<bitter angsty rant>
What is the church, and why should we hang out with the local congregations? I hear an awful lot of stuff these days along the lines of, "You're not supposed to get anything out of church; you're supposed to be there to serve." While there is some wisdom to this, it also seems to me to be a cop-out. If everyone has a problem with "not getting something out of church," this would normally suggest to me that something has gone disastrously wrong; one should be able to spiritually grow within the local congregation, and not solely from the development of long-suffering.
What happens when one's faith grows weaker after every sermon, when one can no longer even wish to believe what is said in the empty-headed sentimentalism called worship? When opportunities for service are basically being an usher (aka doorstop with bulletins) or working in the bookstore, selling the latest popular poison to infect our churches? Teaching of any sort would be right out, because one doesn't want to simply yell "Jesus" and "Bible" (in reverse order of importance) louder and louder. So, both helping and being helped are really not happening. However, is the path of rugged individualism really Biblical either? Is the community on a blog and on Facebook really a church substitute, or the functional equivalent of a local congregation in this day and age?
What really worries me, though, is Paul's insistence that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and the weak to overcome the strong. Now, God chose Israel, who showed the strength of God by actually being strong despite their regulations and humble origins (at least when they were following God). So, I'm assuming that the foolish would have to actually confound the wise, not simply taunt everyone else at the last judgment. Further, James does say that God will give wisdom to all who ask. Now, what do I do when there really seems to be very little wisdom in the church? Sure, I can read Augustine, and Aquinas, and so on and so forth, and these people really are the only reason why I'm still a Christian at all. However, the promises seem to be that the common people and not just the already brilliant guys would confound the wise. So, when there is surprisingly little attention paid to Proverbs exhortations to leave simplicity for wisdom within the local congregation, this reflects on the lack of God's work, it would seem to me. But, if God isn't working in the promised way, why should I really assume that God is acting at all?
Similarly, when it comes to living the righteous lifestyle, I seem to be getting mixed messages. On the one hand, I'm told that God's power should be working in me; on the other, I'm told that I have to appropriate this through (insert variation of visualization technique here). Why should I assume that this is God's power working and not merely my own psychological trick? Quite honestly, I find more practical wisdom in Buddhist thought, deficient as I think it is in the long run. If God's acting, then why isn't God acting? If salvation is only for the next life, then this gives us a defeater for belief in it at all.
In sum, here is my question: The Bible claims that God acts in some ways rather than others, presumably with empirical effects. At what point can this claim be falsified, or must we always just grit our teeth and hang onto faith despite any signs of God's presence besides a possible event 2000 years ago? How would this really be faith any longer?
</bitter angsty rant>
12 comments:
HA! Facebook stalking yields Blogger stalking!!!
I completely disagree with the point of the church being to serve and not to grow. I think the PRIMARY function of the church is to commune with God and fellow believes. To learn and to grow in our faith, both individually and communally. Service will inevitably come out of that, as we see areas in which we can help the people around us. However, I think the modern church has gotten off-base in thinking that church is a ground for service and outreach. The world outside of church is for service and outreach. Church itself is not.
So there. Two cents included.
Have a good day!!
~michelle b
You wrote:
In sum, here is my question: The Bible claims that God acts in some ways rather than others, presumably with empirical effects. At what point can this claim be falsified, or must we always just grit our teeth and hang onto faith despite any signs of God's presence besides a possible event 2000 years ago? How would this really be faith any longer?
Some of the empirical effects of God's acts are historical (even ancient historical). How do you falsify historical events? Is there any conceivably possible evidence that would satisfy me that Israel did not cross the Red Sea, that Moses did not write the Torah, that Israel was not in the land during the (fictional?) period of the judges, that David was not king in Israel, that Jesus did not die or rise from the dead, or that the Holy Spirit did not come at Pentecost?
