In this series, I will examine what beliefs we should have about the kind of being God is. In general, I can think of four sources of information used by Christians in determining their beliefs about God's nature. Not all Christians place the same value on each of the sources, though most Christians use all of the sources to some extent. The sources are:
Philosophy: There are philosophical ideas about what the nature of God must be, and some of these have been incorporated into some Christian views on God's being.
Tradition: There are views that have been supported by long acceptance by prominent Christians within the church or a segment of the church. Traditional beliefs often have their origin in one of the other sources (such as philosophy), but sometimes the importance of the origin fades compared to the importance of traditional acceptance.
Scripture: There are statements in Scripture that describe God, and various beliefs have as their basis some interpretation of these statements.
Creation: The characteristics of the created world, including characteristics of humans, are used to infer beliefs about what the Creator of such a world must be like.
In this series, I will examine some of the common beliefs about the nature of God, and try to identify the sources that can be used to support these beliefs. I believe identifying the source(s) is particularly important. Combined with an opinion on which sources are most reliable or essential, this should allow us to determine which beliefs should be held most firmly.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Biblical Age of the Universe, Part 1: Starting in the middle
The middle of our modern Old Testament, anyway:
Most people would begin this investigation with Genesis 1, probably for two reasons. First, it is the relevant passage that appears first in modern Bibles, and second it is the most famous and heavily-analyzed passage concerning the creation. I'll get to Genesis 1, but I'm going to start instead with Job, the authorship of which may predate Genesis, in hopes that by starting in a different place, I may travel less-worn paths. The Bible itself identifies no exclusively authoritative text that is to be used for understanding creation and origins, so all seemingly relevant texts are fair game.
Now, before I dive in, I'd like to make a comment about the literary style of Job. Job is poetry. For some (even some self-identified literalists and inerrantists by their manner of argument) this is sufficient to allow it to be ignored, because it is assumed that you can derive whatever interpretation you want from poetry. This is not good scholarship. It's not enough to dismiss any argument using text from Job with "well, Job is poetry". While it is true that applying a literal reading to a poetic passage will yield silliness, it is also true that the passage will make some kind of sense, and some conclusions may be drawn about the author's beliefs.
There are, to my knowledge, two passages in Job that may reference the creation. Job 26:7 may reference the creation of the earth ("he suspends the earth over nothing"), or it may refer to the ongoing suspension of the earth over nothing. Job 38, however, seems pretty clearly to discuss the creation of the earth:
ESV:
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8"Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
9when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
11and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?
NIV 4-11:
4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt'?
Verses 4-7 clearly seem to go together, since the pronoun "it", which appears in each sentence, can only refer back to the earth or its foundation, mentioned in verse 4. Verses 8-11 may fit into the same time frame, or may not (later verses in the passage clearly fit into later time frames).
From verses 4-7, I believe we can gather just a couple of pieces of information about the creation of the earth. First, as we can tell from verses 1-3, "I" refers to "the Lord". The phrases "laid the foundation of the earth", "determined its measurements", "stretched the line upon it", and "laid its cornerstone" all create a picture of a builder. In this case, the builder is "the Lord" and the thing being built is either the earth, its foundations, or both. Presumably the earth itself cannot exist in its present form without the foundations first being laid, so these verses would appear to refer either to the time the earth was created, or a time before that. So the book of Job makes the following claim:
God laid the foundations of the earth.
However, verse 4 is also there. Verse 4 says that the foundation-laying and building happening in verses 1-3 happened "when the morning stars sang together and all the [angels/sons of God] shouted for joy" (emphasis mine). Presumably the stars did not actually sing--this is poetry, so the singing may refer to the shining of the stars or something similar. We also don't know if the shouting done by the angels was something like human shouting--this just tells us they were excited. At any rate, we now have an additional claim that the book of Job makes about the creation:
The stars and angels/sons of God were present for the laying of the foundation of the earth.
Now a few considerations:
1) The "foundation of the earth" could refer to the creation of a) the entire earth, b) some part of the earth, or even c) some part of the universe considered "foundational" to the earth, though this interpretation seems unlikely.
2) The stars could refer to angels. Stars are used metaphorically in other places in Scripture. However, a translation from the Septuagint renders the verse: "When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice." This lends support to the correct translation being "stars", though it weakens the case for the stars necessarily existing simultaneously with the laying of the earth's foundations.
