Even though you do not realise it, you have already been engaged, I will not say ‘immersed’, in philosophical issues when you start to talk about Christian faith. For you achieve certain attitudes before you fill your speech with content. You say you believe, whatever it is you say that you believe.
You then fill the statement that begins with the claim, ‘I believe’ with all kinds of content, all kinds of assertion: about the future, about the past, about authority, about yourself, about the world, about the beginning of all things, about the end of all things about life after death, etc, etc. You believe many things, even if you do not consciously preface your convictions with the terms ‘I believe’.
So here would be a place to start by asking, ‘What is belief? What does it mean to believe?’
When we have spent time in thinking about those questions we might then go to some specific and important beliefs and ask the similar question, for example, ‘What does it mean to say that you believe that God is creator?’ You will now believe, of course, that a philosophical discussion will help you to come to a better understanding of your particular beliefs.
You ask. ‘How?’ You will find the best answer to that as you immerse yourself in the activity this book invites you to engage in. There is no substitute for persistent participation. But we can give preliminary answers. Take just three: Achieve clarity.
Misunderstanding is often due to not being clear as to what a belief means. So we must raise and persist in answering the question, What does the belief mean? Understand what makes for reasonable support.
This involves being able to see that the reasons you put forward to expound and to support your belief are rational, that the arguments you use are sound. Achieve an adequate vocabulary.
Often a confused or inadequate answer to the question results from having a limited mastery of the appropriate language. Fuller understanding results from expanding our mastery of concepts.
by Dr. Edward W.H. Vick, retired professor and author of Death, Immortality and Resurrection, From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully, Philosophy for Believers, Creation: The Christian Doctrine, History and Christian Faith and more!
A brief discussion of ANTONY FLEW, JOHN HICK AND FREEDOM1
John Hick summarized the traditional freewill defense as an argument with three phases. First, God’s omnipotence is defined as excluding the capacity to perform what is logically absurd. Secondly, to claim that man is free to assert that he can choose between right and wrong. The possibility of choosing wrong is necessary for beings to be free. Men in fact realize this possibility in doing evil. Thirdly, Hick takes issue with Flew and Mackie, when they suggest that God could have created human creatures so that they would always choose the good. Flew pointed out that one of the ways of escaping from the dilemma concerning the goodness and omnipotence of God was to lay emphasis on human freedom. Since men are free they may do good or evil. Thus evil has its source in human freedom, for when they commit evil, men employ their freedom. That God created men free involves that they perform either good or evil. This possibility is realised in that they choose and perform evil. Flew argues that this position can be counter-attacked, since it affirms that ‘there is a contradiction involved in saying that God might have made people so that they always in fact freely chose the right.’ What Flew means by freedom is that if a person had chosen to do otherwise he would have been able to have done what he so chose. To say he is free ‘is not to say that his actions or choices were uncaused or in principle unpredictable: but precisely and only that . . . he did what he did and rejected alternative courses of action without being under any pressure to act in this way.’1 So an action can be both free and predictable in terms of caused causes. A free action is neither uncaused nor unpredictable. The natural order with its laws and causal explanations is such that there were enough known, freely chosen courses of action which could be predicted. Flew then argues that if it is logically possible for an action to be both freely chosen and determined by natural causes, there is no contradiction in speaking of God so arranging the laws of nature that all men always as a matter of fact freely choose to do the right.2 Hence the free-will defense cannot accomplish its stated aim: to shift the responsibility for evil from God to man. Moreover, the other lines of defense of theism then become unnecessary. There would be no need for the presence of evil in order to produce virtues, second-order goods. Nor would there be the problem of hell and damnation.3 In short, the argument against the traditional solution to the problem of evil rests on two assertions about logical possibilities. First, that human behaviour may be determined, that is to say fitted in with and predictable on the basis of the laws of nature. (It would be a different nature from the one which we know, of course.) The notion of caused cause would apply to all human behaviour. Secondly, men always do the right. This does not mean that there would be no temptation. It means that in face of temptation, men will be more successful to resist, indeed that they would always successfully resist. God did not realise this possibility. So the original dilemma remains. God is either not all-good or all-powerful, or neither. But is it consistent to hold the crucial proposition that men may be free and always freely choose the right because they have be so created by God? Hick takes issue. While it is logically possible that God may have created human creatures so that they would always act rightly to one another, ‘it would not be logically possible for God so to make men that they could be guaranteed freely to respond to himself in genuine trust and love.’4 That would be to make the relationship between God and man analogous to that of a hypnotist and his patient/subject. The relationship would not be one of personal trust and devotion. The concept of God would have been so radically altered as to be no longer Christian. Whatever the appearance may be, the actual relationship would be that of manipulator- manipulated. Hick’s second objection is that the conception of freedom is inadequate. The theistic position requires a more thorough going definition of freedom, stronger than that freewill is simply absence of external constraints: ‘. . . the Christian conception of the divine purpose for man requires as its postulate the stronger notion of free will as a capacity for choice whose outcome is in principle unpredictable.’5 What is at issue in the nature of the relationship of creature-man to Creator-God? An authentic relationship between Creator and creature demands a creativity on the creature’s part, ‘a genuine though limited autonomy,’6 oblique to philosophical analysis (it must be admitted).7
Footnotes 1Antony Flew, ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom,’ New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London: SCM Press,1955. pp. 144-169. 2Ibid., p. 152. 3Ibid., p. 155. 4Hick., Evil and the God of Love. London: Collins, 1975. p. 310. 5Ibid., p. 304. 6Ibid., p. 313. 7The question remains whether in affirming such freedom one must, as Hick argues is the case, assert the inevitability of the Fall. Discussion of the question of the ultimate use or misuse of such freedom will also proceed by introducing further considerations of both a theological and philosophical kind, which will have to be appropriately and critically assessed.
by Dr. Edward W.H. Vick, retired professor and author of Death, Immortality and Resurrection, From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully, Philosophy for Believers, Creation: The Christian Doctrine, History and Christian Faith and more! Does that question mean that we try as believer to say how to believe, or does it mean that we as non-believer are trying to say how not to believe? The question is ambiguous. Whichever way we take it, the exploration is interesting and serious. Shall we contemplate taking it in the first way and then in the other? To discover what we can believe will enable us indeed require us to refuse alternative beliefs. To realise what we cannot believe may lead us to discover what we can believe. In the one case we are trying to say what to avoid when we are believe. We are then believers, or prospective believers. We conclude, ‘This I can believe.’ In the other case we are trying to say how we shall come not to believe. We are then prospective unbelievers. We conclude, ‘This I cannot believe.’ In both cases, we are concerned with giving ourselves assurance that we are rational in holding our belief on the one hand or on the other rational in abandoning our belief. To ask the question means that we are serious about our belief. The alternative is to dismiss the question and go on with our belief as if it had never crossed our minds to raise such question. Once it had not. It had become near impossible at a given time for us to be able to raise the question, as we have put it. How can a young child not believe in Father Christmas? How could the medieval churchman, or any other medieval, not believe that the earth was the centre of the universe? How could either raise our question? How can one avoid being deceived when one has neither the means nor the incentive to inquire? The fact is we find ourselves holding our belief without ever having had to raise any question about it. The corollary to this is that we may find it easy to abandon a belief, easy just to let it go, having become indifferent to asking how we held the belief in the first instance or how we have held it for as long as we have. The belief that promoted and sustained action in our past may become irrelevant in the present. Social support for our belief may no longer sustain it. Changed circumstances may make it otiose.
Delicious Grilled Octopus
We all have acquired tastes. Our first ones are gotten within the family. An obvious area is at the dining table. From childhood we get what we are given. Better said, we accept what we are served. So we get to know cheddar cheese in England and may never have heard of provolone while at home.
An acquired taste easily becomes a required taste. Within the context in which is has been acquired is becomes expected. That is because it is the taste of what is served here. What you get day after day you get so accustomed to that you accept it as normal.
But it is the same with conversation and ideas. As we grow as children we get used to certain topics of conversation. Regularity, repetition, leads to acceptance and endorsement. So as time passes we get so used to certain attitudes and accept particular ideas, beliefs and outlooks that they become so much a part of us that we come to take them for granted.
‘This is what we do’ becomes ‘This is what we must do’ and ‘we’ means ‘you’ because you do not have to make decisions, yet! Then there is a further step. What we do in the family is what you do as part of the family, and usually in childhood you do it naturally. But the further step is that what the family does and says, what father does and says, what mother does and says, is what you are expected to do,. Should you have questions, we will tell you what you must do. So ‘this is what we do’ becomes ‘this is what you must do, this is what is expected of you’. ‘What they do’ becomes ‘This is what I do.’
Sometimes, if not in most cases, there is authority within the family. That means the child as it grows meets with approval and disapproval. Making clear what is expected is the first step to efforts to bring it. about
It happens in many other social units. So instead of saying ‘This is what we do’, put ‘believe’ for ‘do’ and see what happens. Now take the religious case. ‘What we believe’ becomes ‘This is what we expect you believe.’ Intolerant communities have their pressures and sanctions if they discover disagreement.
