https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9xVN-5qLCs
I left the following comment on Capturing Christianity's reaction to Rhett's interview with Alex O'Connor. I saw that interview and I think Rhett has the spirit of a truthseeker, cares about deeply important things, and isn't willing to just believe at face value. So Cameron Bertuzzi's response, which fails to acknowledge Rhett's intellectual virtue, is frustrating.
In Islam, Allah mistakes the doctrine of the Trinity to be the Father, the Son, and Mary. If Allah were all-knowing, he wouldn't make such a silly mistake. So Christians should point to this and say: If Islam were true, would we expect these kinds of mistakes?
Christians being confidently incorrect about evolution gives us some reason to think that Christians are confidently incorrect about other things. Absolutely naturalism predicts that Christians would be confidently incorrect about things that are deeply important. Christianity does not, and even if it did then this wouldn't be evidence for Christianity over naturalism as the data would be predicted by both worldviews. Why think Christianity predicts that Christians would not be confidently wrong about important things?
Because 1) God, knowing human psychology, would know that this would make Christians and Christianity look bad, and God doesn't want that.
2) If the Holy Spirit is meant to be efficacious at all in guiding Christians to the truth, including the truth about important doctrines, then we would expect Christians to be supernaturally accurate in their articulation, convergence, and truth about important doctrines (maybe Christians can be wrong about the small stuff. But even that comes at a cost: See previous point).
But Christians cannot articulate what they believe and why (without running into contradictions and challenges to their belief), they do not converge onto doctrines (instead splitting into denominations), and they have to give up the truth of previously held doctrines, demonstrating their own tradition to be an unreliable source of truth, even the kinds of truths that they should have an authority on, which are biblical and theological truths.
So when non-Christians are confidently incorrect, that's because their worldviews are false and unreliable, but when Christians are confidently incorrect, that's because Christianity is true and reliable?? This is epistemic hypocrisy, where you apply epistemic standards to others and not yourself.
Case in point, Protestants laugh at Mormons and Catholics for their silly beliefs (proverbially speaking; practically speaking they may take a respectful stance). Catholics laugh at Protestants and Mormons for their silly beliefs (again proverbially speaking; practically speaking they may take a respectful stance). This proverbial laughter explains why Protestants hate the idea of being Catholic ("how could I ever believe such silly things as purgatory, transubstantiationism...etc?"), Catholics hate the idea of being Protestant ("how could I ever believe such silly things as sui-magisteria, sola scriptura...etc?")
They're all right; it's all silly. Christianity would be dead overnight if Christians scrutinized their own brand of Christianity in the same way as other brands of Christianity. When Christians are at their most intellectually honest, they admit that they want it to be true more than anything. (Confession: I do too; why wouldn't I want there to be ultimate love, justice, and eternal life? I totally get it. In a strange way, I am still a Christian, in the sense that I retain affective and conative attitudes of faith, if not so much the cognitive attitude of faith.)
But to admit you want something to be true more than anything is to admit enormous bias; you will do whatever it takes to believe, which is why trying to shake Christians awake is nearly impossible. In my case, my extreme bias to believe what is true barely won out against my extreme bias to believe in Christianity.
Christians being confidently incorrect about evolution gives us some reason to think that Christians are confidently incorrect about other things. Absolutely naturalism predicts that Christians would be confidently incorrect about things that are deeply important. Christianity does not, and even if it did then this wouldn't be evidence for Christianity over naturalism as the data would be predicted by both worldviews. Why think Christianity predicts that Christians would not be confidently wrong about important things?
Because 1) God, knowing human psychology, would know that this would make Christians and Christianity look bad, and God doesn't want that.
2) If the Holy Spirit is meant to be efficacious at all in guiding Christians to the truth, including the truth about important doctrines, then we would expect Christians to be supernaturally accurate in their articulation, convergence, and truth about important doctrines (maybe Christians can be wrong about the small stuff. But even that comes at a cost: See previous point).
But Christians cannot articulate what they believe and why (without running into contradictions and challenges to their belief), they do not converge onto doctrines (instead splitting into denominations), and they have to give up the truth of previously held doctrines, demonstrating their own tradition to be an unreliable source of truth, even the kinds of truths that they should have an authority on, which are biblical and theological truths.
So when non-Christians are confidently incorrect, that's because their worldviews are false and unreliable, but when Christians are confidently incorrect, that's because Christianity is true and reliable?? This is epistemic hypocrisy, where you apply epistemic standards to others and not yourself.
Case in point, Protestants laugh at Mormons and Catholics for their silly beliefs (proverbially speaking; practically speaking they may take a respectful stance). Catholics laugh at Protestants and Mormons for their silly beliefs (again proverbially speaking; practically speaking they may take a respectful stance). This proverbial laughter explains why Protestants hate the idea of being Catholic ("how could I ever believe such silly things as purgatory, transubstantiationism...etc?"), Catholics hate the idea of being Protestant ("how could I ever believe such silly things as sui-magisteria, sola scriptura...etc?")
They're all right; it's all silly. Christianity would be dead overnight if Christians scrutinized their own brand of Christianity in the same way as other brands of Christianity. When Christians are at their most intellectually honest, they admit that they want it to be true more than anything. (Confession: I do too; why wouldn't I want there to be ultimate love, justice, and eternal life? I totally get it. In a strange way, I am still a Christian, in the sense that I retain affective and conative attitudes of faith, if not so much the cognitive attitude of faith.)
But to admit you want something to be true more than anything is to admit enormous bias; you will do whatever it takes to believe, which is why trying to shake Christians awake is nearly impossible. In my case, my extreme bias to believe what is true barely won out against my extreme bias to believe in Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment