I hate to harp on subjects unnecessarily, but I must go back to the dichotomy of faith and reason. I have had several conversations and have read several blogs generally dealing with this theme lately, and it reminded me of a point I was probably going to make some time ago.* It goes something like this…
In the ongoing battle over God’s existence, evidence for Christianity, etc, there are typically two camps. In one camp is the Christian who says that there is plenty of evidence for his or her belief in God and such. In the other camp is the non-Christian who says there is no evidence for this kind of thing (or the evidence points in the other direction). The stage is set; the debate continues ad infinitum.
There are good and bad arguments on both sides, but I want to look at one in particular. This is the argument that there is no “scientific” evidence for God or faith, so therefore these things cannot be true. Now, if one believes in a unified theory of truth, that all areas of study can touch each other, that there is Truth that transcends categories, in that case we have an argument. But if one believes in the fact-value dichotomy, we have a problem. Since we humans have apparently decided that science is and should be separate from religion now and forever, then let us dispense with the argument that a belief in God is false for scientific reasons. In a fact-value dichotomy, there is no true or false in the realm of values. True and false become meaningless terms. Science becomes useless in matters of faith. Likewise, faith becomes useless in matters of science.
Whether or not this dichotomy is the actual state of affairs in the universe is extraneous for the current discussion. The point I wish to make is this: If you adhere to such a worldview, you limit yourself a priori from arguing against God, Christianity, etc, by using evidence (or a lack thereof) as a criterion. In a fact-value dichotomy, there can be no evidence for or against faith. It is entirely subjective. You can, therefore, never claim that Christianity is wrong—or right. Any such statement is mere emotivism, or at best, relativism.
I suppose I see this issue surface the most with the evolution debate. Purported evidence is presented against a Christian worldview (namely, that God created the universe with purpose), and this is labeled science. When purported evidence is presented arguing for a Christian worldview, this is labeled as pseudoscientific garbage not worth the paper and ink expended upon it.
It brings to mind the old adage, “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.”
*This is in no way directed at anyone personally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I find that this kind of thinking (buying into the fact-value dichotomy) often is a cop-out for many Christians. That is, many Christians at least act as though they do not have any desire to think rationally, so placing science and rationality on the other end of the (illusory) spectrum from faith is convenient and desirable. Emotivism is popular as it does not involve breaking a mental sweat and is blissfully egocentric.
What I see most often is the attitude that only "scientific" facts are facts; everything else is your opinion. But when Christians insist that we have facts (trying to use their definition), it really blows minds -- we're calling thing facts that they cannot conceive of as facts.
I agree with you -- if they're going to argue that only empirically testable things are facts, then they need to stop saying that Christianity is false.
Chris,
Thanks for clarifying my post into a simple statement. You probably did a better job in one sentence than I did with the whole post!
I appreciate your comment.
Post a Comment