I have been reading a book about William Tyndale, an extraordinary virtuoso in the English language and the talented translator of the Bible. He lived in England in the sixteenth century. It is not generally known that the translators of the Authorised Version , sometimes called the King James version of the Bible simply took over ninety percent
from Tyndale’s translation. He was one of the shapers of the English language. He was also an energetic publisher of the Testament he had produced. But he was the object of intense hatred. The reason was simple. He did not fit in with the ‘family’, namely the Church of King Henry and his court, Thomas More and Wolsey in particular.
Henry was disaffected with the papacy for his personal reasons, but not from Catholic dogma, to which he was firmly attached. The breakaway Anglican church was violently opposed to Tyndale’s resolute attempt to provide ordinary people with a translation of the bible in a language that could be understood by all. Tyndale had stated his aim to give the ploughboy the Word of God in a language he could understand. And so he did. He gave ordinary people the opportunity to have the Word of God in their own language, and in a version of that language that they could readily understand. After his betrayal he was finally burned at the stake, as Wycliffe had been before him.
The root of this persecution had its source in the assertion of authority Tyndale had challenged this, for his translation meant that those who read the Bible for themselves resisted the demands of the church both in doctrine and in practice. .
‘This is what we do becomes ‘This is what we must do.’ .,That then becomes :We means you. So They can then say to me,. We are telling you what you must do and say.,
We will tell you what we do and then you must do. Se will then find out whether you are willing to do what we do. We believed such and such and so do such and such. So then they can tell me, so they can tell you what you must not do and say and what not believe. Then they find out if you co-operate, using whatever means are needed to get you to co-operate.
But there was a further step Tyndale’s enemies took. Indeed it was the initial one taken as an assumption. What we tell you is what God is telling you. Our authority is God’s authority and we and our system is the means by which God is now speaking. What we are telling you is what God is telling you.
Times have changed but we can see a sad repetition of the opposition in Christian communities of the conflict between an authoritarian demand for conformity and the allowance of the protestant principle that believers must find their own understanding and experience. Ironically it frequently occurs over the issue of understanding the scriptures
now available to all. The very communities which inherited the benefits of the Reformation now demand an authority that insists that their interpretation of that available scripture be followed. In some conservative Christian communities the shift to discussion of correct method of interpretation even taker precedence over the actual understanding of the original text of Scripture.
Since the Scriptures are in some sense fundamental for the Christian theologian, how is he to be faithful to them in constructing theology? What does it mean for him to claim that what he says is in accordance with the Scriptures?
Is he simply to repeat what the Scriptures say? But that would not be to interpret. To repeat is not to bring us any closer to understanding, but only restates our problem, when we have difficulties with the text. But of course the theologian doesnot begin from scratch. He does not start on his own. He stands within a tradition of interpretation to which he is indebted both positively and negatively. He affirms and he criticises what that tradition says. If he is at all constructive he follows and he departs from the guidance it gives him.
The writer lived a long time ago. Is the temporal gap between him and us important or not? It may be. Time separates. I may be able to understand his meaning, and without any difficulty make it my meaning (whether I agree or disagree with it). But suppose his circumstances are very different from mine and what he said was closely related to his very different circumstances? Suppose indeed that what he took for granted can no longer be taken for granted since his culture no longer exists. How shall I interpret what he meant so that it has meaning for me? His words may well have a different meaning for me than they had for him. If that is the case, can we speak about being faithful to his meaning? How shall we know whether we are ‘taking’ his words correctly in our different situation? Note that the situation is different from one in which we want to know what the writer meant and could not (for various reasons) get him to pronounce on it (e.g. he was silent or he was dead). We are now asking whether there is a relation between his meaning and ours such that we may say that our meaning is a faithful interpretation of his.
‘Faithful’ here may mean: (1) that there is some common meaning or intention which we can specify between his meaning and ours; (2) that a generalization can be made to cover both meanings; (3) that our meaning is a possible derivative from his, that he may well have meant and understood what we understand by it if he were in our circumstances. In each case we have considered all the evidence available, historical, linguistic, literary, and theological. (4) that we in our time share the intention which the Biblical writer and in particular the writer of the New Testament shared and that we attempt to execute it in our context. The task is to interpret the revelation of God in Jesus Christ which takes place here and now. This involves presenting its meaning for us and its application to the situations which we now encounter. The continuity of the task is thus rooted in the continuity of God’s revelation in the past with his revelation in the present. This involves moving beyond strict ‘biblical’ theology to constructive or systematic theology.