However, in the same translation from the Septuagint, it appears that verses 8-11 continue the thought from 4-7 (verse 8 begins with "and"), and so should be considered within a similar time frame, mostly likely following the events in 4-7. Here we find the sea bursting forth, God creating a "garment" of dark clouds for it, and setting limits for the sea. If we take it that the events described here follow those in 4-7, we have the following claims:
Probably after God laid foundation of the earth and after He made the stars (in some order),
The sea (water) burst forth from somewhere ("the womb"),
The sea (and perhaps the whole earth) were covered in dark clouds,
God limited the extent of the sea (it may or may not have been covering the earth before this, though if it wasn't, it must be that it would have been able to cover more apart from God's action, or the limits would already exist)
So, out of Job, we have:
- a few creation acts that are clearly attributed to God
- a possible partial ordering of events
- no time information.
I would note that the primary purpose of this passage appears to be the attribution of actions to God, rather than the order of those actions, so it seems likely that the order needs confirmation from another source or sources. However, the remainder of the chapter refers to ongoing processes on the earth, rather than creation activities, so inferring a rough forward chronology seems in line with the rest of the passage.
Most people would begin this investigation with Genesis 1, probably for two reasons. First, it is the relevant passage that appears first in modern Bibles, and second it is the most famous and heavily-analyzed passage concerning the creation. I'll get to Genesis 1, but I'm going to start instead with Job, the authorship of which may predate Genesis, in hopes that by starting in a different place, I may travel less-worn paths. The Bible itself identifies no exclusively authoritative text that is to be used for understanding creation and origins, so all seemingly relevant texts are fair game.
Now, before I dive in, I'd like to make a comment about the literary style of Job. Job is poetry. For some (even some self-identified literalists and inerrantists by their manner of argument) this is sufficient to allow it to be ignored, because it is assumed that you can derive whatever interpretation you want from poetry. This is not good scholarship. It's not enough to dismiss any argument using text from Job with "well, Job is poetry". While it is true that applying a literal reading to a poetic passage will yield silliness, it is also true that the passage will make some kind of sense, and some conclusions may be drawn about the author's beliefs.
There are, to my knowledge, two passages in Job that may reference the creation. Job 26:7 may reference the creation of the earth ("he suspends the earth over nothing"), or it may refer to the ongoing suspension of the earth over nothing. Job 38, however, seems pretty clearly to discuss the creation of the earth:
ESV:
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8"Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
9when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
11and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?
NIV 4-11:
4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt'?
Verses 4-7 clearly seem to go together, since the pronoun "it", which appears in each sentence, can only refer back to the earth or its foundation, mentioned in verse 4. Verses 8-11 may fit into the same time frame, or may not (later verses in the passage clearly fit into later time frames).
From verses 4-7, I believe we can gather just a couple of pieces of information about the creation of the earth. First, as we can tell from verses 1-3, "I" refers to "the Lord". The phrases "laid the foundation of the earth", "determined its measurements", "stretched the line upon it", and "laid its cornerstone" all create a picture of a builder. In this case, the builder is "the Lord" and the thing being built is either the earth, its foundations, or both. Presumably the earth itself cannot exist in its present form without the foundations first being laid, so these verses would appear to refer either to the time the earth was created, or a time before that. So the book of Job makes the following claim:
God laid the foundations of the earth.
However, verse 4 is also there. Verse 4 says that the foundation-laying and building happening in verses 1-3 happened "when the morning stars sang together and all the [angels/sons of God] shouted for joy" (emphasis mine). Presumably the stars did not actually sing--this is poetry, so the singing may refer to the shining of the stars or something similar. We also don't know if the shouting done by the angels was something like human shouting--this just tells us they were excited. At any rate, we now have an additional claim that the book of Job makes about the creation:
The stars and angels/sons of God were present for the laying of the foundation of the earth.
Now a few considerations:
1) The "foundation of the earth" could refer to the creation of a) the entire earth, b) some part of the earth, or even c) some part of the universe considered "foundational" to the earth, though this interpretation seems unlikely.
2) The stars could refer to angels. Stars are used metaphorically in other places in Scripture. However, a translation from the Septuagint renders the verse: "When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice." This lends support to the correct translation being "stars", though it weakens the case for the stars necessarily existing simultaneously with the laying of the earth's foundations.
