Chapter five of MCA takes the reader through the strategies
and stages of how to use the Socratic Method to separate the faithful from
their faith. Now, I am a huge proponent of the Socratic Method, even if I am
not a huge fan of Socrates. Moreover, I think that every Christian could
benefit from reading this chapter because they will learn something about the
method as well as how to use it in evangelism and apologetics. In addition, it
gives us great insight into minds like Boghossian so that we can better
understand how they think.
The Socratic Method is fine as far as it goes but like any
other method, it is easily integrated into a person’s system of beliefs, or their
noetic structure if you will. This structure is fundamentally and radically
different for Christian theism than it is for empiricism, rationalism, or
existentialism. As Herman Bavinck writes,
“The revelation of God in Christ does not seek support or justification from men. It posits and maintains itself in high majesty. Its authority is not only normative but also causative. It fights for its own triumph. It conquers for itself the hearts of men. It makes itself irresistible.”[1]
The
very point of contention here is that Christian epistemology transcends human
reason and experience. It only begs the question for Boghossian to insist on
subjecting the faithful to an epistemology they do not regard to begin with.
Nevertheless, I think my interaction with this chapter should be fun and
entertaining, if not a little stimulating.
As Boghossian moves to “Actual Socratic Interventions” he
makes this startling statement: “Sometimes, even after years of treatment, the
faith virus is not separated from its host.” [Loc. 1977] I must confess that is
virtually impossible for me to take someone with this kind of attitude toward
the conversation seriously. What Boghossian has not acknowledged so far in this
project is the fact that most people hold beliefs that are true knowledge and
yet if challenged would not be able to justify them. And that especially would
not be able to justify them with a philosophy professor. Mr. Boghossian provides
several examples of what he calls “interventions” in this chapter. They
basically amount to a philosophy professor intellectually bullying ordinary
every day folks that do not have the time to sit around and think up strategies
for tripping people up as he apparently does. While he might find these things
self-amusing, I think most fair-minded educators would find it reprehensible.
For his first victim, he picks a young man that has
apparently just converted to Christianity. He is new to the Christian faith. So
new that he is in no way ready to engage the sort of questions that Boghossian
will ask him. Boghossian asks, “How do you know the thing you felt was caused
by Jesus?” The trained Christian might reply something like this, “Because
Scripture describes this for me in exactly the same way I experienced it. I
once hated Christ and loved sin. Now, I love the Lord and hate sin.”
Boghossian’s next question is a straw man because he treats religious
truth as if it is entirely experiential. It is not. He basically says that all
religions do the very same thing. The Christian might answer: “With all due
respect, that is patently false. Only Christianity provides the basis for my
experience. There is nothing like the gospel, sin, and redemption in Buddhism,
Islam, or Mormonism. In fact, you may think that all religions are
fundamentally the same and only superficially different but the truth is they
are only superficially the same and fundamentally different. If you spent more
time studying Christian theism and less time studying Socrates and philosophy,
you might have known this.”
Boghossian’s next question: “So what do you think accounts
for the fact that different people have religious experiences that they’re
convinced are true?” The Christian might answer: “In Matthew 7 and 24 Jesus
warned His disciples about false religions. Then again, Paul warned about false
gospels in Galatians 1, and he also warned about false teachers in 2
Corinthians 11. Additionally, Paul informs us about a fascinating phenomenon in
2 Thessalonians 2:11 called in the Greek, a ἐνέργειαν πλάνης (energeian planes). God allows men who do not love the truth
of His revelation to fall into delusion.” Note to the Christian: if you are
ever approached in this way, you should not look at it as an opportunity to
flex your knowledge or to make Christianity look incredibly rational. You may
be incredibly intelligent and Christianity certainly is rational. However, your goal is to give as much of the gospel as you can in the exchange even if it
appears that your interlocutor isn’t listening. Always remember this clear
statement from Paul: “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are
perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Cor. 1:18)
Give them the word. Do not get caught up in philosophical conjectures and
speculation. Paul said this about secular philosophy: “See to it that no one
takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the
tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather
than according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8) Secular philosophy is a natural enemy of
Christian faith. It is the attempt to discover truth about the world apart from
trusting in God’s own self-disclosure. It is an outright refusal to trust in
God’s revelation in nature and in Scripture.
Boghossian then asks the faithful to consider that their conversion
might not be caused by what they think. The Christian might answer, “That is a
good question and one that Christians ask themselves all the time. 1 Jn. 4:1 commands
Christians to be critical thinkers, to test every claim against Scripture and
so that is how we know that a claim or an experience is either true or false.
Tell me something Mr. Boghossian, how do you know that human reason is as
reliable as you claim it is?”
The next intervention that Boghossian describes is not
reflective of genuine Christian theism at all. Christians do not hold onto
their faith because it gives them comfort. According to Christian theism, faith
is a gift from God. (Eph. 2:8-10) It is the necessary result of divine
regeneration. The role of God in the process of Christian conversion is
completely absent in Boghossian’s assessment. It truly is something that he
does not and cannot understand. Christians are kept by the power of God because
it is God’s good pleasure to keep them. That is how He works in us and through
us. (1 Peter 1:5) Nothing can separate the genuine Christian from their faith.