Langdon Gilkey addresses himself to the question ‘how the theologian is “faithful” to the scriptural source and how he or she shows a continuity with the spirit of major elements of tradition.’4 He writes, ‘Does this mean the theologian copies or repeats the words, the categories, the propositions of Scripture and tradition; that he or she makes a précis of Scripture or writes a commentary on accepted dogma? If copying or repeating is futile because anachronistic, what is it that the theologian “draws” from this source and this resource?’5
He explains that the Christian tradition has a set of central symbols, through whichit interprets the meaning of beliefs, values and goals.
‘In the Christian tradition these symbols find their normative expression, and for theology their source, in the Scriptures, since their primary reference is to the events of revelation to which the Scriptures witness. It is these symbols that are reinterpreted in various ways in tradition; and it is they that the theologian must reinterpret, re-present, in a manner intelligible to us and yet “appropriate” or faithful to their sense in their original locus.’6
The symbols to which Gilkey refers are such as the following: God as Lord, as judge, as electing, choosing, covenanting; God as giver of the Law, God as redeemer, God as faithful; the covenant, the elected people, the Messiah, the new age to come. These symbols familiar in the Old Testament reappear in a new pattern in the New Testament where they are centred around Jesus Christ. In turn, new symbols emerge: incarnation, atonement, resurrection, trinity, second advent.
He then explains the task of theology in reference to these symbols.
‘“Biblical theology” is the attempt to give a unified account of these symbols asthey appear in the Old and New Testaments; historical theology is the story of these symbols as they have been reinterpreted in the tradition. Theology as a whole, then, concerns itself with these symbols and with their power to illumine our existence. The awesome and risky task of “constructive” or “systematic” theology is to provide or propose a unified contemporary understanding of that same complex of symbols, an understanding that is (a) faithful to their original sense in Scripture and tradition, (b) adequate to our own general experience, and (c) intelligible in our time.’7
Doctrine does not simply repeat or summarize the Scripture. For one thing, it uses language not found in Scripture. For another thing it is selective. How then does doctrine, theology, interpret Scripture? The task of systematic theology is to present the meaning for today of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. In doing so it uses language which the Bible does not use. The Christian Church has done that from the beginning. Such theology is constructive in that it does for us today what the writers of the New Testament were doing in their time: interpreting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What we are in our turn interpreting in expounding the New Testament writings is itself a series of interpretations of this fundamental event. That event is Jesus Christ. As history proceeds each particular church community reflects upon the meaning of Jesus Christ for itself, and relates that meaning to the special circumstances of its own history. It will also take account of, and select from, the long history of Christian tradition that which it finds amenable and suggestive for its doctrinal construction.
So what does it mean for a doctrine or a theology to be in harmony with, to be faithful to Scripture? Let us look at alternative answers to the question:
(1) repeating the original words of Scripture;
(2) repeating the original meaning of Scripture;
(3) making a direct application (where possible) of the original meaning of Scripture;
(4) making an indirect application of the original meaning of Scripture;
(5) providing meaning not contradicted by passages of Scripture, where there are such passages as treat of the same subject;
(6) providing meaning not contradicted by Scripture, for the reason that Scripture does not speak about the same subject;
(7) doing today in our way what the writers of Scripture did in their way, namely to interpret the meaning of God’s action in Jesus Christ as we have experienced it, and in meaningful contemporary language, addressing men and women who live in our world and in no other.
The right place to begin is with the last of these suggestions (7).We shall understand Scripture only if we know the reality they wereproclaiming: the revelation of God’s love in Jesus Christ and the faith which has responded to it. That happens now and the light from that continuing event illuminates the whole of life in our world: a very complex world. It is our task to show now how that event, that experience, casts light on our problems, for instance on our self-understanding or our understanding of our social relationships and on what we have learnt about it from the psychologist and the sociologist. How does the Gospel illuminate our world in which barbarity and oppression, affluence and abject poverty, hatred between human beings and totally inadequate social and political measures to cope with world problematic etc. etc., are so evident? It is this world of advanced knowledge scientific and technological that has made our outlook so different from ancient peoples in whichwe understand and present the Gospel of Jesus Christas best we can. Itis in this world that we address ourselves ever anew to the questions of humanity, Who is God?What is man? Why is there evil? Can there be hope? Who am I?
