I am afraid to say that I have become a more regular listener to a podcast from an atheist blog than I am a poster here at Evangel. Luke Muehlhauser’s Conversations From the Pale Blue Dot is one of the better podcasts out there that takes time to examine both sides of important issues in philosophy of religion. His interviews never fail to be charitable and informative even if one does not ultimately agree (see for example, the interview with Steven Porter on penal subsitutionary atonement–for the record I agree with Porter).
Recently, I was listening to the interview of David Basinger on the subject of Open Theism. Muehlhauser points out that Open Theism is no stranger to controversy and explores the divide that has emerged within Christian theology over its controversial premise of presentism. When asked about this divide, Basinger responds with an interesting epistemological explanation that could apply to many of our disagreements and sheds some light on the differences people have when approaching ecumenical questions (starting at minute 12:37).
Basinger begins by stating we approach our claims in two different ways. The first approach says, “I affirm this belief and only my perspective is justifiable, therefore the implication is that others who have other beliefs aren’t knowledgeable or aren’t sincere.” The second says, “I affirm this belief strongly, I feel justified in holding it, but other people who hold different beliefs are equally knowledgeable and sincere and therefore are equally justified.” Basinger says he falls into the second camp, and explains his approach by arguing that so long as one’s perspective is self-consistent and sufficiently comprehensive one is justified in holding to one’s perspective. Our choice of perspective has to do with what satisfies our own presuppositions, however they might be formed, and that reason does not have the power to resolve deep metaphysical disputes.
I will not comment on which approach is right or wrong, but I do think this rubric goes a long way in explaining why ecumenism is so controversial in itself. Mark Olson’s recent post is a paradigm example in how the two approaches conflict. Those that seek to participate in broad ecumenical discussions think that one can be justified in holding to perspectives that conflict with one’s own. The dialogue that follows is one that cherishes tolerance for others out of a sense of charity that affirms that all parties have been intellectually virtuous in seeking justification for their beliefs. This view holds that all parties have labored to be self-consistent and comprehensive in their affirmations. By contrast, those who are suspicious of ecumenical discussions do not see merit in dialoguing with others, because the polemical debates have not been satisfied. Others who hold divergent views are not justified in affirming them, because they either are not properly knowledgeable in what is in fact true, or are dishonest in their denial of what is true.
How we conceive the value of charity and the nature of truth bears upon how we will approach others in disagreement. The first approach rightly fears relativism and a tepid view of tolerance that opens the doors to error, and puts confidence in the reason to resolve disputes. The second rightly gives respect to the intellectual honesty to those who have worked through the relevant issues, but does not fully trust reason to deliver a reliable way to resolving disputes.
It seems to me that these approaches can reside in the same person at the same time, but on different issues. I increasingly see myself falling into the second camp (since I like Conversations From the Pale Blue Dot so much), but there are many issues where I still reside in the first (for example, on abortion). Much of it comes down to how much belief I have in reason to resolve disputes.
Where do you think you fall?
July 10th, 2010 | 1:56 pm | #1
This is great stuff Adam. This is the sort of distinction I’m looking to explore in the question of whether or not one must (or even should) insist that one knows that [here fill any any tenet of one's religious faith]. It seems that maybe we all might be more often content with makings the more modest claim that we merely believe, or have faith, that such things are true.
Since the belief claim is in some ways more provisional than the knowledge claim, it often allows the person who makes it to be more reasonable, especially in the face of contrary evidence or other points of view. (I can say, “I believe that P, but I might be wrong,” but it’s odd to say “I know that P, but I might be wrong.”) Since I know that 2+2=4, I can use this piece of knowledge to dismiss any argument that concludes otherwise (I can use my knowledge that 2+2=4 to automatically infer that such an argument is flawed). And this, it seems, is precisely the way that unreasonable religious people behave towards arguments that draw a conclusion that conflicts with some tenet of their own faith. My thought is that they do this, in part, because they insist upon knowledge, rather than belief or faith. But I find it hard to believe that (well at least typically) religious people must really insist that they know such things. Even from the point of view of their own faith, their mere belief/faith in such things would probably suffice.
July 10th, 2010 | 3:36 pm | #2
It’s interesting to think of what the scriptures have to say about knowledge versus charity. There are a few things the Bible says we “know”. For example, we KNOW that all things work together for good to them that love the Lord…but we only know in part. Anyone who claims to have the “whole truth” is claiming to have no error – to be sinless – and therefore we can be sure that he is deceiving himself and God’s truth is not in him.
July 11th, 2010 | 6:46 pm | #3
You only have to see Adam Omelianchuk’s treatment of gov’t officials who labor to defend us from terrorists to discover which camp he falls in.