(Rom. 8:32-39) If you are an atheist, and you really want to engage genuine
Christians, you should read these texts if for no other reason so that you
might at least attempt to understand what Christians believe. If you really
want a challenge, try talking a true Christian out of their faith.
Boghossian’s tactics are more than a little distasteful. It
is the typical atheist rudeness and arrogance that always seems to find its way
into these discussions. He compares the comfort of faith with the comfort of
slave owners. The Christian might answer, “Are you suggesting there is a
relationship between having faith and being a slave owner? Do you think these
two behaviors are moral equivalents? Earlier you said there was nothing
virtuous about faith or about not having faith. Do you think there is anything
virtuous about owning slaves or not owning slaves?” This forces Boghossian to
explain why he thinks this is a good analogy. He could have easily picked an
analogy that was uncontroversial. He chose this one for a very specific reason.
Why did Boghossian make the decision to use this analogy? Here, we turn the
tables on the philosopher and subject him to some of his own Socratic medicine.
Boghossian then asks, “Are the beliefs in your faith true?”
The Christian would certainly answer without hesitation: “yes, they are most
certainly true. Scripture teaches that God created the universe and all that is
in it, including humanity. Man rebelled and came under God’s curse. This curse
extends to the areas of philosophy that seem to fully occupy your time. Epistemologically,
man is doomed to contort the knowledge of God he has, so long as he is
unregenerate. Ontologically, man is separated from God, in a most wretched
condition and doomed for damnation. Ethically, man is hostile to God, totally
depraved and unable of doing anything that commends him to his Creator. But God
sent His only Son to redeem man, despite the fact that he is unworthy. Now, faith in
God’s Son leads to life, leads to hope, leads to meaning, purpose, and dignity.
Through Christ, man be in a right position with God, he can know the truth he
desperate seeks, and he is capable now of pleasing the one for whom He was
made.” As Christians, we are commanded to give an account for the hope that is
in us to all that might ask. Boghossian is asking and we need to answer.
However, we do not need to concern ourselves with providing Boghossian an
answer with which he will be satisfied. That is not the mandate of Christian apologetics and evangelism.
Boghossian wants Christians to
submit their beliefs to his unregenerate criteria for justification. This is
exactly what we cannot do. We cannot accommodate Boghossian and let him
continue to pretend to possess true knowledge apart from God. In our answers,
we appeal to the epistemic authority of Christian theism: Scripture. We do this
repeatedly until it sounds like a broken record. However, sooner or later, it
will be Boghossian’s turn to sit in our chair and provide justification for his
view of justifiability. And there is where we shall demonstrate that Boghossian’s
own beliefs are not internally consistent. In fact, we will move to show that
Boghossian’s claims are self-referentially incoherent. His basic
presuppositions do not comport with his noetic structure.
Just a quick comment about Boghossians questions concerning
Jesus and His death. The line of questioning is incredibly silly. Boghossian
asks if Jesus was clever. The Christian might respond: “Jesus was fully God and
fully man. Being fully God, He was omniscient. But as a man, he was the wisest
this earth has seen.” Boghossian then asks if I would consider Him a greater
man for having made that sacrifice (death). The Christian might answer: “no.” “God’s
works are amazing because they are the works of God. Nothing God does can
increase His greatness. God is infinitely great.” Next question. Boghossian
then implies that Jesus had to be clever to pull off the sacrifice. Could Jesus
have not made the sacrifice? The Christian would answer: “no.” “The death of
Christ was decreed in eternity past, in every single detail and God
providentially works His decrees with utmost efficacy. There is no contingency
in the divine decree. Therefore, there was no possibility that Christ would not
carry out His work on the cross.”
At the end of the day, the Socratic Method is a tool of a
tool. It is a tool of reason, which is also a tool. Reason is the tool of the
human intellect. It is not independent of human predication. The disposition of
a person’s intellect will determine how they use the tool of reason. This fact explains
the volume of disagreement among the various schools of philosophy. On the one
hand, secular philosophy denies design while on the other hand seeking to unify
the particular with the general. The philosophy of the metaphysics of chance is
entirely powerless to produce unity in reality. The problem disagreement
between Christian theism and godless atheism is that we have two different
epistemic courts of appeal. The final authority for Christian theism is God
speaking in Scripture while the final authority for philosophers like Peter
Boghossian is their own autonomous reasoning. The Christian appeal is to an
authority that they believe transcends all of humanity and creation, while
Boghossian and his atheist friends appeal to a product of their own invention. This
explains why they have such difficulties like, for instance, making the meaning
in life, well, sound meaningful. That is just one of a long list of
difficulties the atheist worldview has trouble explaining.
Going back to 1 Cor. 1:18 where Paul informs the Christian that the gospel is considered foolish by the philosopher, by the debater, by the lawyer, by the wise and mighty for the most part, we should be used to men like Boghossian. Scripture told us long before they did that they would consider the Christian message moronic. And so they do. Boghossian is one very small proof for the credibility of Scripture. Scripture says men like him will consider the message of Christ moronic. How many pages have been filled with men like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Boghossian attempting to convince us that Christianity is moronic? New Flash Dr. Boghossian: you are one example for why we should believe the Scripture.
[1]
Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of
Knowledge. (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg,
NJ, 1969).
No comments:
Post a Comment