April 25, 2011
-
(book review) "The Christian Delusion" - Ch. 6: The Bible and Modern Scholarship (part 3)
Intro:
This series is an atheist's review of an important skeptical anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web. I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them. I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.
Where was Paul Tobin coming from with his chapter in TCD?
In part one of Tobin's response to The Infidel Delusion (TID), he says:
The main thesis of my original article in the book The Christian Delusion is that the fundamentalist/evangelical position on the Bible is not reflected by modern mainstream Biblical scholarship, historical research and near eastern archaeology.In part three of Tobin's response to TID, he says:
...in mainstream biblical scholarship, [...] debates and differing positions are taken based on how each scholar marshals the evidence. When a consensus is reached by such a boisterous group of scholars–it tends to mean that the evidence for such a consensus is strong. Thus when we say that 80% to 90% of such scholars agree that the pastorals were not written by Paul, we can be certain that the reason for such a consensus must be compelling.That makes enough sense to me. What should we do with this information? Remember, atheist contributor Richard Carrier had said:
John Loftus contextualizes all of this by reiterating and defending his Outsider Test for Faith, [...] It's the lynch pin of the whole book, the fulcrum on which every other chapter does Christianity in.So how do we apply the OTF to Tobin's chapter? Similar to dealing with the modern scientific consensus on miracle claims, in terms of scholarship on the vast majority of issues, we'd accept the claims of the consensus of experts and move on with our lives. This allows Tobin his general assert-a-thon to function well enough in context of the argumentative continuum of TCD. For those Christian reviewers who will insist that Tobin would need to respond to all of their objections to part 1 to make this stand, please note, I've done exactly that.
In terms of description, I don't think anyone can contest what the mainstream scholarship generally entails. For example, Christian reviewer Jason Engwer seems to take this for granted when he says:
Today's conservative scholarship often holds views that were majority positions previously, even though they're minority positions today.Practically speaking for most of us, that really should be the end of the debate. In this sense Tobin wins all 36 points even if he deviates somewhere from the general consensus or states things wrong. How can non-scholars hope to do better or be more responsible with the many issues brought up in this chapter and in hundreds if not thousands of scholarly books on the many complicated historical and archeological subjects? We can't hope to be experts on this, or on physics, philosophy, and whatever other major subject that a "personal" relationship with God would force us to engage to know that we aren't delusional. You might say, "That's unfair," but then again was it really fair for God to burden people with ancient hearsay that most scholars don't believe stands up to scrutiny? Even prominent defenders of Christianity like William Lane Craig note the obvious ridiculousness of this situation for ordinary people:
Some of you are thinking, “Well, goodness, if believing in God is a matter of weighing all of these sorts of arguments, then how can anybody know whether God exists? You'd have to be a philosopher or a scientist to figure out whether God exists!” In fact, I agree with you. A loving God would not leave it up to us to figure out by our own ingenuity and cleverness whether or not he exists. Rather a loving God would seek to reveal himself to us and draw us to himself. And this is exactly what Christian theism teaches. Jesus of Nazareth said, "If any man's will is to do God's will, then he will know whether my teaching is from God, or whether I am speaking on my own accord" (John 7.17). And Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit of God would be given by him to convict and draw persons into loving relationships with himself. [emphasis mine]Naturally we've covered the legitimacy of the inner witness many times before in this review series (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). In short, how can Christians be sure their god-feelings are not just subjective reactions to provocative theistic ideas or are any better than contrary subjective inner feelings from other denominations and religions? And if we have to marshal all the evidence to responsibly sort this mess out, then we're right back to how ridiculous a situation that is. Craig is kind enough to sabotage himself in this way:
Of course, anyone (or, at least any sort of theist) can claim to have a self-authenticating witness of God to the truth of his religion. But the reason you argue with them is because they really don't: either they've just had some emotional experience or else they've misinterpreted their religious experience. So you present arguments and evidence in favor of Christian theism and objections against their worldview in the hope that their false confidence will crack under the weight of the argument and they will come to know the truth. (This also is what the atheist should do with me.) [emphasis mine][note: A youtuber named antybu86 does a great job of pointing out Craig's general circularity on all his major arguments.] I also pointed out to Steve Hays that the arguments he appeals to from the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology to show that religious experience would suffice for ordinary people also only fall into the category of compatibility with other theistic arguments that have to actually succeed. So Christian epistemology is drowning in its own epistemic irresponsibility (and see my my argument map here that defends naturalistic epistemic duties and that entire tangential debate between Hays and myself, since Hays would surely take us right back there).
Outro:
Now, perhaps the current consensus of Biblical scholarship happens to be wrong. Certainly as many have pointed out, various contributors to TCD hold some minority positions on various issues. In all likelihood every scholar in every consensus holds at least some minority views on some issues. They all should know they have a job to do, an uphill climb so to speak, if they expect those minority views to be taken seriously on whatever those issues are. Are the serious Christian thinkers among us doing that? Or more importantly, in a book like "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" do nuances like that even really matter in the face of the strength of the basic criticism presented? If conservatives don't want liberals to be able to appeal to their bias, why should conservatives get to appeal to theirs to blow off mainstream scholarship? If it comes down to the arguments, where does that leave the average believer who is in over their heads?
Ben
