Example 2: Claim and counter claim in everyday Religious and philosophical ideas.
Here are some examples from the author Tim Keller on Relativism as discussed by Freya and Olivia:
Freya: I found this claim1 about different perspectives on truth.
Olivia: Okay what is it?
Freya: “Each Religion sees part of the truth but no-one can see the whole truth.”
Olivia: Interesting, but my counterclaim and question is this: “Is this humility or an arrogant claim to a kind of knowledge which is superior to others?”
Freya: But why can I not say that: “no religion or worldview sees the whole truth, they only see part of the truth and not the whole?”
Olivia: I can refute your counterargument by saying : “How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed that none of the religions have?”
Relativism.
Freya: I cannot, but “Religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be the truth.”
Olivia: I concede that our cultural biases “do make weighing competing truths harder« , but here is my explanation: “It cannot be argued that all truth is completely relative or else the very argument refutes itself.”
Freya: Are you saying that despite cultural bias, we can know some truth concerning world views and religions?
Olivia: I would say so. For example I think that: “we need to know which affirmations about God, human nature and spiritual reality are true and which are false since we all live our lives based on our own response to that question2”.
Freya: But what do we mean by true and false in this context?
Olivia: A good question. So what is your argument?
Freya: World-views and religious belief are all about words and language.
Olivia: Go on..
Freya: My claim is this: “Truth only exists within a particular linguistic framework”.
Olivia: What is your explanation for that claim?
Freya: Reality is “language riddled” and “every truth claim is nothing but the insight of a particular linguistic community.”
Olivia: Sorry Freya, that is a self-defeating argument.
Freya: Why ?
Olivia: “To say that all reality accounts are language-ridden and relative to their own linguistic communities is itself a universal account of the working of language across all communities, and therefore a claim about the human condition3”.
Freya: And my question about truth in this context?
Olivia: Well, you are asking me to accept your claims about, worldviews, religion, truth claims and language as being….well, true!
Freya: So what is your conclusion?
Olivia: All discussions about anything including suffering must accept that: “truth” and particularly “absolute truth” exists, otherwise nothing meaningful can be said.
Freya: And what about my argument that: “accounts of reality are language-ridden and relative to their own linguistic communities?”
Olivia: This is an argument based on a relativistic assumption: “Relativism cannot proclaim itself without defeating itself4.”
Freya: So to argue that all accounts about reality are “just playing with words”, also falls into the same category of being relative and so fails as an argument?
Olivia: Exactly so!
Suffering:
Freya: What about the classic question about suffering?
Olivia: “How could a good God allow suffering?”
Freya: Yes! So what is the assumption behind this claim?
Olivia: This assumes that: “If a good and powerful God exists, he would not allow pointless evil”.
Freya: We can clarify this further by saying: “but because there is much unjustifiable, pointless evil in the world, the traditional good and powerful God does not exist”
Olivia: So what would be your conclusion?
Freya:“If evil appears pointless to me, it must be pointless.”
Olivia: But is this not “Faith in one’s own cognitive abilities.?”
Freya: Possibly, but I cannot see the reason for such suffering and I have the right to my own reasoning and opinion!
Olivia: Yes, you do have the right to your own opinion. But we can clarify this claim by saying that: “if evil appears pointless to me, it does not mean it is necessarily pointless; only that I cannot see the point in it”. From God’s viewpoint, there could be good reasons for the suffering.
Freya: Could you give further evidence or clarification of this viewpoint?
Olivia: Yes. In many cultures and religious traditions, suffering has been explained in different ways.
Freya: That’s a bit general. Do you have precise examples?
Olivia: Yes. “For the Christian, Christ’s suffering is the ultimate example of where suffering was needed for Christ to accomplish his goal of redemption”
Freya: So for some people, what is the point of suffering?
Olivia: “For many people, most of what they really needed for success in life came to them through their most powerful experiences which helped to mature and form their character.
Freya: I understand that most cultures would agree that for many people, “most of what they really needed for success in life came to them through their most powerful experiences which helped them to mature and help form their character.”
Olivia: To continue, as an example of suffering leading to maturity of character, we can take the biblical story of Joseph.
Freya: The one sold into Egypt as a slave? I hear a rumour that his Egyptian name was Imhotep5?
Olivia: It is possible, but here we are interested in looking at what people learnt from having to pass through suffering.
Freya: So suffering can be a means to greater maturity?
Olivia: Exactly! “Joseph’s character was refined by trials and years in prison so that he would become the Prime Minister of Egypt who saved thousands of lives and became an agent for social justice6.”
Freya: Can you give further clarification on this point? I don’t think anyone likes to suffer for the sake of suffering!
Olivia: Of course not, although those who are top athletes or have reached a high level in their profession or art will say that a high level of discipline is necessary for success.
Freya: Agreed. We accept discipline so as to achieve a skill, a professional or personal goal such as running Marathon, but suffering is not quite the same.
Olivia: Point conceded! Suffering and self-discipline are not necessarily the same but can be related. Justice is often linked to suffering (for example in the case of a person who claims justice for themselves or others) the suffering can lead to new perspectives on life. In the situation where suffering has taken place, their personal victories can lead to new positive perspectives on life…
Freya: What if as an atheist I say: “We ought not to suffer, but the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection involves exclusion and dying of hunger” and therefore suffering is a normal part of everyday life.
Olivia: An interesting argument, but we can ask on what basis does the atheist judge the world to be unfair?
Freya: Can you not say that sometimes suffering and evil are just part of everyday life and, although obviously unfair, that is just the way things are?
Olivia: You can, but “if you are sure that this natural world is unjust, and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra-natural (or supernatural) standard by which to judge it by.”
Freya and Olivia: Dear reader, what do you think about the arguments about suffering?
Sources:
1 Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism. Hodder & Stoughton, 2009. page 9-10.
2 Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism. Hodder & Stoughton, 2009. page 9-10.
3 Siegel in Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism. Hodder & Stoughton, 2009. page 246
4 Siegel in Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism. Hodder & Stoughton, 2009. page 246
5 Habermehl, Anne. (2013). Revising the Egyptian Chronology: Joseph as Imhotep, and Amenemhat IV as Pharaoh of the Exodus.
6 Siegel in Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism. Hodder & Stoughton, 2009. page 246
