The Problem of Religious Diversity
This problem is about probabilities based upon contradictory historical testimonies on matters of crucial importance to the truth of separate religions.
Here's my argument:
1) There are 45,000 different historical witnesses to mutually exclusive religious truth claims.
2) There is no other evidence apart from these historical witnesses that can tip the probability in favor of any single one of them.
.: Therefore even if one of these historical witnesses is correct I have no way to know which one.
Now Christians could show me the evidence that defeats 2 or accept conclusion 3. It’s that simple. The evidence Christians use to support their case is historical evidence, but as I’ve argued history is a poor medium to reveal anything of importance. There is no scientific evidence that leads specifically to their conclusion over the others. And present day religious experience is trumped by the other religious witnesses.
-------------------
Elsewhere I have defended the notion that history is a poor medium for God to reveal himself to humanity, here, here, here, and here.
Here's my argument:
1) There are 45,000 different historical witnesses to mutually exclusive religious truth claims.
2) There is no other evidence apart from these historical witnesses that can tip the probability in favor of any single one of them.
.: Therefore even if one of these historical witnesses is correct I have no way to know which one.
Now Christians could show me the evidence that defeats 2 or accept conclusion 3. It’s that simple. The evidence Christians use to support their case is historical evidence, but as I’ve argued history is a poor medium to reveal anything of importance. There is no scientific evidence that leads specifically to their conclusion over the others. And present day religious experience is trumped by the other religious witnesses.
-------------------
Elsewhere I have defended the notion that history is a poor medium for God to reveal himself to humanity, here, here, here, and here.
9 comments:
Hey John, where'd the 45000 number come from? Do you have sources/do some rough calcs or just guestimate it?
Getting back to your original point, it's really frustrating debating religious people who just don't get that fact that the evidence for their religion is more or less the same as for any other religion. Many just don't see the problem.
King, Babinski showed me a statistic where there are documented 45,000 different Christian denominations. Since one cannot take every organizational entity as a different theology I merely used that same figure to represent the different world religions including Christian sects. If the number is less, then so be it. But it probably won't affect my argument unless you can get this figure down into the single digits.
I can tell you what defeats 2 for me. Every world religion makes one of two claims: That mankind is fundamentally evil, or that mankind is fundamentally good. (Because of the nature of goodness, a claim that there is no such thing as good or evil counts as a claim that man is fundamentally good.)
And it makes perfect sense that all religions have to go either one way or the other, because it's logically impossible for mankind to be both fundamentally good and fundamentally evil.
But I can't accept any of those religions because I experience both my good nature and my evil nature daily. I am the logical contradiction that no world religion's doctrine can account for. Only Christianity accounts for both the good and the evil in me.
This won't convince an objective observer - An objective observer would have to reject this Christian doctrine because it presents a logical paradox. But a person of sufficient inwardness will find, on introspection, that it's true.
But anyway, there you go: That's an argument that separates Christian doctrine from every other doctrine and requires no historical evidence. The only evidence required is my own sincere, deep introspection. Or your own.
Kierkegaardian, that very intelectually dishonest. But than again this what I expect from a believer. The philosophy of Tao with its Yin-Yang accounts for your good-evil nature. And it precedes christianity with 600 years. At least! (the yin yang duality was already a part of chinese philosophy at the time of Tao Te Ching). Unfortunately for most of the believers, Tao didn't send anybody down here to be nailed on a cross and will definetely not going to offer any place in a non-existant heaven for having faith in it. I can see why Tao Te Ching is not appealing to most of the humans.
In fact, although Taoism does teach about yin and yang, those concepts are very different from good and evil. Taoism's fundamental teaching is that things generally happen naturally, and that people shouldn't resist the course of nature. The closest things it has to good and evil are the way of the universe and the way of man. The way of the universe is peace, beauty, justice, and truth. The way of man is force, resistance, pain, and death.
Taoism is one of the religions that says that mankind is fundamentally evil. If I was to try to follow Taoism, I would be trying to solve my problems by becoming something I'm not (such as nature, or the universe) - Thus leaving behind my humanity and becoming one with nature.
Since this is to ignore my experience, which is that I, in my humanity, have a good nature, I cannot accept it.
Although I do admit that my philosophy isn't what you would call 'objective' or 'intellectually honest' (I mean, I said right up front that I accept a paradox as true doctrine), although I do try to be very honest, and I am telling the truth, and I do know what I'm talking about.
Kierkegaardian, Yin-Yang accounts for everything that is dual and it accounts for your good-evil nature. Tao is nothing but Yin-Yang in motion. It's true that Tao Te Ching mentions how a "holy man" should behave but a holy man is that concept is not about a "good" man. Humanity is part of Tao with it's good and evil. And good and evil are always in motion, one person's good is another's evil. All we humans can do is set up a society that accomodates equally all people. There's nothing "absolutely good" out there (like the christian heaven). There are no absolutes. The heaven for a cristian, requires hell for others and that renders heaven outside the concept of "absolute good". Not even your God is able to create absolute good but only it's illusion. Tao on the other hand doesn't offer such an illusion. It's like your god minus the lies ;)
Adrian, we seem to disagree about the fundamental doctrines of Taoism. I suppose we could compare credentials or sources and try to find out who has the better understanding of it, but I don't see where that would get us.
