SUNDAY NIGHTS—NEW RADIO PROGRAM on internet

[steve]

"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)

I wonder how many times this will appear at the bottom of a post before it ceases to be examined.

[steve7150]

By "rational" I mean one point logically leads to the next. Steve has had quite a few callers whose beliefs don't have any kind of logical flow to them. I was saturated with all sorts of "new age" beliefs growing up (wasn't raised in a Christian home) but later, as an adult, began to find that I was holding onto beliefs that didn't adhere to any rule of logic or was, at best, inconsistent




Actually what i first found attractive about Christianity was it's irrationality compared to other belief systems. Rationality is what other religions generally have which is a correlation of your good works to your future destination or position after this life . God sacrificing himself to himself for our sins on the face of it seems irrational in fact almost incomprehensible, yet it was so fantastic i thought to myself that no one could make up this stuff.

[kaufmannphillips]

Jason wrote:
I'm actually finding out quite a bit about other beliefs, especially those not cataloged in the "big five" religions. One thing I've found out so far is that Christianity really does sound like the most rational option given all the rest.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
"Rational" is in the eye of the beholder, of course. After one spends years studying a religious text, and practicing a religious ethic and/or discipline, and celebrating religious ritual (which would include worship, even with a drum-kit), it is not surprising if one finds it to be sensible, enlightening, and even "rational."

Jason wrote:
By "rational" I mean one point logically leads to the next. Steve has had quite a few callers whose beliefs don't have any kind of logical flow to them. I was saturated with all sorts of "new age" beliefs growing up (wasn't raised in a Christian home) but later, as an adult, began to find that I was holding onto beliefs that didn't adhere to any rule of logic or was, at best, inconsistent. A good example of this is the caller who says that Christians are judgemental and therefore Christianity is false.

But the sort of reasoning that one uses to connect one datum or concept to the next - this reasoning is acquired over time, from various instincts and/or influences, and it can vary from person to person.

You may see your caller's thought as irrational. But:

Jesus said you can know a tree by its fruit.
Christians' behavior is the fruit of Christianity.
One can know Christianity by the behavior of Christians.

Christianity believes in following Jesus.
Jesus said not to judge.
But Christians judge.

One can know Christianity by the behavior of Christians.
Christians bear fruit that is not true to the premise of Christianity.
Christianity is false.

(Now, one might quibble with this at various points. But one can move from point "A" to point "B" on a reasonable basis.)


The sorts of reasoning that one uses may vary depending upon the types of reasoning that one is accustomed to. When a Christian first encounters Talmudic literature, they may feel that it is basically a welter of arbitrary and contradictory verdicts. But when one learns about conventions of Talmudic thought and communication, one is better equipped to discern the reasoning behind the text.

From a perspective that is familiar with Christian patterns of thought, Christianity might seem to be the most rational option amongst religions. But religious thought is frequently complex, subtle, and artistic - and it can be hard for novices to appreciate the true character of barely-familiar traditions. This can hold true for Christians looking at non-Christian religious thought, and for non-Christians looking at Christian thought.

[steve]

kaufmannphillips,

I understand you to be saying that rejection of Christianity might be rationally defended in the three examples you gave (found also below), but that "rational" (as westerns think of the term) may not be the only legitimate test of religious truth. I would agree with the latter, if you are saying that, in addition to being reasonable, the truth make have confirmation from other dimensions of experience—but that the truth can never be contra-rational. If it could be, then we would have to abandon any hopes that the universe (or anything in our perceptions of it) can be analyzed rationally.

I also would agree with the former statement (that rejection of Christianity might be rationally defended), if we would clarify by the addition of the caveat that the rational rejection of Christianity follows a reasonable mental process only when one begins with flawed premises. Take your examples:

Jesus said you can know a tree by its fruit.
Christians' behavior is the fruit of Christianity.
One can know Christianity by the behavior of Christians.