We shall as we do so construct our answers in different ways. Sometimes Scripture language will seem appropriate. At other times the language of Scripture will be very remote from the problems with which we wrestle. That is only to be expected. They did not live in our scientific, bureaucratic, technological and international world. But that to which they witness is that to which we witness. We are bound together in a common witness and in a common task.
To attempt to fulfil this task will obviously take us beyond the text of Scripture . It will involve us in construction of language and ideas, in the use of words and concepts from secular and non-theological spheres. But in being faithful to Jesus Christ, we are in our turn and in our way being faithfulto the Bible.
More than any other biblical book According to John is concerned with the necessity to distinguish what is true from what is false, what is genuine from what is spurious. Throughout the gospel one finds declarations concerning “the true light,” “the true bread,” “the true food,” “the true Israelite,” “the true shepherd,” “the true disciple,” “the true worshipper.” It would appear, then, that there are false manifestations of all these things. These statements, even while cast metaphorically, are discrete claims to be taken seriously. Moreover, the gospel establishes that “God is true,” and that the Son brought “grace and truth” to women and men. Jesus among human beings is identified as “the way, and the truth, and the life.”
The gospel makes clear, however, that the truth it is concerned with is not that which stands because it passes the test of non-contradiction. Neither is it an abstract universal that exists apart, of at least distinct, from all its instances. Today the search for truth is concerned to establish the facts in any given case. We are the inheritors of the Western tradition that is interested in dissecting nature and in establishing what happened in the past. These efforts are constrained by restrictions as to what counts as evidence on which conclusions may be drawn. There is a prevailing skepticism about any claim to absolute truth because there is no evidence that can support such a claim. Of course, the basic characteristic of both scientific and historical truths is that they are to be discarded as soon as new evidence establishes that something else is to be taken as true. This new truth, of course, is also liable to becoming obsolete. Our modern search for the determination of what is going on in nature and in history assumes that truth has to do with knowledge, that is, with true information. Thus our search for the truth is bound to what is bound by space and time.
In According to John, on the other hand, Jesus promises his disciples that the truth they will encounter will make them free. Freedom, however, is not something to be known. It is something to be had. Like the truth that Jesus promised his disciples, freedom is something to be experienced, something to be lived. The establishing of this basic distinction between what is in the realm of knowledge and what is in the realm of being is one of the great treasures to be found in this wonderful gospel. In fact, it would seem that it was written to answer Pilate’s question at Jesus’ trial, “What is truth?” Pilate’s question assumes that truth is to be known. Jesus assumes that truth is in the realm of being. What he promises his disciples is life, not more information.
The question is: What does it mean to believe? The following sentences express some themes of the thirteen chapters of the book.
Ask yourself these questions: What do I believe?
Is it the same as what I say I believe, or think I believe?
Is my belief reasonable?
Is it justifiable?
Is it true?
Are these three different questions?
Have I accepted what I believe without thinking about it?
Can I believe something I do not understand? You will agree that some beliefs are rational and some are not.
When you accept something as true (Is that what you mean by ‘belief’?) you may or may not have considered whether it is rational, whether you understand what you believe, why you are believing it, or to what extent you are being reasonable about your belief.
Before continuing to read, you might like to take a specific example or two, preferable of a topic discussed in the book and ask some of the above questions about it, for example, miracles, self deception, identity, personal Identity, survival.
Now you have had an opportunity to ask yourself serious questions about belief and believing. If you have already given yourself answers to questions about what and why you believe you are on the verge of or have already been doing philosophy. So if you are interested you can be even more serious by looking at specific topics and by examining them at greater length. Be warned that you will need to master the vocabulary appropriate to the topic in view, and should not always be content with simple answers. Philosophy for Believers addresses various issues in thirteen chapters, each one dealing with a particular subject of belief. What we shall now do is to take one of these topics for consideration.
Here is a representative statement of belief: I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting.
Certain considerations immediately arise. To consider whether our dealing with them will be reasonable, we must ask the following questions: What assumptions am I making? How do I understand the key terms I am using? Is the language I am using, understood in the way I understand it, adequate for the explanation I am trying to achieve? Are the steps in my reasoning logical, i e., is the reasoning valid?
In particular: Does the conclusion I draw follow from my reasoning?
To return to our statement of belief: we notice at once that it is very short and because it is so concise it invites various interpretations. The ordinary believer says and remains content with the simplicity of the confession and holds to the restatement: I believe we shall be given new life and that life will be never ending.
