Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Matt Marino
Apologetics ST530
Summer 2016
!1
OCCASION
Rob: I had to reply to the blog you wrote yesterday entitled ‘Pluralism and its Purge.’
R: Really? A purge? Amidst all the pain and suffering of sunny Florida now!
M: I don’t see how the sunshine down here is relevant. The fact is that there are more Christians
throughout the world being persecuted today than ever before, and —
R: Yes, yes, yes, and the freedoms we still have left are “rapidly slipping away” and so on and so
M: By presupposition I only mean “a belief that takes precedence over another,” some of which
are ultimate. They are commitments of the mind “over which no other takes precedence.”1 All of
us have them in our worldview. These are our answers to the big questions: What is God or
ultimate reality? Who are we or why are we here? How do we know? What is right and wrong?
What is wrong with the world, and how can what is wrong be made right?
R: As usual you ask questions like those as if science has not already settled them.
M: Then I will come back to whether those come first or else science. But I am assuming that
you wanted to continue our conversation on which is better for the world — your secularism or
my Christian faith — and I thought we should cut right to the chase to ask ourselves what are the
!2
R: Then let me start with something I found very objectionable about your post. That is
tolerance. If history has shown anything it is that Christianity has led the way in intolerance.
Even you will have to admit this at some level. And please don’t bring in the greater numbers of
death by totalitarian governments in the past century. Any atheist can oppose those. In fact, many
have.
M: I believe you that you consciously oppose totalitarian states. We have spent enough time
together on political issues for me to know that. I wonder whether or not your resistence to them
can be universal. After all there are many who opposed the communists who supported the
fascists, and vice versa, even if this support was sometimes only for temporary expedience.
R: Yes but you know that I oppose all statism in principle. And I would add to that list of statist
regimes the medieval statism that I regard to be constistent Christianity, as well as that even
more backward statism of consistent Islam. The issue is tolerance and an open society. No one
said it better than Christopher Hitchens, that religion poisons everything.2 The fact that secular
societies often ape the intolerance of religion is nothing more than the triumph of a neurotic
impulse in the species that manifests itself in both church and state. It is a psychosis that is
shared by the abusive husband, the playground bully, and the office control freak: that loathsome
need to rule over others with an iron boot. And from this ugly persona you have made a “god” in
your own image. I’d say Feuerbach and Freud got it right.
M: Well that was certainly an impressive psychological profile of everyone who disagrees with
you, but I don’t think it gets us any closer to which view can consistently justify tolerance.
2 cf. Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, for this constain refrain after the book’s subtitle.
!3
TOLERANCE
M: Then let me ask you this, How did you come to know that tolerance is a good thing?
R: I knew it the first time I observed people being shouted down for expressing their opinions.
And it was further confirmed in all those stories of Nazi Germany or even the Civil Rights
movement in America — both instances of your so-called Christian morality coming to full
M: I will challenge the factual nature of your assertions in a moment. But even if I grant that
there were countless professing Christians acting hypocritically in those chapters of history, your
burden remains.
M: Showing what would have to be true for your morality to be true. What kind of a universe
R: Showing the conditions for tolerance is not my burden. Tolerance is itself a precondition for
conversations like this. It is self-evident. Either you have tolerance or you don’t have civil
R: Precisely why Christianity has made itself such a nussance to both civility and science.
M: But don’t you see that you haven’t answered the question. If I ask you why there should be
tolerance, and you reply, “Because it is necessary to civility and science,” is it not plain that my
next question will be: “Why should anyone care about civility and science?” From a strictly
secular perspective, it is not clear why either of these are worthwhile pursuits.
!4
R: Now I think you are being dishonest. You and I both know that civilization and human
knowledge are good things, and that what we call “civility” and “scientific inquiry” both require
tolerance. Why are you plowing under a field we are both working?