However, in the same translation from the Septuagint, it appears that verses 8-11 continue the thought from 4-7 (verse 8 begins with "and"), and so should be considered within a similar time frame, mostly likely following the events in 4-7. Here we find the sea bursting forth, God creating a "garment" of dark clouds for it, and setting limits for the sea. If we take it that the events described here follow those in 4-7, we have the following claims:
Probably after God laid foundation of the earth and after He made the stars (in some order),
The sea (water) burst forth from somewhere ("the womb"),
The sea (and perhaps the whole earth) were covered in dark clouds,
God limited the extent of the sea (it may or may not have been covering the earth before this, though if it wasn't, it must be that it would have been able to cover more apart from God's action, or the limits would already exist)
So, out of Job, we have:
- a few creation acts that are clearly attributed to God
- a possible partial ordering of events
- no time information.
I would note that the primary purpose of this passage appears to be the attribution of actions to God, rather than the order of those actions, so it seems likely that the order needs confirmation from another source or sources. However, the remainder of the chapter refers to ongoing processes on the earth, rather than creation activities, so inferring a rough forward chronology seems in line with the rest of the passage.
Biblical Age of the Universe, Part 0: Introduction
The age and origin of the universe is a topic that is relevant to Christian apologetics. In fact, many "apologetics" classes at Christian schools focus almost entirely on some form of Creationism (usually young-earth in my experience).
The age of the universe comes up primarily in this way: If the universe is quite young, then there is not time for many things that exist (such as solar systems or complex living organisms) to have come about via purely naturalistic means. The conclusion, then, is that supernatural action of some sort is required. Contrarily, if the universe is old, there may have been sufficient time for many things that exist to have come about via purely naturalistic means, though oldness does not prove that any or all did arise so. The result is that solid evidence for a young universe seems like it would produce a very strong case against naturalism, which might be good for theistic creationism and theism, provided there are not a large number of other, reasonable-sounding non-naturalistic theories. On the other hand, old age does not hurt theistic creationism apart from possibly making naturalism more plausible. Heads we win, tails, we play a different game.
Unlike the age issue, where either side is compatible with theistic creation, the origins issue matters. Nicene Christians believe that God is the "maker of heaven and earth". Any theory of origins that is incompatible with that statement is incompatible with the theistic creationism of Nicene Christianity. This series will focus mainly on age issues, but may touch on origins apart from age as well.
It seems to me that the scientfic arguments concerning the age of the universe are overwhelmingly in favor of an age measured in billions, not thousands of years. For me, the most convincing pieces of evidence are those concerned with starlight, but many other evidences exist. That, however, is a topic for another post, maybe even by another person on another blog. We'll see.
My interest in this series is to examine the issue from a purely biblical perspective to the greatest extent possible. That is, I want to examine the issue exclusively in the light of what the Bible says, or doesn't say, about the age of the universe. Now, it should be clear that at this point, I already have a bias based on the scientific evidence, and I will most likely fail in ignoring that bias. I'll try my best anyway. One comfort I have is that the old-universe perspective is by no means new within the Church, or the history of Biblical interpretation. Many early Church fathers and Judaic scholars took an old or unspecified age perspective, and it cannot be said that they were much influenced by modern scientific evidence, so it is possible to come to those interpretations without the bias of modern evidence.
For purposes of this discussion, I will assume that Biblical inerrancy is to be preserved. I know not all Christians accept total Biblical inerrancy, or even exactly the same Bible, but I don't believe there is widespread agreement on what passages may contain errors, especially considering the inerrancy folks, who won't agree on any of them, so I can't just throw out difficult or inconvenient passages. I'll try to produce the most consistent account I can. Furthermore, I'll at least try to start with a "plain" reading, with the understanding that the text of the Bible contains cultural and linguistic peculiarities and makes use of literary devices. I'll do my best to explain the reasons for my reading. Also for purposes of this discussion, I will not be actively considering the books considered apocryphal by Protestants. This is a somewhat unfortunate result of my own unfamiliarity with these books, and I welcome any input about anything these books mention about creation or any age issues.
