Greg Koukl was taken to task by a caller on his Christian apologetics radio broadcast (Stand to Reason—str.org) for a statement he often used at the end of his discussions on spiritual and moral things: “At least that’s the way I see it.” Greg was asked if he truly believed that he could be wrong in his views, and about Christianity in general. His answer was “yes,” and his reasoning was as follows:
There are two categories of truth: necessary truths, contingent truths. Necessary truths are truths that cannot be otherwise. For example I cannot be mistaken about my own existence. Renee Descartes made this clear when he pointed out that we cannot doubt our own existence. It requires the existence of a mind to doubt, so the presence of doubt proves that there is a personal mind doubting, and thus we must exist. This led to his famous dictum: Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am). Neither can we be mistaken that about the fact that there are no square circles because this is an inherently contradictory concept. We know these things necessarily.
Other things are contingent. While we have good reasons to believe they are true, they could be otherwise. Anything that could be otherwise, may be otherwise, and we could be mistaken on those things. It may be that it is so improbable for something to be otherwise that reasonable persons would have no reason to doubt that what they believe to be true is indeed true, but certainly we have to admit that any truth that must not be so may not necessarily be so.
Because we are not omniscient we cannot know the way (most) things actually are without error, so we may be in error on those things. Are we left to complete skepticism, then? No. We cling to our persuasions on contingent matters with the strength of conviction that our justification allows. If there is sufficient justification for our view of truth to the extent that we have no good reason to doubt that it is true, then we can hold that view to be true with great certitude. However, if there is minimal justification for our particular view (particularly when other views have good justification as well) we may only hold to that view with reservation, allowing for the fact that there is a good chance we could be wrong. So the more justification we have for our view the more tenaciously we can hold it; the less justification we have for our view the more trepidly we ought to hold it. We should not promote our beliefs in an inappropriately dogmatic fashion when the evidence supporting our view does not allow for such dogmatism. Christians should not have the attitude that we’re right, everyone else is wrong, and we cannot be mistaken. It is good for us to be aware that we can be mistaken, and that we probably are on some things.
Greg made it clear that while he is persuaded Christianity is true based on the available evidence—and has no reason to believe that he is mistaken—he recognizes that his persuasions concern contingent things, and thus he could be wrong and is open to changing his view should evidence arise that would demonstrate his error. I found his reasoning and approach to truth to be quite refreshing. Indeed we must approach truth from this perspective both for our own benefit (intellectual humility allows us to grow in truth), and for the benefit of non-Christians. We must convey our sense of intellectual humility to the non-Christian if we hope for them to respect our position and claims. Nobody likes dogmatism these days, even if such dogmatism is justified.
July 18, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I totaly agree with this view, it is refreshing and the way one should build his faith. Seek the way in truth and spirit, judge all things. Le
LikeLike
July 18, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Great post!
LikeLike
July 22, 2009 at 7:39 am
—>”Greg made it clear that while he is persuaded Christianity is true based on the available evidence—and has no reason to believe that he is mistaken—he recognizes that his persuasions concern contingent things, and thus he could be wrong and is open to changing his view should evidence arise that would demonstrate his error.”<—-
Initially, this raises a concern for me. Greg has NO REASON to believe that he is mistaken about the truth of Christianity, however, he does believe that he COULD BE mistaken about the truth of Christianity. Would that be correct? First let me say that it would help me to understand his perspective better concerning what principles Greg is referring to – what truths – Christianity as a whole or principles within Christianity? For now I have to assume…nevertheless…
It is my understanding that biblical faith is a demonstration of certainty/assurance/conviction in that which is not seen. My question is, can one operate in biblical faith, while simultaneously recognizing that the object/concept which they believe in COULD be error, or ultimately non existent even? Does biblical faith contain the element of “margin of error”…?
