Chris Sinkinson debates John Hick on exclusivism and pluralism in religion

Looks like Justin Brierley on the Unbelievable radio show found a pastor with a Ph.D in philosophy, and he can really whip some ass.

The players:

John Hick is a noted philosopher and theologian who is a proponent of a pluralist view of religion – that there is one light (God) but many lampshades (religious expressions).

Chris Sinkinson is a pastor and Bible tutor who has critiqued Hick’s work.  He says that pluralism empties Christianity of any content and in its own way disrespects other religions more than his own exclusivist stance.

The MP3 file is here.

Justin does a great job as moderator of this debate. He said what I was thinking of saying a number of times during the debate.

Anyway, here is my snarky summary. I creatively paraphrase some of the things that Hick says to make it more clear. And funny.

—-

Hick:
- had an experience looking at the buildings of other religions
- other religions have buildings, so all religions are equal
- I spent some time in the East, and met nice Eastern people
- since Eastern people are nice that means all religions are equal

Justin:
- isn’t Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive path to salvation offensive?

Sinkinson:
- all religions that are exclusive and have to deal with religious pluralism
- even John Hick writes polemically in favor of his own view
- even John Hick thinks that religions that are exclusive are false

Justin:
- what about the blind man and the elephant?
- the story seems to say that other people have a partial grasp?
- but the story-teller himself has the privileged view
- so isn’t the religious pluralist just as arrogant as exclusivists?

Hick:
- well, it’s not arrogant to claim to have the right answer
- Jesus never made the claim to be God incarnate
- Jesus never made the claim to be the exclusive path to God
- historians don’t think that John’s gospel is reliable because it is late
- the proclamation of exclusivity was added by evangelists much later

Sinkinson:
- the historians who doubt the high Christology are radical skeptics
- the mainstream of historical scholarship accepts a high Christology
- the EARLIEST history about Jesus has the highest Christology

Hick:
- the moderate scholars do think Jesus was divine but that he didn’t think he was divine
- the phrase “Son of God” was used to describe any remarkable person
- only later did the early church turn the generic term into “God the Son”

Sinkinson:
- there is reflection on Jesus’ identity and developments, but not invention
- Jesus and his followers were in trouble precisely for linking him to deity
- why else would Jesus get into trouble and get crucified?

Hick:
- the Romans crucified him because people were saying he was the Messiah
- but the Messiah was not identified as being divine, but political
- and that’s why the Romans crucified him

Justin:
- do you (Sinkinson) think that people in other religions can be saved?

Sinkinson:
- the traditional view is exclusivism
- the other world religions are logically contradictory with Christianity
- you have to respect their differences – they are not the same as Christianity
- exclusivists allow that people can be saved by responding to natural theology
- and there are also other cases where non-Christians are saved, like old testament saints and babies who die in infancy

Hick:
- but people’s religions are based on where they are born
- so it’s not fair for God to expect people to be saved in one religion only

Sinkinson:
- the plurality of religions grouped by location doesn’t make christianity false
- that would be the genetic fallacy – rejecting an idea because of its origin
- the real question to consider is whether it is true
- and even the objection assumes that God is a God of love, who should be fair
- but how do you know that God is loving? that is an exclusive view
- how can the “blob” ultimate of religious pluralism be “loving” and “fair”

Hick:
- the ultimate reality is loving or not loving depending on each person’s religion

Sinkinson:
- but some religions and theistic and some are atheistic
- how can those God exist and not exist?

Hick:
- God is beyond everyone’s understanding, except mine
- God is beyond all definitions, except mine
- God is beyond all human understanding, except mine
- i’m not contradicting myself, it’s a mystery! a mystery!
- as long as you don’t look to closely, they’re all the same!
- allow me to tell you about God, which no one can do but me

Justin:
- doesn’t your religious pluralism mean that Christianity is false?