July 11th, 2010 | 7:06 pm | #4
“You only have to see Adam Omelianchuk’s treatment of gov’t officials who labor to defend us from terrorists to discover which camp he falls in.”
Is there a link or links that you can provide so that we can see how he treats government officials who defend us from terrorists?
July 11th, 2010 | 11:12 pm | #5
steve hays,
What are you talking about? Does it have anything to do with the above post?
In any case, I suspect that you are in favor of torture techniques in the “right” situation and that Mr. Omelianchuk has opposed such barbarism in the past. Is that suspicion correct?
July 12th, 2010 | 7:51 am | #6
Steve W
“What are you talking about?”
Adam knows what I’m talking about. It took place on this very blog. John Mark Reynolds weighed in. So did Jeremy Pierce.
“Does it have anything to do with the above post?”
“In any case, I suspect that you are in favor of torture techniques in the ‘right’ situation and that Mr. Omelianchuk has opposed such barbarism in the past. Is that suspicion correct?”
That’s irrelevant. The question at issue is not *what* positions we take on this or that controversy, but *how* we take them.
Try to pay more attention to the way in which Adam actually framed the question in this very post.
Of course it does. It goes to the two different approaches to stating our claims.
July 12th, 2010 | 9:39 am | #7
It’s hard for me to take anything from Luke Muehlhauser all that seriously. A while back he agreed to an internet debate with Tom Gilson who blogs here at Evangel.
Before any serious debate began Luke made the statement that “Christianity is the belief in an “invisible magical friend who grants wishes.” It was a clear attempt to derail the debate before it got started. It was successful in doing just that. Luke Muehlhauser is someone who lacks the intellectual courage and integrity to follow through on his promises. His other efforts should be viewed with some trepidation.
July 12th, 2010 | 10:03 am | #8
steve hays,
If you don’t go beyond “Adam knows,” I’m going to assume that you have no argument and, as a result of personal animus, are resorting to vague ad hominem attacks as part of some immature grudge that you have against him. Or you could actually let us know what on earth you’re talking about (even though I’m already inclined to think that you’re just blowing hot air and have no point whatsoever, based on the lack of specificity thus far in your personal attack on Adam).
July 12th, 2010 | 10:44 am | #9
Option 1: I affirm this belief and only my perspective is justifiable, therefore the implication is that others who have other beliefs aren’t knowledgeable or aren’t sincere.
Option 2: I affirm this belief strongly, I feel justified in holding it, but other people who hold different beliefs are equally knowledgeable and sincere and therefore are equally justified.
There seems to be a strange concern with the motives, intentions, feelings and justifications of my and others’ views. I would posit that all of those things are inconsequential, or at least nearly so.
Merold Westphal wrote a book called “Overcoming Onto-Theology” wherein he argues that the bible doesn’t contain (T)ruth, but merely (t)ruth. He likens the veracity of Scripture to be on par with a parent telling a child to not eat food off the floor because it has “bugs on it that will make you sick.” In all reality, there are no “bugs” but rather a potential virus, bacterium, or fungus that may cause the youth to become ill. There would be no explaining the complexities of biology to the child so the parent simplifies the statement to “bugs.”
Therefore, Westphal argues, the statement is not (T)rue, rather it is (t)ruthful. It promotes a truthful response.
It is in this way that Westphal twists the doctrine of revelation. God surely uses a lisp when speaking to us. He uses finite language in the self-description of an infinite God. But here is the catch: God can (T)ruely reveal himself in part through the finite languages he has created. All of creation was brought into effect through a Word.
So back to intentions and justification for your views… These are important if my only intent or aim is to act (t)ruely in response to a (t)rue statement about God. Then yes, when I am seeking to interact with others, both of us believing that God is talking to us in language that is not absolutely (T)rue, but rather (t)ruthful, then the motives and intellectual rigor espoused by the other person may be an element to consider.
But if I believe the bible is (T)rue, as in the incomplete but totally sufficient revelation of a true God about himself, then I could care less about your motives (Phil 1:15-18). The only thing that should concern me is do your words refer correctly to the referent?
Charity on the other hand is… well… on the other hand. Charity is born not out of my belief that you thought “really long and hard” about what you believe, but rather, if you are saved, that we share the very same Holy Spirit. The power that raised Christ from the dead is living and sanctifying us both. When that is in perspective, anything that divides us is little stuff.
July 12th, 2010 | 11:39 am | #10
Steve W
“If you don’t go beyond ‘Adam knows,’ I’m going to assume that you have no argument and, as a result of personal animus, are resorting to vague ad hominem attacks as part of some immature grudge that you have against him. Or you could actually let us know what on earth you’re talking about (even though I’m already inclined to think that you’re just blowing hot air and have no point whatsoever, based on the lack of specificity thus far in your personal attack on Adam).”
