No Practical Reason for Believing What Isn’t True
When asked whether there was a “practical reason” for having a religious belief even if such belief wasn't objectively true Bertrand Russell answered,
Additional thoughts…
I don’t know whether the woman’s questions are her own or she, as an interviewer, is trying to objectively represent theists who reject the atheistic worldview.
The rationale behind her question of an external and “imposed” authority is this; it is argued that since humanity cannot determine for itself between right and wrong (because right and wrong does not originate with us) right and wrong must be sought from “outside” ourselves. Truth is transcendent. For the Christian this “outside” source is none other than the Triune God of the Bible and the very essence of sin is to depart from this most basic truth. ALL sin and rebellion has at its root the very thought of self-rule. The prophet Isaiah spoke of it in this way, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way” (53:6). So from a strictly Biblical worldview sin is described in terms of straying from the Shepherd and going “his own way.”
THE ATHEISTIC ALTERNATIVE
But going one’s own way (self-rule) is precisely the thing that Russell advocates because “what is imposed on you from outside is of no value. It doesn’t count.” This is another way of saying we can pick and choose what we want to obey. The interviewer calls it a “personal ethic.” Russell argues for the establishment of an internal “rational morality” in place of an external transcendent divine authority. In other words, he argues that we don’t need God to be good. We can define for ourselves what is good and bad. We can be good without God.
POST EDIT:
As far as right and wrong are concerned Christians make a distinction between what we instinctively and internally know what is right and wrong (conscience) and between special revelatory knowledge. We cannot have personal knowledge about God unless he condescends and reveals Himself. The Bible is categorically special revelatory knowledge. It is available to all. The Bible makes sense of the world for us; it’s beginning, its purpose and its end. Contrary to what many atheists think, the Bible is not primarily a book about “how to be good” but more so a historical narrative that man is indeed not good and what God did to redeem us because of his loving-kindness and grace.
Well, there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. That’s quite –- at least I rule it out as impossible. Either the thing is true or it isn’t. If it is true you should believe it and if it isn’t you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it's true or whether it isn’t you should suspend judgment. But you can’t – it seems to me fundamental dishonesty and fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful and not because you think it’s true.I found myself agreeing in principle with Russell’s answer. As Christians if we know anything we should especially know that the nature of truth itself calls for and obligates us to believe it first and foremost because it is true. We must believe what is true before we ever “like it” or even find it useful. Anything less is self-delusion. Unlike Russell I affirm that God is knowable yet agree with Russell that truth is absolute (Relativism is self-defeating/self-contradictory).
Additional thoughts…
I don’t know whether the woman’s questions are her own or she, as an interviewer, is trying to objectively represent theists who reject the atheistic worldview.
The rationale behind her question of an external and “imposed” authority is this; it is argued that since humanity cannot determine for itself between right and wrong (because right and wrong does not originate with us) right and wrong must be sought from “outside” ourselves. Truth is transcendent. For the Christian this “outside” source is none other than the Triune God of the Bible and the very essence of sin is to depart from this most basic truth. ALL sin and rebellion has at its root the very thought of self-rule. The prophet Isaiah spoke of it in this way, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way” (53:6). So from a strictly Biblical worldview sin is described in terms of straying from the Shepherd and going “his own way.”
THE ATHEISTIC ALTERNATIVE
But going one’s own way (self-rule) is precisely the thing that Russell advocates because “what is imposed on you from outside is of no value. It doesn’t count.” This is another way of saying we can pick and choose what we want to obey. The interviewer calls it a “personal ethic.” Russell argues for the establishment of an internal “rational morality” in place of an external transcendent divine authority. In other words, he argues that we don’t need God to be good. We can define for ourselves what is good and bad. We can be good without God.
POST EDIT:
As far as right and wrong are concerned Christians make a distinction between what we instinctively and internally know what is right and wrong (conscience) and between special revelatory knowledge. We cannot have personal knowledge about God unless he condescends and reveals Himself. The Bible is categorically special revelatory knowledge. It is available to all. The Bible makes sense of the world for us; it’s beginning, its purpose and its end. Contrary to what many atheists think, the Bible is not primarily a book about “how to be good” but more so a historical narrative that man is indeed not good and what God did to redeem us because of his loving-kindness and grace.
Comments