Hick:
- well, Christianity can’t be true, because it disagrees with other religions
- Christianity can’t falsify other religions, that would be mean to them
- other religions are just as “profound” as Christianity – and that’s what matters – not whether a religion makes true claims
- some religions are older than Christianity, that means they can’t be disagreed with
- we can’t let Christianity be true, because then some people will feel bad
- if people feel bad, then they don’t like me and then I feel bad
- if there’s one thing I know about the unknowable ultimate reality, it’s that it wants me to be liked by lots of people

Sinkinson:
- your view seems to be agnosticism – that nothing can be known about the “ultimate real”
- if we can’t express in words what God is like, then why are you saying what God is like?

Hick:
- the indescribable ultimate is described (falsely, but interestingly) by various tradition

Sinkinson:
- does the “ultimate real” exist?

Hick:
- no

Justin:
- are all the exclusive religions wrong, and only you are right?

Hick:
- all propositions about God in all the religions are false
- the experience of being deluded and having feelings about your delusions is “valid” in all religions
- all religions are equally good ways to believe false things and to have feelings about your false beliefs
- only my propositions about God are true
- everyone who disagrees with me is wrong

Sinkinson:
- so all the propositions of all the religions are wrong
- but all the experiences and feelings are “right”

Hick:
- yes
- all propositions about God are humanly constructed, and so false
- except mine – mine are true!

Sinkinson:
- so everything distinctive about Christianity are literally false?

Hick:
- yes, Christian doctrines are all false
- because if they were true, other religions would be false, and they would feel bad
- and we can’t have that, because everyone has to like me
- only things that don’t offend people in other religions can be true

Sinkinson:
- so do we have to then treat all religions as non-propositional?

Hick:
- well just don’t ask people about the content of their beliefs
- just treat their religion as non-cognitive rituals, feelings and experiences
- don’t inquire too deeply into it, because all religions are all nonsense
- i’m very respectful and tolerant of different religions!

Sinkinson:
- but Muslims, for example, think their religion is making truth claims

Hick:
- but there can be tolerance as long as you treat religions as non-propositional nonsense

Sinkinson:
- um, I have a higher respect for religions than you do
- I actually consider that the claims of other religions could be true
- I think that other religions make truth claims and not nonsense claims

Hick:
- well they are all useful because they are all false
- I don’t emphasize beliefs, I emphasize living, experiences and feelings
- as long as everyone accepts my view and rejects their religion, we’ll all be tolerant

Justin:
- erm, isn’t that an exclusive claim?
- you’re trying to say that your view of what religion is is right, and everyone else is wrong

Hick:
- I’m not arrogant, I just think that all the religions of the worlds are false
- only my statements about religion are true – everyone else is wrong
- I’m tolerant, and Christians are arrogant

Justin:
- but you think Sinkinson’s view is wrong
- why should we accept your view and deny his view?

Hick:
- His view of salvation is false, and mine is true

Sinkinson:
- you use words with set meanings, but you mean completely different things
- when I say salvation, I mean deliverance from sins through Jesus

Hick:
- I get to decide what salvation means for everyone, you intolerant bigot

Sinkinson:
- but that word has a specific meaning that has held true in all of Christian history
- but what you mean by salvation is people having subjective delusions that are not true

Hick:
- I don’t like using the word salvation

Sinkinson:
- but you just used it!
- and you think that it is present in different world religions, but it isn’t

Hick:
- God is unknowable and indescribable
- God isn’t a wrathful God though
- and the Christian description of God is false
- Evangelical Christians are mean
- I had experiences with people of other faiths
- and these experiences taught me that religions that think that the universe is eternal are true
- as long as you reduce religion to behaviors and not truth, then religions are all good at producing behaviors
- if you just treat all religions as clothing fashion and food customs, they are all valid
- the main point of religion is for people to agree on cultural conventions and stick to them
- never mind the propositional statements of religions… who cares about truth? not me!
- but Christianity is definitely false

Sinkinson:
- the Judeo-Christian God is different – he reveals himself to humans
- he is distinct from the other religions
- he is personal, and is loving but also angry at sin

Hick:
- But God isn’t a person, and he isn’t a non-person
- I can’t say what he is – I’ll offend someone if I say anything at all!
- except Christians – I can offend them because they are arrogant bigots
- I’m also very spiritual – I meditate on my breathing

Sinkinson:
- you can’t assess a religion by the experiences that people have
- people who have weird experiences do all kinds of evil things
- so the real question has to be about truth – is the New Testament reliable?, etc.

Filed under: Podcasts, Apologetics, Buddhism, Chris Sinkinson, Debate, Exclusivism, Heaven, Hinduism, Inclusivism, Islam, Jesus, John Hick, Judaism, No Other Name, Paul F. Knitter, Paul Knitter, Salvation, Saved, Soteriology, Theology, Uniqueness, World Religions

William Lane Craig asks: are there objective truths about God?

In a lecture entitled “Are there Objective Truths About God?”, philosopher William Lane Craig responds to the nasty reactions you get from postmoderns when you claim that your religion is true, and that other religions are false. See, we think that there are objective truths about God – that there are some propositions that describe the way God is, and that people who don’t believe in them are factually mistaken. But some people want to say that every statement about God is subjective – true for each person – so that conflicting claims are fine and no one is wrong, because everyone is just describing their own preferences. Unfortunately, Christianity claims to be true for everyone – (e.g. – God is three persons and one being), so that Christians are committed to defending the idea that there are objective truths about God.

Here’s the link to a page containing the lecture audio. (H/T Be Thinking)

The MP3 file is here.

So what questions does Bill answer in the lecture?

What is a self-refuting statement?

The main concept in the lecture is self-refutation. A self-refuting sentence is a sentence that, if true, makes itself false or meaningless. For example, suppose someone said to you: “there are no sentences longer than 5 words” then that would be self-refuting since it falsifies itself. Bill argues that objections to the idea that there are objective truths about God are all self-refuting.

What is truth?

Craig holds that “truth” is a property of a proposition such that a proposition is true if it corresponds to the external world. For example, if I claim that there is a crocodile in your closet and we find a crocodile in your closet, then my statement was true. If there is no crocodile in your closet then my statement was false. The real objective world out there is what makes propositional claims true or false – these are not claims about an individual’s preferences, they are claims about the world. Bill is concerned with truth claims about God that are objective – whether there are propositions about God that are true regardless of what anyone thinks.

Are there objective truths about God?

Bill discusses 3 objections to the idea that there are objective truths about God. Each objection seeks to make religion subjective, (true for each person, like food preferences or clothing fashion).

Objection #1:The Challenge of Verificationism

The first challenge is that religious claims cannot be verified using the 5 senses, and therefore religious statements are objectively meaningless.

Consider the statement “Only propositions that can be verified with the 5 senses are meaningful”. That statement cannot be verified with the 5 senses. If the statement is true, it makes itself meaningless. It’s self-refuting.

Objection #2: The Challenge of Mystical Anti-Realism

The second challenge is that religious claims, and claims about God, are neither true nor false.

Consider the statement “Propositions about God cannot be true or false”. Craig asks – why should we accept that? Any reason given would have to assert something about God that is true or false, and those reasons would contradict the original statement. For example, “God is too great to be grasped by human categories of thought” is a proposition about God that the speaker thinks is true, which contradicts the original assertion.

Objection #3: The Challenge of Radical Pluralism

The third challenge is that each person invents an entire reality of their own, and that there is no mind-independent objective world shared by individuals.

Consider the statement “There is no objective reality shared by all individuals”. That statement is a statement that applies to all individuals, regardless of what they think.  It’s self-refuting.

Conclusion

Craig ends the lecture by arguing that it is OK for Christians to think that other people’s views are false. It does not follow that just because someone thinks other people’s views are wrong that they am going to mistreat other people. In fact, in Christianity it is objectively true that it is good for Christians to love their enemies. It is objectively true that all human beings have value, because human beings are made by God. So even if Christians disagree with others, they still treat them well, because they think that there are moral truths that they have to conform to.

My thoughts

Sometimes, non-Christians think that it is dangerous to hold beliefs too strongly. But I think what really matters is the content of the belief – some beliefs are false and some are true – you want to believe the true beliefs as strongly as you can, as long as the evidence warrants it. In Christianity, I am absolutely obligated to treat people with whom I disagree with respect and gentleness (1 Pet 3:15-16). The more convinced I am about that belief, the better my opponents will be treated. A stronger belief in Christianity means more tolerance for those who disagree.