For someone who’s opposed to ad hominem attacks, you do a wonderful impersonation of someone who’s addicted to ad hominem attacks. Your comment is laden with the very invective you profess to oppose.
Perhaps you should put your own house in order before you lash out at others.
July 12th, 2010 | 11:58 am | #11
steve hays,
I’m only addressing your comments in this thread. You’ve attacked Adam, who posted here, with regard to his style of argumentation without giving much of a hint as to why. I was a bit curious as to what you were getting at, but it seems that your “argument” is all smoke and no fire. I’m really just confused as to why you’re holding back whatever information that you claim that both you and Adam have as to previous statements of his and how they relates to the ones here; consequently, I can only assume that you have no intelligible basis for dismissing his remarks above.
July 12th, 2010 | 12:12 pm | #12
Adam asked readers how they’d classify themselves according to Basinger’s twofold approach. I simply applied his classification scheme to himself. That’s not an ad hominem attack. Rather, that’s responding to him on his own terms. Learn the difference. It isn’t hard.
Back in January, Adam compared gov’t interrogators to men who “carve lines into a detainee’s skin for sadistic interrogation purposes.”
Which of Basinger’s two approaches would you say that characterization represents?
July 12th, 2010 | 12:25 pm | #13
Steve hays,
I suppose you think there’s some value in pegging Adam’s position on the question he raised, but really, just how much does this reference to a 6-month-old political issue contribute to a current question of epistemology?
July 12th, 2010 | 12:28 pm | #14
steve hays,
Thank you for finally offering an argument (of sorts). But, given how irrelevant it is to the post above, I don’t see how it isn’t ad hominem. You are clearly using Adam’s words to attack him as a person (more or less saying that he is closed-minded), which has almost no relevance here. It’s like pointing out to someone who preaches against lust that they have committed that sin at some point. Sure that may be so, but who cares? It isn’t relevant to what they themselves are arguing.
Here’s a simple question: Relative to the post here, what do hope to accomplish by bringing up some past discussion (i.e., in what way are you actually clarifying for us the contents of the words posted above?)?
July 12th, 2010 | 12:32 pm | #15
Steve Hays: “Back in January, Adam compared gov’t interrogators to men who “carve lines into a detainee’s skin for sadistic interrogation purposes.”
Which of Basinger’s two approaches would you say that characterization represents?”
IMO, I would venture to say that based on Adam’s harsh characterization of government interrogators he represents Basinger’s first approach which Basinger describes as:
“I affirm this belief and only my perspective is justifiable, therefore the implication is that others who have other beliefs aren’t knowledgeable or aren’t sincere.”
And so by extension, if you, Steve Hays, disagree with Adam’s characterization of government interrogators, then the apparent implication is that you aren’t knowledgeable or aren’t sincere about this issue, at least not to the degree that Adam is.
July 12th, 2010 | 12:35 pm | #16
I see we’re tracking together on this, Steve W.
July 12th, 2010 | 1:05 pm | #17
Steve Hays,
Am I tracking together with you on your argument?
July 12th, 2010 | 1:58 pm | #18
Zack Skrip,
Consider the person who rejects the idea that “the bible is (T)rue, as in the incomplete but totally sufficient revelation of a true God about himself.” I’d be interested to hear your answers to two questions.
First, do you suppose that there can be a person who is both (a) familiar with the best arguments for the truth of Christianity, and (b) rejects–with sincerity, with intellectual honesty, and in good faith–the idea that Jesus rose from the dead?
Second, do you think that you’ve ever met anyone who understands the arguments for Christianity better than you do, and who, at the same time sincerely rejects the idea that Jesus rose from the dead? (Let’s understand “sincerely” here as follows: such a person has at least as much intellectual honesty towards rejecting the claims of Christianity as you currently have in accepting them?)
July 12th, 2010 | 3:47 pm | #19
Adam, I wonder whether the problem is simply with how the two approaches are laid out. It’s almost like one is setting the stage for a “right answer.”
I suppose another way of asking is: is there a third approach that is epistemologically humble, unlike how the first approach seems, and yet rejects as nonsensical the notion of equally knowledgeable and sincere people believing different beliefs being equally justified in their beliefs?
I simply am unsure how the second approach makes sense at all unless “equally knowledgeable” means something different than “knowing the same things.” Perhaps “knowledgeable” in that sense means “having read good material” so that two “equally knowledgeable” people (who are well-read in a general sense) can disagree. But then someone well-read can still be wrong, so they may not be as justified as another well-read individual when it comes to specifics.
