Do we KNOW Christianity is true?

[Dorothy Mae]

Plantinga's "Reformed Epistemology" (as it's called) is a revolutionary defense of the Christian faith. The standard atheist objection is that there is "no evidence" of the existence of God (theists disagree, of course) and that belief is "irrational" or "delusional" rather than justified. Plantinga says no, some things are "properly basic." We don't demand evidence that the past actually existed and isn't a present-day illusion that just sprang into existence. We don't demand evidence that other minds actually exist; we accept it and take it for granted.

Similarly, Plantinga says, belief in God is properly basic. It arises out of what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis common to all people. Plantinga then goes beyond this and says even Christian belief may be warranted based solely on the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. For obvious reasons, Plantinga's epistemology is controversial, but it's respected and very influential.

My point in citing Plantinga was that even he, a premier defender of the Christian faith, emphasizes that a justified belief may well be false. "Justification" doesn't equal "truth."

Certainly, I believe I have mountains of justification for my Christian beliefs beyond the bare-bones justification Plantinga is talking about. The more justification we have, the stronger our convictions. But they still remain convictions. I may be 99.99% convicted that naturalism is false, but I can't claim 100%. All naturalists aren't irrational. They have justification too, and many of them would claim 99.99% conviction.

Regarding Plantinga and the esteem in which he is held. see https://www.templetonprize.org/laureate/alvin-plantinga/.

With all due respect I’ve never heard of him. I’ve never heard of his position or his influence and I learned about quite a few theologians when my husband studied theology. But he didn’t major in Reformed theology.

Be that as it may, It seems to me that his position comes straight out of his personal embracing of Reformed theology. Reformed theology promises Heaven is set before a person is born and you cannot do anything about where you are predestined to spend Eternity. Now on the surface this offers concrete assurance. The problem is, the assurance is an entirely legal one. The theology offers it, not God Himself.

The end result is a nagging doubt one is actually among the “prechosen elect.” Calvin himself confessed he didn’t know if he was saved. This is logical. So the theologian you quote is equally not sure and comforts himself with the assertion that “nobody” even can be 100% sure. He is in error.

Paul was 100% sure and even knew 100% that he had finished the task given him. I am 100% sure. The evidence is overwhelming. I’m equally sure I can fall away although very unlikely as I’ve been tested many times. You see, my “assurance” is not legal, it’s relational.

 

[Mister E]

Epistemology keeps rearing its head on threads on which I participate. This is the branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge - what knowledge is and what it means to claim we "know" something.

I keep being told I say things that don't sound very Christian. I keep responding, "This is a matter of epistemology." So here we are.

To claim we have knowledge, we must have some legitimate basis for the claim. A legitimate basis is called justification or warrant. (As we'll discuss, knowledge requires more than mere justification, but it does require that.)

Famed Christian epistemologist Alvin Plantinga says Christians can claim to have justification for their beliefs without any evidence whatsoever. He says we can claim to have justification on the basis of our internal sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine) and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

However, even Plantinga agrees this doesn't mean Christian belief is true, merely that it isn't irrational. "Justified" basically means "not irrational." It doesn't mean "true."

How do we determine if Christianity is true - or can we?

I believe there are threshold truth questions: Is naturalism true? If it is, there is no god. If it isn't, there may be a god of some sort. (Not all atheism is naturalistic - many atheists believe in life after death and some sort of spiritual realm.)

If we decide naturalism isn't true, which ism is then most likely to be true - non-naturalistic atheism, deism or theism? If we decide it's theism, which version of theism? (Christianity, of course, is a species of theism.)

These are all ultimate metaphysical questions. As a finite human being, I'm like a goldfish in a bowl trying to explain the reality outside the room in which the bowl is located. I can never really know to a 100% objective certainty whether naturalism is true or false, theism is true or false, or Christianity is true or false. I can only reach a level of conviction on these matters.

On each of these matters, I believe we reach a level of conviction through experience, observation, study, reflection and intuition. At some point, we reach a level of conviction naturalism is false, theism is true, and Christianity is true. We have a rational, well-justified, defensible conviction. The more diligent our quest, the more solid our convictions will be.

(Obviously, few people address these matters in a tidy order. It's usually more of a jumbled mess, but we do reach convictions on the critical questions.)