M: You misunderstand my interest. I do not doubt that these are in fact good. What I doubt is
whether you can justify why they are good. You have not been skeptical enough in your
R: Nothing you say to me is new. I know what you are doing. You are trying to back me into the
dilemma of either affirming or denying objective morality. If I affirm it, then I am supposedly
forced to let the supernatural back in. If I deny it, then I lose my right to make moral judgments.
But why should I accept this dilemma in the way that you put it?
M: You know me too well — but there is a good reason to accept this dilemma. As a secularist
you must reduce all things to this time and this place. For your worldview to make good on its
claims, then the objective reason for any “way things ought to be” will be independent of any
finite, personal perspective. No individual, nor any group, could justify a moral “ought.”
R: I am perfectly willing to deny that we need “God” to assert that an open society is worth
defending — a society complete with civil discourse and free inquiry for the scientist. These are
M: Very well — why should all people everywhere support or defend an open society?
R: They should do so because nothing else that they desire would be possible without it. It is the
open society that functions as what you call the ultimate presupposition.
!5
M: I don’t know about that. If we go to the Islamic world, it may be that more people value the
standards of the Koran than your idea of openness. If we are truly open and that is all we are,
then why should anti-secularist values not trump the secularist? If that is what the majority
wants, then what becomes of secular openness as the very essence of openness?
R: The basic reason why secular presuppositions should govern public discourse is two-fold and
consistent with a public nature: first, they are verifiable by all; second, they are agreeable to all.
In a secular society, everybody has access. Notice the all in both elements.
M: Oh I notice them, but I will have to beg your pardon for being such an outsider to this “all”
you speak of. You say that everybody can verify secular objects and agree to secular standards,
R: Why on earth not? You have all five senses and you prefer freedom, don’t you? So stop being
so difficult!
M: What I mean is that I cannot locate this “freedom” you speak of with my five senses. I
certainly can’t tell what you mean by its conditions with my five senses.
M: And my brain is telling me right now to go back to those two things you think allow everyone
R: Yes, a common way to verify and a common goal. Everyone can agree to count noses by
numbers and that we should stick to counting them and not breaking them.
M: I think what you mean to say is that most people today value these two things. This has not
been so universally and there is no guarantee that this trend will continue. What argument would
you use to persuade someone that they ought to value it, whether they do or not?
!6
R: I reject your premise. You keep using the word “ought” expecting me to concede any
objective morality to some eternal law. But democracy is a kind of object. It is a thing with a
nature. The same can be said for pluralism. They are social conditions, and their good is self-
M: Democracy is already problematic. Where it lives and breathes at all, it must depend on a
certain level of cultural unity. There at least has to be agreement on basic human rights. That bar
may be low, but there is at least a bar. And what I was saying about pluralism in my blog is that it
compounds the problem already inherent to democracy. It dissolves even the lowest bars of
cultural unity.
R: Civil discourse and free inquiry for the scientists are very low bars. A majority of people will
always see the need for them. Those who don’t will always be misfits. And if a majority in any
society doesn’t see that, then such a portion of the species weeds itself out. See! My evolution
fits even your problems of pluralism and democracy. A society that does not see those values
deserves to die.
M: But what you mean by “deserves to die” is merely descriptive, not normative. You do not
really yet mean “they deserve to die,” but only that they inevitably do die, given the laws of
M: You should. But let me put it like this. You are arguing with me here about which is better for
the world — my Christianity or your secularism — but are you willing to go as far as Dawkins,
!7
R: Well now you are really are getting predictable, Matt! If I claim that religion is evil, then you
will say I must first believe that there is an objective good, against which this evil is such a gross
M: Very well, I’m glad you notice that much. But I still have to ask you to apply that same logic
to the “better” that you can see about the “bad.” If one needs there to be good for there to be evil,
then one needs there to be good for there to be better for the same reason. But beyond that, all
right and wrong is a matter of obligation. And one cannot be obligated to, or loyal to, a non-
R: And I take it there can be no ultilimate obligation to a person unless there is an ultimate
person?
M: Precisely.
R: I am unconvinced.
