What does this phrase mean? Notice the capitalization in the title. There is debate and discussion amongst scholars on the differences between (T)ruth and (t)ruth. It's like the difference between macro and micro-evolution. Many people claim that there is no "absolute" truth. Just as people claim there is no such thing as "macro" evolution (evolution from one species to another). Without digressing into this discussion, I often wonder what the fuss is all about. I get very tired of arguing for the sake of arguing. It becomes self-indulgent and fruitless on many levels. More than that.. don't you think this is a "huge" turn-off for those on the outside looking in? Why do we continue tarnishing an already tarnished image of Christianity?
Warning: If you stop reading after this next paragraph... you may think I'm a heretic. Is it good practice to disregard someone before finishing what they've written? (we can be so quick to judge right?)
A new trend in theology debates is a tactic called "minimal facts approach" to theology. What they do is take the bare essential of what secular and Christian scholars agree as "facts" about things like the resurrection of Christ. This eliminates the bible as a source, among other highly debated sources. What they are left with are the minimal facts as accepted by the majority of scholars and then an argument is built out of these facts. It is incredibly effective and I highly encourage you to read Dr. Habermas' book. So what does this have to do with my post, right? I think we need to take the same approach with absolute Truth. We need to acknowledge that although we do believe in these things (absolute Truths), we can't prove they exist.
Now if you stop reading here... I'm sure the word "heretic" has come to mind. (or maybe because I just put it there) Let me explain. The fact is, we can't prove this statement one way or another. We would need omniscience to know if absolute truths were possible. I realize that our faith rests upon the bedrock of absolute truth. And I'm not denying that there are absolute Truths. What I'm saying is that if anyone asks me to prove it.. I'm stumped. I can't do it. I can't cover all of history, or eternity, or cover every corner case, or explore every possible scenario, option, or possibility that could lend itself to being wrong. I'm human. I don't have the capacity.
Understand... there is a huge difference between "there are no absolute Truths" and "I can't prove that absolute Truths exist." So why do we try so hard to rail against these things when everyone else has come to this conclusion? I think it makes us look a little dumb. I think it makes us look a little arrogant. Who are we to think we have knowledge of the infinite. Why do we feel the need to argue things we can't prove? Why not approach these things with humility and understanding?
Yes, I believe in absolute Truth. Yes, I believe it is a critical part of my faith. But no, I can't show you the existence of these things. That is where faith comes in. As I stated in my last post, it's far time to stop making our "voice" the priority and start approaching these conversations with an open ear and a humble heart. Earn your voice and don't just think that yelling louder will get you an audience or influence. Who is this all about anyways? Do we rail and argue to convince someone else... or is it "us" who still needs convincing?
8 comments:
Great post. Nice to see "faith" more prevalent in your walk, for I have seen you try to struggle with all of this in the past.
The "minimal facts" approach may be trendy, but is it methodologically valid? Isn't this exactly what people like the 9/11conspiracy nuts do? They pick out two or three camera angles and they find a couple of witnesses who remember hearing an explosion. Then they claim that no theory is valid unless it explains the "facts" that they have cherry picked, and lo and behold, the only theory that explains them is their claim that that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Of course, if you look at all the evidence, the conclusion that terrorists flew planes into the buildings is so overwhelming that those few odd details can be dismissed as anomalies.
By way of illustration, suppose I were to add one additional "minimal fact" to the mix. It is a fact upon which virtually all men of science are virtually 100% certain and it is this: ONCE YOU'RE DEAD, YOU'RE DEAD. If you require your theory to account for this fact, the supernatural explanation looks much less persuasive. This particular fact was chosen for its hyperbolic effect, but skeptical scholars could point out lots of facts and details that also undermine the supernatural conclusions. The "minimal facts" approach depends on the arbitrary insistence that any historical explanation explain a limited selection of evidence rather than all then evidence.
Moreover, the "minimal facts" doesn't eliminate the Bible as a source; it simply seeks to conceal it. All those scholars who reached conclusions about those facts are New Testament scholars who relied on the Bible for the biggest part of their evidence.
Vinny,
I can't say I don't agree with what you're saying. I think you hit it on a head with some of the weaknesses of the 'minimal facts' approach. Albeit your first example seems flip-flopped. 2 or three witnesses to back up an event isn't the same as "most if not all scholars agree". The idea of terrorists flying into a building would better suit a 'minimal facts' approach.
While I studied under Dr. Habermas, I didn't get the impression that this was some "evenagelical trick" to get around sound data and empirical evidence to prove a point. I think it was just an attempt to move past the initial round of dialogue and get to the heart of the matter. Does it hold up in most cases? I don't know. I think it works decent for the resurrection, but I completely agree with the one obvious glaring "fact" that doesn't get addressed and that is "once you're dead, you're dead". What he's trying to do is disprove a foregone conclusion with other "supposed" foregone conclusions. At the point of contradiction, it becomes a matter of faith again. And that's really what my entire post was about. This attempt to prove what can't be proven.
Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in my examples. Your input is greatly appreciated.
The analogy to conspiracy theorists is only offered to show that if you pick a subset of evidence, you may pick a subset that is really insignificant in the larger picture. I didn't mean to claim that the "minimal facts" are as insignificant as that, just that they are a subset that do not fairly represent the whole.
Another analogy I like to use is a fuzzy picture on the sports page that seems to show the home team's runner being called out at the plate when he really was safe. 10,000 fans who look at the picture might agree that the umpire robbed their team, but the evidence is still just that one fuzzy picture. No matter how many scholars agree, the evidence for the resurrection consists overwhelmingly of anonymous accounts written thirty to sixty years after the events.
We have a paradox here. To say there is "no" absolute truth is to undermine one of the basic tenants of scripture, that God is. In order for there to be an "absolute truth" there has to be the fact that God is. The paradox is that God has to be taken by faith. So I completely agree with you, that absolute truth is impossible without faith which is a contradiction. Isn't that just like God, give us an absolute truth that can't possible by absolute without faith in which there is no absolute???? To much for my feeble mind....I guess I will just have to rely on faith.
Good 1ce as ever was
Coming from the same PK point of view I have taken a step back and really looked at my religion. I have found too many contridictions in what I have been told to take any one person's word (which is essentially what you are doing with the bible...) We are told you must have faith in "God's holy word" for the bible to make sense and to show that you believe in God. So I ask what are we putting our faith in God or what a man told you to believe they heard from God? If a stranger walked up to you and said that your local bank was handing out free money all you have to do is walk into the vault and take it. I talked to the all powerful bank president and he said it was okay. What would you say or do? Of course you would reject this as nonsense, but put the faith moniker in place and over lay it with religious tones it may sound like this: If you have faith in God and just ask Jesus to save your soul you can get into heaven and reap all the rewards. God told me this so you can believe it but you have to have faith or you will go to hell. You see the cycle of the faith conundrum has you trapped. You're required to have faith to believe in God so they use that faith to make you believe what ever was written by man as the word of god. No faith and you are damned, thus you must believe them or perish.
So this faith cloud is put over to cover things that don't make sense or don't sound reasonable.
In any case it's just a thought and I found your article very interesting. Cheers!
Aaron,
Thanks for the input. I checked out your blog and what are the odds? Seriously. Same story.. just a little different outcome. We even started blogging around the same time. Pretty cool man. You've obviously got good taste.
On a different note, I hear what you are saying completely. I have pondered Deism for quite some time and I guess that was a logical step for me after coming from agnosticism. I guess the point of my post wasn't so make a case for fideism. That's a dangerous approach. But to try and argue a point I can't prove seems fruitless and arrogant to me. So I choose not to do it. I have no difficulty acknowledging that Deism is a very rational conclusion to empirical evidence. However, I tend to side with Kant in that I separate the noumenal from the phenomenal in order to make room for faith. absolute Truth, in that scenario, is impossible to know apart from faith.
But this is all from a conscious choice that i have made to believe this way. I'm fully aware of the "traps" of faith but I choose to live within the paradox. And for too long.. that was not okay for me. Now it is.
Again, thanks for the contribution. I look forward to reading your blog as well.
i don't think i'll add to this discussion except to say this...i think you lost me at macro evolution. too many big words :O)
i'm teasin. great post lil bro. it will forever be debated till jesus returns and proves himself to all the critics and unbelievers. come quickly lord!
Post a Comment