The last few posts have been focused on atheism and and the naturalistic worldview from which atheism is derived. In the interest of fairness and epistemic humility I would like to "turn the tables" (so to speak) and focus on the worldview I function within: Christianity.
In the last post I stated that "the playing field has been leveled." No worldview is obviously "true." Why? Every worldview is based on primary assumptions that are not ultimately subject to evidence or reason. Why? Our primary assumptions are the "lens" or framework through which we reason and weigh evidence. The Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Narcissistic Hedonist, or what-have-you are all capable of reasoning and weighing evidence differently. It is not necessary that they do, but they may.
Imagine an Atheist, Christian, and Narcissistic Hedonist are given all of the relevant reasoning and evidence used to support the theory of evolution. After a thorough examination they come together to discuss their respective conclusions. The Atheist may assert, "The theory of evolution debunks the antiquated idea that God created the world we see today." The Christian might respond, "That is not so...the theory of evolution is simply an attempt by the scientific community to explain how God created the world we see today." Finally, the Narcissistic Hedonist might exclaim, "Who cares! Lets talk about me...and cut me another piece of that cheesecake...I love that stuff!"
What I have argued concerning our primary assumptions is especially relevant to Christians and how Christians relate to those who have worldviews other than their own. Since what I have to say pertains to Christians I will use the term "belief" in place of "primary assumption." Let me say that these terms are not identical. All primary assumptions are beliefs, but not all beliefs are primary assumptions. My belief that Billie Holiday is the best jazz singer of all time does not function as a primary assumption through which I see the world. However, my belief that God is reconciling the world to himself through Jesus Christ does. That being said, I want to address how we come to believe those "Great Truths" of the Christian worldview.
I want to ask a question of my Christian readers. Do you believe that at this very moment Jesus is dead? If you claim a Christian worldview and answered this question "Yes," then you may want to qualify the title of your worldview with some fitting adjective or adjectival phrase such as: "liberal," "nominal," or "not-really-a." If, on the other hand, you answered the question "No," then we are on the same page and can move forward.
If you believe that Jesus is alive (by this I mean actually alive right now, not "alive" in the hearts and minds of believers), then you and I probably have one primary assumption in common, i.e. Jesus died and was raised from the dead. This is one of the "Great Truths" or beliefs that inform the Christian worldview. Given this belief, I want to ask another question. Can you simply choose at this very moment to believe that Jesus is dead? In other words, if you believe in the resurrection, can you choose to believe that Jesus was not raised from the dead? I will venture a guess...no.
If I believe that Jesus is alive, then I cannot simply willy-nilly choose to believe that Jesus is dead. I think most Christians would agree with me at this point. In the same way, if I believe Jesus is dead, then I cannot simply willy-nilly believe that Jesus is alive. At this point, I think some Christians may not be so willing to agree. Why? There are some Christians who assert that one must make a choice to believe in Jesus Christ. As if I can simply believe whatever I want. However, belief does not always function in this way. This is especially the case with beliefs that form the basis for our respective worldviews.
Scripture seems to suggest that belief in the "Great Truths" of the gospel is not something we can simply pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and acquire (John 6:44; I Cor. 2:6-15; Mark 9:24). Furthermore, scripture seems to suggest that it is the function of the Holy Spirit to attest to the truth about Jesus Christ (I Cor. 2:6-15, 12:3; John 14:2-6, 15:26, 16:12-15; Acts 1-2; Eph. 1:17, 3:5-6; I John 2;20,27). So according to scripture, it is not the case that a person may simply choose willy-nilly to believe the "Great Truths" of the gospel. First, the individual must be "drawn by the Father" (John 6:44) and second, the Holy Spirit must testify to that individual concerning the truth about Jesus Christ. Of course, we have not even touched those passages which seem to assert that the minds of those who do not believe are "blinded" and "darkened" (II Cor. 4:4, Eph. 4:17). I mention scripture not to prove my point, but to show that scripture can be understood to support what I am about to argue.
First, I want to argue that certain evangelical approaches to...well evangelizing, are not only ineffective but inappropriate. One approach that both confuses and frustrates me is what I like to call the "evangelical brow-beat method" or EBB. EBB attempts to convince people of the truth of the gospel through either fear or rational argument. The fear approach is the most irritating and its lack of appeal is self-explanatory. The flaws of the rational argument approach may not be so easily seen, so I will focus our attention on this approach.
Are the "Great Truths" of the gospel rationally accessible? In other words, can a person use rational argument to show that the primary assumptions of the Christian worldview are true? My answer: No. Let's clarify some of the most important "Great Truths" of the gospel. In short: 1) Jesus was a human from a particular time and place in history who was (and is) the eternal Son of God sent to teach, die, and be raised again; 2) Jesus' death and resurrection are efficacious in terms of a) forgiving sins, and b) making it possible for humans to exist in the presence of God forever; and 3) belief/trust in the efficaciousness of Jesus' death and resurrection is the sole requirement for obtaining the benefits of (a) and (b). Clear enough? Let's proceed....
First, it is impossible that an individual could discover 1,2, and 3 simply by what is presented to us in our everyday experience. 1,2, and 3 are not facts of experience; on the contrary, we must be told about them (Rom. 10:14-17). Second, unlike the truths of math and logic; 1,2, and 3 are not obviously true when understood. If this were the case, then everyone who just read and understood 1,2, and 3 would automatically become a Christian. I am assuming that did not happen. Third, it is not the case that any type of logical entailment occurs with 1,2, and 3. It is not the case that once I hear that Jesus existed and was the Son of God, then I can see that he must have died and rose again. Nor is it the case that once I hear that Jesus died and rose again, then I can see that all I have to do is believe and trust that his death and resurrection are efficacious. Again, these are not truths I can simply use reason to discover. These are truths I must be told. And even if I am told these truths, it is not the case that I can simply use reason to discover whether or not they are true. I must come-to-believe that they are true.
On the other hand, I do believe the "Great Truths" of the Christian worldview are reasonable in the sense that (A) they are not logical contradictions and (B) they have an internal coherence. By (A) I mean that the claims of Christianity are not logical absurdities like a "square circle." By (B) I mean that although the primary assumptions of Christianity might not "make sense" in relation to the assumptions of other worldviews(e.g. Atheism), the primary assumptions of Christianity "make sense" in relation to one another. Even so, an individual may be able to see the internal coherence of Christianity without actually coming-to-believe that Christianity is true.
So what am I saying? I am not saying that Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves. I am not saying that Christians should not share their faith. I am saying that we need to embrace some epistemic humility (see last post on "epistemic humility") when it comes to sharing the "Great Truths" of the gospel. I do not think that those who embrace EBB are aware of how one comes-to-believe. It is as if those who embrace EBB assume that what they believe would be obvious to everyone if only it were explained in the right way.
As primary assumptions these "Great Truths" are not ultimately subject to evidence or reason. They must be said (for how could they be heard if not said?), but we must avoid the temptation to treat others with disdain if they do not come-to-believe. People are not being unreasonable by not believing what we do. These are not easy things to believe. And, if my understanding of the scriptures is correct (which it may not be), then one must receive illumination by the Holy Spirit and grace from God in order to even believe these "Great Truths." In other words, people cannot simply decide to believe. They must come-to-believe by grace.
If my faith is a gift of grace, then I have absolutely no basis to condemn, ostracize, or even frown at those who cannot come-to-believe. My job is to proclaim the good news to others, it is God's job to convince them that it is true.
All that has been said is arguable and I would welcome any agreement or dissent. For instance, although we may not be able to choose (willy-nilly) to believe the primary assumptions of the Christian worldview, it may be the case that we can put ourselves in an optimal position for coming-to-believe. Or, someone might point out that I seem to preach gentleness and humility when dealing with the beliefs of others except when it comes to those who fall into the category of a liberal/nominal/not-really-a Christian. Let me know what you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment