tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post6677251358824189407..comments2023-10-15T08:36:48.841-07:00Comments on A Counter Apologist Blog: Are there rational justifications for belief in a specific religion?A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-39226575478216792602017-07-11T20:37:41.975-07:002017-07-11T20:37:41.975-07:00Well, I probably approach the problem rather idios...Well, I probably approach the problem rather idiosyncratically, but here's the way I'd go about it. Starting with a detailed examination of the human person from a philosophical perspective, I think two key facts can be established: 1. The consciousness, rationality, and moral significance of the human person doesn't make sense in a universe where there is, at rock bottom, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. 2. The human person is a substantial unity, highly reliant on material processes to carry out its essential operations.<br /><br />Naturalism is inconsistent with 1, the dharmic religions are inconsistent with 2. That basically leaves prophetic religions (Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism), Taoism, and Confusianism (plus a morass of mythology that never claimed to have rational credentials in the first place). Taoism and Confucianism can be dealt with in much the same way as Platonism and Aristotelianism were dealt with - ie, by integration. They aren't that far from the truth anyways. See David Marshall's earlier books for the lowdown. <br /><br />So, when dealing with the prophetic religions, we can test them in two ways: by examining the circumstances of their origins, and by looking at their fruits in history. I will only give a sketch of the first way, David Marshall would likely be better able to explain the second one.<br /><br />Regarding the first test, The Book of Mormon has virtually no redeeming qualities when it comes to historiographical consideration. Moreover, it was basically a narcissistic version of Christianity where anyone could become a god and have as many wives as they wanted - so it really didn't have to do much work to get converts. So we can scratch Mormonism off the list right away. Muhammad's success as a prophet seems to be adequately explained by his success as a warlord. But the early Christian church was essentially trying to recruit folks into a rebellion that had already been put down hard by the temple authorities and the Romans. That is why Christ Crucified was a scandal to the Jews and nonsense to the Greeks. As for Judaism and Zoroastrianism, their origins have effectively been lost in the mists of time - though most evidence for, say, the specialness of the Jewish people or for the Exodus would arguably be equally evidence for Christianity. In brief, Christianity is the only faith that clearly seems to have moved against the cultural current, rather than coasting along with it.<br /><br />So that's a rough sketch of how one would go about picking one religion out as more plausible than the rest. I haven't so much provided my arguments as I have summarized the gist of them. Obviously, one cannot take enough material for multiple books and condense it down into a comment on a blog! I would encourage you to try and reconstruct the way I would flesh them out by means of your own research. Perhaps attempting to construct an argument for the other side would, if not bring you over, at least allow you to better understand how such a project could work. Either way, you have nothing to lose but ignorance. If you find the argument convincing, then you learned something new - and if you don't, not only have you learned what people of faith actually believe, you've also learned how better to address them on their own terms.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297660669717051302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-48768308115045245262017-02-22T10:38:11.534-08:002017-02-22T10:38:11.534-08:00Going on to 2.)
The moon landing is unique, but w...Going on to 2.)<br /><br />The moon landing is unique, but we have the technology to go to other planets now, and we have other in principle methods to verify parts of the moon landing. It is well within our background knowledge that space travel is possible, and we have a host of non-testimonial evidence (video of the event, video of other space travels, etc).<br /><br />So this isn't exactly a Humean objection. The objection is based on the idea that if you want me to believe in specifically Christian miracles of the past, I should have easy access to verifiable evidence of Christian miracles today. I outlined EXACTLY what that evidence would look like, and we don't have it. <br /><br />I think I can sum it up like this: Belief in a historical miracle is not justified if those miracles were at one point common, but now their occurrence is very rare or non-existent. It becomes a question of if Jesus and his disciples could do all these miracles back then, why can't disciples do miracles now? Why reject other miracle claims that fit this dynamic and accept the ones for your religion?<br /><br />As you say you have testimony of your wife for witness to a miracle, and likewise I have access to independent eye witness accounts to the miracles of Sathya Sai Babba. We get right into the main challenge I've laid out here. <br /><br />3.) The "how" question is related to the "from what". In orthodox Christian belief, I need to be saved from hell, because that's how god punishes the non-believing sinners. But I don't agree that I *need* to be transformed from a being that sometimes does immoral actions into some quasi morally perfect being. If being sinful is bound up in our nature, well why did god create us with such a nature or even a capacity to acquire this type of nature. After all he could have created beings with morally perfect natures, like himself - but he didn't. I find theodicy answers to that question to be highly unsatisfying or unbelievable. <br /><br />As to the Trilemma, I don't see why I must accept "liar, lunatic, or lord", when a combination of "zealous religious preacher" and "mythology about his works" is perfectly available. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-61800900699330916182017-02-21T04:23:06.524-08:002017-02-21T04:23:06.524-08:00Also, strictly speaking, the Trilemma doesn't ...Also, strictly speaking, the Trilemma doesn't rely on Jesus' miracles only on his claims to divinity. We could also throw in his ministry as a healer and exorcist, since NT scholars seem willing to grant on historical grounds that he had such a ministry, whether or not we think it was miraculous.Neil Shenvihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453679254084173863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-31294152502128777502017-02-21T04:16:44.529-08:002017-02-21T04:16:44.529-08:001) fair enough.
2) "the historical method req...1) fair enough.<br />2) "the historical method requires us to use contemporary events to judge historical events"<br /><br />First, this criteria needs to be made more specific. Certainly, the Resurrection is unique event; that's a fairly important point in Christian theology. But in some sense, every event in history is unrepeatable and therefore unique. Moreover, unique events kinds of events occur in both human and natural history (the first moon landing, the first human in North America, Big Bang, abiogenesis) and we wouldn't' want to claim that we can't know whether these events occurred. So unless you're lodging a Humean dismissal of the Resurrection, it's hard to see how we can rule it as inadmissible on a priori grounds.<br /><br />Second, if you are lodging a Humean argument against miracles, you'd have to show that they don't happen today. I happen to think they do (in part on the testimony of my MD/PhD wife who witnessed one). See also Craig Keener's book Miracles<br /><br />3) I'm not sure I understand your objections to (2). "How?" seems irrelevant. If I take the car to several mechanics and only one identifies the two major problems that I know the car has, I have grounds to trust that mechanic regardless of how he proposes to fix the problems. <br /><br />"From what?" As I said, from sin. Traditionally, from the control, presence, and penalty of sin. But you can focus on the first two, if you'd like. Christianity says that sin controls us and is bound up in our natures. And only Christianity says that God needs to rescue us from the control and presence of sin.<br /><br />"it isn't going to be a clear case where the criteria you're specifying are going to be clear cut justification for belief in Christianity. "<br /><br />Why? Neil Shenvihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453679254084173863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-31811570961491883722017-02-20T07:09:33.598-08:002017-02-20T07:09:33.598-08:001.) I should be more clear: The argument does gran...1.) I should be more clear: The argument does grant theism, though just for the sake of argument. I still think that at best arguments from natural theology are inconclusive, I certainly don't think any of them work. For instance the Kalam doesn't do anything of the sort to show our universe isn't eternal. <br /><br />2.) That's not quite the point I'm making. It's not "here's evidence we could have, but we don't, so the argument is false". It's more along the lines of: Given that the historical method requires us to use contemporary events to judge historical events, we would need consistent repeatable Christian miracles today to justify belief in specifically Christian historical miracles. <br /><br />Sans that, we just aren't going to be able to use history as a method to justify belief in the resurrection. The way you will get there is justifying belief because "god makes you feel as if it is true" in a Plantinga style properly basic way. <br /><br />3.) My previous response I think covers why I don't accept the Trilemma and Resurrection, but lets quickly touch on soteriology:<br /><br />I don't think we have good reason to believe in life persisting after death in the first place. And I also disagree on the two points Christianity claims.<br /><br />I don't even agree with the concept of sin, though this is a quibble, you could just redefine (1) to be "human beings can act immorally" but I do not accept (2) even slightly. Rescue "how?" or "from what?". You're going to need a host of ancillary beliefs for that to start to make sense, and then you start running up against arguments about the immorality of creation if it entails a hell, let alone problems about not creating us all in a heaven in the first place. <br /><br />While I understand there are responses to those arguments, it isn't going to be a clear case where the criteria you're specifying are going to be clear cut justification for belief in Christianity. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-41443408897819659072017-02-18T17:03:11.941-08:002017-02-18T17:03:11.941-08:001) Ah, I thought you were granting that even if na...1) Ah, I thought you were granting that even if natural theology works, you don't get to a particular religion. <br /><br />2) Perhaps I misunderstood your point. What you seem to be saying is "Here are some examples of evidence we could have had for Christianity. But we don't have this kind of evidence." I agree. But I don't see what follows. <br /><br />I could run a parallel argument with any claim X: "Here's evidence I could have had for X. But I don't have this kind of evidence for X." What does it accomplish to note that I could imagine even more evidence for X than I currently have? I still have to examine the evidence I do have for X and explain why it's insufficient.