Here is an example I am thinking. Hebrews states that without faith, it is impossible to please God. He who comes to Him must believe that He is, and that He rewards those who diligently seek Him. Would I be demonstrating biblical faith if I were to confess, “I am persuaded that God exists and that He can do all things, based on the available evidence – and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Yet I recognize that my persuasions concern contingent things, and thus I could be wrong about His existence and ability and I am open to changing my view should evidence arise that would demonstrate my error” —- Is that the kind of faith God requires of us concerning who He is and who He has revealed Himself to be in light of Christianity? Now one might argue, “your example does not demonstrate contingency, so that is out of context.” Is it? I am not asking this rhetorically, I am literally asking everyone, lol! I don’t have all this “figured out” as of yet so I would like to know your thoughts. But believing that God exists and can do all things, isn’t that contingent on certain factors? If so, then according to Greg, “while we have good reasons to believe [that God exists and can do all things], they could be otherwise. Anything that could be otherwise, may be otherwise, and we could be mistaken on those things” – hence, we could be mistaken that God exists and can could do all things. Would that be an accurate assessment? If I am off base, show me the way!
What I am trying to convey is this: what about the absolutes? Or are there any? I understand the contingent aspect, but is biblical faith applied to contingent factors or absolute factors? If the presence of contingency is directly connected to the possibility of there being mistake/error, then doesn’t that mean there must be some absolute (opposite of contingent) factors in order for biblical faith to be applicable? Absolute factors to me would be the fact that God exists; the fact that God is one; the fact that Jesus is the Son of God; If these factors are considered contingent, then Greg in essence would be saying that he could be mistaken that God exists, that God is one, that Jesus is the Son of God. But for the Christian faith, those components must be faithfully accepted without any doubt, wavering, and without the recognition that it could be wrong, correct? They are essentials to the Christian faith. Is Greg saying that he could possibly be wrong on those factors? If that teaching is accepted across the board, is that directly connected to whether one’s conversion experience is authentic or not? Can you believe in God but yet simultaneously recognize that He actually may not exist? These are things I am pondering…
So basically, my concern with this view is that if it is applied to the absolutes, are we really operating in faith? Is there any aspect of Christianity where we believe it to be true absolutely and not open for it to change? Is the author saying that if evidence proved otherwise, he would be willing to leave Christianity? If that be the case, to each his/her own. But I just wonder – should we come to a point where we are so assured about our belief that we wont even entertain the thought of possibly denying it? Isn’t that the faith God wants us to have in Him and who He has revealed Himself to be through Christ?
Any thoughts?
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Michael,
You raise some very important questions. I’ll do my best to address them.
Greg is talking more along the lines of possibility (what is called “modal logic”) than he is talking about practicality. On a practical level, we may have every good reason to believe something is true, but logically speaking, if the object of our belief is not itself a necessary truth, then it is always possible that we could be mistaken about it. Why? Because something that is contingent need not be true, even if it is true. So I think Greg would say that while he has no good reasons to think Christianity is false, as a matter of logical possibility, he could be mistaken about his assessment of Christianity.
I could also respond by pointing out that God is a metaphysically necessary being. He is not contingent, and thus He must exist in the same way that we understand the necessity of the laws of logic and numbers. Of course, something’s being necessary does not mean that it is impossible to doubt it. We can doubt the existence of a necessary being like God, in the same way that some people doubt and deny the existence of the laws of logic.
I think we also need to keep in mind the distinction between ontology and epistemology. Ontology has to do with what exists. Epistemology has to do with our knowledge of what exists. If God exists, then His existence is a fact (an absolute). But our knowledge of that fact could be mistaken given the limitations of our minds. What we are addressing, then, is epistemology, not ontology. Absolutes pertain to ontology, not epistemology (except for necessary truths).
