Unjustified Skepticism

By -

The roots of skepticism are well known. Arising from the common Neo-Platonism of the early church (with the allegorical interpretation of Alexandria, Egypt) and moving through the Renaissance and on through the Enlightenment, skepticism began to foster and grow. The emergence and growth of radical biblical skepticism is simply untenable, especially when it comes to historiography as a whole. Its roots are based more in radical empiricism then honest historical investigations. Its refusal to leave open the mere possibility of miracles is skepticism’s, Achilles’ heel. Moreover, radical biblical skepticism is also a reactionary movement to religion, no less so then with Christianity. The failure of certainty in historical matters (no doubt a Platonic influence) has led many biblical critics (unjustified Kantian epistemological agnosticism) to dismiss evidences for the Christianity. No matter what the evidence is for the empty tomb, for example, it will always be insufficient because of its impossible task; the Platonic task at absolute certainty. This is an historical blunder on the radical skeptic's part. By riding biblical scholarship of its unjustified skeptical tendencies, Christianity is given a fair hearing. The evidence will then be able to speak for itself. For this reason a major historical assessment concerning skepticism's flimsy foundations has been given. Expect this major project to be published on the CADRE website in the coming days. The skeptical (and even atheistic) people out there may just get a better understanding of their philosophical roots and how they originated. It is the hope of the author, yours truly, that this project will delineate skepticism's unjustified assumptions. This isn't to say that those assumptions are wrong, but rather, its philosophical and historical foundations are contrived.

Comments

Steven Carr said…
Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians '5So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.'

Why is it wrong for sceptics to demand evidence that life-giving spirits can exist?
12/19/2005 10:10:00 AM
BK said…
I don't think he said there is anything wrong with asking for evidence. What he is pointing to as erroneous is the hyper-skepticism that many anti-religious people use when examining religious claims.
12/19/2005 10:46:00 AM
Master Apologist said…
The Bible assumes that there is more to reality then simple material objections. Rather, the Bible assumes that there is a reality beyond the natural order. In this biblical theistic context is where the skepticism meets its doom. However, your comment misses the point in that Paul is not trying to prove the existence of any spirits, much less life giving spirits. That is assumed. He is using metaphorical and symbolic language to denote the effects of Christ's triumph over sin. Thus, your comment simply misses the point.

But even if (but he's not) Paul was trying to prove the existence of spirits (or whatever), your comment still seems untenable. It's clearly laced with Platonic thought in its task at accomplishing absolute certainty. However, historical matters aren't capable of reaching this Platonic bar. No matter what the evidence is for something, it is doomed to fail, at least as far as the Platonic dialectic is concerned. Historical evidence, such as the empty tomb or post resurrection appearances, is based on probabilities, not certainties. It is simply bad historiography to dismiss the whole (the cumulative evidence for the resurrection) because the parts (any particular piece of evidence) don’t give historical proof.
12/19/2005 11:39:00 AM
Steven Carr said…
I wonder if there is any historical proof that the Angel Gabriel visited Muhammad.

Still, we sceptics must not let things like that stop us believing, must we?
12/19/2005 01:38:00 PM
Master Apologist said…
I would concur that skepticism is not a bad thing (my forthcoming paper deals with this). But radical skepticism, such as naturalism, is either self-defeating (skeptical of skepticism) or incoherent (consistency, livability, etc...). For somebody to be justified in their skepticism towards something they must have a foundational belief from which to anchor their skepticism, less self-refutation trumps. In a Christian theistic context there is philosophical worldview (both internally consistent and livable) from which to doubt certain things. For example, if Christianity is true then anything that contradicts it (like Muhammad being a prophet, the Koran denying the crucifixion, etc...) must necessarily be false. Neither metaphysical nor methodological naturalism gets this privilege. Indeed, its radical skepticism does not pertain to logic. Moreover, the naturalist isn't skeptical that the universe exists or even that other minds exist. For this see Planting.
12/19/2005 03:25:00 PM
BK said…
The difference between you and those who accept some religious claims is that we don't reject some claims simply because they require an acceptance of the supernatural which it seems obvious to many people exist. I believe it is possible that the Angel Gabriel visited Muhammed. You, on the other hand, reject the concept out of hand because it involves things beyond the purely naturalistic.
12/19/2005 05:59:00 PM
Steven Carr said…
Christian Apologist complains about the presuppositions of sceptics, many of whom were believers before they examined the eveidence (such as Bart Ehrman) Many sceptics are people certainly do not reject the supernatural out of hand. They used to believe firmly in it, and went on missionary work to tell other people to believe in the supernatural (see Farrell Till, for example)

Meanwhile , he reveals that he works on the principle that if he is right, then other people must, by definition, be wrong.....