Christianity, of course, also includes the notion of revelation by God - in the Bible, in the person of Jesus, in the indwelling of the Spirit. However, I only believe and experience these things as revelations by God after I've reached a conviction Christianity is true. They may strongly reinforce my conviction to the point where I claim to "know" Christianity is true, but a Jew, Muslim or Hindu can make the same sorts of claims and so we're really still talking about a very strong conviction rather than knowledge.

This being the case, I never claim more for my Christian beliefs than I rationally can. I don't play the "pretend certainty" game, even though I've had a startling born-again experience, several other paranormal experiences, and several complex life events I can only attribute to the hand of God. Convincing as they were to me, they all might be explained in other ways - including defects in my own thinking and perceptions. (Significantly, even Plantinga admits his epistemology only works with properly functioning mental faculties.)

Honesty compels me to admit that, remote as the possibility may seem to me, naturalistic atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism might be true. Lots of very intelligent people who have engaged in diligent quests believe these things.

Honesty also compels me to admit my mainstream understanding of Christianity might be only 73% or 48% true.

I thus don't claim any more for my Christian beliefs than conviction. I try to live as though they were true while accepting they might not be. I examine and question them continually, both because it's enjoyable and because my goal is to get as close to metaphysical Truth as I can in this lifetime. I don't think there is anything irreligious or un-Christian about this.

So that's my notion of epistemology.

Many Christians, like other believers, were indoctrinated into their beliefs as children. Many Christians, like other believers, hold their beliefs mostly on the basis of cultural conditioning. Others went directly to Christianity as the result of a single mystical experience of some sort. Perhaps they simple heard the Gospel and had an "A-ha!" moment inspired by the Holy Spirit. Many of these folks have never examined or questioned their beliefs. This doesn't mean they "aren't real Christians" or are somehow "lesser Christians." Many do claim "knowledge" or "certainty" they don't really have - not in any epistemic sense anyway - because they're afraid to confront what they actually do believe and why. That's fine - when they question my Christianity, I realize it's mostly just a defense mechanism.

The traditional formulation in philosophy is, KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF. With metaphysical belief systems like Christianity, it's the "TRUE" requirement that's the problem. As Christians, I believe, we have JUSTIFIED CONVICTIONS.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong.

Great topic. -let the drum beating begin- Dinner will be at 7pm

 

[Consecrated Life]

Ah, yes, the inevitable ad hominem attacks! The good 'ol "Too bad you're not really a Christian - like me."

Excuse me but you are the one who classified your Christianity confidence level at a meager lukewarm 48% to 73% satisfaction level.
Did you forget what you wrote this quick ?

"... my mainstream understanding of Christianity might be only 73% or 48% true." (Runner)

How does my statement " not comport with your own self description ?
what words would you choose to characterize the fulfillment level of 73%-48% belief ?

"Based upon what you have written I think you are correct that an unfulfilling fireless semi-belief in Christ is your present state . " (Consecrated Life)

 

[Mister E]

Excuse me but you are the one who classified your Christianity confidence level at a meager lukewarm 48% to 73% satisfaction level.
Did you forget what you wrote this quick ?

"... my mainstream understanding of Christianity might be only 73% or 48% true." (Runner)

How does my statement " not comport with your own self description ?
what words would you choose to characterize the fulfillment level of 73%-48% belief ?

"Based upon what you have written I think you are correct that an unfulfilling fireless semi-belief in Christ is your present state . " (Consecrated Life)

Good grief-- pay attention to what he actually said. He said "understanding" --not "confidence," not "belief" and not "satisfaction level."

 

[Consecrated Life]

Quite telling to me that in all you wrote you never say according to your understanding what specific belief Christianity is supposed to completely satisfy for you ?

That's not the subject of this thread. The issue isn't whether Christianity "completely satisfies" me. It's whether I am able to hold a conviction it's true.

So if you could hold a conviction that Jesus was a real person who actually said what is attributed to Him in the bible would that make Christianity true for you ?

 

[Consecrated Life]

Good grief-- pay attention to what he actually said. He said "understanding" --not "confidence," not "belief" and not "satisfaction level.

How can you understand something to be not " true" and still have any confidence and belief in it?

 

[Mister E]

How can you understand something to be not " true" and still have any confidence and belief in it?

Epistemology is the subject of the thread. If you don't understand what that is, read up on it so you can comment intelligently. Otherwise you'll come off like Dorothy Mae thinking reformed epistemology must have something exclusively to do with Calvin.