Other empirical effects of God's acts (the ones I take it you're concerned with in your post here) are more present/future. Do sinners repent? Are their hearts (their moral sense and their intentions) regenerated? Are people with cancer miraculously healed? Do individuals experience God's presence and absence? Do the foolish become wise and the weak become strong? Are the poor happy? Are the rich humbled?
I'm trying to think through these questions and reflect on the significance of their answers with my pragmatist hat on. I think there's always going to be an alternate explanation for any phenomena. But good theories should not be utterly immune to falsifiability. Is my faith so immune? And if so, is that a bad thing?
I'm afraid I don't have answers to any of the questions I asked in this comment.
I feel like going back to re-read "The Will to Believe".
Concerning historical events, it seems that they could not be conclusively falsified, nor could they be conclusively proven (though it would be nice if there were more evidence; a plethora of reliable external sources, for example, or postmortem (but pre-ascension) sightings of Jesus throughout all of Israel, especially to those disinclined to believe).
Concerning present events, I wouldn't simply want evidence that sinners repent and that diseases are healed; I want evidence that this is something unique to Christianity. Sure, sinners repent due to Christian doctrine; but don't they also for other reasons, and perhaps equally as much? Similarly for the other examples, they happen, but not only are there other explanations, these explanations would better explain why these examples occur outside of Christianity as well as in it.
I would need to see that, for instance, the vast majority of miraculous cancer cures happen to Christians. If the vast majority were to happen to monotheists at large without distinction, I would have reason to believe in a God, but not any particular doctrine concerning this God. If these cures were mainly to happen to people who pray/meditate etc. irregardless of belief, I would have reason to consider the cures to be psychological (or that there is some vague "spiritual" reality, such as Pullman's Dust). If there simply were no cures, then Christianity wouldn't be falsified, but we would seem to have an absentee God.
It seems to me that claims of Christianity's uniqueness in these matters, though, come mainly from sources with a vested interest in promoting Christianity and a vested disinterest in comparative studies which would (dis)confirm said claims. The only one which seems to me to carry weight is that the Christian West has built the universities and hospitals and so on, looking after social welfare much better than other regions under different religions. However, Hick has a point when he notes that this may be as much due to Western intellectual culture as anything else. Certainly there have been long stretches of Christian-populated areas which have been no better off than any other part of the globe, and not all of the people responsible for social care in the West have been the orthodox believers. Also, contemporary movements like Engaged Buddhism are challenging the claim as well.
If the majority of miraculous cancer healings happened to Christians, I would not take this as confirmation of the truth of Christian doctrine. Because this is not something that Christian doctrine, as I understand it, would predict. I would instead suspect the leaders of the Christian communities to be in possession of a secret cure that they choose only to dispense to their followers. A repugnant notion.
Also, I wouldn't say that sinners repent, etc. "because of Christian doctrine". That sounds like saying "because they hear/believe Christian doctrine", whereas I would want to say "because Christian doctrine is true". That is, sinners repent because God is working in their hearts. One vehicle for God's doing this is the preaching of the Christian gospel, yes. But that isn't the only one.
Other explanations are available for effects such as changed lives and miraculous healings, yes. Does the Christian explanation predict that more Christians than non-Christians would expereience these effects? No. (At least, I don't think so, but I may have to think about this some more.) Do the competing explanations that supposedly account for these effects better than the Christian explanation entail that Christian doctrine is false, or that Christian doctrine is "one truth among many" (whatever that means)? I suspect that many of these effects are evidence of a general supernatural reality, and that we need special revelation to find out more about that reality.
So then it becomes a matter of adjudicating between competing special revelations. I think I have better reason to accept the NT than other competitors.
I'm not trying to be dogmatic here, or to sound like I have all the answers. I don't think all non-Christians are irrational and stupid. But I do think that Christianity is rationally defensible. I'm just thinking out loud while attempting to make sense of reality from a Christian perspective. All my statements should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with epistemic humility.
I don't mean to be saying that Christianity is irrational; I can see why other people might be inclined to accept it. I just have having serious issues with my faith right now, and the lack of a specific, tangible Christian experience is a pretty key issue.
Concerning miracle cures, what you propose could be another explanation. Indeed, there can always be some other explanation of a physical event. However, if God ever does answer prayer, it would seem that God would predominately answer the prayers of those in the proper relation to Him (whatever this may be), and that some of these prayers would be answered (even if others may not be, for one reason or another). So, I don't mean to say that 100% of Christians with cancer (or all those connected to prayees with a godly life, or whatever) would be cured, just something a bit higher than the average. If I ask my wife to do something, than there should be a higher chance of her doing it than if I did not ask her (why else would I ask?), even if she would often refuse or do something else.
Also, it would seem that sanctification is key to salvation, such that all those saved are being sanctified, and all those properly sanctified are (will be? have been?) saved. So, I would expect that the class of people performing sanctified actions in increasing frequency would be saved. Now, if universalism is true, then I could expect to see these actions anywhere (though for some, they may not start until after death). However, if less are saved, I would expect to see a greater proportion in the true religion exhibiting sanctification than elsewhere.
Also, wherever God is specifically working in people, I would expect to see signs of this. If Christianity does not show this, then I have reason to say that God is not doing much work amongst Christians, which would further entail that God does not give any special sanction to Christianity, providing a defeater for its truth-claims.
So, I could say that general revelation accounts for a lot when it comes to sanctification. But, the more I stress this, the less importance special revelation seems to bear. If this truth is not what predominately makes people good, then what use is it? We can talk about which special revelation is true, but this seems to be important only insofar as it inspires the appropriate love. What good is a religion in which the adherents have the facts, but who look like the rest of the world?
You wrote:
"If this truth is not what predominately makes people good, then what use is it? We can talk about which special revelation is true, but this seems to be important only insofar as it inspires the appropriate love. What good is a religion in which the adherents have the facts, but who look like the rest of the world?"
How pragmatic of you. :) (I'm not saying that's a bad thing.)
I'll be thinking about this one for a while. I don't want you to think I'm attempting to dismiss the question with a quick answer. I don't think what I'm saying next is the final word by any means, but here's what I'm thinking at the moment.
1- Maybe knowledge of certain so-called religious truths is not so important as those truths themselves are. That is, the effects of the work of God in the world may be more significant than the effects of people believing certain things about that work.
2- I guess the (deliberate pertinent conscious intellectual-ish) reasons that I'm a Christian have more to do with what I believe to be true (namely about the resurrection of Christ and birth of the Church) than with issues of moral import. I guess I see my practical, moral convictions flowing out of my propositional beliefs about God and Jesus (His Lordship, the truth of His message, and the import of His commands) for the most part rather than the other way around for the most part. I feel that my belief is also confirmed by my experience to some extent, though not perhaps with scientific rigor--I don't know how my faith could be falsified, honestly. But I experience enough success in the world while operating on my beliefs that I am subjectively convinced of their truth. My rejection of certain other religious beliefs (reincarnation, karma, anatta, the status of the Qur'an and Talmud, etc.) has more to do with my propositional beliefs entailing the falsehood of these other beliefs than with my personal experience of these beliefs failing or being falsified. And I feel my faith has more historical evidence behind it than competitors. Of course, all this is about *me*. And different people are different.
3- You ask, what good is truth that doesn't inspire people to goodness or make them better people? I guess philosophically I would say that there are different kinds of value. Truth is more valuable than error, ceteris paribus. Moral virtue is more valuable than moral vice. Love is better than hate. Some truths are more important than others for pragmatic reasons, yes. I guess I think truths about the resurrection and lordship and teachings of Jesus are pretty important (to me) because they entail certain moral requirements on me (and others). Such as love your enemies and don't worship idols, including human governments. But what *seems* important to different people is going to be different, even if there is some objective, fairly consistent standard of practical importance/practical rationality across all humanity.