This rests upon the examination of the behavior of "Christians," without first ascertaining that the subjects of the experiment really belong to the category being researched. To qualify as a "Christian," one certainly would have to fit Christ's own definition of a Christian. Of course, Jesus never used the word "Christian," but that word was coined originally to refer to "disciples" (Acts 11:26), a word that Jesus had a lot to say about. In particular, His proving ground for true disciples in John 8:31 and Luke 14:26-33 would immediately eliminate from consideration over 90% of those who loosely identify themselves as "Christian." If we are to justly test Christ's statement about knowing a tree by its fruit, in all fairness, we should first make sure that the trees we are examining are His trees.

Christianity believes in following Jesus.
Jesus said not to judge.
But Christians judge.

Here the problem is the belief that Jesus forbade making judgments, and also that we are correctly understanding, from His perspective, what it means to "judge." It is evident that nothing in the New Testament forbids every kind of judging, since this would remove the moral element from human existence. To say that anything is wrong is to make a judgment. Even the favorite text on this, Matthew 7:1, which begins "Judge not..." goes on to explain that it is hypocritical judging that is forbidden (i.e., trying to remove another's speck when one is himself sporting a beam). The same passage goes on to talk about not casting pearls before "swine" (does this not require that we first "judge" whether someone is or os not a "swine'?) and to also beware of false prophets (the very passages about knowing them by their fruit—a kind of judgment that is being recommended). Only the shallowest possible reading of the New Testament would give a reader the impression that "judging" as a category is a forbidden activity. After all, why should we take Matthew 7:1 as the difinitive verse on the subject, when we might as readily choose John 7:24—which also begins "Judge not..." (according to appearances), but also contains the command to "judge" (righteous judgment)? In fact, the claim that Christians are not to judge, based on a surface reading of Matthew 7:1 would seem to be a classic example of the reader judging according to appearances, which is indeed forbidden.

One can know Christianity by the behavior of Christians.
Christians bear fruit that is not true to the premise of Christianity.
Christianity is false.

Once again, this is not exercising sufficient care in identifying the experimental group. To say, "Christians bear fruit that is not true to the premise of Christianity" is missing the very point made earlier, that you can in fact know a true Christian by his fruit. To say that a "Christian" does not bear Christian "fruit" is missing the point. According to Jesus, the one who does not bear such fruit is not a "Christian" at all, and is not, therefore, part of the experimental group. We cannot judge the value of an orange tree by examining the fruit of a thorn bush.

But the question is further nuanced by that of what constitutes "bear[ing] fruit that is not true to the premise of Christianity." Every true Christian bears the fruit of love, which is the very definer of a recognizable "Christian" (John 13:34-35). This love motivates them to acts of justice, mercy and faithfulness—meaning, the shunning of sin and the pursuit of a righteous life. However, this presence of this fruit is never said to exist without a struggle against dark powers within and without—powers to which a loving and genuine Christian sometime, to his chagrin and regret, succumbs. This is strongly suggested by Jesus instructing His disciples regularly to pray, "forgive us our trespasses," and "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us..." Thus, the presence of unwelcome sin and failure in a Christian's life cannot be said to be untrue to "the premise of Christianity"—at least, not if the "premise" of Christianity is derived from the Christian scriptures.

Therefore, any "rational" rejection of Christianity that is based upon your examples is itself rationally flawed by a failure to choose proper premises or to properly identify the research category.

I would think that you, who were once a professing Christian, and a pastor, would know this without being told.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
I understand you to be saying that rejection of Christianity might be rationally defended in the three examples you gave (found also below), but that "rational" (as westerns think of the term) may not be the only legitimate test of religious truth.

{and}

I also would agree with the former statement (that rejection of Christianity might be rationally defended), if we would clarify by the addition of the caveat that the rational rejection of Christianity follows a reasonable mental process only when one begins with flawed premises.

The bulleted points that I gave serve to address Jason’s comments: “By "rational" I mean one point logically leads to the next. Steve has had quite a few callers whose beliefs don't have any kind of logical flow to them. I was saturated with all sorts of "new age" beliefs growing up (wasn't raised in a Christian home) but later, as an adult, began to find that I was holding onto beliefs that didn't adhere to any rule of logic or was, at best, inconsistent. A good example of this is the caller who says that Christians are judgemental and therefore Christianity is false.”

