Fictional dialogues with a sceptic

Ivanhoe · #1 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 04:14 PM

This is for an assignment, and I am having fun with it. Carl is a reference to the great Carl F H Henry. Madeline is a reference to Madeline Murray O'Hare.

Morality of Knowledge (Epistemology)

Carl: I will hold that unless you maintain biblical revelation, you have no foundation for knowledge or ethics.
Madeline: I have problems with that statement.
Carl: I gathered as much. Go on.
Madeline: For one, you begged the question. Two, unbelievers do have knowledge and live ethically, and three, you Christians don’t live up to that statement.
Carl: I agree with you on all three points.
Madeline: What?
Carl: Your objections just proved my point.
Madeline: How?
Carl: Our time tonight is short. Can I just focus on the knowledge statement?
Madeline: Sure.

Carl: I will open tonight with a discussion on epistemology: the theory of knowledge.
Madeline: That sounds rather abstract.
Carl: Stay with me—whatever we say later on will be determined by what we establish or fail to establish at this point.
Madeline: Ok, fine. What are you getting at?
Carl: In short—and I know you will have objections to this—I believe in God and his word based on a higher authority than myself.
Madeline: Oh, let me guess—you believe in the Bible because God says so?
Carl: It’s a bit more than that. Before I answer your question—and I will give you an opportunity to cross-examine me, can I ask you a few questions as well?
Madeline: Ok, I’ll bite.
Carl: We all have ultimate authorities—
Madeline: Wait, you mean absolutes! I don’—
Carl: Just let me finish. That’s not what I am getting at, although we will discuss that later. I will ask you a question: What is your authority?
Madeline: I don’t have any authorities. I am free, independent.
Carl: What do you believe in, then? If not God, then what?
Madeline: I believe in reason; I believe that people should be free to live how they want as long as it doesn’t hurt others.
Carl: That’s a good, clear answer. Your answer actually demonstrated your worldview.
Madeline: There goes that religious jargon again.
Carl: No, I was giving you a compliment. Few people can state their worldview so clearly and succinctly.
Madeline: So you think I am right?
Carl: No, you have a naïve epistemology and your ethical system avoids the hard questions.
Madeline: So now you will engage in name-calling?
Carl: No, that’s not my point.
Madeline: Can we get back to your original discussion? You were going to tell me how “I believe the bible because the bible tells me so” isn’t question-begging.

Ivanhoe · #2 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 04:18 PM

Part two

Carl: Sorry for getting distracted. Ok, back to the issue. We live in terms of our ultimate authority. I am going to use a technical phrase but I will unpack it if I need to. I believe the Bible because God has spoken.
Madeline: You better have a back-up argument. That would fail a sophomore logic class.
Carl: And if God has not spoken, then all is chaos.
Madeline: Strike two
Carl: Therefore, the argument now looks like,

If P, then Q.
P
Therefore, Q.

Let P stand for “intelligibility” and let Q stand for God’s self-revelation.

Now to the second horn of my argument (same terms).
If P, then Q
~Q
Therefore, ~P.

Carl: If we deny God’s revelation, then we will have no rational discourse.
Madeline: But that’s circular reasoning!
Carl: My logic is fine. I gave legitimate modus pollens and modus tonens arguments. But I know what you are talking about.
Madeline: So if it’s not circular reasoning, then what is it?
Carl: By the way I have set it up it is linear reasoning. Watch.

God’s rationality--->human faith--->human reasoning.

Carl: God’s rationality is the basis for human faith. Human faith is the basis for human reasoning.
Madeline: Ok, you played logical games to avoid circular reasoning, but you can’t expect me to take this seriously. You are presupposing God!
Carl: That is true.
Madeline: But that’s not rational!
Carl: That is the issue under discussion.
Madeline: Ok, fine. Perhaps this God of yours does exist. How do you know that?
Carl: If I answer your question, you will object that I am engaging in circular reasoning, objections that I have already answered.
Madeline: I will ignore that for the moment. Let’s assume there is a God, now how can you know him?
Carl: I am confident, through what theologians call general and special revelation, that he has revealed himself to me in His word.
Madeline: Your mind, it seems, is rather made up. “God spoke in his word,” huh? Maybe. But I doubt we can ever know for sure or even exactly what he meant. Why do I make this assertion? Well, how about the idea that language isn’t mimetic. It doesn’t mirror reality because it’s a product of social interaction.

Carl: Pretend that I don’t hang out in postmodern coffee shops. Please explain what you mean.

Madeline: For instance, a simple statement like “It’s 9:00 AM” isn’t “objectively” real. Given that the earth rotates around the sun at varying speeds and orbits, the correspondence between your Timex and the position of heavenly bodies is more complicated than it seems. In short, time is an intersubjective construct that we impose on the world. Meaning—even the meaning of 9:00 AM—is a moving target.

Carl: And you accused me of being abstract! If that is indeed the case, how can you:
1) Be sure of what you just said? 2) Be sure that others will accurately comprehend what you said? This is why postmodernism is self-referentially incoherent. I can use big words, too.

Carl: Secondly, God isn't a timex. You're objection only applies in the temporal world. If God were finite--like universalist or Arminian gods--you would have a valid objection. But God transcends that and has revealed himself. Your mind seems rather made up that language doesn't mirror reality. You are no less dogmatic than I am.

Madeline: That still doesn’t prove that your westernized version of “God” spoke.

Carl: Not yet, it doesn’t, but it removes your objections and allows me to set forth my system unhindered.

Madeline (rolls eyes): Go ahead.

Carl: I maintain that "Divine revelation is the source of all truth, the truth of Christianity included; reason is the instrument for recognizing it; Scripture is its verifying principle; logical consistency of a negative test for truth and coherence a subordinate test. The task of Christian theology is to exhibit the content of biblical revelation as an orderly whole."

Madeline: That sounds pretty. I will now see if it can stand the test of logical scrutiny.

Carl: Be my guest. If you would, would you critique it point-by-point.

Madeline: Sure.