the bible because they believe that it was during the time of Jesus that God finally called humans back to him, after being estranged and cut off from God for so long. They view Christ as the conduit between the temporal, alienated from God earthly life, and the eternal, wholeness with God afterlife. Christianity is a highly individualistic moral quest, since each individual human is either saved or punished, as opposed to some other religions which are more collectivistic and talks about all humans either being saved or not.
This is why, I suspect, why you can be a libertarian and a Christian at the same time. On Earth, the individualistic moral backdrop of Christianity allows you to adhere to a morality of individualistic economics. This is I think why I myself went from Christianity to atheist libertarianism. The transition was rather smooth. Just imagine a Marxist atheist transitioning to Christian libertarianism!
MF what do you mean buy saying God is an “incoherent concept”? A rain dance is a coherent concept; you and I both think it’s false. But it’s coherent. It’s physically possible that dancing will make it rain (or will make it more likely that it will rain, whatever).
My point is, you are saying something a heck of a lot stronger when it comes to God. It tells me there is no point in even arguing with you. With the rain dance, if you and disagreed, we could have grounds for an argument. I might ask, “What would it take to convince you that my dancing actually causes it to rain?”
But if you’re saying the very concept of God is incoherent, then there’s nothing really to say, right? No matter what the evidence, you already know what the answer has to be.
I realize my statements don’t necessarily conform to some of your other statements, but that’s because (I claim) you are contradicting yourself.
Bob,
Are you spending time reading the Bible so you know where they are coming from and how they are delusional, or are you actually a Christian? I’m a little confused.
Sal, I’m a born again Christian. Every Sunday I do one post on a religious topic. (If you search my blog for posts with the “Religious” tag, you can see past ones.) I’m guessing you are another horrified fan.
Thanks for the post, Doc. Paul’s writings are my favorites, with their appeal to reason. I also like Matthew, which uses ties to the Old Testament. Reason and history always work with me.
Christianity’s two great commandments — love God and love your neighbor as yourself (i.e., do unto others as you would have done unto yourself) — make great sense to me.
Rabbinical Judaism, the relic of the southern tribe of Judah and the Levites, with its preferential treatment of fellow Jews, is clearly much different from Christianity. I have read rabbinical Judaism described as anti-Christianity. Seems plausible to me, based on what I read in ‘Jesus and the Talmud’ by Prof. Shafer and other similar books.
No wonder the northern tribes of Israel disappeared from history as a separate, standalone group, as they rejected the separatist, ‘chosen people’ narrative of the Levites and intermarried with neighboring tribes who also believed in a universal, moral, loving God.
Off topic — amazing how Bob Wenzel’s forecast for an improving economy (in the short-term) due to rapid increases in M1/M2 over the past five months is coming to pass, e.g., ‘Black Friday’ sales up 7%.
Ordinarily, in light of the terrible fundamentals underlying our economy — e.g., skyhigh household debt/personal income — I would be short the S&P 500 (I made my fortune shorting the S&P 500 over ’07-’08). But, I learned my lesson about watching the money supply and understanding that it is a fool’s errand to expect falling stock prices in the face of M1/M2 growing 13-29% annualized (after having lost $600K shorting in ’09, given continuing terrible economic fundamentals but a strongly growing money supply).
I really hope you aren’t Wenzel posting as “John G.” (just kidding)
Bob,
In Reformed Protestant theology, justifying faith has three aspects:
1) Knowledge of the factual assertions of the gospel (noticia)
2) Intellectual assent that the factual assertions made by the gospel are true (assentia)
3) Personal committment or trust in the object of the gospel, namely Jesus Christ. (fiducia)
In order for justification to occur, all three sub-faith conditions must be met, but as a thought process, these may hypothetically occur in any order or simultaneously, just so long as all three are satisfied. The “reasoning” or apologetic may satisfy the first and second conditions, but this is not sufficient for a full blown justifying “faith”. Justifying faith comes when we understand the historical factuals which are asserted (life, death, resurrection), lower our intellectual resistance to them, and make a steadfast personal committment to the object of the gospel (Jesus Christ).