The trouble with Christian Apologists attack on sceptics is that sceptics simply do not recognise the people being attacked. They will think 'He must be talking about somebody else' and just ignore what is being said. It is a waste of time, from a point of view of persuading sceptics that they are wrong. But apologetics is not about reaching out to the lost, but about stopping the saved turning into the lost.

Maany sceptics are willing to admit the existence of black holes, 11 dimensional space, quarks, superstrings and all sorts of things.

Why? Because people make out a case for them that the sceptic finds coherent (rightly or wrongly)

You can see why Christians want Christianity to be exempt from the demand to produce a coherent case for Christianity.

Plantinga for example, claims that God really has created beings with free will that have never chosen evil, yet other Christians say that it is logically impossible for God to create beings with free will that never choose evil.

So much for consistency....
12/19/2005 10:03:00 PM
BK said…
No offense, Steven, but that is a ridiculous comment. While there are some Christians who throw out the "just believe" card when they have no knowledge as to how to properly defend their faith, there are Christians who are, daily, seeking to make the very case for Christianity that you reject. The claims of Christianity are both coherent and backed by arguments from history, philosophy, ethics and logic. Simply because you choose to reject them for reasons of your own does not mean the arguments are not being made and are not compelling to many people.

The fact that there are some Christians who may say that it is logically impossible for God to create beings with free will that never choose evil (I have never met any such Christian, but I will take your word that they exist) does not somehow show that Christian thought is incoherent. If disagreement on some matters means that the basis ideas are incoherent, then you may as well admit right now that the claim that life arose on earth naturalistically is incoherenet because there is a great deal of disagreement on how it could possibly have happened.
12/20/2005 08:16:00 AM
Steven Carr said…
So you think it is perfectly possible for God to create beings with free will that never do evil?

And with God's foreknowledge, he knows in advance that they will never choose evil.
12/20/2005 10:45:00 AM
Steven Carr said…
I take it Christian Apologist will concede that, as somebody who believes there are evil demons, highly motivated to attack his senses, and perfectly capable od deceiving both his senses and his reason, then , if his belief in evil demons is true, he cannot trust anything he sees.

Naturalism does not suffer from the inherent self-contradiction of people who believe both that their senses are reliable and that their senses might well be under constant attack by evil demons.

Only a foundation of naturalism removes the possibility of a deceiving creator who has hoodwinked Christians for his own malicious amusement.
12/20/2005 10:51:00 AM
BK said…
William Lane Craig has given a perfectly sensible answer to your question about God's foreknowledge and ability to create beings with free will who choose not to do evil and why God may not choose to take that course of action. I suggest you look it up.