The age of the universe comes up primarily in this way: If the universe is quite young, then there is not time for many things that exist (such as solar systems or complex living organisms) to have come about via purely naturalistic means. The conclusion, then, is that supernatural action of some sort is required. Contrarily, if the universe is old, there may have been sufficient time for many things that exist to have come about via purely naturalistic means, though oldness does not prove that any or all did arise so. The result is that solid evidence for a young universe seems like it would produce a very strong case against naturalism, which might be good for theistic creationism and theism, provided there are not a large number of other, reasonable-sounding non-naturalistic theories. On the other hand, old age does not hurt theistic creationism apart from possibly making naturalism more plausible. Heads we win, tails, we play a different game.
Unlike the age issue, where either side is compatible with theistic creation, the origins issue matters. Nicene Christians believe that God is the "maker of heaven and earth". Any theory of origins that is incompatible with that statement is incompatible with the theistic creationism of Nicene Christianity. This series will focus mainly on age issues, but may touch on origins apart from age as well.
It seems to me that the scientfic arguments concerning the age of the universe are overwhelmingly in favor of an age measured in billions, not thousands of years. For me, the most convincing pieces of evidence are those concerned with starlight, but many other evidences exist. That, however, is a topic for another post, maybe even by another person on another blog. We'll see.
My interest in this series is to examine the issue from a purely biblical perspective to the greatest extent possible. That is, I want to examine the issue exclusively in the light of what the Bible says, or doesn't say, about the age of the universe. Now, it should be clear that at this point, I already have a bias based on the scientific evidence, and I will most likely fail in ignoring that bias. I'll try my best anyway. One comfort I have is that the old-universe perspective is by no means new within the Church, or the history of Biblical interpretation. Many early Church fathers and Judaic scholars took an old or unspecified age perspective, and it cannot be said that they were much influenced by modern scientific evidence, so it is possible to come to those interpretations without the bias of modern evidence.
For purposes of this discussion, I will assume that Biblical inerrancy is to be preserved. I know not all Christians accept total Biblical inerrancy, or even exactly the same Bible, but I don't believe there is widespread agreement on what passages may contain errors, especially considering the inerrancy folks, who won't agree on any of them, so I can't just throw out difficult or inconvenient passages. I'll try to produce the most consistent account I can. Furthermore, I'll at least try to start with a "plain" reading, with the understanding that the text of the Bible contains cultural and linguistic peculiarities and makes use of literary devices. I'll do my best to explain the reasons for my reading. Also for purposes of this discussion, I will not be actively considering the books considered apocryphal by Protestants. This is a somewhat unfortunate result of my own unfamiliarity with these books, and I welcome any input about anything these books mention about creation or any age issues.
Monday, August 10, 2009
What I mean by "Christian"
A commenter on my blog suggested that, in the interest of honesty (which I'm all for), I should not use the word "Christian" or "Christianity" as I have thus far, since, in his opinion, too many different philosophies with almost no common ground all bear the label "Christian".
I am sensitive to this problem. On the other hand, the suggestion that I should say that this blog is about my personal beliefs and philosophy is overly narrow. Obviously, since I'm the author, my beliefs will come through, but I hope to fairly represent alternative points of view, including several on which I have no solid opinion. So the topic is in one sense broader than my personal beliefs. In another sense, it's narrower, since I won't be talking (on this blog) about my views on programming practices. The topic of this blog really is Christian apologetics, but then, once again, there's the problem of how the word is used.
Well, at the end of the day, I don't feel too bad using the term in the way I do, since several encyclopedias define Christian beliefs in a way that is compatible with my usage. Nevertheless, I can do better. In this post, I will try to shed a little more light on how I am likely to be using this word. There will still be unfortunate vagueness and ambiguity, but I will try to minimize it going forward. Questions about what I mean in a particular case are always welcome. This post is not the final say on the subject, just the first step in clarifying myself.
One sense in which I use the word "Christian" is to refer to all those who have saving faith in Jesus Christ (whether they know Him by that name or not--who fits this description is not for me to decide, but God, I simply affirm that the description is valid for some set of people). Whether or not you believe in salvation doesn't matter, I do, and this may sometimes be how I use the word. In one way, this use is very unfortunate, since it is somewhat odd to speak of people in the Old Testament who possessed saving faith as "Christians". Of course, a pretty widely held Christian doctrine is that these people had faith that looked forward to Christ, the messiah, and that was the faith that saved them. This weirdness is somewhat mitigated by the fact that none of these people are alive on earth today, so I won't be referring to them when I'm talking about people living in the world today. Anyway, for a variety of reasons, this usage is problematic. I can and will also use the term "believer" similarly at times. I don't know that that's much better. If anyone can suggest a better, succinct term, I'm open. Otherwise, I'll just try to be clear when I'm using the word in this sense. Fortunately, for purposes of this blog, I don't think this use will come up as much as the next.