Therefore, the reason that reason or aplogetic is important to justifying faith, is that faith must have an object which appears reasonable to the mind.
*However, I am becoming personally pursuaded that 3 must come before 2, or we can never get to all three.*
We cannot actually “know Christ” or have a “personal relationship” with Christ until #3 is taken, and likewise we will never lower our intellectual guard until we trust enough to allow it to be lowered. Now this does not mean that ultimately for many persons, problems with #2 do not short circut #3. In other words, someone first makes a committment, this allows them to dig deeper, but later they find that either they can no longer trust, or that their trust is driven to an even deeper level by a reasoned intellectual assent.
Over the years, as I have studied philosophy of science, it has become apparent to me that this is similar to what occurs in the scientific method as practiced by real scientists. In order to know or understand at a deep level, we must understand data, lower our intellectual resistance to a particular hypothesis, but then go further by making a personal committment to an idea or hypothesis, and it is this personal committment that allows us to go to a deeper level of understanding.
Here’s another interesting bit of info about reason and the scriptures:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”–Jn 1:1
The word “Word” in this passage refers to Christ, and is translated from the Greek word “logos,” meaning reason or logic (among other things). Many people might remember from their composition 101 class that Aristotle used the word “logos” as the name of one of his main forms of rhetoric–the logical appeal.
This text suggests that reason/logic is not simply something that should be used by believers, but is actually the central column of our faith, holding the roof up. And if all things were truly made through Christ, who is logos (as John goes on to say), then it only makes sense that reason is woven into the fabric of creation, and subsequently the Christian faith.
Reasoning is a tool, capable for good or ill use by the person who uses it, be it theist or atheist. Ultimately, the means of reasoning tend to be justified or polluted by the ends to which reason is employed. Reason in the unbiased ad hoc search for knowledge is the ideal but this highest good is rarely achieved, even by scientists, who being human, are always susceptible to some bias. The beauty of science though is that it is inherently self-correcting so the biases, if wrong, eventually fail
On the flip side is when reason is used (usually post hoc) to justify dogma and faith (in the religious sense = belief without evidence) or other unchallenged (or narrowly challenged) beliefs. To the extent that many religious and faith-based beliefs tend to be unfalsifiable by science or reason, one has to conclude that they either lie outside reason or conflict with it at some point. Kierkegaard tried mightily to resolve this gap and render faith “reasonable” but his arguments, though clever, essentially all failed (though you can still find some theist philosophers arguing otherwise – most theist and atheist philosophers have been unmoved by them). A belief ultimately based on faith cannot be reconciled with reason but only on the tautology of faith itself. Unlike science, biases held on faith have no inherent correctability unless the faith itself is rejected by reason.
Since I see no reason to accept faith as representing any real knowledge (other than the fact of a subjective belief itself), I reject faith and believe it leads the world astray. I think our world would be better off without it. It is really nothing more than wishful thinking held as knowledge. No wonder we get the governments we do…
“Since I see no reason to accept faith as representing any real knowledge”
Do you accept that some types of real knowledge such as the meaning of patterns is indeed held tacitly, just below the conscious rational level in the brain, and is acted upon by something resembling a personal belief?
I see where you are going and your argument is fraught with semantic minefields such that i cannot answer it cogently and unambiguously as stated. If you really want to to pursue this line of reasoning then you will need to precisely lay out how you are defining your terms and assumptions. i think you are conflating knowledge with perception and subjectivity with objectivity (which is easy at the purely subjective level since they are arguably the same).
i would agree that brains can perceive, perform pattern recognition, reason, and believe to various degrees both consciously and unconsciously and both tacitly and explicitly – all of which are subject to error. Since I’m assuming we’re all not advocating solipsism, then please note my using the word “representing: in your above quotation of me.