The bulleted points articulate a way that one could mentally connect Christians being judgmental and Christianity being false. I did note (albeit in small print) that “one might quibble with [the construct] at various points.” But I sallied that “one can move from point "A" to point "B" on a reasonable basis.” Since your own critique focused on premises, rather than the process of connection, perhaps my construct is sufficient to illustrate that point.

I also want to point out that there is not simply one kind of reasoning – of seriously applying one’s mental faculties to data and generating an understanding. Not even all Westerners reason in the same way. And so, we should be cautious when we imagine other persons to be irrational or unreasonable. Their thought may seem irrational or unreasonable to us, because it does not fit our own inclinations in rationality or reason. But we should not imagine our own rationality or reason to define rationality or reason as a whole.

Neither should we imagine human rationality or reason to define rationality or reason as a whole. You wrote:

[T]he truth can never be contra-rational. If it could be, then we would have to abandon any hopes that the universe (or anything in our perceptions of it) can be analyzed rationally.

But there is no guarantee that the universe conforms to human rationality. Human rationality is a finite tool, employed by finite beings. Just as we cannot perceive everything in the universe accurately with our five senses - q. v., e.g., optical illusions - neither should we imagine that our limited rationality can necessarily field every aspect of truth.

Does this mean that we despair of rational activity as humans? No – not any more than we despair of looking at things because sometimes our visual capacities will yield inaccurate perceptions. But we should acknowledge our potential limitation, and be sensitive to the tentativity of any product of human reason.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Jesus said you can know a tree by its fruit.
Christians' behavior is the fruit of Christianity.
One can know Christianity by the behavior of Christians.

steve wrote:
This rests upon the examination of the behavior of "Christians," without first ascertaining that the subjects of the experiment really belong to the category being researched. To qualify as a "Christian," one certainly would have to fit Christ's own definition of a Christian. Of course, Jesus never used the word "Christian," but that word was coined originally to refer to "disciples" (Acts 11:26), a word that Jesus had a lot to say about. In particular, His proving ground for true disciples in John 8:31 and Luke 14:26-33 would immediately eliminate from consideration over 90% of those who loosely identify themselves as "Christian." If we are to justly test Christ's statement about knowing a tree by its fruit, in all fairness, we should first make sure that the trees we are examining are His trees.

On one hand – we are not testing the “statement about knowing a tree by its fruit.” That statement is not contested in this construct.

On another hand – we engage here a question of premise. You wish to critique the argument from a premise where “Christians” are defined according to your sensibility. You consider your premise to be reasonable, and I suppose it is. But it is not the only reasonable premise that one could hold. One could take a sociological view of Christian identity, and reason from this premise. Or one could hold a historical view of Christian identity, and reason from that premise. These views of Christian identity are not irrational, simply because they differ from Jesus’ notion of what his followers should be like.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Christianity believes in following Jesus.
Jesus said not to judge.
But Christians judge.

steve wrote:
Here the problem is the belief that Jesus forbade making judgments, and also that we are correctly understanding, from His perspective, what it means to "judge." It is evident that nothing in the New Testament forbids every kind of judging.... Only the shallowest possible reading of the New Testament would give a reader the impression that "judging" as a category is a forbidden activity.

Though you construe “judge” in a nuanced fashion (as is reasonable), one might still find many Christians who do judge in such a way.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
One can know Christianity by the behavior of Christians.
Christians bear fruit that is not true to the premise of Christianity.
Christianity is false.

steve wrote:
Once again, this is not exercising sufficient care in identifying the experimental group. To say, "Christians bear fruit that is not true to the premise of Christianity" is missing the very point made earlier, that you can in fact know a true Christian by his fruit. To say that a "Christian" does not bear Christian "fruit" is missing the point. According to Jesus, the one who does not bear such fruit is not a "Christian" at all, and is not, therefore, part of the experimental group. We cannot judge the value of an orange tree by examining the fruit of a thorn bush.

Again, this is not the only reasonable perspective – though it is a handy one for a Christian apologist. If one were to consider Christianity as a religious entity, one could reasonably narrow their scope of vision to those participants who authentically reflect the standards of its founder. But one could just as reasonably broaden their scope of vision to include all persons whose religious lives have subscribed to Christianity.