OK-now I feel that I'm rambling.
In any case, you have my sympathy and my prayers: that, however long it takes for you to find resolution you will be given peace and continue in good relationships and personal and social sanctification in the mean time, that you will be guided into the truth, and that the truth will inspire you to goodness and make you a better person, and that people around you will not punish you for having questions. And, I'll go ahead and pray that Christ will make Himself known to you personally, via the presence of His Spirit. Assuming that the Word of God in Christ is true and that such experiences are real. (Hopefully these prayers will be answered ones!)
Peace unto you.
Thank you very much, Scott, for the advice, support, and prayers.
Re 1 - I'm fine with that. I'm giving a pragmatic argument looking for a pragmatic result; what do I do, rather than what is ultimately true. I take it that my response to these effects of God is more important than my beliefs about these effects. More on this in response to the 3rd section.
Re 2 - My problem is that the rational arguments for Christianity don't seem all that strong anymore. Even if the historical arguments have a 75% of being true, that's still 25% that I'm wasting my life. Further, let's say that there are 100 explanations in that 25%. Each explanation could have a .25% chance of being true, and so look ridiculous, but the sum total is enough to look at. I don't need an alternative to have problems with the historical basis for Christianity.
Also, different religions may not have the same historical basis, but they also don't need it. Buddhism is fine whether or not the Buddha actually preached the doctrines attached to him. Islam and Judaism have a peculiar connection to their history, claiming both to have special revelation while mainly preaching the message of pure, simple monotheism. With Christianity, if the history is false, then I can admire Jesus, but I should look elsewhere for help.
As far as my experience is concerned, I don't really see a whole lot of the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, either in myself or in much of the church. I feel like I'm told "Here is where you are supposed to be," but left without both the practical wisdom and the power to reach it. The church either preaches inane messages about "Let go and let God" in response to moral improvement (immediately contradicted when talking about the fight against sin), or (at least in classical sources) gives good advice which really only works if you have firm, unshakable faith (it's kind of hard to go through the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius when you are not sure whether Hell actually exists). So, what do I do when I see Buddhist principles which do actually help be to become a better person, even under Christian standards? The True and the Good seem to be separate, such that I can either know the truth or become good, but not both.
Re 3 - And coming from both of the above points, I consider that, if I can't find a way of reconciling them, the Good trumps the True. I would love to know the truth, but what does it matter if in my struggles, the closer I am to knowledge the further I am from loving my neighbor? When I let go of those struggles, it becomes so much easier to let up on my bitterness, to accept others wherever they are currently, to give up my own desires for others. So, either I say that whatever helps me to become better is more important than whether what I'm following is true, or I say that whatever helps me to become better must therefore be true (of course, there's the issue of different notions of "better," and so on, but that's another post; in sum, though, there are at least some everyday values which seem pretty consistent). What I have trouble saying is that I'm going to keep following what I see to be true, even though it's relatively sterile in making me virtuous other then in providing ideals which it doesn't help me reach.
Wow, great question: "Is my faith falsifiable?" I think the answer is sortof no, based on my epistemology. My theory of epistemology (which is greatly indebted to Michael Polanyi) goes like this: everyone has a set of categories through which they process the world. It is possible to change one's categories, but it's a slow and difficult process, and one can't completely step outside them and evaluate them. Change in beliefs does come when someone decides there is sufficient reason (not exhaustive proof, just sufficient reason) to change from one to another, that is, one decides that a new category makes sufficient sense of the world, even if there are still objections to it -- and each person decides what "sufficient" is individually.
I've decided that my belief in Jesus as God and His active involvement in the world makes sufficient sense of the world. I could learn things that would shake this belief, but I could always categorize them as objections and loose ends and decide that my belief in Jesus is still "sufficient." That's the "no" part of my answer to "Is my faith falsifiable?"
