1

Consistency, Context, and Christianity

This is a response to an essay by my friend Josh on his own personal philosophy. It seems that his essay confused some of his friends (including myself). I think that this is because he was trying to get his thoughts down quickly and failed to make some of his assumptions and reasoning clear. So I will attempt to clarify his argument, and point out where I agree and disagree with what he says.

What I think Josh means

Josh starts out by rejecting what he calls relativism. By ‘relativism’, I am assuming he means the denial of absolute truth. That is, the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth and reality is essentially just a construct of our own perceptions. Looking down this road and seeing where it ends, all knowledge becomes meaningless—including the knowledge that there is no truth. If there is no truth, then there is no point in saying anything. I might as well stop my essay here.

On the other hand, claims to complete, 100% objective, literal truth are arrogant and fail to take into account the finite nature of human understanding and language. We cannot make our own reason the arbiter of truth, since our own reason is fallible. Neither can we claim complete understanding of everything by divine revelation, since our understanding is still subject to a finite brain. A judge can only make a certain, correct judgement if they know all the facts. To claim absolute objective certainty about transcendent truth is in essence the same as claiming to have all the facts. In other words, this is claiming omniscience and in some ways is equivalent to claiming to be God.

So, we must discount ‘relativism,’ or knowledge ceases to exist. On the other hand, we must be wary of claims to knowledge of absolute truth. Hence, we acknowledge that absolute truth exists, but must admit that complete and universal understanding of it impossible for

human beings. How then do we proceed? It is at this point that Josh’s argument becomes slightly difficult to decipher (and I do hope he will clarify it for us). As best I understand it, Josh proposes realism, rationalism, pseudo-subjectivism and post-modernism as the way forward. This seems to mean three things:

1. Rationalism in subjecting ideas to careful criticism. An idea must at least be

internally consistent, or we may reject it as false. We must be able to reject the absurd. The sciences, for example, are generally well established disciplines, and scientific knowledge is open to criticism within the scientific method. If a hypothesis is shown to be false by repeatable experiment, then we can reject it.

2

Similarly, mathematics has formal methods of proof. Any epistemology that requires us to reject such methods of understanding as arbitrary and meaningless itself becomes meaningless. We assert that understanding truth, while necessarily limited and incomplete, is still possible.

2. Holistic, contextual understanding must supplement rationalism however. That is,

understanding of an idea must include understanding the context in which it arises, including the political, social, and historical context, as well as limitations on where the idea applies. To illustrate this, Josh uses the example of Newtonian physics. ‘[W]e can say that gravity obeys Newton’s law far [sic.] all measurements of scales larger than a nanometre. Now this is true that it is a very good approximation, but not technically the truth! The truth is in the realm of quantum physics – so let’s assume that this quantum laws [sic.] is the objective actual truth (not that we know that for certain either!).’ Now, scientists developed Newtonian physics before we had adequate knowledge of quantum physics. At that point in history it was not possible to measure things on a quantum scale

1. These physical laws were tested

and verified by scientific method, not by pure logic or analysis of historical texts (though these may have had an influence). So we can say that within the context of scientific method, for scales of greater than a nanometre, Newton’s laws regarding gravity hold true. Thus it is important to understand the context for Newtonian physics.

3. Humility in acknowledging that we are finite beings, and thus our understanding

and reasoning will always be limited. We cannot claim 100% complete knowledge of universal, transcendent truth since this has all the arrogance of claiming omniscience. As Josh says ‘Once we start claiming correct clear universal knowledge of him [God] we are on a dangerous path!’

So, rationalism, contextual understanding and humility are key foundations if we want to say that we know some truth. So far I agree with Josh (assuming I have understood his position correctly), however I would like to say a few more things about contextual understanding before we go further.

Contextual understanding is more than simply defining the limits of where a truth applies. It also must deal with questions of purpose, bias or motive. For instance, if I read a book by Richard Dawkins, I should understand that he wrote the book in a particular context. The author is a white male who was born in Kenya, brought up an ‘Anglican’ and is now an avowed atheist. He studied as a zoologist (as opposed to a literary critic or even a physicist) and has been married three times, and so on

2. The more I am aware of the context in which

he writes, the more understanding I can gain of his biases, assumptions and motivations. Understanding when, where and why Richard Dawkins writes is an important part of

understanding what Richard Dawkins writes.