Our brains form ideas that represent (i.e. model) knowledge but they also model and issue lots of nonsense too. I’m assuming there is an external reality and truth that God would have to be part of that we are trying to use logic, inference, and deduction on in the formal sense to prove. Informal subconscious forms of logic and reason may yield beliefs that emerge consciously that are good models of external/universal “Truth” but if they can’t be mirrored or re-expressed by formal logic and reasoning at the conscious level they certainly can’t serve as proof and at best they serve only as a very weak form of evidence.
Philosophical arguments are not conducted at the subconscious level. i cannot mind-meld with you and observe your Bayesian probabilistic reasoning and pattern recognition abilities any more than my own.
The bottom line is that faith is a subjective feeling of belief of knowledge and it requires external evidence to validate if there really any universal Truth that can be mapped to it or deduced/inferred from it. At that point however, it ceases to be “faith” and becomes “trust”.
I have trust that my wife hasn’t cheated on me due to the evidence of lots of behavioral history inconsistent with cheating and a complete lack of evidence of infidelity. I also feel it in my gut – sort of like faith – but i can’t tell or argue effectively how much of my gut feeling is wishful thinking and how much is correct subconscious pattern recognition and reasoning. If I had lots of evidence that my wife cheated on me but continued to believe in her fidelity due to my gut, that would be faith, especially if i willfully avoided investigating the matter further. i find that most, though not all, people of faith choose to avoid investigation even in the face of conflicting evidence and logic. Let’s face it, people want to believe in life after death, that the evil are punished, and the good redeemed. It’s very comforting.
“Reason in the unbiased ad hoc search for knowledge is the ideal . . . .”
You take as your “ideal” a rule that would make any conclusions about the world of space and time impossible?
How so? But to clarify. I did not intend “bias” to include empirically or logically validated knowledge or even hypotheses derived from same that may be wrong. Any search has to have a starting reference frame and some assumptions. Its the process that counts.
Science progresses mainly, though not exclusively, via falsifiable ad hoc hypotheses that stand or fall on experiment and/or internal consistency based on math or logic. However,Ii would not argue that human gut instinct assumptions are not important. Being a scientist myself I can attest that they are often the main catalyst to hypothesis formation and the creative exploration process. But from an epistemic perspective, they can’t be trusted to for their own truth content, per se.
This contrasts with faith based ideas like creationism that only seek to falsify competing ideas without positive empirical effort to support itself – and the frequent denial or suspension of logical reasoning when faith is questioned. Apologetics is basically a post hoc rationalization of faith. The faith is a given and can only be questioned to the extent that the conclusion remains intact. i would argue that is unreasonable.
What each of us experiences is a set of sensations, broadly defined. From this we “infer” the existence of a world of space and time. What justifies that inference, if not intuition?
The theist and the atheist look at the same evidence. The atheist generally finds the notion of a transcendent God counter-intuitive, and that affects his interpretation of the available data. The theist generally finds the notion of a transcendent God quite intuitive, and that affects his interpretation of the available data. Neither approach is more “rational” than the other.
It is nonsensical to talk about proceeding solely on the basis of evidence. Without theoretical preconceptions, there is no such thing as evidence—only data, from which nothing follows.
This is really obfuscation to support Murphy’s original contention and instead, you are unintentionally helping to prove him wrong. If humanity relied only on the informal forms of subconscious reasoning you are trying to base all reasoning on (even if true – and I do indirectly agree by way of Kant and Wittgenstein), we’d still be in the stone age.
I have not denied, but have stated myself, that subconscious intuitive processes, served by subconscious perception and pattern recognition inform and bias our ideas and “theoretical preconceptions” (though “theoretical” may be stretching it a bit). But that is not revealed knowledge or truth. Approaching knowledge and truth requires some formal reasoning and evidence.
