Civbert's Apologetics in Action

[Civbert]

As I've been debating and discussing my views on apologetics, I have an opportunity to put them in practice. I'm a member of an online "correspondence" chess site - with a very active debate forum. Quite a few atheist, some more rational than others, and quite a few Christian bashers. I've been well bashed on the site, especially regarding Calvinism. This was the opening salvo.

Originally posted by Conrau K

It seems to me that faith is untenable from a logical perspective. God's existence is often described as unverifiable. I tend to agree. BUT...

Why is that most theists (endowed with such astute intellects) could succumb to such a weakness of intelligence? If its so obviously untenable and unverifiable why believe in God?

I was discussing this with a priest (who is a logician). He told me that reason is only finite, sometimes we need to "transcend" this to truly understand. Which made me think, can we know things other then through logic or induction?

I remember that Martin Luther (as in reformation era) wrote that "reason is a whore" and that "a christian must rip the eye out of reason and even kill it".

I would like to know how theists can "transcend" the logical barriers of theism and/ or how non- theists could reject it.

This actually much better than the typical kind of things you'll find there. Conrau K is one of the brighter athiest on the sight. I disagree with him frequently, but he's not stupid by a long shot. Here his is spotting the irrationalism of the priest who tries to give an argument that "transcends" logic in order to understand. Clearly this is anti-intellectual and irrational.

Some of the post that followed were more nasty, and I have been staying out of them lately. But one of the follow-ups caught my attention.

And the following is the post, and my response to it. Call it Civbert's applied apologetics:

Originally posted by Conrau K

No, I am reffering to logic in the sense of knowledge. Many theists proclaim that they know God exists despite the logical implausibility.

I act illogically all the time and I dont consider my self completely stupid. But if i were to evaluate something mathematically and despite all the relevant axioms, make up my own answer (randomly), i think there would be claim for stupidity.

Many theists shoot themselves in the foot by proclaim that they "know" God exists in any epistemic sense. But they can have "complete certainty" - and that's the colloquial sense of the term.

But let's stick with belief rather then knowledge (knowledge being justified true belief). Belief in God is not necessarily blind faith. Faith, yes, but there are many good arguments for believing in God, even if no one can prove God exists. And the same is true of the contrary, you can not prove God does not exist.

Consider the case of logic. Can you prove logic is true? No, to attempt so would be circular - a logical fallacy. To try to prove otherwise would be absurd - you have to presume logic is true to give an argument against it. So logic is not believed because it's provable, but because it just is. Logic is transcendental in that sense. It is immune to worldview assumptions.

The existence of God is likewise a transcendental proposition. We can neither prove nor disprove God exists. To prove God, you'd have to use have logically a-priori propositions. But to have such knowledge would require God's self revelation, which assumes God revealed himself, which begs the question. And to prove God does not exist, you'd have to claim to have access to total knowledge - therefore - you'd be God - which is absurd. So you can not logically "know" God exists any more than you can prove logic is true.

All in all, the existence or non-existence of God is a pointless debate. The question should be, if God exists, what would be true about him. Would he speak to us. Could we know things about him. In essence, can we know God.

Knowing God, is not to say we can prove God exists. It's merely to know things about God. But since even hypothetically, God is transcendental, if things can be known of him, it must be by his revealing them to us. Therefore the existence of the Bible, while in no way proving God exists, does give evidence in favor of that conclusion. For if an almighty being, eternal and immutable and all-knowing, does exist, then the only way we could know him, is if he wills it, and if he wills it, what better way then by speaking to us in a immutable fashion. So we have the written Word of God, more than 3000 years old, and yet is endures with little evidence of change or alteration.

Then there is apparent moral order. Many diverse and separate people seem to have common moral standards. Do not steal, do not murder, obey your parents, respect your elders, don't eat the yellow snow. OK, the last didn't count, but you get my point. We all have a sense of right and wrong. And while there are many theories for why, there is also the possibility we have a common creator that gives us innate knowledge of good and evil - that it is better to do things against your own self-interests for the better of others. That meeting the letter of the law is not excuse for violating the intent of the law. The God of Christianity fits with these observations. Not a proof, but evidence for Christianity.

So while belief in God is faith, it is not unreasonable or blind. One could even argue that besides the Bible and moral law, creation itself is evidence of God. Again, it's not a proof, but if God exists, then the apparent reliability of the laws of nature makes a sense. A perfect almighty being could create the world, give if form and substance. Give it rules, patterns, processes. Many of the things we observe are explainable by an eternal, immutable God.

And then for us to have any knowledge that is objectively true, what can we found it on? Is there any knowing if there is nothing but what we can physically sense? Can we really deduce anything useful from "I think therefore I am"? Is language just a product of evolution, and nothing can be known univocally and objectively, but only possibly and equivocally. God knows if knowledge is possible - but that presuppose God doesn't it - so I won't beg the question and just say that knowledge and language are evidence in favor of the self revelational God of the Bible.

Or just maybe it's all random matter in motion simply catching up with the odds. And maybe the skeptics are right, life has no certain meaning, knowledge is unknowable (maybe since skeptics refrain from making any universal true/false statements), and "what you see is what you get, as far as it matters or you can tell"... Hey! It's an option! I won't deny it's one you can take, but it sure bites.

So I prefer the Christian worldview over skepticism and randomness and uncertainty. At least with the Christian worldview, you have a rational explanation for meaning, morality, and order in the universe. I mean, what's not to like? Christianity meets all the desiderata of a coherent and comprehensive worldview.

You telling me that's unreasonable? Call me a fool cause I think it works. Do I know it's true? No. But I'm pretty certain. And the contrary seems pretty bleak.