Why do non-Christians get so offended when Christians claim to be right about there being only one way to be rightly related to God? Well, for many it’s because their worldview is a personal preference, and they feel uncomfortable having to defend it rationally and evidentially – which is what Christians do that makes us so different from everyone else. For most people, religion is just their cultural preference – like cooking style, or favorite sport, or clothing style. That’s why they respond to your truth claims with name-calling like “you’re intolerant” and “you’re judgemental” and “you’re arrogant”. These are just shorthand ways of saying, “I’m offended that you’ve thought things through more than I have, and that your careful arguments and evidence make the blind faith that I was raised in look bad – so I’ll just call you a name rather than do any thinking about what you’re saying”.

This happens a lot with insecure people who are raised to think that their religion is a racial, national or cultural identity. They haven’t thought anything through, or considered any alternatives, and they think that if you tell them they are wrong  on matters of fact that somehow this amounts to some sort of racism or prejudice. You make factual claims, and they hear discrimination. But that’s not how Christians think of religion – we only care if it’s true or not – just like we care whether the claims of history or science are true or not. For many non-Christians, religion is not about truth at all but about personal preferences – and they cannot understand why Christians say that they have to go to Hell for having the wrong personal preferences. You have to tell them that religion is about truth. Then they understand why you are disagreeing with them and you can have a conversation about what is true.

For further study

A debate between a Christian and a postmodern, featuring Christian scholar Peter Williams and a very strange liberal person. This audio really makes it clear why people are opposed to objective truth claims about religion. Williams’ opponent is the epitome of postmodern relativist irrational universalism.

Filed under: Podcasts, Emergent Church, Ethnic, Ethnicity, Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Laws of Logic, Postmodernism, Relativism, Self Refutation, Self-Refuting, Universalism, William Lane Craig

The apologetics adventures of Matt and Madeleine Flannagan in New Zealand

Posted at the Christian Apologetics Alliance.

Excerpt:

Here in New Zealand, I am often told by evangelical leaders that we now live in a post-modern society, which has moved beyond “arguments” and that Apologetics is an outdated “modernist concept.” They say we need instead to “tell the story” so that people will see the “meta-narrative of scripture”—whatever exactly that means.

Last night, Madeleine and I were invited to a Christmas function for new lawyers, organised by the Law Society, the professional association for lawyers in New Zealand. The function was in a major law firm in central Auckland’s business district. So I was right in the thick of the up-and-coming legal professionals in New Zealand.

Anyway, Madeleine struck up a conversation with some young lawyers who were working for an arm of the government. They discussed aspects of their respective legal professions. Then one of them turned to me and asked me, “what do you do?” I answered that I was a theologian. Immediately, this caused them to pause (it often has this effect) and one told me he had been reading a book called The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Without thinking, I said, “Oh, that book, it’s crap.” He replied, “Yeah, but you have to say that, don’t you?” I responded, “No I don’t actually.” I then mentioned to him the works of some other atheists to whom I would not respond in that fashion, despite the fact I disagreed with their conclusions.

Then, for the next thirty minutes, these lawyers began asking me genuine questions about the Christian faith.

You have to click through to read all the interesting questions and answers, but here is the conclusion:

Sometimes being an apologist in New Zealand is surreal. I commented to Madeleine on the way home that we, two people from west Auckland—a theologian who did not have full time employment and very little resources to support my ministry, and a lawyer from a tiny firm who largely does legal work for poor people who don’t pay handsomely—were at a function at one of the largest law firms in the country, in the central heart of Auckland city, sharing our faith with some of the most successful up-and-coming lawyers in NZ, many who worked for the government. How can Apologetics be boring when stuff like that happens? I also wonder, however, how many of my “post-modernist” colleagues with their youth churches and really “cool” music, would have been able to have that conversation with any real meaning with the urbane elite of Auckland.

I also have to say that this is not the first time something like this has happened. In the last few years Madeleine and I have frequently found similar things have happened over and over. Apologetics is not “dead”.  It is not a “thing of the past”.  It’s extremely relevant. What’s irrelevant are those who are so culturally out of touch that they don’t realise that the questions apologists address are being asked, and answers to those questions assumed, in the conversations of some of the top lawyers in New Zealand; and those people, ostensibly secular liberals, are hungry and interested in credible answers to those questions.

