Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
184 J.J. <strong>Haldane</strong><br />
by shadow but its reality is disclosed by the word of God which is itself truth.<br />
Fourth, each writer invokes interpretations that link the empirical <strong>and</strong> the<br />
transcendental: what the ‘eye’ of faith sees is not just a function of light<br />
hitting the retina, but equally what is believed originates in various ways <strong>and</strong><br />
remains answerable to experience.<br />
Some religious believers take pride <strong>and</strong> comfort in the idea that their faith<br />
owes nothing to reason, historical testimony or doctrinal authority. It is, for<br />
them, just a matter of a personal relationship with God. Perhaps they feel<br />
that in this way they incur no unpayable debts. Such an attitude is certainly<br />
unphilosophical; but it is also alien to the central traditions of Western <strong>and</strong><br />
Eastern Christianity (<strong>and</strong> indeed to those of Judaism <strong>and</strong> Islam). Moreover,<br />
it invites the sort of naturalistic, socio-psychological explanation of religious<br />
claims proposed by Smart in his discussion of religious experience <strong>and</strong> the<br />
testimony of scripture.<br />
The three monotheistic faiths are all religions ‘of the book’ – the Hebrew<br />
bible, supplemented by later sacred writings. But no value (or sense) can be<br />
attached to the idea of discerning <strong>and</strong> trusting the word of scripture unless<br />
one is able to specify which writings <strong>and</strong> interpretations are to be accepted<br />
<strong>and</strong> which rejected. Every faith of the book presupposes some sort of canon<br />
of authentic <strong>and</strong> authoritative scripture; <strong>and</strong> one need only ask the question<br />
of how such a canon came to be determined, ratified <strong>and</strong> transmitted <strong>and</strong><br />
how it would be defended against rivals, to realize the ineliminable role of<br />
reason <strong>and</strong> general underst<strong>and</strong>ing. In one of his fine essays G.K. Chesterton<br />
says of philosophy that it is ‘merely thought that has been thought out’ <strong>and</strong><br />
adds that ‘man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought<br />
that has been thought out <strong>and</strong> being influenced by thought that has not been<br />
thought out’. 11 Holy Scripture <strong>and</strong> the Creeds it inspired is religious experience<br />
that has been thought out; nothing less would be worth transmitting<br />
across the centuries.<br />
This leads me to comment briefly on Smart’s discussion of the evidential<br />
worth of the New Testament. His central point is a reapplication of epistemological<br />
holism, i.e. of the idea that what one makes of some piece of<br />
purported evidence depends on how one underst<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> evaluates other<br />
claims. On this we agree. Also, I accept the value of New Testament criticism<br />
<strong>and</strong> have no wish to insulate scripture from it. 12 On the contrary, Christianity<br />
is a historical religion; by itself philosophy tells us little about the nature of<br />
the Creator <strong>and</strong> his purpose in creation; <strong>and</strong> most of what I <strong>and</strong> others<br />
believe about God rests heavily on the Creeds <strong>and</strong> on the New Testament –<br />
both of which have their origins in events that are reported as having occurred<br />
in first-century Palestine.<br />
Our disagreement is not whether the scholarly study of scripture is appropriate<br />
but whether it supports or undermines the claims of Christianity. Smart