As far as your effort to take the Des Cartes approach, I suggest you consider how Occam's Razor may affect that logic.
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2005/01/rene-descartes-and-bible-centered-mind.html
12/20/2005 12:04:00 PM
Master Apologist said…
On the contrary, Steven, I think I can trust my sense experience to give me reliable knowledge about the external world and so forth. In a theistic context, there is a God who has created a knowable and logical world, a world that corresponds to sense data. The radical skepticism of some (Descartes, Berkley, Hume) is either unwarranted (in dismissing causal connections, as in Hume; or denying the external world as in Berkley) or unnecessary (as in Descartes). Indeed, taking a realist outlook doesn't require me to take a (as you imply) naturalistic methodological outlook. Rather, I am justified in taking a philosophical realistic (realism) dialectic in doubting that evil demons are confusing my sense and reason facalities because of my epistemolgical foundation. Sadly, naturalism (or radical skepticism or even reductionalism) does not, as I said before, get this privilege. Indeed, the naturalist can only find justification in his radical skepticism by borrowing a foundation (and concepts) from other worldviews. No doubt the various critiques over the resurrection (or anything that doesn't fit in your naturalistic worldview) of Jesus, for example, are infiltrated with this unjustified skepticism. Michael Martin, for example, feels quite at ease dismissing all types of evidences for the resurrection of Jesus without giving a sufficient, naturalistic alternative explanation (such things as the empty tomb or the appearances of Jesus). Of course no theistic explanation in which God raising Jesus from the dead would be possible because no single piece of evidence (the empty tomb) would meet the Platonic bar (which I discussed earlier) of absolute certainty (no historical event could ever meet this bar). Thus, since history is simply a mere and imperfect representation of the actual event that occurred, no definitive conclusions can be made about historical matters, much less the resurrection of Jesus. This radical Platonism (and Neo-Platonism) has led to radical skepticism concerning miracles. However, this skepticism (including your skepticism) is completely unjustified. In closing, I have no problem in doubting that demons are constantly deceiving me about the reality of the external world (or other minds, etc…) because it’s not in accordance with my theistic worldview. Certainly God would not allow demons to constantly do this less God’s justice be called into question. But again, you might call this mere tautology into question (even the logical positivists might accept this). However, this objection is unjustified (because you have no basis from which to launch your skepticism) and surely carries with it Hiedeggerian influence, which itself is unjustified (Descartes’ ‘I’). Less a vacuous type of skepticism (which is emotional driven and arbitrarily put forth) emerges, radical skepticism into such things as demons and the resurrection of Jesus needs a diving board (so to speak) from which to launch its skeptical views. If and until this is done, radical skepticism is bound to remain unwarranted.
12/20/2005 07:44:00 PM
Steven Carr said…
Christian Apologist writes 'In a theistic context, there is a God who has created a knowable and logical world, a world that corresponds to sense data.'

He is, of course, begging the question of whether demons are affecting his reasoning. His worldview is clear - demons exist which attack his reasoning and sense.



Why then should we believe somebody who cannot even show that his reasoning is correct?


BK supposedly refutes me by giving a link which says 'I also think Descartes is wrong because by positing a evil, malignant demon, he is violating Occam's Razor.'

Positing the existence of Satan is not a Christian thing to do? What nonsense is this?



As for BK's claim that Craig has shown that God can create beings with free will that never choose evil, his inability to give a link to where Craig says that God can create beings with free will that have never chosen evil is telling.
12/20/2005 11:53:00 PM
Steven Carr said…
Christian Apologist writes that God would not allow demons to corrupt his mind.

Certainly that would be an evil.

But how does CA know that God does not allow evil?

Can CA say that God allows some evils , but not others?

Why would God allow a Holocaust, but not demon-possession?
12/20/2005 11:56:00 PM
Weekend Fisher said…
I hope BK and CA don't mind if I get some of the fun too.

As far as pure logic and the reliability of the mind, both sides acknowledge the reality of irrationality (particularly when you get to bio-psych evaluations of insanity, misperception, & kin). Both sides have to acknowledge that the mind can be led astray; both sides still have to trust the basic reliability of the mind in general.

The two cents that I'd throw in are:

1) God certainly tolerates evil. Let's go ahead and make the Holocaust and the latest natural disasters show for the small potatoes that they are: everybody dies. Not just 6 million Jews, but 6 billion of everybody that are drawing breath at the moment, plus forefathers and descendants while we're on the subject. Why isn't that a problem for trusting that God is good? Because God raises the dead. (Logical next next move: judgment day. I've responded before about the supposed unfairness of heaven.)

2) As far as the "which religion shuffle", I'd invite anybody to lay the founding documents of the major players side by side and make up their own minds. Lots of worthwhile "wisdom" insights from most of the major players, but only one who healed the sick, raised the dead, and rose from the dead.
12/26/2005 01:11:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

By -
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated. In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article . Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I ...
Read more

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

By J. P Holding -
Image
I first made this post in 2012, and since then I've made a sort of mini-career out of tracking down bogus quotes like this one (including a video version below). It's a sort of fun microcosm of the way information is mishandled in the Information Age. ** I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. – Mahatma Gandhi A Christian can probably expect to get this quote thrown at them at least once in their lifetime, and waved in their face many more. I had it put to me recently, but my experience with this sort of thing immediately led me to wonder -- is it real? The evidence at this point seems to be no. The first signal of a problem was that anywhere I found it, no source was given. That's often a sign that something is being passed around uncritically. Whether online sources or books, no one seemed to have a source for this quote. A second warning was that the quote has been given more than one context. As ...
Read more

