This week I glanced through a column critiquing the Bible and Christianity, mostly silly, but the comments at the bottom revealed the unfortunate consequence of Evangelical Christianity's exaggeration of biblical inerrancy. Minor quibbles with certain passages had led several people to abandon their faith. The abuse of what should be a matter for faith has set up Christianity in a continual battle with scientists and secular historians. To prove biblical inerrancy is an extraordinary task, and cracks in this sweeping assumption lead thousands to shattered faiths.
Is the Bible inerrant? That is, are there errors? I have no idea because I'm not a biblical historian or theologian. My faith is that the message that God intended for us to receive has not been mangled. The key word being faith. I believe in a benevolent God who communicates with mankind first and foremost. My faith in the scriptures flows from that initial assumption secondly. Any minor discrepancy with historic records is no threat to my faith in the intent of scripture.
The problem with many evangelicals is flipping this equation around. Their faith in a benevolent God flows from their belief in inerrant scriptures. They live their lives as if the Bible were scientifically provable, and only out of that proof can they then believe in God. The Bible is true, therefore God exists. This proof relies on scientists, theologians, historians, interpreters, anthropologists, and literary analysis. It's a complex web of assumptions that exposes the faith of a biblical "primacist" to attack on thousands of points. It's unstable.
My view can be represented as such:
1. Assume God
2. If God, then A, B, C,....
The view of the biblical premacist can be represented as such:
1. Assume A, B, C, D, E,...Z...
2. If A through Z are all true, then God.
If doubt is cast on any of the assumptions by the biblical premacist, their belief in God would logically fail. To maintain their faith in God, the biblical premacist is placed in the untenable position of being anti-science or anti-historian. I believe this is why so many Christians consider evolution as an existential threat to Christianity. Because if page 1 is proved false, then pages 2-1000 are false as well and God himself is a fraud.
Placing God at the beginning of the equation makes attacks on historical accuracy or the literal interpretation of the Genesis account, meaningless. The simple beginning "God is" is infallible. What about science? Poppycock. Prove to me that the universe can be objectively ascertained. Prove to me a materialist universe. More simply, prove to me that what I see is all there is. These are workable assumptions for living, but they are silent on the existence of God.
Go one step further and believe that God is loving and communicates with us. What better way than to send the very essence of himself to live and die an insuperably heroic, passionate, and compassionate life to let us know that we can indeed warm ourselves in the glow of his perfect love.
"But the geneology on pg. 213 doesn't really work out if you assume..." blah, blah, blah, yawn.
Showing posts with label Fundamentals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fundamentals. Show all posts
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Morality is Manipulation, Part II
In part I, discussed how an individual can break down moral boundaries by casting doubt on the underlying presuppositions. Now for the manipulation. Not only are morals susceptible from within a person, they are suspectible to attack from outside as well.
Using the same formula as before:
A is true, and B is true, so action C is a moral behavior.
Not every person has the same mental capacity or the same zeal for rigorous intellectual pursuit of consistent logical behavior. Because of this, some are better at changing minds and others are more likely to have their minds changed. Those who are better I will call "authorities" and those who have their minds changed I will call "followers".
The problem is that authorities are not altruistic, and in regards to spreading the one objectively true morality (A and B) they may balk because it doesn't serve their interests or preferences. If it is in the interest of authority figure X that follower Y not practice behavior C, X will use its authority power to persuade Y not to practice behavior C. Moral laws break down because they do not serve the interest of the authorities. Follower Y is not aware that they are serving the interest of authority figure X, only that the authority figures makes sense.
Jesus saves his anger for authority figures alone. The Pharisees and the "Teachers of the Law" lord their expertise over their people and coerce them to beleive and practice things that serve to maintain the status, power, and wealth of the authority figures. Jesus eviscerates them on several occassions. As for today we have "name it and claim it" preachers, media propagandists, and Global Warming theorists :)
Other forms of blatant manipulation come to mind, but we all, in subtle ways practice this. Parenting is the profession of this practice. How do I get my son not to hit the other son? Moral imperitive. How do I keep them out of the street? A car WILL hit you (with high probability). It's exaggeration, manipulation, and a whole menagerie of half-truths and cliches. If anyone has any better ideas please let me know.
