The debate surrounding religious pluralism hinges largely on the relation of our capacity to know, to reality itself, that is, to what is known. Religious pluralists typically believe something to the effect that all religions are correct, that they’re all paths to the same god, or perhaps that none of them are correct, and we all have the right to believe whatever we want. I’m addressing, more specifically, the idea that no one of any religion can justifiably dispute the truth claim(s) of another religion – and more broadly, I plan on relating this debate to the nature of knowledge claims itself. My mode of argumentation throughout this post is not original, but draws on the “presuppositional” style of argumentation pioneered by philosophers/Christian apologists Cornelius Van Til and Howard Clark.
It’s often argued that since there are many religions, it doesn’t make sense to claim that one is correct to the exclusion of the others, as though appealing to the reality of diversity proves anything except that diversity exists. This is not to deny that social norms and linguistic conventions affect our perspectives on reality. I can’t imagine anyone denying that. But to then conclude from this fact that all realities are legitimate (or that none of them are legitimate) is such a bold jump that does not logically follow, that I think this mentality is based more on an agnostic view of reality which sees the truth as impossible to determine, and so we might as well just get along if we can’t know for sure, right? The appeal to diversity, and the apparent impossibility of knowing for sure who is correct (the former often being caused by the latter), both link up to create a philosophy where anything goes, as though it’s ethically wrong or fundamentally in bad taste to dispute the truth claims of one system of belief and/or to assert the exclusive truth of another. Ultimately, I agree that the the task of figuring out on what kind of knowledge claims are reliable is a difficult one, but a point needs to be made emphasizing the necessity and inevitability of assuming some kind of foundational presupposition when it comes to making knowledge claims.
One might reply to the pluralist that the presence of diversity in scientific theories by no means entails that all theories have equal standing to the truth (though postmodernists will often claim this). A popular counter-objection to this response is that knowledge of spiritual things is by a fundamentally different means of knowing, that is, by intuition, revelation, or faith, rather than through sense experience, induction, experimentation, etc, and as such, unverifiable, leaving us in a state of irremediable agnosticism in which we totally despair of the truth. As a Christian, I do accept this distinction between different ways of knowing:
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”-Hebrews 11:1
“…for we walk by faith, not by sight”-2 Corinthians 5:7
While I accept this distinction between different ways of knowing, I consider faith superior to reason and sense experience. Most people accept as self-evident that reason and science are fundamentally more reliable modes of knowing. I accept as self-evident that God’s revealed Word in the Bible is a fundamentally more reliable mode of knowing (and that, unless it precedes and conditions science and reason, the latter two are hopelessly corrupt and lead one into error when mobilized).
Ultimately, we all come to the table with our own assumptions about reality, and no ideology, worldview, religion, or philosophical system, is completely neutral, no matter how hard we try to make it neutral, or attempt to assume common ground with all parties in the debate. To say that scientific knowledge is reliable because it proceeds by way of the senses, induction, and experimentation, proceeds from the presupposition that these modes of knowing are more reliable than revelation, and that the autonomous human mind is a reliable means of acquiring knowledge without assistance from God or some means of divine revelation. I, as a Christian, also have my own presuppositions about the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge, and how the two are bound up with one another. Again, as a Christian, I accept as self-evident that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and the Bible claims for itself this authority.
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.”-Proverbs 3:5.
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom”-Psalm 111:10.
And the Bible is clear about the effects of sin on the intellect:
“For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…”-Romans 1:21-22
“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.”-Romans 3:10-11
18For the word of the cross is(A) folly to(B) those who are perishing, but to us(C) who are being saved it is(D) the power of God. 19For it is written,
(E) "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
20(F) Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?(G) Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For(H) Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ(I) crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ(J) the power of God and(K) the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
“3And even(A) if our gospel is veiled,(B) it is veiled only to(C) those who are perishing. 4In their case(D) the god of this world(E) has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing(F) the light of(G) the gospel of the glory of Christ,(H) who is the image of God.”-2 Corinthians 4:3-4
So we see that depending on scientific knowledge and reason, on the one hand, has its own presuppositions about the nature of the knowing human subject (namely, that the autonomous human being is an entity who can reliably acquire undistorted knowledge about the world). This belief lies on an unproven assumption that is simply taken for granted. The Christian worldview holds to the assumptions that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, that faith in the God of the Bible is superior to reason and sense experience (and that the latter two are hopelessly corrupt and deceptive without being undergirded by the former).
While accepting on faith that the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says the Word of God, is oftentimes dismissed as circular, I argue that simply accepting as self-evident that ANY ideology, or means of knowing, is, in a sense, circular, because it must accept as true something unproven, that is, by faith. To prove anything as true, we must assume the reliability of a certain methodology, presuppose the inspiration a certain religious text, etc., in order to mobilize it in defense of a belief, and we are left having to defend the means we used to defend the belief (For example, if I argue that sense experience is reliable, I have to resort to something else to prove that it’s reliable, perhaps its frequent success in predicting the behavior of the material world, and I would then have to prove by another means that what I used to prove the reliability of sense experience is itself reliable, and an infinite regress follows).
A brief comparison of Theravada Buddhism and Christianity will help illustrate the fundamentally antagonistic and mutually exclusive nature of claims about reality. I consider Buddhism an especially instructive example of this reality, because it tends to be viewed as relatively inclusivistic, when on closer inspection, both its explicit and implicit claims to inclusivism, are, in reality, pretty exclusivistic.
The Christian perspective rejects any kind of inclusivism, universalism or pluralism, but holds that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”-Acts 4:12. Buddhism holds that our “salvation” comes in the form of freeing ourselves from attachment to earthly desires and cravings, that any religion which adheres to the Four Seals of the Dharma qualify as Buddhist, and that salvation is basically the result of the completion of a reform program, by which the human is progressively perfected. Anyone who has ever studied Theravada Buddhism knows that it is a relatively unique religion, and that few religions satisfy its rather restrictive criteria for a religion which leads effectively to salvation.
The Buddha even ends up telling us that, though we ought to test for ourselves what we think works best, and agrees with our common sense, we eventually have to ultimately put our full faith and trust in the Buddha’s method of salvation. The Buddhist ends up saying something like, “you can be any religion you want, as long as it’s Buddhist.” I hope to make it clear that, for the Buddha to ask us to test a belief system with our common sense, is horribly problematic, especially in light of the Buddha’s very non-commonsensical denial of the existence of the self, of anything static or unchanging, and reincarnation (At least the Christian worldview admits that its beliefs are “foolishness” to those whom God has decided not to predestine to salvation (1 Cor. 1:18-25)).
Christianity rejects Buddhism as proceeding from a worldview which denies the existence of sin – sin being disobeying and rebelling against God, and that all sin against God incurs a legal debt which must be paid, which is only paid through Jesus Christ, the Son of God and God in the flesh, who bore God the Father’s wrath on the cross, thereby atoning for sins and placating the wrath of God toward those who believe. The Buddhist sees good deeds and tracing harmful habits to their origins as conducive to salvation, whereas the Christian denies that any “good” will suffice to placate God’s wrath, since God’s wrath is directed toward wrong committed against Him. For the Christian, the idea that we can save ourselves through reform or good deeds or psychological conditioning, would be comparable to Hitler living to stand trial and asking if he could wipe away his crimes through good deeds.
The Buddhist denies the existence of anything static or invariant, whereas the Christian sees God as static, invariant, eternal, personal, demanding obedience, and saving believers by grace (grace being God’s unmerited favor towards those who deserve His eternal wrath) through faith (faith being trust in God the Father, who sent His Son, Jesus Christ, who is also God, to live a perfect life, thus making His sacrifice acceptable to God the Father, only so Christ could die on a cross, in order that sinners who actually deserve such punishment might have Christ’s perfect righteousness credited to them, provided they believe He did this for them).
The postmodernist also, who tries his best to be as inclusivistic as possible, ends up ruling out ANY belief which would claim for itself exclusive truth (and there are many). Such attempted exclusivism is pretty inclusivistic. Postmodernism is a difficult-to-define intellectual current associated with the idea that all truth is subjective (that is, that there is no truth), and that all truth claims are simply attempts of one locus of power to impose its beliefs on another, and that the sociocultural realm is nothing but this dynamic of competing power relations. I would agree with postmodernists that the competition for beliefs has a lot to do with one belief overpowering another, rather than disinterestedly presenting one truth claim against another, and that non-Christian belief systems are being marshaled not by someone disinterestedly presenting a belief system, but rather,
“…the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience – among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind…”-Ephesians 2:2-3.
And as for the Christian who presents the Gospel:
“…the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power.”-1 Corinthians 4:20.
“”…I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”-Romans 1:16
It is indeed implied that belief is not a merely intellectual phenomenon, but rooted in both desire and power, which precede intellectual belief, and determine the contents of the intellect (it’s interesting to note that two of the most important postmodernist philosophers, Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault, considered desire and power, respectively, the most fundamental determinants of the emergence of phenomena).
From a Christian perspective, what we believe, and the paths we walk (which are inseparable), in the end, are inseparably related to, and even determined by, whether our desire is for sin, or for God, whether we have the power of God, or are under the power of the devil; and our intellectual beliefs, regardless of what they are, always rely on certain unquestioned assumptions about reality, which reveal our unquestioned intellectual sympathies (themselves revealing, undergirded by, what power we’re under, and what we desire). Both of these truths are perhaps summed up most concisely by Jesus Himself, who tells us that:
“Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters.”-Matthew 12:30.
No comments:
Post a Comment