Showing posts with label truth paradigm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth paradigm. Show all posts

Friday, November 2, 2012

Christianity: Is it a Faith Driven by Fear?


Over the past several months, several times I’ve heard it said that people are manipulated into Christianity by being threatened with the fear of eternal damnation in the fires of Hell.  Recently I read writings by one Chaz Bufe, as he attempted to use such an argument to disparage and disprove the veracity of Christianity. 
This fear view, was offered as the first reason and perhaps the prime reason that he could not accept the legitimacy of the Christian faith.  The interesting thing is that he failed to do his homework.  But then he is not alone.

He begins his pamphlet, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity[1] by  postulating that Christianity was and is based upon fear and in fact states “...the motor driving Christianity has been—in addition to the fear of death—fear of the devil and fear of hell.”  With a very broad brush he employing largely anecdotal "evidence" and then goes on to generalize about the Christian faith.  What one will find most interesting is the assumptions that he brings to the discussion. 
“The Fear of Death”
An assumed, "Fear of death?"  Very simply if one’s truth paradigm does not give some sense of peace about and reconciliation with one’s ultimate demise, then it might be well to embrace one that does.  An example is found in one who was no friend to Christianity, Christopher Hitchens.  Though he claimed no faith, he by all accounts left this life in peace for it appears that he lived and died in keeping with the truth paradigm he had chosen.  As well reports would indicate the same about Carl Sagan's at his death.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the individual to find peace in the belief system that they have chosen to embrace.   If such is not so then one should continue the search until they find a truth paradigm that will provide such peace when this earthly journey is nearing the end.
Shifting Truth Paradigms 
Is it possible then that a person on such a search is going to change?  It likely depends upon how much one has invested in his truth paradigm.  (Little investment, great potential for change.  Great investment, little potential for change.)  For example should one have expected in the final moments of his life that Christopher Hitchens would change.  Not likely since he had invested much of his life and thinking in the truth paradigm he had chosen to embrace.
Such a notion for change is characterized by two things.  First is that this need for change is obvious to all except those who are so bound by bias that the viewing other truth paradigms is lost to them.  Second though the focus is upon those who choose faith, one cannot deny the opposite to be true.  There are those like Stephen Hawking who it is reported has shifted his views away from God.
Distortion Based Argument
One can take any belief, faith and otherwise, cite a few of the excesses plus a distortion or two and then present it in its distorted form and then set about disparaging it.  Such a treatment of Christian faith is illegitimate and fails even rudimentary logic.  The sad part is that such a person will mock and ridicule a “straw man” Christian faith and then congratulate themselves for finally putting the Christian myth to bed. 
Bufe’s assumption like so many others is based in a false notion of Christianity.  His bias is found in the introductory words to his pamphlet which gives his purpose as listing, “…the most outstanding misery-producing and socially destructive qualities of Christianity in one place.”  He certainly is not alone in his thoughts.  If, however, what he lists is indeed accurate in its portrayal of Christianity, I would quite agree with him and abandon the Christian faith.
However, contained in his statement is a rather glaring problem.  Has Mr. Bufe exhausted every book, article, and argument for and against the Christian faith to know what he says goes beyond his opinion? The likelihood of such is so miniscule as not to be considered.
Unanswerable Question
Assume for the sake of argument that the thesis is true, that Christianity is a religion of fear.   Those who conclude such to be so, begin their journey into such a position because of a certain skepticism.  Is such a skepticism reserved for a special few?  No of course not!  
Also consider that such a “fear” statement takes an exceedingly low view of people.  While some people are gullible most are not.  The reality is the most people have an internal alert system composed of doubt, cynicism, and skepticism, which offers protection.
The problem in the argument is a treatment of that skepticism is left out of the discussion.  It seems more likely that such skepticism as is common to man would steer a person away from being manipulated and victimized by fear or any other truth paradigm with which they are not comfortable.
If such was not so, one would fall prey to every slick talking magazine salesman that happened to stop by one’s home.  One’s skepticism mitigates against such being so.  
So it is when I see every porch everywhere I travel, covered by magazines, I shall give serious consideration to this notion of fear causing people to enter into the Christian experience.
Care Based Faith
The reality is that Christianity is a care based faith.  That is to say that a very basic plank of genuine Christian doctrine is the care of others.  The founder of the Christian faith spoke of “loving God and loving others,” of care for others, and that such can involve the “denying one’s self.” .  
At the end of His follower's life one would find it inconceivable that the doctrine of care would end at one's death.  No, such care extend beyond this life into the next.  As a matter of fact such a care based faith would view such a faith as described in the article referenced in opening words of this post as abhorrent and out of step with genuine Christian faith.