I can sense some of the frustration that Matt and Madeleine feel, because I also know what it is to do what actually works with no support or recognition. In my case, the problem is with the Church, which is largely opposed to apologetics and scholarship in general.

I was having a chat about Matt’s post with my friend Dina Monday night, and I told her that I believed that Christians are not entitled to many of the things that the world considers fun. We aren’t entitled to popularity, we aren’t entitled to happiness, we aren’t entitled to a life of comfort. But we are entitled to the joy of defending our faith to interested skeptics in a world that is chock-full of logic, historical evidence, and scientific evidence. That is one source of happiness that we are fully allowed to draw on. If we put in the time to study the laws of logic, and the evidence from mainstream science and history, then these wonderful encounters become possible. Anyone who has had a good encounter will tell you that it is a good feeling. It doesn’t make up for the difficult side of being a Christian, but it is something.

Here are a few Bible verses that I think are relevant to Matt’s post:

1 Peter 3:15-16:

¹⁵ But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

¹⁶ keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

Matthew 10:32-33:

³² “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.

³³ But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

1 Corinthians 4:1-2:

¹ So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.

² Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.

I like the third one especially.

God expects us to testify about his existence and character. And not by sharing our personal experiences, but with evidence. Fortunately, our task is easier because there is plenty of evidence available to us. This is the world that God has made, and his fingerprints are all over it. It is a joy to be asked questions and to have studied and prepared in order to know the answer. It good for us to be called by God to give a defense, and to be found faithful. Cultivating our intelligence through difficult and often dull study is one of the ways that we show God that we are his friends. We show him that when push comes to shove, we side with him. We are his friends and his allies.

Filed under: Mentoring, Anti-Intellectualism, Apologetics, Christian Apologetics, Church, Evangelism, Inclusivism, Irrationality, J. P. Moreland, Postmodernism, Relativism, Snarky

Contrasting two approaches to religion: truth vs crutch

I went to church today and we got a sermon from a guest speaker who espouses the standard felt needs / mysticism / Bible-verses-as-incantation-with-magical-powers view of evangelism.

I just thought that I would write it down while it was fresh in my mind. So below I’ll contrast my view of evangelism with what I will call the felt needs view of evangelism.

1) Who is to be evangelized?

My view: anyone, with an emphasis on people who are willing to listen to your evidence and change their mind on that basis

Felt needs view: People who are poor, ignorant, sick or who are grieving a recent death in the family, people who do not make decisions based on truth and evidence, but on emotions and superstition

2) What is the central issue in evangelism?

My view: the truth of the propositions, e.g. – does God exist, did Jesus rise from the dead

Felt needs view: making people feel good by telling them pleasing things that they have no basis for believing

3) How is the gospel preached?

My view: you explain the truth claims of the Christian faith then appeal to objective evidence, especially from science and history

Felt needs view: you knock on stranger’s doors and tell them how you used to be bad and unhappy and now you’re good and happy and you achieved this by reading the Bible, singing songs, attending church and believing things that you are not able to give an answer for

4) Why should we adopt your view of evangelism?

My view: Because this is the same view of decision-making that is used in the business world, the scientific world, or any other human endeavor where we must make careful decisions about things that matter. And what’s more, this method is Biblical – preparing a defense and presenting evidence IS the Biblical method of evangelism.

Felt needs view: once upon a time some Muslims had a death in their family and I baked them a cake and then they were all in my church 2 weeks later – all 13 of them! That really happened! Oh oh, and there was an old woman on a bus and she converted the bus driver when he annoyed at a red light by telling him that Jesus would turn the light green if he believed in Jesus, and then the whole busload of people converted, too! That really happened! You just have to “share” your faith with people who have an emotional need and tell children Bible stories when they are 6 and 7!

I work with a lot of people that I meet through my blog on their skills and evangelism. One of them had a message waiting for me in my inbox when I got home talking about how she had had a discussion with an annoying atheist who disapproved of her spiritual life. She used the following arguments on him: kalam, fine-tuning, moral, intelligent design, resurrection. He responded with no arguments. She was very excited about it and very comfortable in her faith, and he went away without an excuse. Whether he has a need or not, he knows that ought to adopt Christianity because it is true. She presented it as true and his emotional state was irrelevant to the discussion.