Yes, we must have faith. But faith is not the kind of thing that that you either have it, or you don’t. Faith is degreed. Putting it in mathematical terms, one can have no faith (0%). But those who have faith may have 1%, 20%, or 99% of faith. Even Jesus spoke about faith being “little” and “great.” He spoke about those who had faith just the size of a mustard seed. So while it is true that one must have faith to please God, one must not have absolute certainty (100%) to have faith. Think of the man who wanted to be healed, and yet he confessed, “Lord I believe, help me in my unbelief.” He had faith, but it was mixed with doubt as well. He was not at the 100% faith level, and yet it pleased God, for Jesus healed him.
to be continued…
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 1:37 pm
continued…
You asked, “Is the author saying that if evidence proved otherwise, he would be willing to leave Christianity?” I don’t know how Greg would respond to that (a practical, rather than strictly logical question). There is some debate on this question. Some theists and apologists would say that if we are presented with sufficient evidence against Christianity, we are rationally obligated to abandon our Christian faith. Others, such as William Lane Craig (and many of those in the Reformed tradition [though Craig is not in that tradition]), argue that the witness of the Holy Spirit is sufficient to overcome any rational defeaters of Christianity, so that one is never justified in abandoning Christianity. On this view, while we may amass rational evidence in support of Christianity (evidence that can help create faith, or increase our faith), rational evidence against Christianity never justifies an abandonment of the Christian faith. Why? Because the way in which we know Christianity is true is not just rational, but spiritual as well. The Spirit testifies to our spirit that we are the sons of God. No amount of contrary rational evidence can overturn this testimony, even if it may cause us to have some unresolved doubts. Alvin Plantinga gives the example of the man who is charged with a murder, and all the evidence points to his guilt. But in fact, he did not commit the murder and knows he did not commit the murder. Plantinga asks, Is the man rationally obligated to believe he committed the murder on the basis of the evidence? Of course not. Likewise, even if the rational evidence seems to be against the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, the witness of the Spirit is sufficient for us to be rational in our continued confession of faith. I tend to favor this perspective. I think it is more Biblical. Biblically speaking, unbelief is never justified. And as Craig points out, there are periods in history where the evidence seemed to be stacked up against Christianity, and yet later Christians found rationally satisfying answers to those challenges. On the opposing view, Christians in the earlier period were rationally obligated to abandon their faith, while those in the later period were not. That is absurd. While we should be honest with ourselves about the cogency of arguments against theism and Christianity, they should not cause us to abandon our faith anymore than evidence of our having committed a murder that we didn’t commit should cause us to abandon our belief in our own innocence.
Jason
LikeLike
July 26, 2009 at 7:09 pm
I’m no Christian.
Yet there are tenets of Christianity that I believe should be followed, because they are Good in their own right.
Why? Good question. At some stage you have to have faith. Either in a deity, or in good and evil, or even that the Universe is homogenous as regards its physical laws.
I’m not saying that this faith is justified in any way other than utility. It seems to work.
LikeLike
July 26, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Zoe,
I can see why you would say that. I agree. There are many principles taught in Christianity that are just good common sense, and therefore even non-Christians would do well to follow them. As you said, they work.
But of course, utility does not provide any grounding for objective moral values and objective moral duties. I think only a transcendent, personal God who is Himself Good can provide us with such a grounding.
Jason
LikeLike
July 27, 2009 at 3:29 am
Does one worship God because he is Good, or worship Him because he is God?
And if the concept of Good exists separate from the concept of a Godhead, is the existence of a Godhead a necessity?
The two commandments that the whole of scripture hangs upon are : Love God; Be Kind. (my summary of Matthew 22:35-40)
I try to manage the second. I think that if I make a good attempt at that, the first becomes either an integral part of it, or is un-necessary.
I also believe that if in trying to follow any of the other laws, rules, regulations and codes of behaviour, if you end up breaking either of the two fundamental commandments that they are supposed to elaborate, and be based upon – then you’ve missed the point.
As Rabbi Hilel said a few decades before the birth of Jesus,
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”
Easy to say – ah, but the practice… somnewhat harder.
LikeLike
July 27, 2009 at 8:54 am
Jason,
Thanks for that response to my reply. It was very insightful and helpful indeed! I am adding it to my personal files. lol. Basically, I keep track of explanations that bring me clarity.
Gracias!
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 1:44 am
[…] additional reading see my article titled Skepticism is Not Worthy of Belief, as well as my posts Could we be wrong about Christianity? and Are our Senses […]
LikeLike