[1] Pamphlet available at http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html#numberone

Friday, October 12, 2012

TRUTH SYSTEMS COMPARED AND CONTRASTED




The two previous essays asked three questions.  What is the foundation upon which one's truth paradigm is constructed?  Is it solid enough that it cannot be destructed?  If the foundation of one's truth paradigm is destructed, what will that do to the truth paradigm?
Then two different theories were explored, though not comprehensively.  The purpose was not to completely exhaust all argument appropriate to each but to provoke the reader to make two examinations.
First, the challenge was to examine the veracity of the foundation upon which one’s truth paradigm is constructed.
Second, the challenge was to examine the validity of the truth paradigm itself.
As you read the following may you make these two assessments of your truth paradigm.

ASSUMPTIONS

Life is filled with assumption both known and unknown. These essays are no different, thus there are at least three assumptions present herein. 
Theories:  The first assumption is that these are theories.  Of course those who embrace a particular position would argue against such being so.  However, for the sake of the argument the term was employed.
Two systems:  The second assumption is that there are only two truth systems.  Of course post-modernism was referenced which some might argue is a third category but since in its simplest form it is both skeptical of and rejecting of there being truth, it was not considered.
Truth and Reality:  The third assumption is that truth could be employed to describe both truth and reality.  As was noted the discussion which would compare and contrast truth and reality will be left for another essay.
LIMITATION
The limitation of the discussion may present a problem for some but it lies upon the line between supernaturalism[1] as opposed to naturalism[2].  Although the discussion has implications for same, it is beyond the purview of this essay to argue theism or atheism and related notions. 
Although the outcomes of each system are a part of the discussion, they are not the primary focus of what follows.  Again that is left for other discussions.
CLOSED SYSTEM VS. OPEN SYSTEM
In the interest of expedience, instead of compare and contrast the abbreviation “vs.” will be employed in the discussion.
Material vs. Non-Material
The major difference in the two systems is the existence of a non-material or supernatural element in truth.  The proponents of the Open System may argue over the character and qualities of the truth system but do agree that there is truth that has its existence beyond the material world.  Those who embrace Closed System suggest that if there is any such thing as non-material truth, it is simply something logic, science, or theoretical science has yet to explain.
Danger for Both!
In both camps there is a danger which though different must be considered.  Among those who embrace Open System it is the danger of ascribing that which cannot be explained to some supernatural element or another.  In the extreme, this short circuits scientific inquiry.  Said another way, before some phenomena is labeled supernatural, one does well to must make honest scientific inquiry.
On the part of the Closed System proponent the danger is twofold.  First, it is to ascribe some unexplained phenomena as the substance of the superstitious or the ill informed and thus discount the experience.  This is not uncommon in the previously referenced writing of Hitchens and Dawkins.
The second is to assume that logic, science, or theoretical science can or will explain all that remains unknown or unexplained.
Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism
The Weight of History
To consider the argument in light of history let us begin with two assumptions.  First, assume for the sake of comparison that man’s mental capacities have remained about the same over the eras of his existence. 
Second, those who postulate a young age earth argue for an existence of between 6,000 and 10,000 years.  Assume then for the sake of argument the time period at the low end of a young earth age or 6,000 years.  Then add into the discussion that the science that underpins materialism has a “coming of age” date of AD 1500.