Similarly, when I read the bible’s accounts of Jesus, I should be aware that they were written in first century Palestine, in the Greek language, by followers of Jesus. Jesus himself was a Jew who mainly spoke to Jews living under Roman occupation. Some of the gospel writers were more highly educated than others, and it is clear that they had different motivations in writing, etc. etc. These are all important things to understand when reading the gospels.

1 Please correct me if I am wrong in this particular assumption.

2 I will freely admit that I ripped this information straight from Wikipedia

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) and I actually know next to nothing about Richard Dawkins.

3

Taking this reasoning one step further however, to be consistent I must also apply this reasoning to myself. I am not context free. When I read Richard Dawkins, or the bible, I should be aware that I am a white, tertiary-educated male, born in Australia, and raised in a western culture, etc. etc. Thus I have my own personal biases and motivations in reading and thinking. In social theory, the technical name for this is reflexivity. The same rules I

apply to my understanding of others, I must also apply to myself.

This, as I understand it, is the basis for Josh’s philosophy. Please do correct me if I have misunderstood it. And this far, I agree. With some of the entailments, and conclusions he draws however, I disagree. I think it would be very helpful if Josh were to lay out his assumptions and reasoning behind the conclusions he draws so that we can better understand the context he is writing from, and reduce the danger of setting up straw-man arguments. If I do not have a clear grasp of what someone is saying and why they are saying it, then it makes it incredibly difficult to work out where I agree or disagree with them.

Thus far, we have laid some groundwork for the discussion. If we are going to argue anything, it should be rational and grounded in a holistic understanding of context. At the same time we must be humbly aware that we are finite and our own limited understanding is also situated within a context.

Where Josh and I disagree

One point where Josh and I disagree is on the problem other religions. If I have understood it correctly, the argument is something like this: If we cannot claim 100% certain knowledge of absolute truth, how can we claim that our understanding of God is the only correct one? How can we say that other religions are wrong? As Josh writes, ‘Only the extremely arrogant would claim they have a complete understanding of God largely derived form [sic.] a few apostles[‘] contextual writings to various church[e]s (indeed ambiguous and almost contradictory at times).’ In our western context, Christianity and Christian thinkers have significantly impacted our society and history. Hence, in our context, Christianity makes sense to us. ‘In other contexts other religions are much more appropriate for the individual. They are still ‘god’ fearing people – seeking the eternal truth.’

For the sake of argument, let us assume that all the major world religions are internally consistent. This seems fair given that they have all been around for many hundreds of years. If they are internally consistent, would it not make sense to say that they are ‘true’ within the context that people believe them? So, if I am a white, educated male living in a western culture which Christianity has influenced heavily, then Christianity will make a lot of sense to me in my context. But it would be arrogant of me to say that in this (and the bible in particular) I find complete knowledge of God, and that therefore all other religions are wrong. Who am I to say that these sincere people, who are trying to understand God as best they can in their own particular context, are unequivocally wrong?

Obviously I disagree with Josh on this point. So far his reasoning makes sense. Before I outline where I disagree however, I would like to clarify what I think Josh is not saying.

What Josh is not saying

I do not think Josh is silly enough to say that all religions are different aspects of the same fundamental truth. Or even that truth manifests itself differently in different cultures. On the surface this sounds very humble and tolerant. It does not condemn everyone who disagrees

4

with me. I would argue however, that this is in fact an arrogant claim pretending at humility. To say that all religions are different aspects of truth when applied to their own context is essentially to say that your understanding is superior to all the religions.

The classic metaphor for contextual understanding of religions is the story of the blind men and the elephant. To save time, I will quote the short, Wikipedia version:

3

In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one’s perspective [or context].