He's saying (he is admitting) that the things he is confident about- the things he knows, or says or thinks he knows as true- MIGHT only be partially true, or not at all. Why? Because as with all beliefs, most of these things are unknowable. Which is why they are beliefs-- taken on faith, not facts simply accepted.

It's a matter of humility and his is a humble approach. Those who purport 100% confidence without providing 100% proof are perhaps -bad at math, deceived, arrogant, ignorant, confused or illogical at best.

 

[Mister E]

Here's a primer--

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Epistemology is the subject of the thread. If you don't understand what that is, read up on it so you can comment intelligently. Otherwise you'll come off like Dorothy Mae thinking reformed epistemology must have something exclusively to do with Calvin.

That’s what our pastor said. Can you offer a different understanding?

He's saying (he is admitting) that the things he is confident about- the things he knows, or says or thinks he knows as true- MIGHT only be partially true, or not at all. Why? Because as with all beliefs, most of these things are unknowable. Which is why they are beliefs-- taken on faith, not facts simply accepted.

That’s a personal position, not a fact.

It's a matter of humility and his is a humble approach. Those who purport 100% confidence without providing 100% proof are perhaps -bad at math, deceived, arrogant, ignorant, confused or illogical at best.

Oh, that must be then how you describe the apostle Paul, He was 100% certain, but to you, he was arrogant, ignorant, confused, deceived, and proud, not full of faith at all.

It sounds more like jealousy, frankly speaking. Those who aren’t certain are envious of those who are.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Here's a primer--

Charlie Brown? And you want to be taken seriously?

 

[Consecrated Life]

Epistemology is the subject of the thread. If you don't understand what that is, read up on it so you can comment intelligently. Otherwise you'll come off like Dorothy Mae thinking reformed epistemology must have something to do with Calvin.

He's saying (he is admitting) that the things he is confident about- the things he knows, or says or thinks he knows as true- MIGHT only be partially true,

Exactly What "things" is he confident about being partially true?
Quote for me just one of these specific "Things" he has mentioned?
You can't do it !
And with good reason you can't name a single specific " Thing"
He has not named a one .
And yet here you are unintelligently babbling about unmentioned, unquotable "things" you cannot name and are clueless about.
Now prove me wrong , go ahead and intelligently name just one of these "things" that you have been made privy too ?
Or just remain unintelligent and clueless as to what any of these " things " are ?
The ball is in your court.

 

[Runner]

With all due respect I’ve never heard of him. I’ve never heard of his position or his influence and I learned about quite a few theologians when my husband studied theology. But he didn’t major in Reformed theology.

It must be wonderful to have this psychic ability of critiquing the views of someone you've "never heard of."

Plantinga is the consensus leading Christian philosopher of our era. Whether you have heard of him is really not relevant.

Be that as it may, It seems to me that his position comes straight out of his personal embracing of Reformed theology. Reformed theology promises Heaven is set before a person is born and you cannot do anything about where you are predestined to spend Eternity. Now on the surface this offers concrete assurance. The problem is, the assurance is an entirely legal one. The theology offers it, not God Himself.

The end result is a nagging doubt one is actually among the “prechosen elect.” Calvin himself confessed he didn’t know if he was saved. This is logical. So the theologian you quote is equally not sure and comforts himself with the assertion that “nobody” even can be 100% sure. He is in error.

Plantinga's epistemology has been dubbed Reformed epistemology because it relies on a notion of sensus divinitatis that originated with Calvin. Plantinga believes in libertarian free will and taught at Notre Dame almost his entire career. In his autobiography, he wrote "These five points [of Calvinism] summarize the declarations of the Synod of Dort (1618-1619); they essentially distinguish one kind of 17th century Calvinist from another kind (and do not at all obviously represent what John Calvin himself had in mind).” He is a Calvinist of sorts - typically called a Neo-Calvinist - but hardly a 5-pointer.

I've read most of his works without having any sense that his epistemology was unique to Calvinism or had anything to do with predestination. If this were true, he would be so influential throughout all of Protestantism.

I think you've painted yourself into a corner by critiquing someone you've "never heard of" and are now trying to tap dance out of it. Let it go - Plantinga isn't important to the points I'm making.