However, I think the sheer amount of human suffering just in Africa alone is a weighty objection to belief in an actively involved god -- theologians and philosophers can have all the discussions they want about whether disbelieving in god because of "the problem of evil" is logical, but all those who say they can't believe in God because of suffering have an existential grasp on something I don't usually grapple with. I think if someone proved to me that the NT documents weren't really very reliable at all, that would shake my faith too.
Thanks for the thoughts, Vi! I pretty much agree with your response; maybe "falsifiable" could be expanded to include potential defeaters (such as experience of horrendous suffering in Africa and unreliability of NT documents), which would not disprove faith, but which could prompt a worldview change?
While PoE considerations make sense as potential defeaters for a subject's faith (i.e., they may constitute sufficient reason for a subject to change her categories, and she may be justified in so changing her categories), I don't think extending the term "falsifiable" to include such defeaters is desirable.
I guess you can use terms however you want. But by "falsifiable" I usually mean that a hypothesis makes a prediction that is empirically in principle falsifiable. While we could say Christian theism predicts that suffering in Africa would not be as it is, and thus that Christian theism is falsified, I don't agree. I don't think that we have to apply ad hoc ancilliary hypotheses to Christian theism in order to rescue Christian theism from being falsified by PoE considerations.
Someone's reasoning process might work this way, of course. That they really did think Xian Theism predicted less evil, and that they modified their understanding of Xian Theism to avoid its being falsifiable after experiencing great evil in the world. But I think the matter is there in Xian Theism to start with, that we would expect suffering resulting from moral evil.
Now I'm not so sure at the end of the post that my distinction between having potential defeaters and being falsifiable makes sense...
Just concerning the definition of "falsifiable:" I think S.C.'s right in saying that that word usually means "making predictions that are empirically verifiable." Thus we do need a separate category for matters that challenge one's faith but are not really predictions that Christian belief makes (like about horrendous suffering). Can we just call these things "defeaters," or maybe "potential defeaters"?
Yet these definitions don't address one of M.A.'s points a while back: do I just have a faith with blinders on if I say, "I believe in God's saving activity in the world thru Jesus Christ," and someone replies, "What about this," and I just say, "God is bigger than I can explain, and I can't explain that, but I still believe"?
Two quotes are in the back of my mind now. One I once heard a speaker say and attribute to Bono of U2: "It's hard to believe! When you look at the way the world is, it's hard to believe! Yet I am a believer."
The second is from an interview I read of Bart Ehrman. (He's a Bible scholar who started out conservative but lost his faith as he studied.) His testimony is that first he became convinced that the Bible wasn't inerrant, and then he decided he couldn't believe that God was really intervening in the world because of all the suffering. (Hence the two example defeaters at the end of my last comment weren't randomly chosen.) (BTW, the interview is in _Biblical Archaeology Review_ entitled "Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars." Sorry, I'm not sure which issue it was.)
You guys are right; I was stretching "falsifiable" a bit.
So, while this may not get at the sense I was pining for in the original post, maybe the following definition of pseudo-falsifiability (PF) could work:
There is big-C Christianity which transcends any individual believer, and then there are the little-c christianities which we construct to try to approximate the big C. As the big-C transcends us, it is unfalsifiable; we don't have it down pat enough to do so, whether or not it would even make empirical predictions. However, our little-cs are falsifiable, as we try to make our way around the world and refine our views.
Now, hopefully the little-cs seem to be progressing in some direction toward the ideal, toward a better match with its referents. However, if the sense of progression is lost, there is reason to believe that my little-cs do not actually match up with a big-C (either there is no big-C, or my little-cs were too woefully inadequate to be considered appropriate representations). Things like suffering and historical snafus may make progression seem impossible, therefore providing a defeater against the hope of approaching big-C.
Do you guys think this works at all?
On a different yet somewhat related note, what are the thoughts on the post here ?
Post a Comment