The questions that arise from this simple creedal statement give rise to a multitude of philosophical problems. Our task is to specify which of the interpretations we can reasonably consider.
Start with your initial assumptions, among them possibly answers to the following questions:
How shall we conceive the idea of resurrection?
What evidence do we have that resurrection is possible?
What do I have to believe to accept that it is possible?
What sort of life is eternal life and how is it related to my present life?
Will I be the same person in the hereafter as I am now?
Same person? So what constitutes identity, personal identity?
Now let’s take examples of a process by which you reach your conclusion.
You will note that some terms are in italics. These are the basic terms that require detailed consideration and definition. Only then will constructive and consistent argument be forthcoming and leading to a reasonable conclusion. Example 1: I believe in the immortality of the soul Assumptions:
bodies do not survive,
souls may survive,
the soul constitutes the person God is active in the process. Argument: the constituent of the self the soul is inherently immortal
connect the idea of immortality with the idea of the self Conclusion: The life everlasting is the life of the immortal soul. The soul survives eternally. Explanations required: Concerning the source of the assumptions, and how they are to be justified
How to justify speaking of the soul as the constituent entity of the self
How to conceive of the soul as immortal
How to conceive of the possibility of retaining identity in the after life
How to think rationally about eternity
We now consider an example of a different interpretation of the same initial creedal statement. Example 2: I believe in the resurrection of the body. Assumptions: The idea of the soul is misconceived
It is not needed to give an account of what constitutes a person It is therefore not needed to account for personal survival Speak of the body to conceive the survival of the person, i.e. of resurrection Search for a rational way of conceiving the identity of the surviving person with the original person
God is active in the process
[A hidden assumption (and all that it implies) may well be that the idea of bodily resurrection is what is taught in Christian Scripture and so should be the proper subject of rational explanation. However the philosophical treatment must stand on its own rational feet.]
Argument: The idea of survival is to be connected with the concept of the body
The concept of bodily survival can be conceived rationally
This is achieved by introducing the idea of personalidentity, continuing after death though resurrection The concept of replication achieves the desired result Resurrection of the body to eternal life is a reasonable belief Conclusion: You will note that some terms are in italics. These are the basic terms that require detailed consideration and definition. Only then will constructive and consistent argument be forthcoming and lead to a reasonable conclusion. Explanations required: Assumptions should not be taken for granted. Since we are engaged in a philosophical exercise, even if a primary source of a key assumption is that it represents the teaching of Christian Scripture, the argument will rest on the validity of the reasoning involved, i.e., the validity of the logic by which the conclusion is reached.
We have taken the theme of chapter 11 as our subject. There are thirteen chapters altogether, each one dealing with an interesting theme of both general interest and also of interest to Christians. These chapters are supplemented with tutorials and Work Sheets. This makes the book suitable for use in the classroom, as well as for individual study.
Having considered the above explanation I propose you attempt an answer to the following question: How does philosophical discussion affect the understanding of your belief?
Suggestions:
make some general statement(s).
take a single belief that is important for you and examine it.
In our informal series of books on issues related to creation we’ve discussed how creation is represented in scripture, how one goes about forming a doctrine of creation that is truly Christian, and how someone who accepts evolution might reflect his in worship. Soon we will have a volume on how our understanding of God as creator impacts our lives now, and finally we’ll have a volume that talks about the basic science one needs to know about origins in order to understand the debates on the topic.
Chris Eyre is one of our editors working out of the UK. He’s been working on editing the manuscript forCreation in Contemporary Experience, which is coming soon. He posted something today regarding science and religion, and the nature of internal or subjective evidence. Where does our experience stand as evidence? (Note that, as a good editor, he does not cite this forthcoming book in his post, but it is closely related.)
In discussing such concepts of God as “ground of all being,” for example, he notes:
They also, from my perspective, fail to explain all of the evidence, as they do not give any real insight into the mystical experience, the direct unmediated experience of God, which I take as a piece of evidence, as I mentioned above. They do have a transcendent aspect, which is singularly lacking in scientific materialism, and which is well harmonised with immanence of a sort, but it is a vastly impersonal immanence. The mystical experience is in my experience a vastly personal one, and I don’t find this reflected in “ground of all being” or “being itself” theologies, nor in the extremes of the God-of-absence of, for instance, Peter Rollins.