Morality breaks down because talents are dispersed. If we assume that the strong will accumulate more resources by the sweat of their brow, and that the smart and industrious will join them by focusing their faculties, then we must accept that the crafty and surreptitious will do it by changing our morals through manipulation.
Using the same formula as before:
A is true, and B is true, so action C is a moral behavior.
Not every person has the same mental capacity or the same zeal for rigorous intellectual pursuit of consistent logical behavior. Because of this, some are better at changing minds and others are more likely to have their minds changed. Those who are better I will call "authorities" and those who have their minds changed I will call "followers".
The problem is that authorities are not altruistic, and in regards to spreading the one objectively true morality (A and B) they may balk because it doesn't serve their interests or preferences. If it is in the interest of authority figure X that follower Y not practice behavior C, X will use its authority power to persuade Y not to practice behavior C. Moral laws break down because they do not serve the interest of the authorities. Follower Y is not aware that they are serving the interest of authority figure X, only that the authority figures makes sense.
Jesus saves his anger for authority figures alone. The Pharisees and the "Teachers of the Law" lord their expertise over their people and coerce them to beleive and practice things that serve to maintain the status, power, and wealth of the authority figures. Jesus eviscerates them on several occassions. As for today we have "name it and claim it" preachers, media propagandists, and Global Warming theorists :)
Other forms of blatant manipulation come to mind, but we all, in subtle ways practice this. Parenting is the profession of this practice. How do I get my son not to hit the other son? Moral imperitive. How do I keep them out of the street? A car WILL hit you (with high probability). It's exaggeration, manipulation, and a whole menagerie of half-truths and cliches. If anyone has any better ideas please let me know.
Morality breaks down because talents are dispersed. If we assume that the strong will accumulate more resources by the sweat of their brow, and that the smart and industrious will join them by focusing their faculties, then we must accept that the crafty and surreptitious will do it by changing our morals through manipulation.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Morality is Manipulation, Part I
This is the second in my basic fundamentals of Christianity. Whereas the previous post was benign, this one should exasperate you if you really understand what I'm saying. Morality and moral laws, as humans use it, is nothing more than manipulation. First, however, let me criticize moral laws in general.
Moral logic, in general, follows this pattern:
A is true, and B is true, so action C is a moral behavior.
A traditional Christian moralist would like say it like this:
God gave us his law, God is the ultimate judge, so actions prescribed in that law are moral behaviors.
If this were an immutable truth there would be little room sin. Traditional Christianity paints any rejection of this as mere rebellion, but there are other more fundamental problems.
What if someone doubts that God exists? What if the Bible isn't perfectly clear on defining action C? The moral compulsion breaks down. Sprinkle a little skepticism on A, B, and C, and the moral law fails.
More universally, any set of A, B, and C is subject to doubt. If someone doesn't want to do action C, know that they will dedicate their energies to casting doubt on A and B.
A more experienced logician will claim that A and B are axioms. That they are self-evident truths. Skepticism, however, is not bound by anything. The skeptic will find a way. They always do.
Doesn't this imply an ethical nihilism that nothing is moral or immoral? Yes it does, and I'm not afraid, and you shouldn't be either.
Moral logic, in general, follows this pattern:
A is true, and B is true, so action C is a moral behavior.
A traditional Christian moralist would like say it like this:
God gave us his law, God is the ultimate judge, so actions prescribed in that law are moral behaviors.
If this were an immutable truth there would be little room sin. Traditional Christianity paints any rejection of this as mere rebellion, but there are other more fundamental problems.
What if someone doubts that God exists? What if the Bible isn't perfectly clear on defining action C? The moral compulsion breaks down. Sprinkle a little skepticism on A, B, and C, and the moral law fails.
More universally, any set of A, B, and C is subject to doubt. If someone doesn't want to do action C, know that they will dedicate their energies to casting doubt on A and B.
A more experienced logician will claim that A and B are axioms. That they are self-evident truths. Skepticism, however, is not bound by anything. The skeptic will find a way. They always do.
Doesn't this imply an ethical nihilism that nothing is moral or immoral? Yes it does, and I'm not afraid, and you shouldn't be either.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Fatal Conceit, We Are Not Gods
To start off, I want to establish a few basic ideas to build from. This first one is to establish that humans vastly overestimate their intelligence, and suffer greatly by assuming that our feeble reckoning can guide our lives. To embrace "moral relativity" as it is called or attempting to "do what is right for me" is no more helpful than slamming ones face into a door.
