Blake wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dr. Blake Nelson [mailto:bnelson301@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 8:51 PM
>The answer for the reasons below is probably yes and
>no. (Isn't it always?)
>
{snip}
Blake, we fully agree that our personal relationship with God is not
testable and neither is the concept that God works in the world.
>The historical content of a document can be subject to
>cross checking with what we can ascertain based on a
>geologic, archaeological, other historical records,
>etc. Even if accurate, it does not mean the
>theological claims the document makes are true,
>because those are not subject to the same kind of
>cross checking. Although I agree that the
>verification of a document that is possible makes us
>less suspect of a document than of a document that has
>no indicia of accuracy at all.
And we agree here. It is clear that a document which is true doesn't
automatically validate the theology behind it. I could write a wonderful
book using modern historical events and how goblins work behind the scenes
to bring about all these real events.
But, the point which I have often gained much opprobrium for daring to
suggest that there must be at least some grain of truth rather than being
made up out of whole cloth. And in order to do that, one must have some
historical scenario, which works, to go along with the concept.
>
>In terms of Christianity, we have the witness of the
>church stretching back to the apostles' experience of
>the risen Christ, including documents which seem
>otherwise reliable, that are written recollections of
>that experience and of the experience of the life of
>Jesus. The validity of that resurrection experience
>can never be proven by the archaeological or other
>historic records, only its consequence, which is the
>Church and the faith of individuals can be seen
>through things like recorded martyrdoms, Christian
>symbols left in the archaeological record, written
>documents, etc..
But even martyrdom doesn't prove much as we are witnessing today people in
the Middle East give their lives for what they believe to be a just and holy
cause. We seriously disagree that they are involved in a holy cause, but
our belief is just that as is teres.
[snip]
>How do we test who is right about that? What
>constitutes proof? Logical positivists demand
>empirical evidence. Atheists like Anthony Flew demand
>a coherent definition of God before they say the claim
>that such a thing exists can be evaluated. Popperians
>and A.J. Ayer demand a falsifiable hypothesis. Each
>of these demands for proof is an implicit
>epistemological statement of faith. No one can
>empirically test empiricism. Ayer's statement that
>all true statements must be fasifiable is not
>falsifiable, etc., etc. Skepticism, empricism,
>logical positivism, etc. are all built on such thin
>foundations of mere belief. Faith that thier
>epistemological perspective is true.
I would disagree that we need to go to Ayer's position in order to hold to
truth. Even if one doesn't have a prescription for the truth of ALL
statements, one does have a prescription for empirically false statements. A
statement directly contradicted by observational data is false. If I say
'Bunny rabbits have antlers,' that is clearly false as any simple
observation will show. Bunny rabbits don't have antlers. Grass isn't
fire-engine red. Grass doesn't walk around and claims like these to the
contrary are clearly false, even if I can't prescribe a general rule for
truth of all propositional statements.
Because of this, I don't see empiricism as being so much on thin ice as you
paint it. So what if I can't prove every true statement? Goedel proved that
was impossible with axiomatic systems. The inability to do that doesn't give
us free rein to travel in any direction ignoring the parts of empiricism
which do work.
>
>How is whether Genesis is historically accurate any
>help vis-a-vis the resurrection and Christian faith?
As I have said before, If God isn't the creator, then he isn't the saviour.
Only the creator has the power to save us.
>
>If I believe Genesis is historically accurate (as far
>as I can test it), but am still skeptical of the
>resurrection, I should be Jewish or some form of
>theism other than Christian, right?
Sure. THat is logical. As you said, we can't prove the resurrection.
>
>Again, I am not saying any part of the Old Testament
>is not historicaly accurate. I just don't think that
>fact gets us very much closer to being rational about
>being Christian. I would say it gives us one less
>possible reason to be skeptical.
>
>Thus, the New Testament witness to the divinity of
>Jesus of Nazarateh is central to Christianity. The
>historicity of those texts is important to verify, to
>the extent possible, to determine the reliability of
>the texts. But no amount of historical, archaeologic
>or geologic evidence is going to convince a Peter
>Atkins or David Hume who would reject anything
>miraculous as either a mistaken belief
>(delusion/madness/wishfulness) or fabrication because
>of their epistemological suppositions. For Atkins or
>Hume, no amount of historical accuracy would convince
>them of Jesus' miracles, because of their strong faith
>in their epistemological perspective.
Agreed, but surely you are aware of the large number of people who have left
the faith because of the perceived lack of historicity. I would contend we
must do something to address that issue. And as for Hume, he didn't start
out as a skeptic. Early in his life he had what was described as a
breakdown. I think it was the collapse of his religious world view because
of something he wrote years later in a letter to Gilbert Elliot of Minto
(March 10, 1751). The part which really caught my eye was this:
"Tis not long ago that I burn'd an old
Manuscript Book, wrote before I was twenty; which contain'd, Page
after Page, the gradual Progress of my Thoughts on that head [i.e.
religious belief]. It begun with an anxious Search after Arguments,
to confirm the common Opinion: Doubts stole in, dissipated,
return'd, were again dissipated, return'd again, and it was a perpetual
struggle of a restless imagination against inclinationóperhaps against
reason..."
The fuller context is:
"You would perceive by the sample I have given you that I make Cleanthes the
hero of the dialogue; whatever you can think of, to strengthen that side of
the argument, will be most acceptable to me. Any propensity you imagine I
have to the other side crept in upon me against my will; and 'tis not long
ago that I burned an old manuscript book, wrote before I was twenty, which
contained, page after age, the gradual progress of my thoughts on this head.
It began with an anxious scent after arguments to confirm the common
opinion; doubts stole in, dissipated, returned; were again dissipated,
returned again; and it was a perpetual struggle of a restless imagination
against inclinationóperhaps against reason. . . . I could wish Cleanthes'
argument could be so analysed as to be rendered quite formal and regular.
The propensity of the mind towards itóunless that propensity were as strong
and universal as that to believe in our senses and experienceówill still, I
am afraid, be esteemed a suspicious foundation. 'Tis here I wish for your
assistance. We must endeavour to prove that this propensity is somewhat
different from our inclination to find our own figures in the clouds, our
faces in the moon, our passions and sentiments even in inanimate matter.
Such an inclination may and ought to be controlled, and can never be a
legitimate ground of assent." (Burton, Life, I. pp. 331-3.)
http://philosophy.onweb.to/~wakui/Huxley-Hume_7-8.html
[snip]
>Ultimately, you accept epistemology only on faith
>regardless of whether you are a hard core logical
>positivist or a theist or anything else. Everything
>in your and my belief system is based not on absolute
>proof (which is unobtainable in ANYTHING), but on
>probability. Different faith beliefs about
>epistemology change how one weighs and calculates
>those probabilities. Thus, we all have a substrate of
>faith for everything in our lives, including our own
>existence and the existence of the universe and other
>persons, none of which are technically provable.
>
Agreed, but how do we differentiate our faith from those of the islamic
militants, who, like it or not, seem more willing to give their lives for
their faith than we are for ours? The only place I see where this can be
done is via epiricism, not through claims that my faith is better, which
will only get in reply from those guys, "No MY faith is better."
As a note, about 20 years ago I was at a dinner which had palestinian
guerrillas seated next to me on both sides. I can assure you that my
discussion with them indicated to me that they were extremely dedicated to
their faith. Without empiricism, how do I tell them their faith is false?
Obviously one will will some merely by the draw of love, but that doesn't
differentiate their faith from ours at all.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 12:22:05 EDT