There are a few other points you mentioned that I'd like to address, though:
It's hilarious to me whenever somebody states that "There are no absolutes". You realize that's an absolute statement, right? Did you mean to say, "There is only one absolute, and this is it"?
It's not required for some people to go to hell in order for me to go to heaven, since the Christian idea of good does not require the existence of evil. According to Christian theology, there's no real reason why every single human being couldn't go to heaven.
There's nothing that requires evil to exist. 'Good' is when some particular thing exists and fulfills it's purpose. Other things don't have to fail to fulfill their purposes in order for something to fulfill it's purpose. Why would that be necessary?
But hey, since maybe you know more about Taoism than me, you could teach me something. Answer me this:
Does Taoism recognize that I was made with a purpose? Does it recognize that I fail to fulfill that purpose AND ALSO that I do fulfill that purpose? Does it offer a way to reconcile the two? Keep in mind, such reconciliation requires that the Absolute/Universal/Purpose-Giving be or become the same thing as the Limited/Particular/Purpose-Denying. Which of those would be Yin and which would be Yang?
For these are the requirements I set on a religion.
Kierkegaardian, first "there are no absolutes" was in a certain context. do onto others... you know the drill.
You misunderstood what I said about the need of hell. The problem is not that ALL the people CAN go to heaven but that SOME will GO to hell. It like saying that in capitalism ALL people can be reach when the problem is that SOME are very poor. Your dodging the problem.
"There's nothing that requires evil to exist. 'Good' is when some particular thing exists and fulfills it's purpose."
And yet evil exists. How come? A bullet entering the skull of a 3 year old is "good" because it fullfield it's purpose? Is that where the good vs evil discussion is going? Do we switch the meaning of words to feat our agenda? Since we are not omniscient we will never know if Hitler fulfield it's purpose and from your reasoning we will not be able to conclude that Hitler was bad. I see why you are running in circles.
The last part of your response is another piece of intelectual dishonesty. You set up stadards for religion that are only met by your interpretation of christianity. The purpose of one's life is to be found by oneself and not by reading what a book says. If there is a Creator than we know absolutely for sure that any message she may have wanted to send us is in nature. The fact that you chose to look in a paper book and not into the real "book" already set you off-track. No wonder that the paper book meets the requirements. Your mind was already made up. That is not an honest search for truth.
If there is a Purpose Giver than the purpose she set for me is not my purpose but her own. I'm still left without my own purpose.
Lastly, i don't think you understood completely how Yin and Yang works. Probably because you haven't read as many apologetics books for Yin-Yang as you read for christianity. That's what happens when an ideea is not as usefull as controlling people as christinity. You can't find organizations (aka The Church) to sponsor the writting of brainwashing books.
Please feel free to skip this comment - It's really long. Sorry.
Here Adrian, I'll respond to you paragraph-for-paragraph.
Apparently I don't know the drill, because I have no idea what you mean. The context for your statement that "There are no absolutes" was the argument (I thought) that in the duality of the universe good and evil are inextricably linked, that even what Christians call absolute good has some evil associated with it (this is where you brought up Heaven and Hell), and therefore absolutes such as absolute good or absolute evil cannot exist. I reject this based on two points: That statements such as "There are no absolutes" are themselves absolutes, and, secondly, that the Christian idea of good does not require the existence of evil. 'Good' = purpose-fulfilling, and it's totally possible for everything in the Universe to fulfill it's purpose.
As for your second paragraph, I don't believe that I dodged the problem. The problem you were presenting above was not that according to Christianity some people go to Hell, but rather that the existence of such a thing as Hell has a bearing on the possibility of the existence of absolute good. I believe I did address that problem, in the manner I explained above.
Third paragraph: Mankind freely chose to cause the existence of evil. A bullet that hits its target is probably a good bullet. In the child-murder scenario, the thing that is failing to fulfill its purpose, and thus can be called evil, is not the gun or the bullet, but the murderer. Would you have me think it's the bullet's fault? I try not to switch the meanings of words. I think you'll find that my definition of 'good' has been consistent throughout our conversation. Furthermore - to prevent reductio ad hitlerium - bring that last part up without mentioning Nazis and I'll respond to it.
4th paragraph: How do you know my mind was already made up? Did I say that somewhere and not notice? And even if it was, would that have any bearing on my argument, which is that the criterion I've put forward distinguishes Christianity from every other world religion?
5th: If you've created your own purpose, then that's not really a purpose. There is no such thing as a purpose without context. Think about it. A machine, for instance, is designed to fulfill a purpose, and that purpose only exists with reference to whoever created it. How can you tell if it's fulfilling it's purpose? You have to find out who built it and why. That's what purpose is.
Finally: Are you really criticising my argument on the basis of what books exist and which of them I've read? What on earth would that have to do with whether what I have to say here is right or not?
Post a Comment