In contrast, consider where the felt needs approach to evangelism leads:

Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer–you know, I think there’s the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. And I don’t think that we’re going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God’s purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name.

And that’s what God is doing today, He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.

Schuller: What, what I hear you saying that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they’ve been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you’re saying?

Graham: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

Schuller: I’m so thrilled to hear you say this. There’s a wideness in God’s mercy.

Graham: There is. There definitely is.

If you don’t think that the gospel is about sin, and a man dying on a cross for those sins and then rising from the dead, then you think it’s about people’s feelings, and all that’s needed is for them to “believe” things that they have no reasons to believe, so that they will feel better about their need. Or, maybe they just have an emotional experience without believing anything about Christianity and that emotional experience helps their need. Being saved means having your needs met through belief in things you haven’t investigated. This is the approach of evangelism used by many today – even by some guest speakers in my church. Read comforting words, tell comforting stories, believe in things you can’t test or prove. Feel better. Avoid discussions and debates with people who have no needs and sufferings for you to exploit. If someone doesn’t have a need to believe things that are true, then you have nothing to say to them. Do you know where atheists get the idea that Christians believe nonsense because they need a crutch in order to feel better about their weaknesses? They get it from us. We tell them that. We do.

One thing this annoying sermon did do was to cause me to pray about legitimate obstacles to evangelism. For example, I prayed that the laws that encourage people to silence and coerced Christians would be repealed. I prayed that people would be less insular about their own religions and be willing to listen to others from outside their faith. I prayed that people would choose their religion on the basis of truth and evidence, and not because of where they are born and what their families and communities require. I prayed that people stopped identifying religion with nationalism, race and culture. I prayed that people would dedicate more of their time to investigating what is really true using logic, science and history. I prayed that people would investigate whether anyone made the universe for a purpose, what happens when they die, and what Jesus claimed about such things when he was here among us. I prayed that the schools and the culture would not spread lies about behaviors and speculative theories that encourage people to get into sinful lifestyles before they have had the opportunity to investigate religion on the merits. And I prayed that the New Atheist caricature of faith as blind belief in order to address felt needs would not be adopted by Christians, and even by charismatic visiting Christian speakers speaking in my church.

Filed under: Commentary, Apologetics, Bible, Bible Study, Billy Graham, Campus Crusade for Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christianity, Crutch, Dumb or Ugly, Emotions, Evangelism, Evidence, Faith, Feelings, Inclusivism, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Navigators, Needs, Postmodernism, Reason, Religion, Robert Schuller, Theology, Truth, Weakness

William Lane Craig asks: are there objective truths about God?

In a lecture entitled “Are there Objective Truths About God?”, philosopher William Lane Craig responds to the nasty reactions you get from postmoderns when you claim that your religion is true, and that other religions are false. See, we think that there are objective truths about God – that there are some propositions that describe the way God is, and that people who don’t believe in them are factually mistaken. But some people want to say that every statement about God is subjective – true for each person – so that conflicting claims are fine and no one is wrong, because everyone is just describing their own preferences. Unfortunately, Christianity claims to be true for everyone – (e.g. – God is three persons and one being), so that Christians are committed to defending the idea that there are objective truths about God.

Here’s the link to a page containing the lecture audio. (H/T Be Thinking)

The MP3 file is here.

So what questions does Bill answer in the lecture?

What is a self-refuting statement?

The main concept in the lecture is self-refutation. A self-refuting sentence is a sentence that, if true, makes itself false or meaningless. For example, suppose someone said to you: “there are no sentences longer than 5 words” then that would be self-refuting since it falsifies itself. Bill argues that objections to the idea that there are objective truths about God are all self-refuting.

What is truth?

Craig holds that “truth” is a property of a proposition such that a proposition is true if it corresponds to the external world. For example, if I claim that there is a crocodile in your closet and we find a crocodile in your closet, then my statement was true. If there is no crocodile in your closet then my statement was false. The real objective world out there is what makes propositional claims true or false – these are not claims about an individual’s preferences, they are claims about the world. Bill is concerned with truth claims about God that are objective – whether there are propositions about God that are true regardless of what anyone thinks.

