Recently I read two very interesting posts that I want to comment on. The first is by Joe Carter here, and the second is a response to it by JT here. The issue at hand is point #10 of Carter's post. My reading of the point is that Carter thinks if a belief is true, he uses the example of same-sex marriage, then there will be strong and convincing logical and or empirical evidence to support it. Specifically, he wants the Christian Right to support positions in public policy debates with empirical evidence and without resorting to 'because the Bible says so.' Carter writes "Fortunately, God provides us general revelation--conscience, rationality, empirical observation--which is often more effective in expressing his foundational principles in a way that all people can accept and understand."
Disclaimer: I am not sure that I fully understand what JT is driving at in his response and hope he will leave a clarifying comment. It seems to me that JT's biggest concern is that trying to come up with arguments to justify beliefs is an ass backwards approach to life. If you have a belief it is because of evidence. If you are trying to work the other way around you desperately need a philosophy course.
Now here is where I think the tricky part comes in. I hold a great many beliefs about the best way to live my live because of the testimony in the Bible. I believe what the authors' of the Bible say about Jesus is true. I believe it because I have met people in my life who I believe to be reliable witnesses who had credible sources before them. I also believe because the Bible makes many claims about the human condition that I believe are the best explanation of the world I see every day. I hold many beliefs not because of direct empirical evidence about them, but because of indirect evidence about the source that makes them. This I think is God's plan. He lets us see a piece of the puzzle, provides us witlessness and gives signs, but he wants us to take a lot on faith. Faith is what saves us. Faith is what makes us justified. If in the public policy arena someone can convince someone else to agree to vote for a specific policy because of empirical evidence and not faith, what reward do we have. Even worse, if Joe Carter could keep two men from marrying because of threat of violence from the state how has he advanced the Kingdom of God?
I agree with JT whole heartedly that there is some objective truth out there. Jesus was raised from the dead or he wasn't. If he was then we should all heed his words. If in the public policy arena a group such as the Christian Right wants to advocate a particular policy because they believe it to be a good idea--it comes from the teaching of the Gospels-- (environmental stewardship perhaps?) that is fine. I think that the evidence they should cite about of the truth of this belief the exact reasons they believe it, IE a belief in the claims about Jesus as Christ. It is a fools errand to try and develop empirical evidence to justify every position that a Christian could advocate. In summary I will quote Mr. Bastiat, "statistics won't get you into heaven."
Friday, September 12, 2008
Faith, an empirical question? Yes and no.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'd say you got my meaning pretty clearly, for the most part.
In general, I'd say that an absolute truth exists, and secondly, the chances of us being certain we know that truth are pretty slim.
I guess the difference in your interpretation and what I hoped to mean was that I did not specifically mean empiricism. I only meant reasons. The reasons you provide for faith are wonderful, and I hope are the sort of reasons that are included by what I was trying to say. I guess to put my post in a nutshell (given that reasons are a superset of empirical evidence), you shouldn't contort reasons to fit your beliefs, but instead, you should be open to reevaluating your beliefs in the face of good reasons. Or even more pithily, reasons should justify beliefs, but not vice versa.
As far as Joe Carter's article goes, while I don't think he was explicitly requesting the order of beliefs, then reasons, for political discourse, I felt he was implicitly requesting it, and I just wanted to point it out as something to stay away from.
Though, I think you framed the whole problem much better in your last paragraph. If the reason for arguing for something is due to your faith, it is sort of disingenuous to point to other reasons as your motivation.
Hopefully that's more clear what I mean, though as I think about things I often change my mind. Haha
We just started studying these questions in Sunday school, and I found the first lesson unsatisfactory.
I agree with the existence of objective truth. I also think that true belief and true faith moves beyond evidence and reasons. Some times the holy spirit just moves you. Some of the most unsatisfactory conversations I have ever been in involved evidence, usually empiric, applied to some question that requires belief. On some things, one has to eventually say I believe that, therefore I do this. We should always be open to evidence, but we must understand that God is God and we are not. "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His Own power." (Acts 1:7)
Now Joe Carter's post is all about politics. Politics is about rhetoric. It is about convincing people. I really think it is a different discussion.
The bigger question is what is Christanity's role in American politics and government? I am almost at the conclusion that there is no role for Christianity in government. My Catholic girlfriend told me about older Catholics who vote solely on the abortion issue. I told her that since 1980, we have had 20 years of anti-abortion Presidents. Has anything changed? I then preceded to say that outlawing abortion will not end abortions. That Christians should focus on raising (and teaching) children to not have unwanted pregnancies. (Of course this does satisfy her. She believes that abortion should be illegal. One child saved is enough. It is a foolish argument (Titus 3:9).)
My thoughts are that we as individuals have to live Christian lives first. We have to worry about our Christian communites second. Third, we have to evangelize our non-Christian communities and then maybe the world. Most of us don't ever get past the first step. Worrying about politics and government is getting way to far ahead. It is a waste of energy.
Post a Comment