A more important sense of the word "Christian", for purposes of this blog, will refer to Christian beliefs. In general, when I say "Christian beliefs" I'll usually mean "orthodox Christian beliefs" (little "o"). By "orthodox Christian beliefs", I mean at least the beliefs expressed by the Nicene Creed. Most other major creeds are similar--I choose the Nicene Creed because of it's official acceptance by nearly all Protestant denominations, the Catholic church, the Anglican church, nearly all (if not all) variants of the Orthodox church, and so on. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that, for example, the Apostle's Creed is as widely acceptable, but the Orthodox church does not officially recognize it, so I'll stick with the Nicene Creed. If I find a need to expand my definition, I'll make sure to do so loudly.
I will also tend to assume that most of these Nicene Christians believe the teachings of Jesus to be true and right (I don't know how they could affirm the Nicene Creed without believing that), and accept a largely overlapping Scriptural canon. I understand that, despite this, there are a wide range of interpretations even of the common parts of the canon, and, insomuch as these interpretations are in line with the Nicene Creed, I will consider the differences to be under the wide umbrella of Christianity.
I understand this little post does not resolve all potential vagueness about the word Christian. That would be hard to do in a single post. This is just the first step in what will be a continuing battle for clarity with sufficient expressiveness. Going forward, please continue to let me know if I am being overly vague. I promise it is not intentional, and I will correct it when I possible.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The cardinal sin of philosophy
The cardinal sin of philosophy is dishonesty. The severity of the transgression is proportional to the degree to which one is conscious of dishonesty.
At present, I still feel like I'm forming the general tone and conventions of this blog. Today, I'm establishing the central ethic of this blog. Dishonesty will not be tolerated. I will seek out dishonesty related to the issues covered by this blog wherever I can find it, and call those responsible to account. I invite readers of this blog to hold me to the same standard. The only appropriate response to public dishonesty is public repentance, and that is what will be expected.
I believe dishonesty accounts for most of the distrust and misinformation related to the issues I plan to cover in this blog. I have seen dishonest statements made by atheists, christians, and everything in-between and to either side. Dishonesty comes in several forms. Some of the most common are:
- Quotes taken out of context.
- Outdated quotes, where new discoveries may be relevant.
- Intentionally leaving out known information that hurts your argument or claim.
- Using information once commonly believed, but now known to be false (assuming you know of and agree with the current consensus).
- Pretending to be an expert on things you are not.
- Ascribing beliefs or motives to people that you either know they don't have or don't know that they do have. In the second case, it might be OK to say "I think A believes P".
I believe that, whatever your goal, dishonesty is a foul means. Over time, I believe dishonesty has created far more animosity and closed more doors than it has made converts. I also believe that it makes the most hardened anti-converts, who, having been lied to, will no longer entertain anything that sounds like what came out of the liars' mouths. Dishonesty turns the fertile landscape of rational discussion into a choked, twisted wasteland.
At present, I still feel like I'm forming the general tone and conventions of this blog. Today, I'm establishing the central ethic of this blog. Dishonesty will not be tolerated. I will seek out dishonesty related to the issues covered by this blog wherever I can find it, and call those responsible to account. I invite readers of this blog to hold me to the same standard. The only appropriate response to public dishonesty is public repentance, and that is what will be expected.
I believe dishonesty accounts for most of the distrust and misinformation related to the issues I plan to cover in this blog. I have seen dishonest statements made by atheists, christians, and everything in-between and to either side. Dishonesty comes in several forms. Some of the most common are:
- Quotes taken out of context.
- Outdated quotes, where new discoveries may be relevant.
- Intentionally leaving out known information that hurts your argument or claim.
- Using information once commonly believed, but now known to be false (assuming you know of and agree with the current consensus).
- Pretending to be an expert on things you are not.
- Ascribing beliefs or motives to people that you either know they don't have or don't know that they do have. In the second case, it might be OK to say "I think A believes P".