And isn’t it noteworthy, if a religious entity is largely comprised of adherents who fail to reflect the standards of its founder? Wouldn’t this telegraph something about the nature of the entity?

steve wrote:
But the question is further nuanced by that of what constitutes "bear[ing] fruit that is not true to the premise of Christianity." Every true Christian bears the fruit of love, which is the very definer of a recognizable "Christian" (John 13:34-35). This love motivates them to acts of justice, mercy and faithfulness—meaning, the shunning of sin and the pursuit of a righteous life. However, this presence of this fruit is never said to exist without a struggle against dark powers within and without—powers to which a loving and genuine Christian sometime, to his chagrin and regret, succumbs. ... Thus, the presence of unwelcome sin and failure in a Christian's life cannot be said to be untrue to "the premise of Christianity"—at least, not if the "premise" of Christianity is derived from the Christian scriptures.

We might discuss at length the correlation between an individual’s sinfulness and the authenticity of their Christian identity. And we might come to different conclusions, since you are concerned about being biblical in your theology and I am not. But that is a tangential issue.

A “bible Christian” may take the bible as essential to the premise for Christianity. But persons who are not “bible Christians” would not necessarily do so. Different Christianities rest themselves upon different grounds – not all are biblical. And a non-Christian who is evaluating Christianity from the outside might easily regard something else as being the premise for Christianity, and be heedless of a biblical concern. Does this make them irrational? Not necessarily, according to Jason’s perspective (as discussed in the thread above).

You wrote:

[A]ny "rational" rejection of Christianity that is based upon your examples is itself rationally flawed by a failure to choose proper premises or to properly identify the research category.

Your consideration of what is “proper” can be unduly exclusive.

But – with Jason’s posting in view, which I wrote in response to – a person may work from improper premises or an improper identification because they are ignorant or naive. This does not make their thought irrational per se.

And when Jason writes that “Christianity really does sound like the most rational option given all the rest,” one wonders if he is literate enough in these other religious traditions to appreciate the nuanced apologetics that might be offered by their more adept adherents, such as you have offered for Christianity.

It is easy to consider another thought-system to be irrational when you critique it from an external paradigm. But a more intimate understanding of the thought-system, from the inside, might afford a greater appreciation for its reasonability.

steve wrote:
I would think that you, who were once a professing Christian, and a pastor, would know this without being told.

Like I said above, Steve – I noted that “one might quibble with [the construct] at various points.”

But presumably most of your callers do not share my background. So when they connect point “A” to point “B,” they may do so in a way that is reasonable, given their range of understanding. Viewing them as irrational would not be helpful to you, or fair to them. I have not listened to your new show, so you may be sensitive to this. But my post was in response to Jason’s.

[steve]

KSCO has simplified their website, so that you can simply go to http://www.ksco.com and click "Listen Live."

[Ian]

And isn’t it noteworthy, if a religious entity is largely comprised of adherents who fail to reflect the standards of its founder? Wouldn’t this telegraph something about the nature of the entity?

Which is why some of us go looking for other alternatives to strictly defined Calvinism or even strictly defined Arminianism.
It`s very hard though (thankfully) to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

[Erik]

I also want to point out that there is not simply one kind of reasoning – of seriously applying one’s mental faculties to data and generating an understanding. Not even all Westerners reason in the same way. And so, we should be cautious when we imagine other persons to be irrational or unreasonable. Their thought may seem irrational or unreasonable to us, because it does not fit our own inclinations in rationality or reason. But we should not imagine our own rationality or reason to define rationality or reason as a whole.

What kind of reasoning are you using here? What kind of reasoning would you use, to support the rationality of "other kinds of reasoning" that folks using Steve's kind of reasoning would find irrational?

Not trying to be too clever, what I'm asking is, how do you suppose that you can possibly know that many kinds of reasoning are, in fact, rational? You must be using some higher, overarching system to judge them all. In that case, let's just dispense with all the other sub-kinds of reasoning and simply use the higher one to which all the sub-kinds must pay homage.

