| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critical
Reasoning with Jim Leffel |
previous page |
Week Three: Encountering Objections, Effective Use of Reason
Review and application
Value of world view identification and analysis
Making room in "plausibility structures" is modeled in the evangelism used in both Old and New Testaments (see Acts 17; 1 Kgs. 18) and imperatives to the church (Col. 2:8; 2 Cor. 10:3-5)
Problem of "Amway" and "12 Step" Christianity
A decision for Christ is a decision based on understanding and affirming its truth (Rom. 10:9)
Finding natural contexts to raise spiritual conversation requires broad knowledge of world views and how they work
"But if a person has developed a Christian mind, she can relax because she has an understanding of and a Christian view about a number of ‘secular’ topics. In such a situation, it would be hard to have a normal conversation without Christianity coming up naturally and in a way relevant to the topic of discussion. Moreover, a well-developed mind can see connections between what a friend is saying and other issues of which the friend may not be aware. For example, a friend may be espousing moral relativism yet inconsistently hold that we all have an absolute duty to save the environment. If a person sees the connections, she can simply ask well-placed questions that naturally lead to a discussion of broader worldview issues, including God and our relationship to Him. In such a case, the pressure is off because a person has the intellectual categories necessary to make natural connections between Christianity and a host of regular conversation topics." Moreland, Love Your God…, 133,4
Apologetics and children
Disciplining our children is a central task of parenting and we can’t afford to miss the opportunity by expecting that others will do it for us
Critical engagement with culture is more valuable that constant (unrealistic) restraints
"It is unreasonable to expect people of the next generation in any age to continue in the historic Christian position, unless they are helped to see where arguments and connotations directed against Christianity and against them as Christians,, by their generation, are fallacious. We must prepare Christian young people to face the monolithic (secular) 20th century culture by teaching them what the particular attack in their generation is, in contrast to the attacks of previous generations." Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 150
Exercise:
"Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomenon are its by-products... Yet, as pointed out by contemporary evolutionary scholar Douglas Futuyma, seldom do the detractors of the Darwinian world view take note of its positive implications. In Darwin’s world we are not helpless prisoners of a static world order but, rather, masters of our own fate...And from a strictly scientific point of view rejecting biological evolution is no different from rejecting other natural phenomenon such as electricity and gravity." (Levine, Joseph S. and Miller, Kenneth R., Biology Discovering Life, 1994
Identify world view assertions and presumptions
Identify possible issues of adequacy, coherence, external consistency and/or fruitfulness
Identify possible fallacies
Encountering objections—thinking through common criticisms
Most people make a clear separation between what we believe about God and morality and what we know.
"I’m glad you found something that works for you, but…"
"Everyone has to find their own truth"
"As a scientifically minded person I can’t believe. I require proof"
"Better to remain skeptical than risk being mislead"
Note: Each of these common objections make critical assumptions about the nature and limitations of human knowledge
Understanding skepticism
Strong skepticism: "There are no certainties. It’s arrogant to say that you know anything absolutely."
Is this an assertion of truth? (incoherent)
Is this an assertion of opinion? While everyone is entitled to their opinion, what are the merits of this one?
We seem to know some things truly, though not completely (inadequate)
We assume a substantial level of knowledge in practical life (unfruitful)
Weak skepticism: "The burden of proof is always on the believer to establish their case". Rational people will always withhold belief.
To meet all knowledge claims with unbelief presumes at least one important thing as true: "Rational people are not justified in believing unless the possibility of error is removed"
But how do we know this claim is true? Shouldn’t we also be skeptical about our skepticism? Has the skeptic not made a naïve faith commitment without any shred of proof?
Understanding scientism
Most skepticism is rooted in strongly held views about the nature and limitations of human knowledge
"It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles… It may of course be argued that there are people alive today whose confidence in the traditional scientific view of the world has been shaken, and others who are primitive enough to qualify for an age of mythical thought. The various impressions and speculations which influence credulous people here and there are of little importance, nor does it matter to what extent cheap slogans have spread an atmosphere inimical to science. What matters is the world view which men imbibe from their environment, and it is science which determines that view of the world through the school, the press, the wireless, the cinema, and all other fruits of technical progress." R. Bultmann, Kergyma and Myth, 5
Science is the only reliable measure of truth—everything else is subjective opinion—it may be true, but one can never know
"We can now see why it is impossible to find a criterion for determining the validity of ethical judgments. It is not because they have an absolute validity which is mysteriously independent of ordinary sense experience, but because they have no objective validity whatsoever. If a sentence makes no statement at all, there is obviously no sense in asking whether what it says is true or false." - A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic
What’s wrong with scientism?
It’s a philosophical dogma not derived from science
"Knowledge is based only on scientific observation" is not a scientific assertion (incoherent)
Fails to explain other realms of knowledge:
Mathematical truths
Knowledge of one’s self
Moral truths
Eliminates "a priori" any evidence of the supernatural
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. . . A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and inalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. . . Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happened in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: Because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle. . ." (David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, X, I: 110, 114, 115).
