Christianity’s Biggest Difficulties Part I - The Context
DaGoodS has recently challenged me to write a post about some of the difficulties that Christian worldview faces. If Christianity is valid, the arguments for it must make it more probably true than the arguments against it. DaGoodS rightly claims that most Christians operate on the assumption that information contrary to the Christian Gospel is patently false, and therefore doesn’t deserve careful scrutiny. When many of us are presented with the “problems” of Christianity, we stubbornly refuse to give them a hearing and think through their implications.
From what I have read over at his blog, DaGoodS was raised as a Christian but later “deconverted” after exploring the philosophical and scientific foundations of the Christian faith. He beleives that the evidence for non-theism is stronger than the evidence for Christian theism, and he claims that he has “never had a Christian provide me with a method for objective determination of many claims–a method that would even provide rejection of those claims.” I’m not sure exactly what he means by this statement, but I conclude that he thinks Christianity balks at any result of the Scientific Method that seems to be contrary to the claims made in the Scripture.
So, DaGoodS has invited me to write a post about some of the difficult teachings of the Christian faith and explain how I have objectively come to terms with the Christian approach to each of these teachings. I think (and I am not at all suggesting the DaGoodS is sinister or malevolent) that he intends to demonstrate that my handling of these claims is irrational or somehow not objective because it is ultimately faith-based.
Over the next few days I’ll be dealing with specific hurdles that I have had to overcome to accept the Christian worldview as most reliable, but before I establish these claims, I feel that I should share my background. To be fair, there are presuppositions that all of us have based upon our upbringing and evironment, and I’d like to toss mine on the table before we begin our discussion. I hope that DaGoodS and I can have a congenial discussion about these issues, and maybe if we know one another on a bit more personal level, we can embark on this little journey with a positive result.
So, here’s my story. I was raised in a devoutly religious home, the son of a conservative Independant Baptist minister, and I can count on one hand the number of times that I missed a church service during those years. I attended private Christian school through both my elementary and high school years, and my senior year of high school I chose to become a “born again” believer. I went off to an equally conservative Christian college, the kind that teaches that the King James translation of the Bible is the only authoritative word of God. By the end of my junior year of school, I had come to the conclustion, through a series of personal experiences and difficulties, that the Gospel this college presented did not square with the “real world.” During that time of my life, were I pressed, I would tell people that I was agnostic. I didn’t know what I believed anymore. So the search for the truth began.
I dug into philosophy and science, looking for the answers to the “big questions.” I read everything from Ovid to Kant, and just when I had given up hope of knowing any of the truth, I stumbled upon Orthodoxy by Chesterton. Chesterton’s rationale and rhetoric appealed to me in a very artistic way, and Orthodoxy helped me to see that rational people could indeed believe the claims of Christianity. From there, I moved to more philosophical thinkers, like Alvin Plantinga and Norman Geisler, and these men’s writings further strengthened my Christian perspective.
I currently hold an earned Master’s Degree in Theatre and I am enrolled in a prominent doctoral program at a respected state University where I study Aesthetics with an emphasis in comparative religion and philosophy, so these academic endeavors have served to challenge and strengthen my faith in Jesus as presented in the Bible.
That’s where I am, and where I am going-who knows? But I’ve set the context for our next discussion. Tune in next time for my discussion of the Incongruity of God in the Old and New Testaments as one of Christianity’s problems that need sorting out.
Tags:agnostic agnosticism atheism Christianity theism Share This
Recently
January 1st, 2009 at 10:25 am
Jeremy Killian,
We come from surprisingly similar backgrounds. Independent Baptist Church, never miss a church service, private Christian school, initial conservative college.
I was too brief in my initial statement, so let me clarify.
Jeremy Killian: He beleives that the evidence for non-theism is stronger than the evidence for Christian theism, and he claims that he has “never had a Christian provide me with a method for objective determination of many claims–a method that would even provide rejection of those claims.” I’m not sure exactly what he means by this statement, but I conclude that he thinks Christianity balks at any result of the Scientific Method that seems to be contrary to the claims made in the Scripture.
Not quite. (But this is the fault of my brevity, not of you.) Perhaps the best way to explain what I am looking for is to use your intended topic of “Incongruity between the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament.” First I will use the subject to (hopefully) explain what I mean by “method” and then I will explain what method I use.
While I am interested in your resolution to the various differences, I am far keener to learn—I really want to know–how you came to those resolutions. Think of all the incongruities we are talking about.
Within the Tanakh we have the difference between the God of a Mosaic-written Torah, or one written under the Documentary Hypothesis—a different sort of God from the aspect of Jehovah, El, Priest and Deuteronomical. Or even more than just the four (4) divisions. We have the difference between the Chronicler and author of Samuel or Kings. Or the difference between one, two or three authors of Isaiah. An early author or late author of Daniel.
Or the difference between a mythical and historical Torah. Or a combination of the two. Resulting in differences between a YEC, OEC, and theistic-evolutionary God of Genesis 1-11.
Or when we get to the New Testament, the incongruity between the Peterine God, the Johannine God, the Pauline God (even the early Pauline as compared the late Pauline!), the God of James or Hebrew or Acts. Not to mention the incongruity between the Synoptic God and Gospel of John. Or even the Markan picture as compared to Matthean.
While not canonical, Christians do rely upon (at their convenience) the Early Church Fathers’ works, bringing into play the incongruity of the Gospel of Thomas’ God (both Infancy and Sayings) or Barnabas, or Clement or Shepherd of Hermas or Judas or Papais or Polycarp or Ignatius or…well…you get the picture.
And even if we sort out the technical differences, we are left with multiple resolutions to these differences. Judaism resolves the incongruity of the Tanakh and the New Testament by saying the New Testament is incorrect about God! Muslims and Mormons resolve it by saying it is incomplete about God! Hindus and Buddhists resolve it by claiming neither is correct about God!
And even within those who hold some (or all) of the two sets of books are accurate, we have various interpretations attempting to resolve the incongruities. The Jews have Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Hassidic to name a few. Christians have “resolved” the incongruities with interpretations such as Catholicism vs. Protestant, or Calvinism, or Preterist, or Universalism.
Not to mention such formal theologies like Covenant theology.
Of course, some even debate as to what is an incongruity or not. (Inerrantists vs non-inerrancy being the primary example) So the first thing we would need to do is determine a way to know what is an incongruity or not.
That is what I mean by method. NOT simply saying, “This is a problem; here is the resolution.” No, what I am looking for is “Here is a method whereby we determine what is an incongruity. If the proposed problem conforms to our method—then we will address it. If it does not—we need not bother.”
Second, obviously, is a method where we address the incongruity. A method we attempt to make as objective as possible, and we stay consistent with. If we are pre-disposed to a certain outcome, but in using the method come up with a different result—will we change our mind?
Imagine the simplest method I can think of. We place the proposed incongruities on a dartboard, throw a dart, and wherever it lands—that is our resolution. Absent a dart champion, quite objective since we cannot control the landing of the dart. And if we accepted the resolution, regardless of where the dart landed—we could stay consistent within our method.
A truly crude method, yet at least it is more than, “I want it to be this outcome, so I will endeavor to find a resolution.”
No, Jeremy Killian, I am not necessarily talking about the Scientific Method. While useful for certain parts of dealing with incongruities (such as authorship), since it focuses on naturalism, it would become problematic, I think, in other aspects.
Better than nothing, I concede. Frankly, I don’t care WHAT method you propose. Be it the scientific, or throwing darts. What I am looking for is the most objectivity possible, and consistency.
Finally, (again in the hopes of explaining what I mean) I will tell you my method. Not that this is the only one—nor even the best one. It is the one I am most adapt at.
In the legal profession we are faced with resolving problems from two (or more) contrary positions all the time. I would encourage anyone to sit through a Motion call one morning in their local courthouse and they will immediately see what I am talking about.
First one lawyer stands up and pleads his case. He gives an impassioned speech, with appropriate facts and argument. Once completed, it sounds as if he has a clear winner. But then the opposing counsel stands up. She points out the facts left out by her opponent, as well as some arguments in her favor. All of a sudden HER case looks pretty good. And then the judge may ask some pointed questions that neither side mentioned, sometimes coming up with a third solution.
This is what we do. It is the American legal method to resolving conflict. Allow one position to plead its case; all the facts, figures, and arguments in their favor. Allow the other side to plead theirs, and cross-examine the first. And have a neutral party make the determination.
Have a person (or jury) that will not get any money regardless of the outcome; that will not go to jail regardless of the verdict make the determination.
This is the method I used in reviewing the incongruities between the Tanakh God and the New Testament God (including all the sub-problems highlighted above.) Read the arguments from Christians as to how to resolve the abdication of Mosaic Law (for example) Read the Jewish arguments. Read the Messianic Christian arguments. Read the Muslim, Mormon and Christian Science arguments.
Then, think. How would a person neutral to the topic resolve it? How would a person to whom it did not make a whit of difference whether Jesus was God, Jesus was a prophet, Jesus was a myth or Jesus was a rabbi, decide? Given all the facts and arguments we have to date—what would that jury do?
Now I will grant you there is a bit of subjectivity in this. While I use an objective determinate (a neutral party) we both know people who are adequately informed in the topic are so rarely neutral. I am making a subjective call as to what I think a truly neutral person would do.
However, all I can say in my defense is that I have prepared for jury and judge trials for a long time. To succeed in this business, you have to be pretty good at figuring out the outcome. To learn what is convincing to a neutral person, and what is not. If you should resolve your case (because you will lose) or if you should take your case to trial (because the other side is not smart enough to resolve it.)
As I entered the conversation with skeptics, I applied my “legal method” (for the first time in my life) to Christian claims. I was shocked to realize how unconvincing the arguments would be to neutral persons. Persons uncommitted to Christianity being true, false, or partly true.
Over and over, I found myself thinking, “If I was defending Christianity in front of a jury, I would be resolving this case, because it is not persuasive.”
In looking at the incongruities between the two sets of books, I am firmly convinced a neutral jury would be convinced these are human works. Humans writing their own opinions of what a God is or is not. That these works were collected for various reasons by other humans in sets.
There was no intention of a God to “align” Mark with John. Or Paul with James. Or Matthew with Hebrews. Or Romans with Exodus. Certainly Christianity spring-boarded off the Tanakh, because of locale and time, so some alignment was intended. But even then, the various authors of the New Testament were attempting to align a different God of the Tanakh as compared to other authors.
That is the method I use. What I am looking for (and hopefully have explained it) is the method Christians use. Not the proposed problem and a proposed resolution. Peel it back a layer. Prior to even proposing a problem—first derive a method of how we know it is a problem in the first place. Within that peeled back layer, what method do we use every single time to resolve those problems.
Thanks for letting me talk at length.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
[…] 20th, 2009 @ 2:39 pm | Questions, Lessons I realize that I owe DagoodS another post in the series, Christianity’s Biggest Difficulties, and I’ll return to that […]