Implicit Theology
Today I may have been vetted to debate someone on an internet radio show. It seems that the rational response squad, which achieved infamy some months ago with the “Blasphemy Challenge,” is trolling internet chat rooms looking for Christian cannon fodder to invite on their show. I volunteered to take a spot at some time as I’m sure they are not used to educated people engaging their often pedantic arguments. As I thought about possible topics and arguments something occurred to me today about the theology of the atheist.
Before jumping into the pool here, a word of thanks is in order. Thank you to Prof. Pete Enns, Prof. Steve Taylor and Prof. Mike Kelly. I will likely never return to modernist arguments to try and defeat the skeptic of scripture because of your tutelage. The evidence the skeptics raise simply cannot be denied, and you helped me to understand that. Equally, however, the framework the skeptic uses can be understood in different lights, critiqued and even overthrown. Because of their work I find myself looking more and more at presuppositions of people and their assumed notions of modernity. Ironically, my Van Tillianism did not come from the various systematic and apologetic courses that were supposed to inculcate it in me. Rather watching how people responded with preconceived notions of what the Bible ought to look like to the sustentative points the BT department at Westminster made helped me to clearly see presuppositions in action.
Now, to apply the excellent application of Van Tillian Presuppositionalism which Dr. Enns taught me.
The atheist who attacks the Bible as being hopelessly problematic, and therefore ineligible as the word of God, makes a tremendous mistake. He points to “errors” again and again; contradictions, anachronisms, and the like to try and destroy the claim that scripture is infallible. He, like many fundamentalists and TR folk I encounter daily, subjects the Bible to a modernist dock. He poses questions about the texts veracity and conformity to modernist standards of truth. The TR walks away, bending the facts to support his modernism. The atheist confirms his believe that the scripture “fails” the test of the facts and so it is declared non-divine. The atheist’s empirical cross examination vindicates his atheism, or so he thinks.
The problem is that the atheist has just played a theist. He argued that if the Bible was truly the word of God, it wouldn’t have all the errors and mistakes it contains. Since it contains all these problems it must not be the word of God. Here is the problem; the atheist just formulated systematic theology. What the atheist is saying, in effect, is as follows…
“Writings which are inspired by God must be without contradiction, error or scientific inaccuracy.”
It is amazing that an atheist, who claims to lack knowledge of or about God, could know how God ought to write his books, if he were to write. The atheist position which rejects scripture because it does not meet up to his standards of what inspired scripture ought to look like is making an implicitly theological argument about what God would and would not do, if he were to inspire a text. He has made an argument about the nature of God, which he cannot do since he lacks knowledge of or belief in a God!
Bart Ehrman, a self confessed agnostic, has written an entire book of his theology in the above manner. He writes;
“…how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes – sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? (Bart Ehrman on p. 7 of his book Misquoting Jesus).”
Ehrman’s life story is to surmise that this means scripture fails the test of divine revelation. Of course he has to hold to a theological tenet before he can pronounce that scripture does not meet up to it.
Since by definition an atheist or agnostic (such as Ehrman) cannot have theological convictions, then he cannot critique a text because it doesn’t line up with his “theological convictions” of what ”God would do if he were to inspire a text.”
So atheists simply cannot reject the Bible as the Word of God because of perceived errors. To do so gives them positive knowledge about a God which they claim not to have.
Pax Christi…Nick
Nick Altman
This is a very interesting post. Nice blog.
Ham said this on September 30, 2008 at 11:39 pm |
Thanks ham, you are my first happy comment (lol) its like making your first dollar in business. I have had an occasional wooden nickle, however, before now.
nick altman said this on October 1, 2008 at 1:09 am |
Nicely put, Nick.
It’s funny that you mention the inherent van tillianism of the biblical studies department at WTS. I had a similar experience. One of the things so bitterly ironic about the recent fiasco is that the approach of Enns and the others is so firmly rooted in the westminster tradition.
Nathan M said this on October 2, 2008 at 2:00 am |
Hey nathan, great to hear from you. How are things at UofC? Just remember when you are a famous philologist to put a good word in for me when I apply for a position teaching remedial math skills…
nick altman said this on October 2, 2008 at 4:04 am |
Great post Nick.
I echo what Nathan said and I can’t wait to see if the Rational Response Squad (the name raises several problems with me) brings you on the show.
said this on October 4, 2008 at 5:57 am |
Good post, Nick!
I have to play devil’s advocate here, and hope not to detract from your other posts, but couldn’t an atheist ask what would upset your presupposition that the Bible is God’s Word? With the fundamentalist, it’s simple. Show the Bible has contradictions, show that there are inconsistencies or some scribal errors. But for your view, how could it be shown that it’s not God’s Word?
Andy said this on October 8, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
Andy,
Great Question – lets take a crack at it.
The difference between me and the atheist/christian fundamentalist is their view of epistemology.
For the atheist, he has certain foundational presuppositions. Russel’s formula works well here, as most atheists are postivists of one sort or another. Russel said “All knowledge comes from sensory imput or is tautological (restatement, such as all unmarried men are bachelors). So for russel all actual knowledge is sensed or is A=A sort of propositions (math). That is until someone asks…”How do you know that statement is true?” Russels statement of All Knowledge doesnt conform to his criteria for knowledge; so how does he know its true? He cannot know it; but must simply assume this is one truism that exists apriori. He is (as are most atheists and Fundamentalists) a foundationalist. He begins with a foundation which is unquestionable and builds on that and the only way to destroy his position is to undermine the foundation.
I am not a foundationalist. I have no group of foundational principles (including inerrancy or inspiration) that can simply be undermined to show how wrong I am. Rather I have a coherentist epistemology. I think that all truism are held in context of other things which I believe are true. One can undermine any “true” statement; but that will only lead to a redefinition of the whole; and to actually undermine a true statement one must show how it conflicts not with an objective norm, but with the rest of my subjective system. (I would argue that most people are closet coherentists).
The difference can be illustrated like this. My epistemology is like a raft. I gather together bits of wood, metal, plastic and the like with the aim of making the best raft possible. If you show how a certain piece of wood doesnt fit well with the rest of the raft I’ll replace it. The foundationalist is building a tower. He uses a base which makes for the strongest tower he possibly can, then builds bricks to make it as strong and as tall as possible. If you show how a few bricks do not fit, you undermine his tower. The lower down you undermine the tower, the more of his worldview falls apart.
So if the atheist wants to show that the Bible is not the word of God to the fundamentalist, he undermines the tower (as you suggest above). If he wants to show me how the Bible as the word of God doesn’t work on my constructed raft he must enter into the raft, examine each part with me, and show how the whole could be improved by jettisoning this major piece (inspiration). He must discuss politics, religion, faith, society, ethics, etc and he must provide a more plausible construction. In short he must abandon bumpersticker debate points and enter into a the novel that is my life.
Great Question…
nick altman said this on October 8, 2008 at 6:09 pm |
Thanks for the great answer to my great question!
Hmm, for a non-philosopher, this is pretty deep stuff, but that analogy makes a lot of sense. But sticking with that analogy, what if anyone can make a solid raft? I mean, what if the atheist can build just as solid a raft as you?(not saying he can, I don’t think he can, but some may think he can)
I mean, if there are two equally coherent world views how can we decide which is true? Is it even possible for there to be two equally coherent world views?
BTW – Sorry about reviving these old posts! LOL
Andy said this on October 14, 2008 at 10:30 am |