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

By -
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer: You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels." Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus ...
Read more

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

By -
Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise. For example, consider the following from the "talking points": Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body. What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need. ...
Read more

Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

By -
 In this essay, which is a chapter from the new book I'm now working on, I'm moving toward defining what I think Tillich means exactly by being itself. It's a long journey but an important one. What does Tillich actually mean by “being itself?” Does he mean the same things as other theologians who use the phrase? It’s a mysterious sounding phrase and Tillich never actually comes out and says what he means by it. As I will show there is a reason for this, and I will show what I think that reason in is. In the mean time the task of this chapter is to deduce exactly what Tillich actually means by this phrase. There are three basic possibilities: Three alternatives as to meaning (1) The basic fact that things exist is all that the concept of “God” amounts to. (2) There is a special quality to being, an impersonal aspect” ground of being” or “being itself” and that quality constitutes ‘the divine.’ This possibility excludes God as “king of the universe.” (3) God is b...
Read more

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

By -
We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles: This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible. We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD: John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and Influence Dr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism. The Righteousness of God in the Pauline Corpus Dr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the Apocalypse Dr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book o...
Read more

The Folded Napkin Legend

By J. P Holding -
I wrote about t his "urban legend" a few years ago, but it's typical of the silly urban legends we hear about now and then, such as the idea that the head of Proctor and Gamble went on Oprah to pledge his allegiance to Satanism. Christians are no less gullible for this sort of nonsense than anyone else, and frankly, some seem more gullible to believe anything that they consider "edifying". It's no wonder we're mesmerized by self-comfort tunes like "I Can Only Imagine" that contain about as much useful theology as a thimble. ** The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes. The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded, and was placed at the head of that stony coffin.... In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The fol...
Read more

Do you say this of your own accord? (John 18:34, ESV)

By -
Image
One of the most well-known events in Scriptures is Jesus' exchange with Pontius Pilate at his trial as described in John 18. In verse 38 of that chapter, Pilate asks the question that may be the most ironic in the history of the world, "What is truth?" A less known but equally intriguing saying of Jesus from an apologetics viewpoint can be found in Jesus' response to an earlier question in the same trial. It is a question that is not often quoted, but on those rare occasions when it is quoted, Jesus' response is often overlooked as not particularly important or relevant to today's world. However, it is my experience (as well as the experience of many people who have truly spent time studying the Scriptures) that little, if any, of what Jesus said in the Bible lacks significance across time. To best understand the response, it's important to see the response in context. The situation is this: Jesus has been arrested following His betrayal by Judas I...
Read more

A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

By -
One of the classes I teach at the university is a course on Ethics, and I am using a book by Ralph Dolgoff, Donna Harrington and Frank M. Lowenberg entitled " Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice " as the text. Overall, I think that it is a good Ethics textbook largely because it provides a balanced viewpoint on the need for values in social work. For example, the book makes the argument (without committing to it) that those engaged in social work cannot avoid making value judgments in ethical decisions because trying to do what is right necessarily involves making an value choice. Also, I book notes that some (including me) think it is ethically wrong for a social worker to cover-up her own values when counseling another person because it creates a false (and ultimately unproductive) relationship with the person being counseled. Still, one of the exemplars in the book gave me pause – not because I thought it raised a deep ethical quandary, but because I wondered how ...
Read more

A Non-Biblical Historian Accepts the Key "Minimum Facts" Supporting Jesus' Resurrection

By -
In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus , Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona argue for the historical reality of Jesus' bodily resurrection using the "minimum facts" approach. Rather than get bogged down in inerrancy and other debates, they focus on the key facts demonstrating Jesus' resurrection. For them, the key facts are: *Jesus' death by crucifixion. *Disciples' Beliefs that Jesus Appeared. *Conversion of Paul. *Conversion of James. *Empty Tomb. William L. Craig, another significant apologist for the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus likewise focuses, in his accessible The Son Rises , on the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection appearance. Craig gives special emphasis to Jesus' honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus' appearances to James and Paul and their subsequent commitment to the Christian cause. Craig, Licona, and Habermas argue that these basic facts are generally supported by most of the relevant sc...
Read more