That would mean that for a period of 500 years or about 8.33 % of recorded history, naturalism has gained traction and become popular in some circles.  Before that time there is ample evidence for the dominance of the supernatural. One need not read far in Jewish history, the Quran, Greek Mythology, Hinduism, and Buddhism to find such to be so.
Of course the date of the invention of the original printing press is lost to history.  It may have been as early as the 13th Century.  However in the middle of the 15th Century the invention of moveable type printing made publishing far more efficient and thus books such as Charles Darwin’s 1859, Origin of the Species could with relative ease be widely disseminated.  Such things as this added to the traction that Naturalism was gaining.  Even so Supernaturalism has been by far the greater influence. 
The Weight of Data
Statistics having to do with current religious belief show that 82.2 % of the world’s 6.2 billion hold to there being a supernatural.  The sheer number of Judeo-Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus etc. that hold to supernaturalism cannot be easily dismissed.  While the naturalist looks with askance at those who have a high element of supernaturalism in their belief system, those of the orient have an equal view of those without.
Drawing the Line Between
Even among the 1.1 billion who hold to there not being a supernatural component to truth, one will often hear words that indicate and acknowledge the non-material.  For example, the notion of love, like, fear, care, and other similar concepts suggest that at the very least there are some elements of the closed truth paradigm that cannot be explained, much less measured.
May I hazard a guess?  Perhaps the line is drawn where it is because of the inconvenience of a non-material theistic element.  It would be of interest to hear an explanation of why the line is where it is.
The Argument from Example
It is true that there are lists of hundreds if not thousands of non-theists / non-supernaturalists who have lived during recorded history.  However, it must be remembered that while they certainly had followings, there was no way in which their influence could have had the impact it does today in our technological culture.  Yet they are there and are fielded as critical elements in the argument for the closed system.
However, on the other side of the argument are those who also lived throughout recorded history and who argued for the reverse.  In fact there were many more of them than the non-supernaturalists.
The Argument from Incident or Lack Thereof
In the course of the discussion one is likely to hear on both sides of one’s experience or lack thereof.  Such subjective truth is often generalized to be universal truth as opposed to being what it is, an isolated experience.  This is especially troubling for the one who builds his truth paradigm on some isolated experience or another.
The danger of this kind of a jump in logic cannot be over-estimated.  In reality it is not possible to move from subjective truth paradigms to objective truth paradigms.  It is just not logical nor is it legitimate. 

CLOSING THOUGHTS
The discussion has only begun, there is much, much more to be considered as one examines the foundation and structure of one’s truth paradigm.  However, this further discussion is much more than can be reasonably considered in this essay. 
The Curious Irony
However, there is a curious if not cruel irony that underpins and makes possible the discussion.  The irony is that the positions of those who are not just skeptical of but are opposed to Open System Truth Theory are not possible without the work and influence of those with whom they disagree. 
The foundation for much of the science that the skeptic claims as foundational to their thinking found its origin in and among those of Open System Truth Theory.  Other essays include an abbreviated list of the contributions of these men and women most of whom were people of deep faith.[3]  
Prominent among them are men such as Da Vinci, Mendel, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Ohm, Ampere, and the list goes on and on.  It is the order that these and others discovered and taught that allowed for the integrity of the closed system rationalists.   
Final Thought
The final thought is this.  Though at the outset of this essay the statement was made that, “Although the outcomes of each system are a part of the discussion, the outcomes of each system are not a focus of this comparison and contrast” please allow this one final observation.  
As with any idea, theory, or even unproven and highly speculative theory, there is an influence and that influence has one or more consequences.  One way to view the veracity of a truth theory is to push it out and view the logical outcomes.  I will leave it to the reader to push both theories out to their logical ends and then compare those outcomes. 
In an effort to do so one might benefit from a review of history.  There is a decided difference between those who embraced one theory and those who embrace the other.  Such a difference should say something about the veracity of each truth theory.


[1] Supernaturalism:  early 15c. "above nature, transcending nature, belonging to a higher realm," from M.L. supernaturalis "above or beyond nature," from L. super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since c.1799.  definition available at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=76&allowed_in_frame=0
[2] Naturalism from Natural: …as "of the world of nature (especially as opposed to man)," from O.Fr. naturel "of nature, conforming to nature; by birth," and directly from L. naturalis "by birth, according to nature," from natura "nature" (see nature). From late 15c. as "not miraculous, in conformity with nature." Meaning "easy, free from affectation" is attested from c.1600. Of things, "not artificially created,"… full definition available at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=n&p=2&allowed_in_frame=0
[3] See Schmidt, Alvin  Under the Influence, republished under the title, How Christianity Changed the World