I believe that, whatever your goal, dishonesty is a foul means. Over time, I believe dishonesty has created far more animosity and closed more doors than it has made converts. I also believe that it makes the most hardened anti-converts, who, having been lied to, will no longer entertain anything that sounds like what came out of the liars' mouths. Dishonesty turns the fertile landscape of rational discussion into a choked, twisted wasteland.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
An apologist's creed
I believe that:
- I know very little,
- I am wrong about many of the things I believe,
- God is not harmed by my being wrong,
- I do not have an answer for every question about my beliefs,
- I do not need to have an answer for every question to be justified in holding my beliefs,
- Some of those who disagree with me are smarter than I am,
- Some of those who disagree with me are more intellectually honest than I am,
- It is inappropriate to use a person's alleged motives to attack his argument,
- Winning arguments is fruitless, winning people is supreme,
- I must treat those who disagree with me the way I wish for them to treat me,
- In order to win anyone, I must demonstrate my respect by taking time to understand them and why they believe what they do,
- If my respect is absent or feigned, it will show, and it is because of my arrogance, and it is my problem,
- It is more important that people be impressed by my humility and honesty than by my intelligence or the force of my arguments.
- I know very little,
- I am wrong about many of the things I believe,
- God is not harmed by my being wrong,
- I do not have an answer for every question about my beliefs,
- I do not need to have an answer for every question to be justified in holding my beliefs,
- Some of those who disagree with me are smarter than I am,
- Some of those who disagree with me are more intellectually honest than I am,
- It is inappropriate to use a person's alleged motives to attack his argument,
- Winning arguments is fruitless, winning people is supreme,
- I must treat those who disagree with me the way I wish for them to treat me,
- In order to win anyone, I must demonstrate my respect by taking time to understand them and why they believe what they do,
- If my respect is absent or feigned, it will show, and it is because of my arrogance, and it is my problem,
- It is more important that people be impressed by my humility and honesty than by my intelligence or the force of my arguments.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The purpose of apologetics
Apologetics is the act of presenting the rational defense or basis of the Christian faith (or sometimes, some specific version of the Christian faith). That's what it is. However, why we should bother with it is another question. To answer that question, it is necessary to look at the things we value.
As Christians, we believe:
1. that in every person is an eternal soul. We believe that the soul persists after the death of the body, and, at some point, enters some kind of afterlife (Christians differ on the exact chronology and available states) based on the person's relationship with God.
2. in doing good to and seeking good for those we love, our neighbors, and our enemies.
3. that God loves truth and so should we.
I feel pretty good that the first two points are very near the center among Christian beliefs, since they relate to the two greatest commandments, love God and love your neighbor. The third is certainly important. I don't know that it ranks third in overall importance, but it is of particular relevance to Christian apologetics. Given the very high importance of these beliefs, it seems clear to me that the primary purpose of apologetics, then, should be evangelistic. Related to the items above, I believe the aims of apologetics should be the following, in order of importance:
1. To bring people into a right relationship with God
2. To love people, and do good for people
3. To discover truth, and convince people of the truth
Each, I think, is important by itself. I think it is better for a person to believe more truth rather than less whether or not they come into a right relationship with God. However, given a choice, I would rather work to bring them into a right relationship with God than convince them of some truth (of course, to a degree, they are interconnected). Similarly, in our own lives, we should be more concerned about things that could damage our relationship with God than about whether everything we believe is true.
Now, all this is a bit circular of course. Arguably I have ordered my purposes in a manner prescribed by Christianity before I have established any arguments that Christianity is true. And if I haven't established that Christianity is at least probably true, one might argue that my highest priority should be to prove or falsify this claim.
However, the idea that we should base our actions or priorities on true beliefs is, itself, a value that must be, at the beginning, assumed without evidence, and will be just as circular. Fortunately, I believe that neither is visciously circular. We are, after all, talking about priorities, not reasons for belief, so to assume a working set of priorities does not create a cycle of reasons. To defend my adoption of these priorities, I appeal to existentialism: I find myself already a Christian with certain beliefs, and no reason not to act on them. Without further examination, it is no more rational to not act on my beliefs than to act on them. In fact, it is arguable that it is worse to not act since, assuming I am a rational person, my beliefs should have a better probability of being true than random chance, and, assuming I am not a rational person, the entire enterprise is doomed to failure no matter what, in which case it doesn't matter what priorities I choose. See also Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, chapter 4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)