Paul was 100% sure and even knew 100% that he had finished the task given him. I am 100% sure. The evidence is overwhelming. I’m equally sure I can fall away although very unlikely as I’ve been tested many times. You see, my “assurance” is not legal, it’s relational.

"The evidence is overwhelming" is a statement of conviction, not certainty.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hebrews 1:11 (NASB).

Faith isn't the certainty of things hoped for, the knowledge of things not seen.

 

[Runner]

Excuse me but you are the one who classified your Christianity confidence level at a meager lukewarm 48% to 73% satisfaction level.
Did you forget what you wrote this quick ?

"... my mainstream understanding of Christianity might be only 73% or 48% true." (Runner)

How does my statement " not comport with your own self description ?
what words would you choose to characterize the fulfillment level of 73%-48% belief ?

"Based upon what you have written I think you are correct that an unfulfilling fireless semi-belief in Christ is your present state . " (Consecrated Life)

Thank God for Mister E, who "gets it." My statement was no different from my statement that atheism might be true. My present understanding of Christianity - and yours, for that matter - might prove to be only 73% or 48% true. This does not mean I have only a 73% or 48% level of confidence in my convictions. I could have a 99.9% level of confidence in my convictions while accepting the possibility they might be only 48% true.

 

[Mister E]

Exactly What "things" is he confident about being partially true?
Quote for me just one of these specific "Things" he has mentioned?
You can't do it !
And with good reason you can't name a single specific " Thing"
He has not named a one .
And yet here you are unintelligently babbling about unmentioned, unquotable "things" you cannot name and are clueless about.
Now prove me wrong , go ahead and intelligently name just one of these "things" that you have been made privy too ?
Or just remain unintelligent and clueless as to what any of these " things " are ?
The ball is in your court.

I’ll pass. For the same reason I wouldn’t discuss quantum mechanics with a fifth grader— they (generally) have no frame of reference from which a discussion can blossom. That’s not disrespecting fifth graders, but engaging them on things they know nothing about and don’t comprehend doesn’t make for good dialogue.

It’s philosophy at the core. My son graduated from Hillsdale College and studied Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - the great thinkers for years and he probably thinks of me as a tall fifth grader— but we have great conversations.

 

[Runner]

Exactly What "things" is he confident about being partially true?
Quote for me just one of these specific "Things" he has mentioned?
You can't do it !
And with good reason you can't name a single specific " Thing"
He has not named a one .
And yet here you are unintelligently babbling about unmentioned, unquotable "things" you cannot name and are clueless about.
Now prove me wrong , go ahead and intelligently name just one of these "things" that you have been made privy too ?
Or just remain unintelligent and clueless as to what any of these " things " are ?
The ball is in your court.

With all due respect, you clearly don't "get it."

This thread is not about my beliefs. I don't quantify my beliefs in that manner anyway. "Let's see, I guess I have an 83% level of confidence in the Virgin Birth, but maybe 96% in the Resurrection." That's nonsense.

I have a sufficient conviction in the truth of mainstream Christianity to live my life as though it were true. That is a very high level of conviction that I don't have to quantify or justify to you.

Because I'm a rational human being and not a "pretend certainty" sort of Christian, I accept the possibility my convictions could be very wrong.

 

[Mister E]

Charlie Brown? And you want to be taken seriously?

It’s the one thing I remember of this particular philosophical avenue when discussing the basis for our beliefs. People ask- or should ask, and in talks with my boy the question was posed- Why is what we say we believe any different than children who believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Great Pumpkin?

Now I know where he got it.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Consecrated Life said:
Exactly What "things" is he confident about being partially true?
Quote for me just one of these specific "Things" he has mentioned?
You can't do it !
And with good reason you can't name a single specific " Thing"
He has not named a one .
And yet here you are unintelligently babbling about unmentioned, unquotable "things" you cannot name and are clueless about.
Now prove me wrong , go ahead and intelligently name just one of these "things" that you have been made privy too ?
Or just remain unintelligent and clueless as to what any of these " things " are ?
The ball is in your court.

I’ll pass. For the same reason I wouldn’t discuss quantum mechanics with a fifth grader—

I would just admit what is infinitely more simple than quantum mechanics, and which anyone can see, and yet you still cannot answer , what " things" can you quote Runner has specified as having semi-trust in ?
You notice he has not bothered to help you out at all as you hastily headed for the tall grass of quantum mechanics

Why is requesting to be informed as to what these Christian " things" are he is alluding to cause you such consternation ?