R: Surely you wouldn’t discount the historical record completely? Why is it that every page we
turn to in a history textbook, there is another Christian burning someone over here, drowning
someone over there, and then starting another war for gold or oil, and then carting a few million
slaves off on the next page? Here an Inquisition, there a Crusade — you guys have a lot of
M: I can offer you an explanation, but I will spare you the shame. Because, as a matter of fact,
the Christian worldview both anticipates this very behavior and has the capacity to judge it. You
!8
may take note of it, but you still have not given me a sufficient standard by which you judge it.
In all your indignation, you have snuck back over to our side to borrow from God’s law again.
R: I don’t need the wrath of your God to have a little bit of my own. As to his ten
commandments, we didn’t need them either to figure out why we shouldn’t kill each other or
steal. It is simple evolution. These are the behaviors that did not pay off in the most primitive
M: I will come back to why evolutionary morality won’t answer the question. But as to the
record of history itself, it is not the case that Christianity has introduced and perpetuated these
evils in the ways or to the degrees that you claim. It was precisely the influence of a legalized
Christianity that ended slavery after the fall of Rome — in fact the word vanished from the lips
of Europeans3 —
R: Not so fast! Nothing but the replacing of slavery with serfdom happened. If you ask me, that
goes into the category of a rose by another name. And before you compare the two of those, you
had better be consistent and compare the kind of house slavery in antiquity to European chattel
M: You are well aware of the Christian roots of the abolitionist movement, especially in the case
of Wilberforce in England. And the initial enslavement of those poor Africans was carried out by
fellow Africans under an entirely different worldview. Last of all, as much as you personally
want to oppose statism, you are well aware of the materialist roots in the thinking of the Soviets
!9
R: Then we are at a draw. Both sides seem to be filled with those who take their presuppositions
in directions that we would both agree are bad for society. I think that shows that this
M: I think it shows the opposite. I think it shows that the historical record cannot be the final
arbiter in whether or not one’s morality is rationally justified. Comparing battle scars and
scoundrels on our rosters is not really the same thing as getting to the heart of truth justification.
R: That may be. But don’t you see that the very essence of religious thinking and scientific
thinking fall out on one side or the other of this equation? Faith talks about what cannot be
verified and cannot be questioned. That is two strikes against the open society. Speaking of
presuppositions, the very notion of moral progress presupposes the opposite of these two closed-
doors of faith. It presupposes standards that everyone has access to and then it keeps on
M: All this time we have been using civility and science as our two values. And we have been
trying to get at the preconditions of the first. The fact is that most modern people have assumed
R: I’ve been waiting for you to bring up your psuedo-science of intelligent design.
M: Maybe next time. For the moment, I would challenge the so-called record of modern science.
M: No—I mean to challenge your assumption that science and the Scriptures are at odds at all.
What has modern science actually told us? Aside from the level of macro-evolution (which you
!10
know I will contest) what exactly has any other science shown us that contradicts the biblical
worldview? Behind that question lies another: Can science “prove” or “disprove” anything?
R: You are going to make an irrelevant distinction between the deduction of math and logic
versus the induction of science. Right—strictly speaking, science does not prove, but shows what
is probable. On the other hand, if the scientific viewpoint is right, then this just is the only way to
M: You are still begging the question. What you call the “scientific viewpoint” is really just your
own “materialist viewpoint,” and I am saying that real scientists will know the difference.
R: Evolutionary biologists are real scientists and they do not make this distinction.
M: Stephen Jay Gould was a real scientist, and in spite of his evolutionary dogmatism, he
nevertheless pointed to science and religion answering equally legitimate questions in separate
spheres. I do not necessarily accept his model of the two keeping to their sides, so to speak, but
my only point is that to speak of a “scientific consensus” against supernatural realities is very
misleading.
R: Well Dawkins was right to critcize Gould for that, and you really surprise me, citing him when
it suits you.