It seems like what one really wants to get with the second approach is epistemological humility, but it ends up going relativistic because the other choice seems so bad. I would hope there’s a third approach, though.
July 12th, 2010 | 4:14 pm | #20
Albert, consider re-phrasing the second approach as follows:
Phrased this way, I have a hard time understanding how a person could reasonably reject the second approach. Moreover, I suspect that sensible religious people act irresponsibly when they encourage their more fanatical brethren to reject such an approach.
July 12th, 2010 | 5:38 pm | #21
Albert, I consider epistemological arrogance to consist in saying, “I hold the truth.” To say on the other hand, “the Truth holds me,” is to say “I submit to the truth, I accept it, I yield to it; I will not set up some contrary opinion against it.” This is humility with respect to truth. Humility can most assuredly accompany conviction, if we acknowledge truth’s transcendence.
July 12th, 2010 | 6:06 pm | #22
Janice: “First, do you suppose that there can be a person who is both (a) familiar with the best arguments for the truth of Christianity, and (b) rejects–with sincerity, with intellectual honesty, and in good faith–the idea that Jesus rose from the dead?”
Janice, do you consider yourself such a person?
July 12th, 2010 | 6:09 pm | #23
Of course, “I hold the truth” is ambiguous at least between these claims:
Likewise, “the Truth holds me” is at least ambiguous between these claims:
(d) and (e) seem to be a bit beside the point, and (c) seems to be the only clearly arrogant claim. But it also seems to be beside the point, as I can’t think of anyone who actually believes (c).
But here is an idea that might be helpful: “Because my most fundamental religious conviction involves the belief that Jesus ‘holds me,’ I’m convinced that I can, with total sincerity, with intellectual honesty, and in good faith, freely consider the arguments and evidences that seem to conflict with my deeply cherished religious beliefs–even though I may believe that the welfare of my eternal soul depends upon maintaining my faith in certain of those cherished doctrines. I’m convinced, moreover, that I needn’t suspect those who knowledgeably reject these important beliefs of rejecting these beliefs because of sinful motives, dishonesty, or intellectual defect.”
July 12th, 2010 | 8:56 pm | #24
Tom Gilson
“I suppose you think there’s some value in pegging Adam’s position on the question he raised, but really, just how much does this reference to a 6-month-old political issue contribute to a current question of epistemology?”
The specific issue is not the issue. The issue, according to Basinger, which Adam allegedly endorses, is how we “approach” issues.
So, I’m using that “political issue” to illustrate how Adam “approaches” those who take a different position than he. Did Adam “cherish tolerance for others out of a sense of charity that affirms that all parties have been intellectually virtuous in seeking justification for their beliefs” in the case of counterterrorism?
That’s how he framed the discussion, remember? So which “camp” does that put him in? If he can ask that question, so can I.
July 12th, 2010 | 9:06 pm | #25
Steve W
“Thank you for finally offering an argument (of sorts). But, given how irrelevant it is to the post above, I don’t see how it isn’t ad hominem. You are clearly using Adam’s words to attack him as a person (more or less saying that he is closed-minded), which has almost no relevance here.”
I’m holding Adam to his own words. To his stated standard of discourse. If you think that’s a problem, then you have a problem, not me.
“It isn’t relevant to what they themselves are arguing.”
It’s exactly relevant to Adam’s argument. Adam was the one who cast the issue in personal terms. In terms of how we should conduct ourselves in relation to those with whom we disagree. “Tolerance.” “Charity.” Attributing intellectually virtuous motives to our opponents.
Did Adam do that in the case of gov’t interrogators–as well as those who defend their integrity?
If you lack the emotional detachment to accept Adam’s challenge and apply it to Adam himself, then you need to ask yourself what is motivating your intemperate reaction.
July 13th, 2010 | 7:50 am | #26
Janice,
You bet I believe both of those through and through. But I can because I don’t believe is Christian is born out of convincing arguments, just like I don’t believe social change is brought about through educational programs.
A Christian is made through the will of God. The most brilliant men frequently turn away or outright reject Christianity.
God gives grace to those he will. Their hearts are changed (as in, brought from death to life). No one comes to the Son unless drawn by the Father. It doesn’t matter how convincing you are. I would think that Jesus or Paul would be pretty convincing people, yet many turned away from them.
I don’t think people who disagree with Christianity are being disingenuous, rather I think they are being sinners.
July 13th, 2010 | 7:57 am | #27
Janice Wrote:
“I’m convinced, moreover, that I needn’t suspect those who knowledgeably reject these important beliefs of rejecting these beliefs because of sinful motives, dishonesty, or intellectual defect.”
When you say ‘sinful motives’ I’m sure you mean ‘motives that are deliberately dishonest or in some way negative towards me personally’ no? But Gen 1-3 shows us that after Adam we are all full of Sinful Motives. In fact, the only thing I assume is that people are arguing from sinful motives. I know that that is true a) because that’s what the Bible says and b) because my very own heart, that desires to be holy as my God is Holy, so regularly argues and decides from those very same sinful motives.
‘Sinful’ is not a decision or even a motive, it is a state of being.
It is from this state of Sinfulness — that affects all aspects of our ability to reason, think, choose, etc — that Christ died to save us.
July 13th, 2010 | 10:54 am | #28
Janice, your re-phrased second approach is something I’m comfortable with because of the “may” which also entails “or may not.” For that same reason, though, your re-phrase seems substantively different than the original second approach. Not your fault; it’s Basinger’s way of putting it, and I’d much prefer your language.
Tom, that’s fine and I accept that. Did you mean to imply, then, that you agreed or disagreed with my suspicion that the subtext to Adam’s post is epistemological humility in the face of folks with divergent views?
In other words, I’m trying to understand where the tension between two approaches described in the post is coming from, and I suspect it is coming from the failure of the two flawed approaches of Basinger to resolve the tension arising from the desire for truth encountering the limits of knowledge.
A better approach would be one Janice has laid out, which I might paraphrase as:
This, in turn, relies on 1) an understanding of what counts as evidence and reasons (which I would say includes historical testimony, experience, etc.) and 2) a rejection of the Cartesian project to require that knowledge have “certainty” understood as god-like invincibility (rather than “proper confidence” as a Christian ought to believe) based on supposedly inviolable axioms like “I think, therefore I am” and other fictions. It is simply not possible for human beings to have that kind of “certainty”; it is an irrational Enlightenment conceit, but one which unfortunately has penetrated the Church and led to arrogant styles of argumentation.
July 13th, 2010 | 11:44 am | #29
Just to throw an “apple of discord” into the mix, Tom’s suggestion that “Truth holds me” is not reducible to Jesus holds me (or even that one cannot escape reality) given the history of Christian discourse on the phrase.
At minimum, it involves several claims:
1) Discovery of the truth is not a wholly cognitive affair divorced from human affectivity. Humans are “caught up” in their discoveries as signaled by the internal sense of delight and wonder normally accompanying any insight into the nature of reality.
2) Discovery of a particular truth is related to a larger relational web of truths that point beyond themselves (Christians would say to the Logos who is the larger pattern, truth, or idea, in whom all truths cohere, but one could also suggest a universal theory of everything such as string theory)
3) Discovery of the truth itself is a liberating encounter because the individual can now know how to act in ways commensurate with that truth. We need to know the truth in order to be good human beings who live well. This is the basis for seeing the liberal arts as themselves liberating and even non-religious approaches to education value it.
This is part of the problem with analytic approaches that excise statements from larger contextual matrices and then ask, “now, logically, what could this entail?” Such approaches fail to include the fact that what counts as “logical” tends to reduce to the world of discourse the analytical philosopher inhabits.
In terms of the original post, it may be that we simply “tolerate” other beliefs because we hold that humans cannot flourish as humans without the freedom to follow the dictates of their consciences. It is a publicly agreed upon truth in American culture that Christians, at least, ground in a particular view of human nature (although Jefferson did as well and thus one does not have to be Christian to hold to it). This reason does not require charity for the other or the idea that someone is epistemologically justified in holding a particular belief, and it works for political as well as ecumenical relations. There are other reasons, but I’ll leave it at that.
July 13th, 2010 | 6:23 pm | #30
Steve Hays: “Back in January, Adam compared gov’t interrogators to men who “carve lines into a detainee’s skin for sadistic interrogation purposes.”
and
“Adam was the one who cast the issue in personal terms. In terms of how we should conduct ourselves in relation to those with whom we disagree. “Tolerance.” “Charity.” Attributing intellectually virtuous motives to our opponents.
Did Adam do that in the case of gov’t interrogators–as well as those who defend their integrity?”
To answer the question, it clearly looks like Adam did not attribute the intellectually virtuous motives of “tolerance” and “charity” to those who disagreed with him on the issue of government interrogation.
Hence, if your larger point is that Adam Omelianchuck is a clear hypocrite vis-a-vis this post that he’s written, I would cede your point. If Adam, Tom Gilson, or Steve W, or anyone else wants to argue that Adam’s not a hypocrite on this score, it might be worth exploring.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact