[If you’ve been following the discussion in the Comments on my “The dance of the straw men” post below, you’ll have noticed that I (and some others) have been carrying on a debate with a visitor named Brendan, a very intelligent, thoughtful and courteous Unitarian. I have just posted a comment in response to his question as to why one should believe the Bible, more than the scriptures of other religions.
My response is below. I think it’s worth giving it a blog post of its own. This is not my personal Christian testimony, and it does not delve into the mysteries of grace. It’s just an account of the line of reasoning that leads me to contemplate the Christian faith in the first place.]
As for believing in biblical Christianity, here’s my rationale.
It’s true that faith begins where reason leaves off. But the decision to take that step is itself a reasoned one. It’s as if I were to take a course in mountain climbing. When I decide to do that, I implicitly accept the idea that I will soon step outside my range of knowledge into territory where I’ve never been before, and do things that make no sense to me. I am prepared to follow my instructor’s commands, even though he tells me to do things that seem counterproductive or even suicidal.
As a Christian, I am obligated (and I’m happy about this) to accept the validity of reason. But I also understand that it takes more than reason to describe the universe I actually live in. Every person alive (unless they have a serious personality disorder) understands this. We accept, at some level, that men who live for possessions alone are living an impoverished life. We accept that beauty matters. We admire people who give up their lives (the only lives they’ll ever get, in the materialist view) for a principle or a loyalty.
So the question is, does this relate to the nature of the universe, or is it just a biological fluke? It seems to me that unless humanity itself is a cruel cosmic joke (a possibility that must be considered, but one I find incredible), there must be something in some way like a human being at the very back—behind the last veil—of the universe. Because otherwise, we would have to say that the things we value most—love and truth and beauty, for instance—are in fact less important than entropy and light speed. And if that’s true, we’re well and truly screwed and our beliefs are of no significance anyway.
But if there is something like a Personality behind the universe, how are we to know about Him/Her? Obviously we won’t be able to reason Him out, any more than a dog could propound a Theory of Humanity.
Dogs can’t understand their owners, but owners can understand dogs, and communicate with them in a substantial way. The greater comprehends the less. So it would be up to this Ultimate Being to send a message to us, speaking. Very. Slowly. With. Very. Small. Words. Chances are we still wouldn’t understand perfectly, but we could assimilate enough to get the essential message.
If only someone had received such a message from the heavens.
Well, as it happens, there is a group of people who believe they have received a message like that. Agreed, there are several such groups. But when I note that one of them has managed to coordinate material and spiritual conceptions successfully enough to create the greatest civilization in the history of the world, matching unprecedented technical achievement with a never before seen degree of personal freedom, well, then I think I ought to give some polite attention to their claims.
For what it’s worth, I just got done listening to a very interesting debate between Gordon Stein (an atheist) and Greg Bahnsen (a Reformed Christian). It’s a fascinating back and forth. Text is here, and audio is here.
Well, as it happens, there is a group of people who believe they have received a message like that. Agreed, there are several such groups. But when I note that one of them has managed to coordinate material and spiritual conceptions successfully enough to create the greatest civilization in the history of the world, matching unprecedented technical achievement with a never before seen degree of personal freedom, well, then I think I ought to give some polite attention to their claims.
The problem with this argument is that the same reasoning would have led you to look into Roman Paganism at any point in time between the end of the Second Punic War and the Edict of Milan. And between the 700s and the 1500s, when the center of western civilization wasn’t Christendom, it would have made you look into Islam.
God doesn’t seem to be that concerned with the worldly success of His true believers.
Thanks for sharing, Lars. It’s always interesting to learn what brings people to their faith.
Ori, I think achievements have to be considered on their own merits, not just relative to a time period. Every age has its greatest civilization, it goes without saying, but one is singular. The Sumerians and the Egyptians and the Greeks and the Romans and the Chinese, as is well known, learned a lot of science. But it was mostly working over the same material. None of them really broke ground. The experimental method never happened anywhere until it appeared, quite suddenly, in the later Middle Ages and the Renaissance. And those scientists did things nobody had ever thought about before, with amazing and unprecedented results.
Also, the infinite succession of Greatest Civilizations tended to be about despotism, more or less efficient forms of tyranny. Few of these civilizations valued freedom, and if they did, it was only for the citizens of the Top Power. The idea of extending freedom to all classes, and finally even to foreigners, is another Christian innovation.
Good point. The Romans also had a social structure that increased freedom (the whole concept of the freedman, which is an ex-slave in the process of assimilating to Roman society). But I don’t think anybody else did.
Lars,
Appreciate your blog and have been reading for years (via Veith).
“here must be something in some way like a human being at the very back—behind the last veil—of the universe. Because otherwise, we would have to say that the things we value most—love and truth and beauty, for instance—are in fact less important than entropy and light speed. And if that’s true, we’re well and truly screwed and our beliefs are of no significance anyway.”
Exactly. This is exactly what I argued here, and the discussion (with another Christian even) that followed was fascinating:
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/this-is-personal/
+Nathan
Very good. I have to admit I had trouble following the argument in the comments, though.
Mine or his or both? : )
Mostly the other guy.
This is similar to the conclusion Terry Pratchett comes to in Hogfather. Near the end, when discussing the need for the Hogfather (think Father Christmas), the Reaper states “[humans] have to practice to get ready to believe the big lies. Duty, honor, justice.”
Susan: “But those aren’t the same thing at all.”
Reaper: “Aren’t they? Then grind the universe with the sharpest mill stone, sift the dust with the finest sieve and then show me one atom of mercy or one molecule of justice.”
That’s close to the discussion, anyway. Death tells Susan that humans have to believe in those things because otherwise they wouldn’t be human. They would be animals.
Why believe the bible more than other scriptures? Jesus Christ.
Today’s Breakpoint commentary by Chuck Colson points out the ridiculousness of relativism by discussing the roadblocks faced by western human rights advocates when they come up against the ancient codes of conduct imbedded in eastern societies.
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/18443
Colson’s example of an Afgan woman imprisoned for being raped gets me thinking about the differences between the Western and Eastern mindset. From a Western perspective, centered on human rights, we see her as a double victim, victimized by her rapist and then again by the system.
The Eastern mind, on the other hand, sees her as a lawbreaker. In their system of behavioral norms and rules, they assume that men in general, or at least a significant portion of the men in any given society, cannot or will not control their passions. Therefore they have constructed a lifestyle norm that protects women by number one covering them to avoid arousing passions and number two, preventing the opportunity to carry out passion by sequestering them and requiring a male family member to accompany them in public. From that perspective, if she was raped, either she broke the rules, giving her rapist opportunity, or her family failed to protect her, allowing her attacker access.
The Western mind sees man as basically good and therefore any problems are the result of poverty, ignorance or some other factor restraining his goodness. The Eastern mind sees man as corrupted and therefore the inherent bad behavior must be restrained to maintain an orderly society. Christianity bridges the two. It recognizes the fallen nature of mankind while also providing for redemption.
That’s very good. I like that.