I need something which at least explains the mystical experience as I have experienced it, which accounts for the evidence (albeit entirely personal) I have. …
In his recent book Philosophy for Believers, Edward W. H. Vick occupies an entire chapter (6: Experience and God) on this topic. In this paragraph I hear a reflection of Chris’s discussion:
For the theist the question of God is involved when the question
of the purpose of existence is raised. At such point in our lives
we may be faced with the question of the meaning of the whole,
when ‘openings into the depths of life’ lead us to ask about the
ground and goal of our existence. (p. 112)
So what do you think? Is experience valid evidence? If so, does it operate only for the person who experiences, or can that evidence be shared?
At the very core of my Christian faith is my conviction that Jesus is risen. That conviction does not include absolute certainty about all of the details. It also allows for the existence of literary elements in the telling of the story. What it does include is a faith that death did not defeat Jesus AND that, at this present moment and forever, Jesus is and will be alive.
At the very core of my Christian faith is my conviction that Jesus is risen. … That conviction IS based on the trust I place in the testimony of others.
That conviction IS based on the trust I place in the testimony of others. Dr. Vick is so accurate in asserting this dynamic in how people come to faith. A wonderful Jesuit New Testament professor in college once told our class something I can never forget. He said that, when all is said and done, when we look at the recorded testimony that affirms the Resurrection of Jesus, we all have to make a choice: Either we claim that the people who believed this were crazy and delusional OR we affirm that they are really on to something and that what they believe is real. I place my faith in that testimony and I believe it is real!
As to contemporary testimony, I offer two observations. First, I believe that real life changes in a person can occur and that the power of God is present in that happening. So, I see and hear recovery stories, for example, testimonies of people turning away from alcohol and other drugs one day at a time, and I see through them to the active presence of a living, breathing God, yes!
Not everything can be explained simply.
On the other hand, I am also cognizant of the line Paul Simon used in The Boxer as he reminded us that ‘ A man (or woman) hears what he ( she) wants to hear and disregards the rest.’ What I mean here is that because people have been raised with exposure to religious language and thinking, they might very well be predisposed to interpret events in their lives through the lens of Christian faith and doctrine. Understanding this is NOT to say that God is not working through these events. Instead it is to offer a necessary cautionary note that not everything can be explained simply.
So, to answer the question, the testimony of others often corroborates my own faith, even as I am skeptical of explaining the specifics of why things happen. At the heart of faith lies an affirmation of mystery. When mysterious things are explained with certainty, the power of mystery is lost in the process. I am sure I will be saying more about this in future responses.
The crucial question for a Christian in the second chapter is the relationship between testimony, belief, and knowledge. How important is historical testimony to your beliefs as a Christian? What about contemporary testimony, for example, claims of a miracle?
In the second chapter of his book Philosophy for Believers Edward Vick reviews and clarifies some very complex questions about what it means to believe something. More importantly, he explores how we go about validating these beliefs. A lot of this we simply take for granted without realizing the distinctions and differences Vick points out.
A key question is the importance of historical testimony to Christian beliefs. I happen to think they are very important. For example, it is common today to hear people claim that all religions are alike, they are all based on faith, and there is no real basis for choosing between them.
Christianity and Judaism … involve certain beliefs about history and make certain historical claims, claims that can be tested.
If this were true, we would be left to pick a faith with no way to know if we were correct until after we had died, and it was too late, unless reincarnation turns out to be correct. I do not believe this is the case. The simple fact is that various faiths have various means of support. Christianity and Judaism are historical faiths in the fact that in addition to their theology they also involve certain beliefs about history and make certain historical claims, claims that can be tested.
For example, Mormons differ from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity in that they make different claims about Scripture. The historical Christian view is that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Mormons believe that the Old and New Testaments, while the word of God, have been corrupted. They also believe that the Book of Mormon was preserved and given to Joseph Smith. These are competing and contradictory claims. While both could be wrong, both cannot be correct.
This is not an issue of “you pay your nickel and you take your chances.” The evidence for and against these claims can be examined and tested. When this is done, the evidence is pretty clear.
There are thousands of ancient manuscripts and tens of thousands of early translations that support the text of the Bible. Not only does this support the reliability of the transmission of the text, it stands in stark contrast to Joseph Smith’s claims about what the text of the Bible was supposed to be. On the other hand there is not a single ancient manuscript or translation of the Book of Mormon, not one.
In addition there is other evidence as well. Many of the countries, places, people and events mentioned in the Bible are known to have existed. We do not have to wonder about the existence of Egypt, Jerusalem, King David, or the Babylonian exile. As for the Book of Mormon and its corresponding description of the new world, not a single country, place, person or event has been found, not one.
