Closer to Truth?

This past week I had a married couple as guests at my home, and as usual when they come to visit we invariably get around to discussing religion since Philosophy of Religion & Ethics is my current course of study. I’m not sure if they are agnostics or simply skeptics, though my guess is that it is more the latter. Both are highly intelligent and moral folks who are concerned with living good lives, being kind to others, donating to good causes, and being loving, attentive parents to their young children. But they tend to look strongly askance at anything of a religious nature, though they admit there are some good things that come out of religion that are beneficial to society. Fundamentally, John and Sharon (not their real names), are skeptical that any of my efforts in studying religion necessarily allow me to get any closer to truth than anyone else, no matter how much I may study. Why do they conclude this, and am I simply wasting precious time and energy studying philosophy? Since they both feel there are other people who study as much as I do yet come to different conclusions, their logic is that we cannot get to truth since everyone doesn’t necessarily come to the same conclusions concerning the existence of God, or further that Christ is indeed the Son of God who died on a cross and resurrected on the third day.

At core, John and Sharon have the view that what may be true for me, and others that accept Christ, may not be true for others who accept some other religion such as Islam or Hinduism, or who simply conclude that all religions are false. But it’s okay if it’s true for me and provides some benefit, and I shouldn’t be naive in believing that my truth might actually apply to them or others. I didn’t explain that this view is the typical postmodern thinking that Americans have gradually accepted over the past 40-50 years, which posits that there are no overarching, universal truths. Truth, according to postmodern thought is simply a social construct and a creation of the human mind. Yet John and Sharon admit that in their everyday lives, they behave as if there are universal truths. They feel that stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, and that it is not okay to abuse children. But if there is no such thing as objective truth, then why would they live their lives as if it is so, even asserting there are indeed some moral imperatives as just described? It is wholly inconsistent to on the one hand believe that everything is relative and evolving, while at the same time making statements as to how a certain state of affairs ought or should be when things are constantly undergoing change. If everything is relative and truth is what you make it, then the words ought or should are in effect meaningless when used in communication.

While John and Sharon are skeptical there is objective truth, and that Christianity could even accord with truth, it is an interesting thing we all agreed that the moral sense of right and wrong are fairly universal within the human race. Even those who choose to do wrong (presuming they are normally functioning) know implicitly what is the good or right thing to do, but simply choose not to do the good or right thing because they have the free will to reject it. This sense of moral order in the universe is, in theological terms, called common grace, since it may be apprehended by all and is common to all humankind. So herein we may reasonably conclude that even though there is nothing we can know exhaustively, common grace can be reasonably construed (in an epistemic sense) as an objective truth, and is true wholly independent of whether we give it cognitive assent or not. In essence, I’m arguing that on this basis, John and Sharon would be wise to conclude that there are indeed some objective moral truths that are not just true for some, but true for all, including them. In other words, truth is truth, and truth has no dependency on them, yet it is there for them to ascertain should they choose to accept it. I feel they sense this, but are somehow afraid of the consequences of accepting this view.

Now as this pertains to Christianity specifically, as John stated, the truth of a tangerine resting on the kitchen island was readily apparent to him as some form of objective truth, since he could see it, but he has no way to verify there is salvation in Christ, and further since Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other scholars have concluded that there is indeed no salvation in Christ, then all I am offering is a biased opinion based on personal inclinations instead of some degree of objective knowledge based on diligent study and reflection. Where I believe John’s logic fails is that he doesn’t understand that all of these religions make fundamentally conflicting truth claims in a number of areas, with the possibility that all are false, or one is true. John, Sharon, and I all agreed that there is adequate testimony, both internal to the bible and external to it, that Christ walked the earth 2000 years ago and was crucified on a cross. They both acknowledged that the Bible, as a book of history, has been proven to be amazingly accurate with respect to archaeological finds. So the only point of contention was whether Christ actually raised from dead as eyewitness testimony reported. If he did not, then this naturally lends more credence to the Jewish and Muslim religions (though Islam borrows heavily from Christianity). Since Hinduism is entirely based on myth, there is no particular reason to believe it is true to begin with. So I believe I’m on firm ground that Christianity is at least a reasonable position though I don’t have exhaustive truth of its veracity. Yet I’m open to contrary evidence.

“Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” – 1 Corinthians 12-18 (ESV)

The bottom line for me is when I weigh the philosophical, historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence for Christianity (for which I have done prodigious research, particularly in the scientific arena), I believe I have done my best in terms of epistemic duty. I conclude that Christianity most closely aligns with reality given the alternatives, and that my belief is thus warranted. Of course, this entirely rests on the resurrection of Christ, which is very difficult to prove conclusively, but again, I believe I have done my epistemic best based on the eyewitness testimonial as recorded in the Bible. Now I don’t believe that someone has to become a biblical scholar such as myself in order to have a warranted belief in Christ, as the Bible takes a clear position that God has made his existence plain:

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” - Romans 1:19-20 (ESV)

So I assert the proper function of humankind is to ascertain that there is a God based on common grace, nature itself, and finally, special revelation through the gospel of Jesus Christ. If this is indeed the truth then anyone who hears the message may respond to it whether they are currently an atheist, agnostic, Jew, Muslim, or of any other religious persuasion. It is an act of their cognitive abilities and their will, again, presuming their mental faculties are properly functioning . As well, they have full freedom to reject the gospel. Regarding John and Sharon, my hope is they will both give serious reflection to the worldview they have adopted, considering the full impact of their chosen philosophy in their lives and in the lives of those they touch.

share on: facebook

The Damaging Effects of Philosophical Pragmatism

This blog begins a series of philosophical posts examining current day social thought in America, and its historical underpinnings. We are all products not only of the current age, but of the ages that precede us in history. While philosophical pragmatism may sound like an ivory tower term dreamed up by philosophers with too much time on their hands (which may be true), it actually is a useful term that reflects 19th century thinking and has had profound implications throughout the 20th century into now, the 21st.  In Nancy Pearcey’s book Total Truth, she describes philosophical pragmatism as a distinctly “home-grown” American philosophy that has been enormously influential since the late nineteenth century when Darwinism (Charles Darwin’s theory of the transmutation of species, or rather, evolution at the macro level) crossed the Atlantic. It’s core assumption, according to Pearcey, is that if life has evolved, then the human mind has evolved as well, and all the human sciences must be rebuilt on that basis. This ethic has had no small effect on American thinking, as Pearcey notes, as it has not only altered the way Americans think, but also the very structure of American social institutions.

Pearcey notes that at its heart, pragmatism is a (purely) Darwinian view of knowledge (epistemology). Pragmatism means the mind is nothing more than a part of nature, rejecting the older view that the human mind is transcendent to matter, in favor of a Darwinian view that mind is produced by matter. This presumption subverted both traditional and liberal forms of theism, since both forms make mind prior to matter. In traditional theology, a transcendent God creates the world according to his own design and purpose, whereas in liberal theology, an immanent deity externalizes its purpose through historical development of the world. Notwithstanding the differences between the two, both views hold that mind precedes matter, shaping and directing the development of the material world. Yet Darwin reversed this order, by positing that mind emerges very late in evolutionary history as a product of purely natural forces. Mind is not a fundamental, creative force but merely an evolutionary by-product. For the pragmatists, this “naturalizing” of the mind was the most revolutionary impact of Darwinian theory, implying that mental functions are merely adaptations for solving problems in the environment. So to get this right, our beliefs are not reflections of reality, but rules for action aimed at a payoff, not aimed at truth. As the pioneering psychologist William James opined, truth is the “cash value” of an idea. If it pays off, then we can call it true.

Previous to this system of thought, notes Pearcey, the dominant theory of knowledge was based on the biblical doctrine of the image of God. It is because human reason reflects the divine reason that we can trust human knowledge to be generally reliable. God created our minds to “fit” the universe that he made for us to inhabit, and when our cognitive faculties are functioning properly, they are designed to give us genuine knowledge (more specifically, epistemologist Alvin Plantinga argues that our beliefs have warrant if produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties in a congenial epistemic environment, according to a design plan successfully aimed at truth). Yet the pragmatists, states Pearcey, faced squarely the implications of evolution. If blind, undirected natural forces produced the mind, they said, then it is meaningless to ask whether our ideas reflect reality. To pragmatists, ideas are simply mental survival strategies—continuations of the struggle for existence by other means.

In general, pragmatists hold the belief that knowledge is a social construction, in that individuals don’t create knowledge, groups do. William James however, was more charitable in that he allowed each individual to decide what works satisfactorily for them, suggesting that something is true for someone if it meets their needs. In other words, whatever you decide, that’s your truth. In essence, this was the precursor to what we now call postmodern thought, which is becoming increasingly dominant in American culture today. The “pragmatic” thing to do, these days, is to believe there is no objective moral truth, and that we make our own truth. Whatever works, is true. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me. But what is important to understand here, according to Pearcey, is that pragmatic success does not make a claim true. And therein, I assert, lies the fallacy of pragmatism. It avoids truth claims, but in so doing actually makes a truth claim which is, ostensibly, an objective truth. In my view, the wholesale acceptance of a Darwinian system of thought that is not properly aimed at objective truth is ill-considered, and will lead us down a highly dangerous path if carried to its logical conclusion. We need look no further than the 20th century regimes of Mao, Hitler, and Stalin, all of which accepted and implemented, with horrific results, a purely Darwinian worldview. The key question is if that is our inevitable trajectory as we continue to reject objective truth under the rubric of “pragmatism.”

* References:

Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005.

Plantinga, Alvin. Warrant and Proper Function. New York: Oxford, 1993.

share on: facebook