I have been reading Dan Barker's book, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. I found a great portion that deals with basing an argument on authority or consensus. I liked what he had to say.
This quote comes from page 81,
Here he responds to the standard assertion of the Teleological Argument that 'some phenomena within nature exhibit such exquisiteness of structure, function or interconnectedness that many people have found it natural - if not inescapable - to see a deliberative and directive mind behind those phenomena.'
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe....For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. (1 Cor 18-21; 25)Say the word philosophy to most conservative or fundamentalist Christians and you will probably get the above verses quoted to you at some point. If you raise philosophical objections to their faith or their belief in an inerrant text then they will probably feel these verses are an adequate enough response. They feel they do not need to enter the realm of the philosopher, as their Bible makes it clear that their religion is superior to philosophy.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (Rom 1:21-22)
I remember arguing with Mormons about their 'proofs' for the Book of Mormon. They would quote the promise to those who wished to know if the book was true...from the book itself. There is something there about asking with a pure heart and then you get a 'burning in the bosom' or some other thing. To me though, the whole process seemed like asking a used car salesman if the car he was selling was any good. Of course he'll respond favourably to his product. The Book of Mormon isn't going to suggest a test of itself that will fail. That would just be self defeating for the Mormons. What I wanted from the Mormons was something outside of the Book of Mormon, not verses from within their book. They had very little.
I wouldn't have absorbed the material in this book had I read it while still a Xian. I expect most of it would have either gone over my head or I would have shut a lot of the arguments out. Nevertheless, I read it on 'the other side' of faith and found a lot of it quite convincing. I especially liked his arguments against the possibility of the incarnation. Where Xians call it 'paradoxical' and 'a mystery', Martin calls it 'irrational', 'illogical' and 'impossible'.
It annoys me the way some Christians (usually the more left-wing variety) throw 'post-modernism' around as it means they do not have to hold legitimate reasons for their beliefs. What they don't seem to understand is that same post-modern philosophy that tells them they are free to believe as they want to, also tells them their 'truth' is entirely subjective and just as valid as the 'truth' of other, competing religions. These Christians tend not to notice the latter edge of the two-edged post-modern sword. More right-wing Christians tend to realise this and thus hold post-modernism as yet another attack of that dirty philosopher Satan.
Post-modernists like Jacques Derrida say that language is an imperfect form of communication due to the constant shift of meaning. Context, time, place, variations of meaning, even the experiences and emotions of the reader or hearer all play a part in how meaning is conveyed and received. This means that truth communicated via language is always subjective and relative, never absolute. This flies in the face of many premises of modernism, but it also flies in the face of the absolute truth and therefore exclusiveness of Christianity.
Post-modernism also challenges the Bible as 'the word of God'. As language is such an imperfect form of communication, how can the Bible even claim perfection seeing as it uses language? More so, the reader's use of language and all its imperfections make a perfect or inspired book a moot point. How can perfection be be received through such an imperfect means, let alone be given? It can't.
Post-modernism may let the Christian off the hook for defending their beliefs but they must also accept that their beliefs are therefore relative, subjective and just as valid as those of any other belief or philosophy...including Islam, Hinduism and even...*gasp*...Atheism.