At the level of subconscious perception, reasoning or intuition, I’d agree that the theist and atheist are on the same playing field and neither can be assumed superior to the other. It is how they proceed beyond that base that counts and this is where atheists are generally superior and where evidence counts. I think another way to point out your reasoning errors is to point to a somewhat misleading statement you made, i.e., that God is counter-intuitive for atheists. Most of my atheist friends, as I suspect is true in most predominantly theist countries like the US, were originally theists who would tell you their original intuitions were firmly theist (however biased or brainwashed by parental/societal upbringing). Though I was not raised with formal religion, when I was young, God also seemed to be intuitively correct, as most deceptively simple answers are. It wasn’t until I could skeptically examine religious claims vs. scientific claims that I begin to realize that God was a very poor answer to the question “where did we come from?”, among others. Moreover, I also discovered that whatever powerful subjective feelings that compel people to believe in various gods, alien abductions, etc. could be elicited by many natural means such as intense communal meditation/prayer and drugs. Experiments with DMT (the most powerful hallucinogenic drug – also secreted naturally during brain death by the pineal gland) in my younger days enabled me to see just how compelling these visions and “revealed knowledge” can feel – even after the experience is over.
Intuition is often wrong and is more likely to be wrong the more complex and diversified the conceptual hierarchy becomes. We know from many psychological studies that the errors the brain makes have many nearly universal biases. Some of these we know as optical illusions. Others involve chronic probability reasoning errors such as well-known gambler’s paradoxes, e.g., the belief that the next roll of the dice is more likely to be a number that hasn’t come up for a long time. There is some evidence and many good evolutionary reasons to suggest that we are predisposed to certain forms of religious belief, which, if true, only make it harder for the religious to deny their intuition.
The evolutionary pressures for tribalistic religious belief, which offered many benefits to our ancestors, our largely counterproductive in modern society I believe. This is why skepticism is considered pejorative by many if not most theists. Open-minded skepticism is what brought most atheists I know to atheism, and, to a lesser extent, what has made some atheists theists and Hindus into Buddhists, etc. I have more respect for such people, regardless of where their reason led them because their reasoning is generally more sound by virtue of the skeptical approach. Open-minded questioning, skepticism, and rational rigor are not confined to atheists, but my observation is that they tend to be vastly superior in those traits over theists.
“Our brains form ideas that represent (i.e. model) knowledge”
Oh we really do need to talk about Kant. I wish I had more time.
“Approaching knowledge and truth requires some formal reasoning and evidence.’
Consider what is taking place when a criminologist extracts an image of a perpetrator from the brain of a vicitim through a sketch. The brain can both store a copy of the complex pattern of a human face, but also recognizes the meaning of the pattern, and with the aid of an artist’s rendition, recast it so that others make the same interpretation when comparing the drawing to a group of supects in a lineup. But if asked to communicate this knowledge in terms of formal language, it would be very difficult.
That which is stored in the brain is real knowlege of a very complex pattern of noses, eyes, mouth, hair, ect. that is gained through sense perception, and yet it is easy to see that we actually ‘know more than we can tell”.
I only see you trying to skirt the main argument and sweep a lot of ineffable pattern recognition under the rug of “knowledge”. I’ll grant you Wittgenstein’s “Beetle in a Box” but you don’t seem to know the first thing about epistemology.
In any case, eyewitness testimony is increasingly being shown to be highly unreliable – far more unreliable than originally believed by most jurists and ordinary people. Your memory of events and faces is not “knowledge”. It is merely belief supported by potentially dubious subjective sensation, memory, and largely unconscious pattern recognition. It IS evidence but you can’t base a strong conviction in the existence of God on this kind evidence alone. People have reported all sorts of such evidence for many types of gods, spirits, fairies, alien abductors, etc. etc. that are not mutually consistent. If they were, this would be better evidence, though still assailable – especially if humans come pre-wired for religious experience.