Coletti
W.P. Extraordinaire

Please feel free to check out the thread. You will find my post here: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=39895&page=2

What suprised me was instead of being bashed, there were a few positive response. But I think because my apologetics acknowledges the epistemic limitation of man (that not matter what, we can be wrong), there was little objection to my post. And I was able to demonstrate how Christianity is not an irrational belief system, it is very much the opposite - and there is much to be said for it.

Now I won't convert anyone with my argument, but I think it was a good defense of the faith. It remove some objections that people give, of Christianity being irrational or incoherent. It's a good start. I'm also not saying the "proof is in the pudding". Just because I got postive feedback doesn't prove my apologetics are correct. But I think this is one of the few times my post's were not attact by anti-Chirstians. In fact, no1marauder who normall flames me responded with:

I hate to say it, but this is a pretty good post. It's about the best defense of a theist position that I've seen in this Forum. Of course, the Christian God isn't terribly rational or logical in the Old Testament so it's not a particularly strong defense of that belief system, but as far as some type of Creator God with SOME interest in humanity the post makes some interesting points that deserve an actual response and not merely scorn.

If you were familiar with my typical exchanges with no1, you wouldn't be suprised to to know my jaw dropped when I read that.

So there it is - applied apologetics.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Anthony,

In a former thread I had criticized Clarkian thought as being too dissonant with the way people talk about knowledge. My daughter was born and those threads grow so fast and with so much energy that I have not yet had time to catch up to the discussion.

As a brother in Christ, I would like to say that you respond to my challenges with Grace, acknowledging the problems that might arise from them. That I very much appreciate. It is not always easy to step back and be so gracious when somebody might be calling your apologetic baby "ugly".

As I've admitted repeatedly, I'm not in any type of studied position to offer any but a general "seems to me" critique. I appreciate you guys hashing out some of these issues because in some heated debates the assumptions "pop" out. I think I've learned more about this, based on the type of learner I am, from your interactions than I might right away reading more Clark or Van Til. As it is, my schedule is pretty busy and my reading won't take me in the apologetic direction for at least another couple of years.

Anyhow, thanks again for your work. Thank you for the grace you've shown me as I challenge some of the assumptions.

Also, with the above, I am happy any time a person takes up the cause of the Scriptures to pagans. Keep up the good work!

 

[mgeoffriau]

Question for you --

Do you then think that certainty in regards to our faith is only a private, subjective certainty, or do you think we can be certain in a public, objective sense?

I can rephrase if that isn't clear.

I ask because if I were to assume your qualifications about man's epistemic limitations, I would have a hard time arguing that we could be any more certain of the truth of our worldview than a Muslim is certain of his.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
Question for you --

Do you then think that certainty in regards to our faith is only a private, subjective certainty, or do you think we can be certain in a public, objective sense?

I can rephrase if that isn't clear.

I'm afraid I don't understand. I'm trying to figure out how certainty can be a adjective for public. And then there is "epistemic" and "psychological" certainty (if I'm using the correct terms). But both types seem to apply to individuals.

Originally posted by mgeoffriau

I ask because if I were to assume your qualifications about man's epistemic limitations, I would have a hard time arguing that we could be any more certain of the truth of our worldview than a Muslim is certain of his.

Hypothetically, that could be true. If the Koran allowed that the god of Islam was a god that was knowable. But I've heard (but have not verified this) that the god presented in the Koran is a god of mystery. He doesn't allow his followers to know his mind. This is very different than the God of the Bible, who is a God of knowledge and wisdom - and tells us we can know His thoughts through his revelation.

Now if there was some other theistic religion, which claimed that their god is knowable, and has given them truth in the form of a verbal and written revelation, and this revelation has survived for thousands of years, and had the *perspicuity of our Bible, then just maybe the adherents to that religion might be justified in having the same degree of certainty as Christians do. But that's quite a hypothetical. The closest bet would be Judaism.

* Isn't perspicuity a great word! But I've never heard it applied to anything but the Scriptures.

[Edited on 3-24-2006 by Civbert]

 

[mgeoffriau]

So if it's hypothetically possible for adherents of a false religion to be as certain as Christians are, then how is our religion not an epistemological leap of faith? Is this not in danger of sliding into fideism?

 

[mgeoffriau]

Sorry, just meant "public" in that the certainty was because of publicly available facts, not based on private feelings.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
So if it's hypothetically possible for adherents of a false religion to be as certain as Christians are, then how is our religion not an epistemological leap of faith? Is this not in danger of sliding into fideism?

Because fideism entails the disparagement of reason. Faith is consider a separate issue from reason, religion and logic are disconnect by a fideist epistemology. But my view is just the opposite, knowledge requires faith in the axiom to justify knowledge. All rational worldview, in effect, begin with faith in some initial axiom that is unprovable.

However, some have connected fideism with sola fide. But that's a view of soteriology, not epistemology. My epistemology would be sola scriptura, and soteriology would be sola fide.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
Sorry, just meant "public" in that the certainty was because of publicly available facts, not based on private feelings.

I guess that still depends on how you define "certainty". And I think no matter how it's done, certainty is still a characteristic of individuals - whether certainty is based on external facts, or internal examination. A Muslim may feel more certain than a Christian. Some Christians are so irrational in their thinking that they have no justification for certainty - but that doesn't make any Christianity worse.

If we consider certainty as our degree of faith, I think that's determined or measured through personal examination - are we doing good works, is there clear evidence in our lives. I think certainty is never a sure thing - or proportional to the "goodness" of our worldview. I think certainty and epistemology as only indirectly related.

Under regular discourse, we think of what we "know" as what we are "certain" about. But you can be perfectly certain of something, and be flat wrong - not matter how good you think your reasons are, you can still get it wrong. But when we speak of epistemology, the issue isn't so much the degree of certainty, but is your belief justified. If you have a justified true belief - you have epistemic knowledge.