M: All truth suits the Christian. But let me get back to those philosophical presuppositions of
science. Remember that I am saying that no science can occur apart from these preconditions. It
cannot justify itself. In order to show this, will you please tell me which science empirically tests
!11
M: I want you to tell me how to empirically verify the validity of the scientific method. Or how
M: Not at all. I want to show you its limitations. It cannot be applied to matters beyond empirical
M: Because if all meaningful propositions had to be, in principle, falsifiable, then the
falsifiability principle would have to be falsifiable. That would mean that there is a possible
world in which the falsifiability principle is false. But if it is possible for the falsifiability
principle to be false, then it cannot be a necessary truth. On the other hand, if it is impossible for
the falsifiability principle to be false, then there is at least one meaningful proposition that is not
subject to falsifiability. Do you now see that you must presuppose it?
M: Then let me offer ten of my own preconditions for the scientific enterprise: (1) the existence
of a world outside of any of our minds, (2) that this world is orderly, (3) that this world is
knowable, (4) that truth is objective, (5) that the laws of logic are objective, (6) that our minds
and senses are basically reliable, (7) that language is adequate to describe that world, (8) that
moral values are objective (e. g. honesty in research), (9) that nature is generally uniform and
induction generally reliable, and (10) that mathematical entities are objective.4
R: And you are going to tell me that a skeptic like myself cannot believe in any of these things?
!12
M: On a spectrum, yes. Now I’m sure you would affirm every one of these so long as you can
subject them in turn to the definitions of secularism. You would especially object to my claim
that the laws of logic and mathematical entities are objective in the sense of being immutable and
immaterial. But otherwise I have no doubt that you think you do affirm each of these.
M: I would like to show you that you absolutely cannot. All of these are either strictly
metaphysical realities, or else physical realities that depend for their intelligibility on those
higher metaphysical realities. If you do not accept that, at least go back and review one of your
favorite skeptics, Hume, on the problem with supposing that inductive reasoning can give us
CONCLUDING RESPONSES
R: Speaking of presuppositions, it sounds as if your religious truth is really something like the
“noble lie” of many of the Greek and Romans who disbelieved in the gods and yet defended the
M: Far from it. Just because I am arguing that Christianity is the only solid foundation for
science and ethics, this does not reduce Christian truth to that practical condition. A true
worldview must be liveable, but it must be more than that. We could easily see that the Christian
worldview alone can demonstrate itself positively and account for all the evidence. But all we
were doing here was answering the question “Which is better for the world?” Christianity can
answer that. Atheism cannot. Agnosticism can hardly try. So if your secular viewpoint abandons
atheism, I do not see how an agnostic starting point will fare any better.
!13
R: I do not need to identify myself as an agnostic or atheist. You seem to think that atheism is just
as dogmatic — indeed, just as “religious” — as your Christian theism. But any good form of
unbelief is equally agnostic. If it is rooted in science, then one is open to falsification. On the
other hand, your dogma is never open to criticism. And that is what separates my epistemology
from yours. You don’t have one. A belief not open to scrutiny never really justifies its ground.
M: If by “open to justification” you mean going around pretending that my view does not have
ultimate commitments then I will have to plead guilty to being “closed.” Actually to be aware
that we all have ultimate commitments, and to focus the dialogue at that level, is the only honest
way to be truly open to where the conversation most hinges. You speak about “openness” as if it
were self-evident, as if the “open society” and the “open mind” were things that don’t need
scrutiny themselves. But doesn’t that close the debate to what you call open? Do you have any
R: You are always very humorous, but I think we’ll have to wrap it up for today. Neither one of
!14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, James N., “Science and Scripture” (audio posted August 1, 2016 on RTS Canvas)
Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion, New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin, 2006
Frame, John, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed
Publishing, 1987
Hitchens, Christopher, God is Not Great, New York, NY: Twelve-Hachette Book Group, 2007
Keller, Timothy, The Reason for God, New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 2008
Stark, Rodney, For the Glory of God, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003
!15