Something I've learned from engaging with many opponents of Christianity is that they will attempt to justify some negative belief they hold about Christianity with almost any argument they think will suit their purposes. Justification, as I’m using it, can be defined as “the right standing of a person’s beliefs with respect to knowledge.”1 This kind of ad hoc justification is purely pragmatic; it is not a justification of the veracity of their belief, but a means to an end. The goal is not to establish that their belief is true, but to multiply their reasons for not believing in the God of Scripture.
The person in question holds to some underlying negative belief about Christianity, e.g.-
"Christianity is a dangerous and antiquated system of beliefs that should be criminalized."
Let’s call this CD [Christianity is destructive]. CD is a complex of the following beliefs –
1. Christianity is dangerous.
2. Christianity is antiquated.
3. Christianity is a system of beliefs.
4. Christianity ought to be criminalized.
Properly arranged, the underlying thought process becomes clear –
Christianity ought to be criminalized because it is an antiquated and, therefore, dangerous system of false beliefs.
If we were to ask the atheist to justify CD, he would likely raise some of the following arguments.
A. Antiquated Beliefs
a. Antiquated Earth Science
Any belief system that teaches the earth is flat is antiquated.
Christianity teaches that the earth is flat.
Therefore, Christianity is antiquated.
B. Dangers:
b. Scientific Ignorance
All scientifically ignorant belief systems are dangerous.
Christianity is a scientifically ignorant belief system.
Therefore, Christianity is dangerous.
c. Dogmatism
All dogmatic belief systems are dangerous.
Christianity is a dogmatic belief system.
Therefore, Christianity is dangerous.
d. Promotion of Antiscience Sentiments
All belief systems that promote antiscience sentiments are dangerous.
Christianity promotes antiscience sentiments.
Therefore, Christianity is dangerous.
Now these arguments are logically incoherent. We will first examine how this is the case, move on to highlight some of the false premises, and then return to the methodology I mentioned above (viz.pragmatic justification).
Logical Incoherence
The Is-Ought Fallacy/Ignoratio Elenchi2
In the first place, we note that if it were the case that Christianity is dangerous, it does not therefore follow that Christianity ought to be criminalized. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Therefore, the belief has not been justified by these arguments.
Secondly, we note that if it were the case that Christianity is antiquated, it does not therefore follow that Christianity ought to be criminalized. The conclusion, once again, does not follow from the premises. Therefore, the belief, once again, has not been justified by these arguments.
Self-Defeating Premises
Thirdly, note that some of these arguments contain self-defeating premises. In particular, arguments b, c, and d all contain self-defeating premises. Argument b’s major premise states
All scientifically ignorant belief systems are dangerous.
The problem here should be obvious. A total inventory of all past scientifically ignorant belief systems is not possible, much less a total inventory of all scientifically ignorant belief systems in the present, as well as those to come. The first premise is, in other words, unscientific. Not only this, but since the major premise of argument b is a dogmatic assertion that cannot be justified by an appeal to evidence, acording to argument its major premise is dangerous and must be criminalized. Moreover, if knowledge is defined as “True, justified belief,” then every scientific theory that has not been justified by an appeal to some evidentiary standard (empirical or propositional) is really an interrelated composite of unjustified beliefs – a belief system – that may, in fact, be shown to be false in the near future. Given the hypothetical atheist’s belief, these beliefs are, likewise, dangerous and worthy of being criminalized.
Additionally, argument c and d’s major premises, seeing as they cannot be evidentially justified, are dogmatic unjustified beliefs. They are, then, dangerous and worthy of being criminalized as well.
False Premises
While it is enough for us to reject the arguments of the hypothetical atheist on the basis of their logical coherence alone, we can, for the sake of argument imagine that they are not. Do the arguments provide justification for CD? No, because they all contain falsehoods rendering the arguments unsound.
In the order in which they appear, these are the falsehoods –
a: Christianity teaches that the earth is flat.
b: Christianity is scientifically ignorant.
c: All dogmatic belief systems are dangerous.
d: Christianity promotes antiscience sentiments.
Given that none of these premises is true, it follows that none of these arguments is sound. Ignoring the logical incoherence of these argument, then, does not render them capable of justifying CD.
Pragmatic Justification is Not Justification
However, that will not stop the unbeliever from continuing to pose variation after variation of these arguments in defense of CD. The arguments are not intended to actually justify CD, but to stifle opposition to CD. They are pragmatic justifications, which is to say no justifications at all. They are used because they might work in some cases to stifle opposition to CD, primarily by stumping less informed believers. And it is easy to get tripped up by unbelievers who, while holding dogmatically to CD or a belief like it, will demand that Christians refute their every claim and argument – and yet have no intention of ever abandoning CD, or a belief like it.
An easy way to spot whether or not the arguments in defense of CD, or some belief like it, are pragmatic justifications is simple. Pragmatic justifications are typically unrelated to one another, conflicting in some way, and are often mutually exclusive. If one’s reasons for believing CD, or something like it, are mutually exclusive, or even logically inconsistent with one another, then either the person in question is accepting CD on some other basis (e.g. he agrees with its sentiment for some other reason he won’t disclose, or he agrees with CD on the basis of pure emotion, etc).
Pragmatic justifications for a belief are not justifications at all, but are merely tools allowing a person to continue to hold a belief as true, despite his inability to demonstrate its veracity. Look at the whole, then examine how the parts do or don’t fit together. This will greatly simplify the task of doing apologetics, and is a useful tool in other areas of life as well (e.g. understanding a politician’s motives for advocating for some action x).
Soli Deo Gloria
1 “Epistemic Justification,” Jamie Carlie Watson, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/epi-just, Accessed Jan 09, 2021.
2 Lat. Irrelevant conclusion.
Comments
Post a Comment