A Funeral Procession for my Procrastination: Part II

What's up, you saucy Throng?

Previously, on Are You There God? It's Me, Atheist...

With terror mounting and time running out, our hero battled through a plethora of fire-drenched obstacles, overcame a paralyzing childhood fear of squishy green plush toys, and managed to dismantle a bomb set by the blood-soaked zombie horde. All in order to deliver on his noble promise to finally begin doing what he was supposed to do all along: Blog his way through some books. Caving to the pressure of his trusted aides, our dear savior chopped what was intended to be one blog post into three. This is the second. Will he make it to the third?


The Authors: Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli

The Book: Handbook of Christian Apologetics

The Chapter: 1 - The Nature, Power, and Limitations of Apologetics

Last time, we looked at the relationship of faith and reason. Continuing in a similar "faith and reason are allies" vein, Kreeft and Tacelli (KT from here on) attempt to show that "nonrational arguments" are not the same as "irrational arguments." Here they provide a list of ways in which reason is a "friend" to these non-rational arguments. For example, they claim that:

1. "Reason is the friend of divine authority, which can neither deceive nor be deceived, but not necessarily of human authority, fads, and fashions." 
2. "Reason is the friend of faith in this divine authority, but not of naivete. Thus reason leads to the faith and away from the cults."
3. "Reason is the friend of hope, but not of human wishful thinking." 
4. "Reason is the friend of agape (love) but not of eros (selfish passion)." 
5. "Reason is the friend and complement to imagery, symbol and myth, which also reveal truth, but not to impossible imaginings, esoteric fantasies or misty pseudomysticisms" (17). 

All of these appear to make distinctions without much of a difference. Generally speaking, we can ask of each assertion, how do we know we've grasped the one true faith and aren't somehow mistaken or clouded by our faith, hope, and love of our own particular religion, authority, community, etc.

In particular, we might ask the following:

1.  How can we possibly know which divine authority is the one true divine authority? How do we gain access to that divine authority so that we can confirm its truth and divinity for ourselves? Is it not reported (as in the Bible, the Koran, and virtually every other sacred text) by other human authorities who set and/or follow other fads and fashions as established by their own psychological predispositions and cultural milieu? Also, how do we know this divine authority "can neither deceive nor be deceived?" Aren't there passages in the Bible where God hardens Pharaoh's heart and deceives via lying spirits? Finally, doesn't Paul admonish us to obey human authorities as they are established by God? It's a right kerfuffle.

2.  Again, how do we know whether we're in "the faith" (which is supposedly a friend of reason) or in one of "the cults"? What if I'm in a cult, but I'm confident that I've used reason to get there and stay there? And what of the other intelligent authorities in my cult who assure me that I'm in "the faith" while you are in one of "the cults"? Also, isn't it a bit tautologically circular to assume that reason leads to your particular faith and away from other faiths? Besides, one can cite passages of the Bible that are absurd, antithetical to reason, and/or make the use of reason and evidence seem irrelevant and unnecessary. Other passages make faith sound hostile to doubting and questioning which are integral components of reason. Finally, isn't faith a gift from God? If so, there seems to be nothing we atheists can do to be brought to salvation. Our balls are in God's court. And if faith is a gift from God, how can you say another person's faith is mistaken? Can't they just claim their faith is a gift from their God while yours is a sham? Spot of bother, that.

3.  What is the difference between hope and human wishful thinking? The two have very similar definitions in the dictionary and are often used as synonyms for each other. Perhaps a bit more explanation can be given so that the differences between the two might be more apparent. Either way, as I pointed out before, hope seems to be an emotional bias that can corrode rationality. Also, why include "human" in reference to wishful thinking but not hope? Is hope not just as much a human activity as wishful thinking? My, what a pickle.

4.  Agape, by definition either has to do with the love of God for humanity or unselfish, sexless love that humans might have for one another. The first may or may not be based in reality. Regardless, isn't it rather circular (again) to assume God exists when faith in God is one of the questions under investigation? The second may be noble, virtuous, and boring as hell, but I have no quarrel with it. I agree that we can have hints, clues, and pieces of evidence that support the decision to make a commitment, either to a lifelong partner or to the betterment of humanity. That said, I'll take barbaric, bacchanalian, debauched, savagely splooging, eros over agape any day. 

5.  Do you take the stories of the Bible to be imagery, symbol, and myth revealing truth? Or impossible imaginings, esoteric fantasies, and misty pseudomysticism? From within a particular faith or cult, one's sacred texts might seem to reveal truth, perhaps via imagery, symbol, and myth. However, from an outsider's perspective, the same text might obviously appear to be comprised of the impossible imaginings, esoteric fantasies, and misty pseudomysticisms KT warn against. How might one go about examining one's own faith from an outsider's perspective? One might begin by taking John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith. Merciful Meatball Problems!

I'm beginning to feel like a Negative Nelly, so let me break this thing down for a second and offer a brief note of agreement. KT offer a mini-lesson in logic that I couldn't support more strongly. Here they offer a very clear, concise description of logical arguments and an explanation for how they plan to operate throughout the book. This is all pretty cut and dried, so it would be difficult to disagree with anything they're saying here. However, what I really like is that they come across as a couple of sassy-asses! Want a few examples? You got it!

"These are the essential rules of reason, in apologetics and in any other field of argument. They are not rules of a game that we invented and can change. They are the rules of reality" (17).

"To disagree with the conclusion of any argument, it must be shown that either an ambiguous term or false premise or a logical fallacy exists in the argument. Otherwise, to say 'I still disagree' is to say 'You have proved your conclusion true, but I am so stubborn and foolish that I will not accept this truth. I insist on living in a false world, not the true one'" (18).

To those who scorn reason for being too intellectual, abstract, and rational and for being of lesser importance than life, love, morality, and sanctity, KT say, "Those who reason this way are right; they just don't notice that they are reasoning. We can't avoid doing it, we can only avoid doing it well" (20-21).

They're such bad-asses! KT are like the honey badger. They don't care. They don't give a shite! They'll kick your ass and not give a frak! They're so nasty!

Alas, this brief interlude of happy agreement and sass-assery is all too short-lived. Once again citing 1 Peter 3:15, KT insist that a Christian's "refusal to give a reason for faith is disobedience to God." And again, they accuse reason of being friends with faith. As they contend, (paraphrasing Jude 3) "Faith educates reason and reason explores the treasure of the 'faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.'" Quoting Arthur Holmes, they claim "All truth is God's truth" and "unfaith is untrue" (22).

It'll be interesting to see how they define and flesh out their understanding of faith in its relationship with reason. But for now, I'm particularly troubled by the tautological notion that "all truth is God's truth" and that "unfaith" is somehow "untrue." Such assertions seem to beg the question of God's existence and presuppose the falsity of atheism, when it could very well be that God doesn't exist, in which case, truth would simply be truth and it would be right not to have faith in fictional deities. KT's pronouncements must be the conclusion, not the starting point, of a very rigorous analysis of the arguments. Otherwise, these assertions can serve to strengthen our biases in a foregone conclusion to such an extreme that it can be difficult, nigh impossible, to wriggle free from them.


All right, start! Ventriloquate and glisten,
Pudge is back with a brand new commission!
Nuthin' grapples with me so slightly,
Flap like a mermaid, circadian? Perennially!
Grill it over what?
Bruh, I use charcoal!
Snuff out the blaze, and I'll sparkle!



So bum-rush the stage and see what's up in the final installment. Check y'all peeps later.

-Pudge-Zilla izzle out!