This post should be much shorter because some of the
defenses that Boghossian points to really are insufficient and not ones that I
would use or teach others to use.
4. My faith is true for me.
This would be one of those defenses that really does not
amount to a defense. My advice to Christians is not to use it. If your faith is
true, it is true for everyone, not just you.
5. Science can’t explain quantum mechanics.
Boghossian sees this defense as an attempt to undermine
reason. His response may reveal a certain level of discomfort. There is no
question but that science nor human reason do not have all the answers and are not
omniscient. It is for that fact alone that a wise move would be not to rule out
ontological or epistemological possibilities on the basis of imperfect
processes for discovering truth. Yet, Boghossian does just that. So much for
doxastic openness.
6. You have faith in science.
Boghossian says, “Science is the antithesis of faith.” But
that is only true if one accepts Boghossian’s attempt to redefine faith. I have
already said from the perspective of Christian theism that his attempt fails.
There are a number of testimonies from science that Boghossian accepts on the
basis of testimony. We all do. Is it reasonable to conduct our own scientific
investigation into the claims of science before we accept them as fact? Does
not the scientist have an amazing faith in the uniformity and laws of nature?
Is the scientist not confident that the law will remain in force, providing the
necessary conditions to carry on with her research? And at the same time, has
any science been discovered that provides proof for why the laws of nature are
what they are? It is simply beyond the ability of science to account for this
uniformity. It results in an infinite regress of tests so that the end is never
discovered. Faith is unavoidable, even in science. The same is true for reason.
What would reason be without laws of logic? Yet, these laws, immaterial in nature, are affirmed and assumed with the greatest of confidence. No one can
account for them. They cannot be accounted for logically or empirically. Faith
is unavoidable, even for the rationalist.
7. You have faith your partner loves you.
Regardless of Boghossian’s argument here, believing your
partner loves you is always a belief based on faith not evidence. Every act of
a partner that we interpret as love could be interpreted as one of
manipulation. Our choice to interpret it as love is a choice of faith. There is
no evidence for love, really, apart from faith. If you have ever been on the
wrong end of betrayal, you know this all too well.
8. My faith is beneficial for me.
Boghossian resorts to the folly of introducing the Taliban
into this part of the discussion. What a foolish response! Evidence from over
1,200 studies and 400 reviews has shown an association between faith and a
number of positive health benefits, including protection from illness, coping
with illness, and faster recovery from it. Of the studies reviewed in the
definitive analysis, (3) 81% showed benefit and only 4% harm.
In the popular imagination, religion commonly underlies
florid mental illness such as psychosis. In reality though, religiosity has
been shown to protect against psychosis, and patients who used religion to cope
had better insight and were more compliant with medication.
In four out of 86 studies mental health was worse among the
religious, typically where there was harsh, judgmental and authoritarian
leadership. (12) But compared to the wealth of evidence above, proven harm has
been reported rarely, generally in isolated case reports and studies of
atypical religious communities. For instance, there have been outbreaks of
rubella among the Amish who refused vaccination, and the refusal of Jehovah's
Witnesses to receive blood transfusions is well documented. The very unorthodox
Christian Scientists may seek medical help late, due to their belief that
sickness is illusory, and this can endanger life. Click
here for entire article
Boghossian is clearly going against an insurmountable number
of large studies on the question of the relationship between faith and health.
If he is successful in his mission, the professional medical studies indicate
that rather than helping people, he will actually be causing them great harm. How
noble is that? And for what: all because he doesn’t like the idea of God.
9. Life has no meaning without faith.
Boghossian’s answer is to once again rely on his illegitimate
definition of faith. But this is no answer at all. It is begging the question. Boghossian
points to children, the arts, charity, reading, hobbies and other activities to
provide meaning in life, but this is exactly backwards. None of these things
have meaning apart from meaning in life. Children do not bring meaning. The
meaning that is inherently present makes children meaningful. Meaning has not scientific or rational explanation. It is just there, confronting every one of us. What kind of meaning does
a tadpole have? Does a frog have more meaning than its tadpoles? Does sperm
have any meaning? Does a child have meaning in the mother’s womb? If so, stop
murdering them. What is it then that gives a child meaning upon exciting the
mother’s womb? These things do not have meaning because we assign it to them
through rational or empirical processes. They have meaning apart from our
recognizing it or not. They have meaning because they have their source in God.
The very reason we cannot deny meaning in life only makes sense if God is
there. Why does your blood boil at the very thought of someone claiming that a
newborn baby is no more valuable than a roach? Atheism cannot explain that
phenomenon. Science cannot explain it. There is no empirical evidence for
meaning. There is no logic that can establish meaning. Meaning exists in the area
of faith. Without faith, one cannot possible begin to account for meaning in
life. All they can do is what Boghossian did: beg the question and avoid the
facts.
10. Why take away faith if it helps get people through
the day?
If we all exist for about 70-80 years and then we cease to exist, with
no purpose for being here, and life really has no intrinsic meaning, how can any noetic
structure be superior to any other? How on earth could it really matter what
worldview a person adapted? Why would it make a difference? Unless that
worldview were going to subject me to pain and misery somehow, like perhaps
many forms Islam, why would I even care?
11. Without faith, society would devolve into morality.
It depends on how one defines morality. To reject faith
according to the Christian Scriptures is immoral in and of itself. So the
answer from the Christian perspective is yes. The problem for faithless living
is that there is no logical reason one can offer for following someone else’s
moral code. In fact, morality has no logical way to defend itself. Science is
of little help as well. Morality, being immaterial, is entirely beyond the
science. When we enter the field of ethics, we enter the field of theology or
philosophy. Human reason can only account for morality if God truly exists.
Otherwise, humanity has no mechanism by which it can make the human experience
of morality intelligible. Morality is most certainly in the realm of faith. It
is something we all believe is there, but we cannot offer scientific proof for
it nor can logic help us account for its undeniable presence either. I realize
there have been attempts to provide a biological explanation for morality. But
such an experiment, if proven (which it will not be) would do more to destroy
the idea of morality rather than affirm it. For instance, the pedophile could
not be held accountable for his actions because it was not his fault but rather
biological processes in his brain that made him act the way he did. Poppycock!
There seems to be no limit to the absurdity that man is willing to go in his
attempts to purge God from society.
No comments:
Post a Comment