Are there objective truths about God?

Bill discusses 3 objections to the idea that there are objective truths about God. Each objection seeks to make religion subjective, (true for each person, like food preferences or clothing fashion).

Objection #1:The Challenge of Verificationism

The first challenge is that religious claims cannot be verified using the 5 senses, and therefore religious statements are objectively meaningless.

Consider the statement “Only propositions that can be verified with the 5 senses are meaningful”. That statement cannot be verified with the 5 senses. If the statement is true, it makes itself meaningless. It’s self-refuting.

Objection #2: The Challenge of Mystical Anti-Realism

The second challenge is that religious claims, and claims about God, are neither true nor false.

Consider the statement “Propositions about God cannot be true or false”. Craig asks – why should we accept that? Any reason given would have to assert something about God that is true or false, and those reasons would contradict the original statement. For example, “God is too great to be grasped by human categories of thought” is a proposition about God that the speaker thinks is true, which contradicts the original assertion.

Objection #3: The Challenge of Radical Pluralism

The third challenge is that each person invents an entire reality of their own, and that there is no mind-independent objective world shared by individuals.

Consider the statement “There is no objective reality shared by all individuals”. That statement is a statement that applies to all individuals, regardless of what they think.  It’s self-refuting.

Conclusion

Craig ends the lecture by arguing that it is OK for Christians to think that other people’s views are false. It does not follow that just because someone thinks other people’s views are wrong that they am going to mistreat other people. In fact, in Christianity it is objectively true that it is good for Christians to love their enemies. It is objectively true that all human beings have value, because human beings are made by God. So even if Christians disagree with others, they still treat them well, because they think that there are moral truths that they have to conform to.

My thoughts

Sometimes, non-Christians think that it is dangerous to hold beliefs too strongly. But I think what really matters is the content of the belief – some beliefs are false and some are true – you want to believe the true beliefs as strongly as you can, as long as the evidence warrants it. In Christianity, I am absolutely obligated to treat people with whom I disagree with respect and gentleness (1 Pet 3:15-16). The more convinced I am about that belief, the better my opponents will be treated. A stronger belief in Christianity means more tolerance for those who disagree.

Why do non-Christians get so offended when Christians claim to be right about there being only one way to be rightly related to God? Well, for many it’s because their worldview is a personal preference, and they feel uncomfortable having to defend it rationally and evidentially – which is what Christians do that makes us so different from everyone else. For most people, religion is just their cultural preference – like cooking style, or favorite sport, or clothing style. That’s why they respond to your truth claims with name-calling like “you’re intolerant” and “you’re judgemental” and “you’re arrogant”. These are just shorthand ways of saying, “I’m offended that you’ve thought things through more than I have, and that your careful arguments and evidence make the blind faith that I was raised in look bad – so I’ll just call you a name rather than do any thinking about what you’re saying”.

This happens a lot with insecure people who are raised to think that their religion is a racial, national or cultural identity. They haven’t thought anything through, or considered any alternatives, and they think that if you tell them they are wrong  on matters of fact that somehow this amounts to some sort of racism or prejudice. You make factual claims, and they hear discrimination. But that’s not how Christians think of religion – we only care if it’s true or not – just like we care whether the claims of history or science are true or not. For many non-Christians, religion is not about truth at all but about personal preferences – and they cannot understand why Christians say that they have to go to Hell for having the wrong personal preferences. You have to tell them that religion is about truth. Then they understand why you are disagreeing with them and you can have a conversation about what is true.

For further study

A debate between a Christian and a postmodern, featuring Christian scholar Peter Williams and a very strange liberal person. This audio really makes it clear why people are opposed to objective truth claims about religion. Williams’ opponent is the epitome of postmodern relativist irrational universalism.

Filed under: Podcasts, Emergent Church, Ethnic, Ethnicity, Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Laws of Logic, Postmodernism, Relativism, Self Refutation, Self-Refuting, Universalism, William Lane Craig