Your boss comes by and asks if you have started that report. Do you lie and say "Yes" or do you tell the truth and incur his criticism? What if you lie? Will he believe you or will he ask to see what you have not accomplished? Is this a 40% chance of getting caught or a 10% chance? Can you even calculate this? In a split second? How many contingencies do you have to cover? 10? 100? 1,000,000? Quick, you have 2 seconds.
Why do we lie? Because it often "works". Usually we can maintain our bloated reputation, so we do it. We lie over and over again to hide our flaws and weaknesses and present an image that exaggerates reality. But when it doesn't work, it can really blow up. Fundamental to this behavior is an assumption. We are gods and others are fools.
Not too long ago I read through Frederick Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit" and a portion of "The Counter-Revolution of Science" These two books have had a great impact on my religious views. (I was hoping to find a killer quote, but none of my flagged pages yielded any)
Hayek criticizes the use of empiricism on the social sciences. His main criticism of socialism boils down to a lack of information problem and violations of the basic principles of science. An economy is infinitely complex and no controlled experiment can ever be performed.
Socialism, or any form of government planning, is not just impossible in practice, it is ridiculous in theory. No one is smart enough. Not even close. What we get from our intellectuals are elaborate rationalizations for mistakes.
The same narcissism that infects many of our academic elites and political leaders infects us as well. Why can we lie and get away with it? Because we are smart and they aren't. Why can we steal and get away with it? Because we are more clever. Why can we gossip and talk behind their back? Because we are more righteous and not quite as trashy. We are either book smart or street smart, but we are definitely smarter.
Being ignorant to the full depth of other minds, we kid ourselves that we are little better. In our heads, we are gods. Awareness of this natural inclination was captured all the way back in the Genesis account:
Genesis 3:4-5 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
The first sin was, and I believe all sin is, born from pride. We want to be the god in our little worlds.
Side note: Christians should be wary of sociological studies that prove that a moral behavior is objectively beneficial or harmful regardless of the source. These kinds of studies have rampant uncontrolled variables and other biases. In my experience, children might find this kind of information persuasive, but most adults have built up walls of skepticism to defend their egos.
Your boss comes by and asks if you have started that report. Do you lie and say "Yes" or do you tell the truth and incur his criticism? What if you lie? Will he believe you or will he ask to see what you have not accomplished? Is this a 40% chance of getting caught or a 10% chance? Can you even calculate this? In a split second? How many contingencies do you have to cover? 10? 100? 1,000,000? Quick, you have 2 seconds.
Why do we lie? Because it often "works". Usually we can maintain our bloated reputation, so we do it. We lie over and over again to hide our flaws and weaknesses and present an image that exaggerates reality. But when it doesn't work, it can really blow up. Fundamental to this behavior is an assumption. We are gods and others are fools.
Not too long ago I read through Frederick Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit" and a portion of "The Counter-Revolution of Science" These two books have had a great impact on my religious views. (I was hoping to find a killer quote, but none of my flagged pages yielded any)
Hayek criticizes the use of empiricism on the social sciences. His main criticism of socialism boils down to a lack of information problem and violations of the basic principles of science. An economy is infinitely complex and no controlled experiment can ever be performed.
Socialism, or any form of government planning, is not just impossible in practice, it is ridiculous in theory. No one is smart enough. Not even close. What we get from our intellectuals are elaborate rationalizations for mistakes.
The same narcissism that infects many of our academic elites and political leaders infects us as well. Why can we lie and get away with it? Because we are smart and they aren't. Why can we steal and get away with it? Because we are more clever. Why can we gossip and talk behind their back? Because we are more righteous and not quite as trashy. We are either book smart or street smart, but we are definitely smarter.
Being ignorant to the full depth of other minds, we kid ourselves that we are little better. In our heads, we are gods. Awareness of this natural inclination was captured all the way back in the Genesis account:
Genesis 3:4-5 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
The first sin was, and I believe all sin is, born from pride. We want to be the god in our little worlds.
Side note: Christians should be wary of sociological studies that prove that a moral behavior is objectively beneficial or harmful regardless of the source. These kinds of studies have rampant uncontrolled variables and other biases. In my experience, children might find this kind of information persuasive, but most adults have built up walls of skepticism to defend their egos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)