 

[for_his_glory]

We can't prove Christianity is true, but we can prove Jesus is very real in our own lives having a personal relationship with Him and it's by the witness and personal testimonies we share with others. The word Christian has become so tainted by the immoral actions of those who claim that title as the world sees the fakeness in others by how they act. I quit calling myself a Christian, but rather call myself Spiritually born again with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who is the only one who can teach us what seems to be mysteries to others.

 

[Consecrated Life]

With all due respect, you clearly don't "get it."


I have a sufficient conviction in the truth of mainstream Christianity t

Because I'm a rational human being and not a "pretend certainty" sort of Christian, I accept the possibility my convictions could be very wrong.

So this " sufficient " conviction you speak of that just managed to get you over the line suggests a sense of Christ's Love for you that is adequate yet less than superlative in feeling ?
A soul filled not with the sense of the profoundest depths of Love which cannot be fathomed , but a love neutralized on some level , straining in it's sufficiency , all the while possibly even being " very wrong " ?

" As the Father hath loved me , so hath I loved you " (John 15:9)

 

[Runner]

It’s the one thing I remember of this particular philosophical avenue when discussing the basis for our beliefs. People ask- or should ask, and in talks with my boy the question was posed- Why is what we say we believe any different than children who believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Great Pumpkin?

Now I know where he got it.

Here is a post I wrote on an atheist forum, responding to the "Santa Claus" argument. It fits right in with this thread. (BTW, Charles Schulz was a deep and complex guy, and the Peanuts strip in its heyday of the 1950's to the 1970's was a goldmine of theological insights.)
________________________________________________
The points I made on the other thread, and that you presumably saw, were basically:

• We don't disbelieve in Santa Claus in a vacuum. Most of us at some point did believe, but we shifted to disbelief and have continued in disbelief.
• There are reasons for our disbelief. Our disbelief has a foundation. That foundation might be based on assurances from authority figures that Santa doesn't exist or on our own study, observation and experience.
• Because the vast majority of sane and intelligent people over the age of five or so don't believe in Santa, we're very confident in our disbelief.
• Theoretically, and unlikely as it might seem in the case of Santa, our disbelief could be shaken by new evidence. We might even be persuaded Santa does exist. Unless he actually appeared, however, we could never be certain; we could only have some level of conviction. We likewise can never be certain Santa doesn't exist. We can have only a high level of conviction (in this case near-certainty) that he doesn't.
• Given the current state of the positive evidence (none), the negative evidence (lots) and the overwhelming disbelief on the part of sane and intelligent people, an insistence that Santa exists would be deemed irrational and even pathological.
• The situation isn't at all the same for theism. Billions of people, including many of the best philosophers, scientists, academics and professionals who laugh at the idea of Santa nevertheless believe in a theistic God. They can't reasonably be dismissed as irrational or pathological. However, a substantial minority of other sane and intelligent people don't believe in any God. They likewise can't be dismissed.
• The fact is, the state of the evidence is such that where one comes out on the question of God depends on what evidence, inferences and arguments each individual deems most relevant and compelling. As with Santa, we can never be certain God exists unless he appears. Some believers are convinced he has revealed himself in history, but this is likewise a matter of the evidence and arguments an individual finds compelling; sane and intelligent people may disagree. Other believers insist God has appeared to them, but again this is subject to legitimate debate and possible alternative explanations.
• As with Santa, we can never be certain God doesn't exist. We can only have a level of conviction one way or the other depending on our assessment of the evidence, inferences and arguments.
• I thus see the Santa Claus analogy as a weak and flawed one because the evidence, inferences and arguments for Santa are nowhere near as strong as they are for God and billions of completely sane and intelligent people don't believe in Santa.
• A valid analogy would require something where (1) the truth can't be established with certainty, and (2) the evidence, inferences and arguments are strong enough on each side that a substantial number of sane and intelligent people may be found on both sides.
• All these attempts to make religious belief appear silly always boil down to two things: "I disagree with the type of evidence, inferences and arguments you are using to reach your convictions" or "I disagree with your assessment of the evidence, inferences and arguments."
• Anyone - believer or nonbeliever - can say this with perfect sincerity. We each must decide for ourselves what evidence, inferences and arguments are most relevant and compelling.