<br /><br />3) I think I'd differ with you on both the Trilemma and the Resurrection. In both cases, I think you can make a strong enough case to justify the premises in the argument (and eliminate the 'legend' alternative). <br /><br />Regarding soteriology, I'm inclined to disagree. For example, in 'God is Not One' Stephen Prothero argues that Christianity is unique among religions in offering salvation from sin; according to him, 'salvation from sin' is simply not what other religions offer. To put it more precisely, I'd say that Christianity is unique in claiming:<br />1) human beings are radically sinful<br />2) human beings need (external) rescue from sin<br />Now, I agree that uniqueness doesn't entail truth, since most religions are unique in some way! However, here, I'd argue that we can have immediate knowledge of both 1) and 2) through self-reflection. If that's the case, then I'd argue this self-knowledge justifies our belief in Christianity, since it seems implausible to suggest that Christianity somehow accidentally hit upon two fundamental truths of the human experience.Neil Shenvihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453679254084173863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-4025752948844581722017-02-18T12:57:20.729-08:002017-02-18T12:57:20.729-08:001. Part of my inspiration for this kind of argumen...1. Part of my inspiration for this kind of argument is based on the downright inconclusiveness that arguments about theism provide. I'm of the firm opinion that metaphysical arguments are generally underdetermined. Pretty much any argument you can throw at me, I can give plausible reasons to reject it. <br /><br />2.) I don't think that this can be done. Hiddenness arguments like most arguments against the existence of a god hinge on what god "would do" given his supposed attributes. This argument grants a mere theism and wants believers in a specific religion to justify why we should accept their specific miracle claims - because it is implicit that the fact that those miracles, if they actually happened, prove the truth of the theological message of its practitioner. <br /><br />3.) The Trilemma and Resurrection arguments are subject to the main objection I have alluded to here: They do not pass the historical method for justification. I don't think the trilemma is exhaustive: myth/legend/false reports of Jesus's words/actions (this is not taking the mythicist position). I also don't see why the unique nature of Christian soteriology is evidence of its truth. Many religions have unique soteriology, and Christian soteriology overlaps with others. Also how in the world do you justify one soteriology over the others as more plausible, given the nature of the topic itself as unverifiable/un-testable. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-57563455678672618992017-02-17T17:05:45.719-08:002017-02-17T17:05:45.719-08:00Although there seem to be several different concer...Although there seem to be several different concerns here, I think the central question of whether it's legitimate to jump from theism in general to Christianity in particular is a good one. Three thoughts:<br /><br />1) Although arguments from naturally theology may not single out one particular religion, they can plausibly exclude certain religions (e.g. the Kalam and any religion which posits an eternal universe). <br /><br />2) Even if it's not used as a justification for atheism, the absence of dramatic, repeatable modern day miracles seem vulnerable to the same responses which could be given to Divine Hiddenness arguments<br /><br />3) In terms of getting to Christianity in particular, what's the problem with the Trilemma or the Resurrection or the unique nature of Christian soteriology? <br /><br />Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking post!Neil Shenvihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453679254084173863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-30776060069807759392017-02-17T11:00:21.493-08:002017-02-17T11:00:21.493-08:00Well that's a lot to chew on, but I think I ca...Well that's a lot to chew on, but I think I can deal with quite a bit of what you're bringing up as either irrelevant or incorrect. <br /><br />I will certainly craft a response and let you know when I'm there. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-42773001317803002462017-02-17T10:34:35.468-08:002017-02-17T10:34:35.468-08:00I got this far:
Here are some other facts for whi...I got this far:<br /><br />Here are some other facts for which the "only evidence I have" is testimony: <br /><br />* Human beings have sent space-craft to Mars. <br />* Iraq exists. <br />* German soldiers invaded the Soviet Union in 1940. <br />* I possess a liver. <br />* I was born in Seattle in 1961. <br />* The man and woman with whom I lived for my first decades, are my parents. <br />* I presently live in Washington State, but have also lived in China. <br /><br />You can't be serious. You'd have to so broadly define 'testimony' to exclude multiple lines of physical evidence such that there is no evidence that is not 'testimony'. That is a ridiculous idiosyncratic definition that no one is obliged to accept. Jimmy S. M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05429294734852937431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-84570468911078049152017-02-17T10:04:53.667-08:002017-02-17T10:04:53.667-08:00Hi! Someone drew my attention to this post, so I ...Hi! Someone drew my attention to this post, so I wrote a response. Hope you find this helpful!<br /><br />http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-jesus-not-sai-baba.html<br />David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.com