Many atheists exhibit a lack of knowledge of the very theism against which they most often, if not exclusively, argue—the Bible’s Judeo-Christianity. Worse yet, they think that they are well versed by claiming that they were “raised Christian” (whatever that means), “went to Sunday School,” “was an altar boy,” “saw the movie (hyperbole intended),” etc.
In your opening sentence, you lay a heavy accusation against many atheists. I think your accusation, as it turns out, is quite correct, but there are some key pieces to it that you fail to add. For example, why would someone who was raised as a Christian, went to Sunday School, was an altar boy, and went to Jesus Camp (hyperbole intended) exhibit a lack of knowledge of the very theism against which you think they most often argue?
You will, I'm sure, note the insertion of 'you think' in my last question. When Bob the Rabid Atheist is ranting about the awfulness of some straw-man version of Christianity, I'd argue that Bob is not exhibiting a lack of knowledge of the straw-man, but rather a lack of knowledge of your particular flavor of Christianity. If you take Bob's foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe to be actually targeted at what you believe, then Bob would be exhibiting a dreadful lack of knowledge of what you think he's arguing against. I hope you can see that my adding 'you think' is not there in defense of Bob or his argument, but really is an important point of clarification.
On top of that point, I'll add something else that's not at all in Bob's favor: For all that Bob really is knowledgeable about his straw-man, chances are that Bob thinks that his straw-man is one and the same thing as "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity". Just as he exposes a lack of knowledge about what you think he's talking about (but isn't), he engages in the mistake of thinking he's talking about one thing (what you think he's talking about) knowledgeably when he's actually talking about something different (his straw-man) knowledgeably.
So much for Bob's diatribe bearing any weight, huh? As I said, you've laid a heavy accusation, but I don't think you laid it quite as heavy as it should be.
That still leaves two very similar questions open, though: Why would both you and Bob be confused about whether he was discussing a straw man or "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity"? Bob doesn't have much excuse, having grown up in a Christian environment, having had Christian indoctrination in Sunday School, and presumably displaying sufficient competence or understanding to be an acceptable altar boy. I can't speak to your qualifications, but I would guess that, at least on the surface, it would be reasonable for you to be able to tell the difference as well. And yet both of you get confused.
Let me say that again: Both of you are confused on the subject of what Bob is attacking (successfully or not). The question is why would either of you be, and the answer is that you both believe there is something properly called "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity". As if there were just one such thing. As if there were only One Obviously Correct Way to interpret the One Obviously Correct translation of the One Obviously Correct compilation of Judeo-Christian holy texts.
The problem is, Bob's straw man, pallid though it is, actually is one of the many versions of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity". What you think he's arguing against (very ineffectively) is a different version of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity". Neither of them are all that close to my Catholic neighbor's version of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity", or my Mormon neighbor's version of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity", or my 'Twelve Tribes' (http://tinyurl.com/9jqxwa) neighbors' version of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity".
Bob actually exhibits a sound grasp of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B) and his attacks (rabid as they are) are actually pretty on-target... which is why very few people actually adhere to "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand T). Instead, they might be like you, and follow "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand D), which is free of most of the serious problems of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B). Or they might be like someone in the Twelve Tribes, who follows "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand T) which so radically reinterprets some particular bible compilation that it rarely has anything in common with "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B) or "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand D). Or they might be like a Mormon, who follows "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand M) which uses texts that a Catholic knows are not sources for "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand C).
So, yes, please do condemn Bob for attacking the straw-man of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B). Please help Bob, and the many other atheists like him, know that his arguments against "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B) are actually correct but they're not very relevant because what you care about and believe in is "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand D) which is quite different. Make sure he knows that even if he does manage to understand, become knowledgeable on, choose to continue not believing, and ultimately attack "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand D), he is not automatically an authority on "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand M) or "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand C) or "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand T), and will have a lot more work to do if he wants to address those. Go ahead and let Bob know that the range of possible brands of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" are endless, and that his time would be far better served by helping people figure out what they should do and why they should do it, than going around trying to tear down every incarnation of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity".
Do not, however, make Bob's mistake and get stuck in the rut of thinking there is just One Obviously Correct "Bible's Judeo-Christianity". It's something that many Christians do, and it sets a terrible, terrible example for ex-Christians like Bob to follow, as well as for many atheists who never were Christian in the first place. Also, it happens to be one of the prominent features of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B), and it would be pretty embarrassing if someone actually DID use that brand!
One tangent to stave off a potential misreading: Please do note the use of "One Obviously Correct", rather than "One Correct". It's the difference between "what you know to be true" and "what actually is true" - just because you can in all honesty say that you know something, that does not make your knowledge correct.
I find that many atheists not only lack knowledge of Christian theology and the contents and contexts of the Bible but lack a basic understanding of natural theology / natural revelation, which seeks to infer the cause of the universe from nature (nature not meaning biosphere alone but the universe as a whole).
On the first part, I, for one, have moderate levels of knowledge about a few brands of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity", but there are a lot more that I don't know the first thing about than there are that I can converse usefully upon.
On the second part, I freely admit that I have never yet had any clear explanation of 'revelation' or 'natural revelation', and would welcome one if you've got one.
We end up with atheists seriously arguing that the concept of God as postulated by Christian theology is on a par with postulating the existence of imaginary friends, fairies, celestial teapots, sky daddies or Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorns.
No kidding. Again, it's back to the problem of confusing "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand X) with "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (The Obviously Correct One). If such atheists were clear that the concept of gods as postulated in all theologies which had thus far been clearly and unambiguously explained to them were on par with imaginary friends etc., I imagine theists would be less frustrated, more willing to explain what they actually believe, and get less defensive... which in turn would lead to atheists actually thinking about things that could be actual issues rather than straw-men, being less rabid, and getting less defensive in turn.
So, on to some explanation of 'natural revelation'?
Assumption 1: The universe began to exist.
Assumption 2: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Conclusion 1: The universe had a cause because it began to exist.
Well, the conclusion certainly follows from the assumptions, but I'm not yet persuaded that the assumptions are true in all possible worlds (i.e. necessarily true). Also, some clarification is needed on what you mean by 'universe' and 'exist' and 'cause'. For example, is the universe everything-everything (includes all of 'physical reality' as well as 'minds' and 'spirits' and 'souls' and 'gods') or is it everything-interactable (all physical forces and everything governed by those physical forces) or is it everything-metainteractable (all physical forces, everything governed by those forces, all the patterns that can arise among physical forces and things, and all patterns that can arise among patterns)?
Since time/space/matter began to exist: whatever caused it is...
Already, the scope of 'universe' is important. Clearly, you treat 'time' as part of 'the universe', but it also seems like you treat the notion of "anything which could be viewed analogously to time" as automatically part of 'the universe' as well. There's a (Science Fiction) story in which there is a universe which began to exist, which did have a cause, and time (as it had meaning within the universe) began to exist when the universe in question began to exist, but the cause of the universe in discussion came from a different universe, with a different and distinct 'time' all of its own. It might be fair to say that the caused universe's cause was timeless with respect to the caused universe, but not that it was timeless.
In anticipation of the objection that the caused universe is not properly 'a universe', and 'the universe' should encompass both caused and causing universes, I'll point back to my objection that you have not yet been clear on what constitutes 'the universe'. The first thing I'll be looking for in your definition is "How a causing-universe can be required to be part of 'the universe', but God is not required to be part of 'the universe'".
Since whatever caused the universe did cause it, that is; made something happen or caused an effect, whatever caused it is volitional, self-conscious and personal (meaning exhibiting characteristics of personhood or personality—conceiving plans, making decisions and taking actions).
Assuming your reasoning isn't just wishful, you're skipping a whole heap of important steps here. Or is it legitimate for me to just say "Since whatever caused the universe is atemporal, aspatial, and amaterial, whatever caused it is avolitional, aconsious, and apersonal (meaning exhibiting no characteristics of personhood or personality)" and have it automatically be true because I feel it's right?
Thus, we see how just in these few examples we learn quite a bit about the characteristics one should find in the universe’s cause.
If it began to exist. And if all things which exist have a cause. And depending on what you mean by 'universe' and 'time'. And if all causings originate in volition, self-consciousness, and personal-ness...
That's too many IFs to say we've learned much of anything, to say nothing about "quite a bit".
No comments:
Post a Comment