So when it comes to the evidence, there is simply no comparison. While one may argue about whether the evidence for the Bible is strong enough to warrant acceptance of its claims, there is certainly a vast array of evidence that is simply non-existent when it comes to the Book of Mormon.
A Mormon I once talked to was unconcerned about this. In fact for him the lack of evidence was a big plus. As he put it, the less evidence there was, and the harder it was to accept Mormonism as true, the more faith he must have to believe it! Since having faith was a good thing, this must be a good thing. This claim is based, I believe on a misunderstanding of the nature of faith, something Vick touches on, but I believe will address more fully later on, and so I will postpone my discussion of faith till then.
The evidence for the various religions and religious views is not equal.
The key point here is that I believe that evidence is important, and that the evidence for the various religions and religious views is not equal. Some views have more evidence than others, and some views run contrary to the evidence.
Where the issue of evidence becomes problematic is when it comes to miracles. Despite claims of relying on evidence and reason, many skeptics simply side step this with claims that miracles are impossible. I find such views suspect, not only in their reasoning but because they ultimately cast doubt the entire process.
If miracles are impossible, then the accounts of them, such as those in the Bible, must be wrong. If the biblical accounts are wrong, then they were either written by eyewitnesses who were dishonest and lied, or more likely by people who did not really know what happened. Either way, the accounts are unreliable. So when we encounter skeptics who claim the Bible is unreliable, is that a position based on a careful analysis of the evidence, or one driven by the presupposition that miracles are impossible? Often it is the latter. After all. why waste time on an in-depth examination of the evidence supporting the reliability of something you already “know” to be unreliable?
Nor does this simply involve ancient events or just skeptics. Religious claims continue to be made today. It is easy for people to dismiss accounts of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, if one believes they ceased after the 1st century. Correspondingly it is easy to accept claims about the gifts of the Holy Spirit if you believe they are wide spread. Paul wrote in 1 Thess 5:21 “Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good” (ISV). That remains excellent advice today.
Even though you do not realise it, you have already been engaged, I will not say ‘immersed’, in philosophical issues when you start to talk about Christian faith. For you achieve certain attitudes before you fill your speech with content. You say you believe, whatever it is you say that you believe.
John Hick summarized the traditional freewill defense as an argument with three phases. First, God’s omnipotence is defined as excluding the capacity to perform what is logically absurd. Secondly, to claim that man is free to assert that he can choose between right and wrong. The possibility of choosing wrong is necessary for beings to be free. Men in fact realize this possibility in doing evil. Thirdly, Hick takes issue with Flew and Mackie, when they suggest that God could have created human creatures so that they would always choose the good.
Does that question mean that we try as believer to say how to believe, or does it mean that we as non-believer are trying to say how not to believe? The question is ambiguous. Whichever way we take it, the exploration is interesting and serious. Shall we contemplate taking it in the first way and then in the other? To discover what we can believe will enable us indeed require us to refuse alternative beliefs. To realise what we cannot believe may lead us to discover what we can believe.
Being Faithful to the Text
More than any other biblical book According to John is concerned with the necessity to distinguish what is true from what is false, what is genuine from what is spurious. Throughout the gospel one finds declarations concerning “the true light,” “the true bread,” “the true food,” “the true Israelite,” “the true shepherd,” “the true disciple,” “the true worshipper.” It would appear, then, that there are false manifestations of all these things. These statements, even while cast metaphorically, are discrete claims to be taken seriously. Moreover, the gospel establishes that “God is true,” and that the Son brought “grace and truth” to women and men. Jesus among human beings is identified as “the way, and the truth, and the life.”
The question is: What does it mean to believe?
In our informal series of books on issues related to creation we’ve discussed how creation is represented in scripture, how one goes about forming a doctrine of creation that is truly Christian, and how someone who accepts evolution might reflect his in worship. Soon we will have a volume on how our understanding of God as creator impacts our lives now, and finally we’ll have a volume that talks about the basic science one needs to know about origins in order to understand the debates on the topic.
At the very core of my Christian faith is my conviction that Jesus is risen. That conviction does not include absolute certainty about all of the details. It also allows for the existence of literary elements in the telling of the story. What it does include is a faith that death did not defeat Jesus AND that, at this present moment and forever, Jesus is and will be alive.At the very core of my Christian faith is my conviction that Jesus is risen. … That conviction IS based on the trust I place in the testimony of others.
The crucial question for a Christian in the second chapter is the relationship between testimony, belief, and knowledge. How important is historical testimony to your beliefs as a Christian? What about contemporary testimony, for example, claims of a miracle?
