Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion by Peterson Michael L.;VanArragon Raymond J.; & Raymond J. VanArragon

Author:Peterson, Michael L.;VanArragon, Raymond J.; & Raymond J. VanArragon
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781119028475
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (trade)
Published: 2019-05-29T00:00:00+00:00

III. The Social Sciences

The big problem here comes from comparative anthropology.16 Christianity is very much not the only religion. There is Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and a host of others. On top of this, we have all the differences within religion. Roman Catholics to Jehovah’s Witnesses – neither of which cares much for the beliefs of the other – as well as those half in and half out, like the Mormons and the Unitarians. Why should any one of these uniquely be right? If conventional Christians are right, then Jesus Christ is the son of God, where somewhat paradoxically this means that he is God, in one of his three forms – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, lived and died on the Cross, and then rose from the dead three days later. If you are a Jew, you think this untrue. Same for Islam, Buddhism, and the rest.

Of course, if you are a Christian, you think you have answers to this. You have a self‐validating faith, what the Calvinists call a sensus divinitatis. You know Christianity is true because, in the language of the philosophers, there is no contradicting claim that, with respect to truth value, has anything like the same call on you. When G.E. Moore was challenged about his belief in the external world, he held up his hand, and said “There!” Nothing could be stronger than that belief.17 His hand existed, ergo the external world existed. At least, there could be no stronger counter‐evidence that the external world did not exist. Same with Jesus. Nothing could be stronger than the belief that he is part of the Trinity. Ergo, he is part of the Trinity. At least, there could be no stronger counter‐evidence that Jesus is not part of the Trinity. The trouble here is – let me be a bit coarse and offensive – Adolf Hitler felt the same way about Jews. For him, there could be nothing stronger than his anti‐Semitic beliefs.

That example is a bit coarse and offensive, but my point is deadly serious. Given that people can be in different systems, have the same level of absolute conviction, and yet have completely different views, why should someone not in the system take as definitive the views of someone in the system? Love your neighbor as yourself. Exterminate Jews. Remember now we are thinking at the level of conviction, not content. You pay your money and you take your choice. You might say, in the mode of Pascal, that you should try believing and when you do start to believe – as many do – you will see the self‐validating nature of Christianity. Is it not possible that the same could happen to the Nazis? You may say that you would never start to believe in National Socialism, but the fact is that many people did. In any case, why should being within the system make you more reliable? If someone starts taking drugs, I do not think they are more reliable.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.