"According to Hume, probability rests on what may be called the majority vote of our past experiences. The more often a thing has been known to happen, the more probable it is that it should happen again; and the less often the less probable. Now the regularity of Nature’s course, says Hume, is supported by something better than the majority vote of past experiences; it is supported by their unanimous vote, or, as Hume says, by ‘firm and unalterable experience.’ There is, in fact, ‘uniform experience’ against miracle; otherwise, says Hume, it would not be a miracle. A miracle is therefore the most improbable of all events. It is always more probable that the witnesses were lying or mistaken than that a miracle occurred. Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely ‘uniform experience’ against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can call the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle." C.S. Lewis, Miracles, 102.
Understanding relativism
Dominant view of our day, both in morality and truth: "Truth is a matter of personal belief, varying from culture (or individual) to culture (or individual)
Sometimes relativism is based skepticism (see above)
Usually based on cultural diversity (pluralism): Cultures value and believe different things. What’s true for one is not necessarily true for another.
Responding to relativism:
Believing something doesn’t make it true! (external consistency, fruitfulness)
Moreland’s points:
Problem defining "culture"
Which "society" is relevant to morality or truth—family, school, media, etc.
If what society generally accept is right, then any attempts at reform are, by definition, immoral. Moral progress is impossible
Violates our intuitive "sense" that some things are objectively wrong
Making a case—effective use of reason to open doors
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Premise One: Universal moral judgments are made
Universal fact: All humans in all cultures and throughout time make moral judgments. For these judgments to have any real meaning, it presumes a standard--something to measure judgments by.
For standards to have meaning, they must be objective.
"What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the color of their hair." (Mere Christianity, 19)
Objection One: Anthropological Argument
There is no "law of human nature." Morality is a social convention, differing widely from culture to culture.
Enormous similarity between moral codes
Objective standards v. culturally conditioned rules
In practice, we presume the objectivity of our judgments
Everyone recognizes their own hypocrisy:
". . .we fail to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people" (Mere Christianity, 20).
Objection Two: Morality is "herd instinct"
Animals are genetically programmed to act for the good of the herd.
But this does not capture to whole experience of moral awareness:
"Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. . .Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires, one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them" (Mere Christianity, 22).
Objection Three: Morality is learned behavior
Socialization, education, conditioning explain moral behavior
But learning moral values from family or school does not mean that the idea is merely social convention any more than the fact that we learn math at school makes it a matter of social convention.
Social conventions differ from culture to culture (what side of the road to drive on, etc.), but the uniformity of ethical ideas suggests that there is something transcultural in moral truth.
The idea of "moral progress" would be meaningless without an actually existing, objective standard of ethical evaluation.
Understanding the moral law: prescription and description
Laws of nature are descriptive. They describe how, in fact, things in nature operate.
Moral laws are prescriptive. They are only in part concerned with how, in fact, people behave (descriptive), and focus on how people ought to behave.
Naturalistic fallacy: Is (description) does not imply ought (prescription). That is, ought cannot be derived from a factual account of nature or human conduct. Moral ought must be imposed on it from "outside."
Premise two: Universal moral judgments are only possible if theism is assumed
The moral law says something about the nature of reality. What hypothesis best explains the existence of the moral law?
Naturalistic (materialism) hypothesis: The universe is a closed system of cause and effect.
Religious hypothesis: An infinite mind exists. There are both material and immaterial dimensions to reality. The universe is an open system of cause and effect.
Naturalism is insufficient hypothesis
Science can not determine which hypothesis is right. Science tries to answer how the universe operates as it does, the metaphysical hypotheses try to explain why. Science may eliminate certain options, but can’t finally establish either position.
"Why does the universe exist, or behave the way it does? The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would not be one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it" (Mere Christianity, 33).
The moral law requires the religious hypothesis.
Given that human conscience is aware of a real moral law, naturalism can not provide a basis for it.
Nature is value-neutral. It just is.
Morality is about what ought or ought not to be: good/evil; right/wrong; should/shouldn’t. . .
Rival conceptions of God
Pantheism can’t work.
If there is an objective moral order, pantheism is false: A dilemma
1. God is both good and evil (Vishnu and Shiva). But if both are equally absolute, equally ultimate, there is no way to distinguish what is good and what is evil. How can we say the cancer is bad and love is good if they are both equally manifestations of god?
2. On the other hand, if reality is ultimately neither good nor evil, then there is no moral law.
Dualism. We often hear that you can’t have good without evil. How would you know if something is good unless you also knew about evil? So you can’t have one without the other.
What if there are two eternal powers: Good and evil? Neither is more absolute than the other.
But if both powers were equal and independent of each others, then how would be distinguish which is good and which is evil? We would need to appeal to some standard above and independent of both.
The idea of an absolute evil is impossible. Both because it is unintelligible (above) and because it does not properly understand what evil is. Evil is a parasite on goodness ("privation of the good"). For example, sexual immorality is a distortion of sexuality, which God created as a good.
Conclusion:
The God of Judeo-Christian theism exists
Value and application of this argument:
Provides a meaningful and compelling basis to understand our inner moral awareness
Provides compelling reason for "true moral guilt"
Raises the necessity of approaching God on the basis of Christ’s substitutionary atonement