But there is no guarantee that the universe conforms to human rationality. Human rationality is a finite tool, employed by finite beings. Just as we cannot perceive everything in the universe accurately with our five senses - q. v., e.g., optical illusions - neither should we imagine that our limited rationality can necessarily field every aspect of truth.

Does this mean that we despair of rational activity as humans? No – not any more than we despair of looking at things because sometimes our visual capacities will yield inaccurate perceptions. But we should acknowledge our potential limitation, and be sensitive to the tentativity of any product of human reason.

Please examine and re-read these statements. To me, you are standing on the ladder you are trying to knock down. Look:

You state some inarguable epistemological truths: we cannot perceive everything 100% accurately, and we cannot field every aspect of truth. Then, you mention not needing to despair of rationality. So far, so good—I couldn't agree more.

But the jump from acknowledging our potential human limitations to the "tentativity" of any product of human reason is, in my mind, totally unsupportable. You're pulling a fast one between one statement and the next, swapping out epistemological statements and swapping in ontological denial. Even using the analogy of optical illusion, which would seem to favor your viewpoint, after some analysis we can see that it really supports something quite different:

• Perception is not fully reliable. At times, one can think one thing is true, when in fact that belief is totally false.
• However, perception is not arbitrary or baseless. Optical illusions are actually an exposition of the brain's neurology and specific characteristics of its visual processing regions. Optical illusions then, not only teach us about the inner working of our brain, we then use that information (through yet more reason and rationality) to correct our spurious perception, or at least set up safeguards so that when we are in the arena where optical illusions operate, we become more careful and use more checks to ensure that we are really learning what's true, in spite of our distorted perception.
• Most importantly, in no case do we deny that truth exists. Nor do we suppose that we can't learn what truth is. We work through the tricky issues of our epistemology, and then have confidence in the ontological reality of the things we're looking at.

And look at this also: you are using reason to try to convince us that reason is not reliable. If we believe you, why should we suppose, then, that your understanding of the unreliable nature of reason is reliable? You present your argument with an uncritically accepted presupposition (or at least you are implicitly assuming that we agree) that the reason you're using in that argument ought to persuade us of something that is really true. And what you're telling us is really true, is that we can't ever know for sure that anything is really true.

I would like to ask you some questions, and if you will answer them, then we can begin to find the disconnect between your claims about reason, existence, truth, and the universe, and my or others' claims.

1. Are you a materialist, believing there is no supernature of any kind? Do you believe that humans and their brains arose from entirely naturalistic processes through nothing more than chance and (eventual) natural selection?
2. Do you believe in ontological existence? In other words, if no living being was around to perceive the Earth, would it still exist, would it still be true that it existed, would 2 + 2 = 4 still be true, and it still be false that 2 + 2 = 5? Do you believe in fully relative truth, or do you allow for any kind of absolute truth (has there ever been even one single tiny something unassailably true, and if so, would you give an example)?
3. If all perception is suspect, and for this reason all knowledge must be tentative, do you fully accept the possibility that you could be totally, absolutely, completely wrong about everything you have ever said, especially in this forum and this thread?
4. Do you see that accepting that you could be wrong about something is evidence that you believe in ontological and absolute truth, since being wrong means that your belief does not correspond to reality, therefore reality is something fixed, something ordered, something structured and coherent enough for other things to be compared to and then either match or not match?

If you would kindly answer these questions, then I think we might have some starting ground to get some real understanding going in the discussion. To be fair, I will answer them myself:

1. I am not a materialist. Even did I not already believe in God, I could not rule out the possibility of there being two or more levels of reality, where one level was normally inaccessible to one or more others. The virtual reality world of The Sims, for example, demonstrates how an entire set of rules governing the existence of the being inside the simulation, can themselves be subject to a higher set of rules (the computer hardware and the programmer). The little Sims people might reason that only their world exists because for there to be a supernature would violate the laws of their universe, but they would be wrong. The programmer can inject new objects at any time, and while this is not a normal event in the regular rules/physics engine, it is perfectly possible due to hardware and program code the Sims were unable to examine from within the simulation.
2. There are many relative truths, and some absolute truths (this statement is one of them). It is impossible to fully reject absolute truth without resorting to absolute truth. Full relativism immediately refutes itself because it denies all meaning, thus it cannot be logically believed. To deny logic in order to retain relativity is to exit the conversation by disqualifying oneself as a rational being. To have a conversation at all and expect to convey meaning to a listener (reader) is an implicit, unavoidable acceptance of there being a higher plane of reference (not necessarily the supernature from #1) where truths and things exists or do not, and with which ideas actually correspond or do not.
3. I believe that I am wrong about many things, and largely right about many things. I believe I have some few things absolutely right. I believe 2 + 2 = 4 is unassailably true (the numbers, not the numerals, so the base is irrelevant, and that equation makes a statement as much about the nature of physical reality as it does about math).
4. Yes.

Respectfully,

Erik

[Jason]

Emmet, it looks like some lively discussion has taken place since I last checked out this thread. Allow me adress a couple things, which may help.

But – with Jason’s posting in view, which I wrote in response to – a person may work from improper premises or an improper identification because they are ignorant or naive. This does not make their thought irrational per se.

That's right. I made it clear that a person can make rational arguments and still be wrong. What I was lamenting, regarding Steve's show, is the lack of thoughtful consideration concerning the caller's OWN views. A couple weeks ago Steve spent the whole show trying to get one man (who disagreed with Christianity) to explain HIS OWN views in some way that made even a little bit of sense. The problem wasn't that his views conflicted with ours (mine and Steve's) but, rather, the man couldn't, in one hour, tell us whether or not he was an Athiest or a Panthiest - thus no discussion was had. This kind of nebulous understanding toward one's own views seems to be a recurring theme among many who attack Christianity. I could tell you my basic beliefs in a couple of minutes. They would sound very strange, but at least if you knew what they were, we could begin a discussion. I'm not asking for much here. Perhaps I should substitute the word "rational" for "coherent" but it's a similar category to my mind.

And when Jason writes that “Christianity really does sound like the most rational option given all the rest,” one wonders if he is literate enough in these other religious traditions to appreciate the nuanced apologetics that might be offered by their more adept adherents, such as you have offered for Christianity.

There's no need to wonder - I can assure you I am not literate enough in those other religious traditions. So it's a good thing my points don't hinge on it. It's also important to note, as Erik mentioned, that your objections to my statement cancel themselves out, especially when you define what is and is not rational. If you are seeking to teach me the value of subjective opinions, I will save you the time - I hold many subjective opinions that I think are true. Subjective things are quite valid, in my opinion. But it's hard to carry on a conversation with someone else (or listen to one on a talkshow) when there's no objective common ground.

Imagine you call me on the phone:

Emmet: Jason, Emmet here. Listen, I've got an extra ticket to the Canucks game tonight if you want to join me.
Jason: Thanks, but I don't like baseball.
Emmet: No, no... it's hockey. The Vancouver Canucks.
Jason: Are they playing the Red Sox?
Emmet: Jason, it's a hockey team - not baseball. Do you like hockey?
Jason: I like fencing. Hey, is Nolan Ryan pitching?
Emmet: No, because he retired in '93 and never even played hockey.
Jason: So then who's pitching for the Canucks tonight?
Emmet: Jason, you're not making sense. Do you like to watch hockey or not?
Jason: I really love fencing.
Emmet: Right, but I need to know if you like hockey.
Jason: Only if Nolan Ryan is pitching.

OK - there's an issue here. In this scenerio I don't seem to know what hockey is and therefore we can't even begin to have a discussion about it. The best thing for me to do is to simply ask you what hockey is and then have you tell me. After we have this common understanding, we can talk about whether or not I'd like to join you for the game. Steve mentioned, on the air, that labeling our beliefs can be good for some things (like getting a conversation started) but the caller didn't want to be labeled, thus nothing happened. There was no objective grounding. Once two people have that grounding, they can begin using rationality. But not until then.

[Ambassador791]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but...


Can the shows be downloaded anywhere?