If we apply this to religion, then the argument goes that one man in an Islamic context feels the trunk, another in a Buddhist context feels the tail, yet another in a Christian context feels the leg. They are all grasping part of the truth, but none has the whole of it. If this metaphor is correct however, the only way I can know that the blind men are all touching the same thing is if I can see the whole elephant. This then, is a claim to knowledge of the truth that is superior to the blind men. I claim to have vision where they are blind.

One might reply that this is not the case at all. The claim is not that we know the men are holding an elephant, but that since they are all seeking knowledge of the same thing and come up with different answers, this suggests an elephant might be present. If we follow this argument, then this could well be the case—there might be an elephant there. But it is equally possible that there is not an elephant there. We have no way of verifying the existence of the elephant. They could well be feeling a snake, a wall, and a pillar. One could be holding an elephant while the others are not. They could have all been high on drugs and feeling each other. We have no way of knowing and essentially fall into relativism. Truth may well exist, but I have no way of knowing if it is there, so for all practical purposes, truth is dead.

So, I believe the argument for different aspects of the same truth leads us in a circle. We are back at relativism versus arrogance. Either we claim to know better than everyone else, or we claim that nobody can know anything.

Unverifiable truth claims

I do not think that Josh is so silly as to be taken in by the Blind Men and Elephant argument. I believe he is trying to be consistent in applying contextual understanding and humility in a reflexive way. He gives a ‘clear example’ in one of his comments:

Ok I am going to choose a religion. This is going to be based on some evidence. Let[‘]s make a list –

1. Accepted/Majority religion in my culture

2. Historical influence on my culture/world

3. Ethics go along with my accepted ones

Now in our context, Christianity [is] most favourable. In china, Confuncian[-]influenced Buddhism is. Etcetera.

3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant

5

Now I can go further, and say I will claim something is 100% correct as far as we know, if it passes those criteria above. Now the whole thing really is flawed because it relies on external things such as defining culture. But close enough.

What I believe he is saying is that given that he has grown up in a culture where Christianity is in a majority, then Christianity seems the most sensible and rational from his perspective. But at least he is being honest about what his perspective is, and humble enough to admit that his perspective might not be the correct one. As far as he knows, it makes sense, but it is possible that he is wrong.

If all major religions are internally consistent and claim to be some kind of divine revelation, then if we are to choose one, a choice between unverifiable claims faces us. One is pretty much as good as another, so we will examine them on their merits and pick the one which makes the most sense according to some criteria. Usually this will be the one that makes the most sense in my context, and for me in a western country, this happens to be Christianity. Further, I might also go with my own personal experiences of God. If I have had spiritual experiences in a Christian context, then perhaps that is further evidence that Christianity is true. For me this might be good evidence, but I must not be so arrogant as to assume that a subjective measure like this will be convincing for other people.

Christianity

If all religions base themselves on unverifiable claims of revelation from God (or gods, or enlightenment, or whatever), then this is the best we can do. We should at least be honest about it. However, I do not believe that Christianity bases itself entirely on unverifiable claims. I will not comment on other religions, since I must admit my ignorance of them, however I will claim to know a little about the faith to which I hold.

While we do claim the bible as ‘inspired’, the heart of Christianity is not the bible, but Christ. We centre our belief on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus’ did not claim to be not another prophet claiming to speak on God’s behalf. Jesus did not claim to have the truth or to speak the truth, but to be the truth. The unmovable mover, the unknowable knower,

the ultimate truth, made himself known by becoming a human being. ‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.’

4 And it was not just his followers who said this

about him, but Christ himself who said ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’

5

Now, on its own, this does not really address Josh’s concern that we cannot know anything with 100% certainty. So what if Jesus claimed to have perfect knowledge, if I do not have perfect knowledge by which to judge his claim. We can never be certain that he was correct. It is still an unverifiable claim for knowledge of the divine. This is where the resurrection comes in. If Christ was not the Son of God, the promised king, then God would not have raised him from the dead. If he did indeed rise from the dead, then God is in essence verifying Jesus’ claims.

So everything hangs on the question of whether or not the resurrection did actually happen. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then he was clearly insane, and we might as well look elsewhere for a moral code or world-view that fits well with our own particular preferences. If Christ did rise from the dead, however, then we have to take Christ’s claims seriously and all that that entails.

4 John 1:14

5 John 14:6

6

It is at this point that Christianity is open to inspection. If we can show that the historical event of Jesus’ death and resurrection did not happen, then we can reject Christianity as false. And so, we can examine the bible as a collection of historical documents (not a history textbook, as some are fond of accusing Christians of doing). We can also examine other documents from the period and see what they have to say. Thus, Christianity is open to historical analysis.

Now, to make a sweeping generalisation, post-moderns are usually suspicious of history. ‘History is always written by the winners’, is the catch-phrase that allows historical knowledge to be called into question. We must be fair however. Certainly, historical study is not free from bias or motive, but neither is science. History is a well-established discipline with its own methods or verification. Historical discoveries are published and peer-reviewed, just as scientific discoveries are.

Now, even historical analysis does not give us 100% certainty that we are correct. Nor do Christians claim that they have 100% certain, literal knowledge of everything there is to know about God. But, if our historical investigation supports it, we can say with a degree of certainty that Christ rose from the dead, just as I can say with a degree of certainty that if I drop a sphere from a height, it will accelerate at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared. If this is true however, then I must be rational about it. If Christ did rise from the dead we must take his claim to be the only way to know God seriously. Similarly, I must reject claims that there are other ways to know God.

In saying this, I am not saying that I have 100% literal certainty that my belief is right and other beliefs are wrong. But if I am going to be rational and realistic, I must accept the consequences if Jesus did or did not rise from the dead. If not, then the lynch-pin falls out of Christianity. If Jesus did rise, then the consequence is that other religions must be wrong. In a similar way, if I accept that Newtonian physics are an accurate description of the way bodies interact for scales greater than a nanometre, then I must reject classical element philosophies that explain things using earth, air, fire and water.

In this sense, whether I find Christianity easy to accept or not because of my context and background is irrelevant. Yes, Christianity may make less sense to someone else from a very different context, but we are not making an arbitrary decision between equally tenable, but unverifiable propositions. If I were an arts student

6 I may find the nuances of quantum

physics difficult to grasp. Even as an educated engineer, I still find quantum physics difficult. But my difficulty or ease in understanding it does not take away its explanatory power. If quantum mechanics failed to explain and predict atomic and sub-atomic phenomena, then we would reject it, since its claim is to explain these things. If Jesus claimed that he would rise from the dead as testimony to his claims, then we can likewise accept or reject his claims on the historical evidence for his resurrection.

We must apply our ground rules of rationality, contextual understanding and humility all together. We can assert that we don’t have to take everything the bible says literally. And that is true. But when we read the bible we look at it rationally. We attempt to understand what the writer was trying to say to the audience at that time period. We place it in context. Certainly, when Jesus spoke ‘he was talking to a crowd of [J]ews and gentiles in the small valley in the [Middle East], 200 years ago, and was [in] a backend of the [Roman Empire]. They did not know [modern] [Asia] existed, of the [Americas], nor of the teaching of [Confucius]. There was a heavy influence of many teachings by the classical [Greek] schools, largely thanks to them [preserving] the Old testament on [Jews] behalf via the [Septuagint].

6 Please forgive me if you are an arts student.

7

That and the technology of the [Roman Empire] being underpinned by [Greek enlightenment].’ This is all true. It does not mean however, that Jesus was stupid. When he claimed to be the Son of God, he was not claiming to be the Son of God only if you are a Jewish peasant born in the first century living under Roman occupation. Let’s not use context as an excuse to throw rationality and realism out the window.

Not everything in the bible is intended to be taken literally, but neither is everything intended to be taken figuratively. Even less is every interpretation of it equally ‘truthful’, for then we remove rationality and become relativists. We use rationality and contextual understanding to look at what the bible says for itself, while humbly acknowledging that we are finite, limited, even sinful human beings. When we do so, we find claims about Jesus that we must take seriously if we want to call ourselves Christians.