All at sea?

Something  pretty thought provoking from one of the 'Robson Juniors'

What is it that makes Christianity any different from another ideology? Why is saying you are a Christian different than saying you are a Marxist or a Thatcherite? Nowadays, many people would say there is no difference whatsoever. I am not so sure.

Throughout the article I have written about Christianity.  I should think that to a certain extent you could put the name of a different religion in, and rerun the argument.  I am not sure if this would work completely.  As far as I am aware, Christianity is the only religion which starts from the premise that everyone is completely stuffed, and then offers them an undeserved way out of it. With other religions you can get there under your own steam.

For this reason, although you could substitute a different religion, I don’t think it would have the same force.  I may be wrong, however. The real reasons I have only mentioned Christianity are firstly, that I know it far better than any other religion, and secondly that I am a Christian, and believe for both empirical and deductive reasons that it is correct. That is, however, a matter for another article.

Onto the differences.  The first difference is over what philosophers call epistemology. Put more simply, the way in which a religion seeks to gain knowledge about the world is different from the way in which a secular ideology does. To a certain extent, and I am aware this discussion is a simplification, there are two ways in which we gain information about the world. These are induction, and deduction. Knowledge gained by Deduction is sometimes called a priori.  This is knowledge that is gained through logical reasoning.  If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C. Induction, on the other hand, is gained through our experience of the world.  If I have seen ninety nine white swans, then I will conclude that all swans are white.  Clearly the better our knowledge of the world, the better the inductions we can draw from it.  This kind of reasoning is called a posteriori.

Where does the material come for us to reason over?  The obvious answer is from our experience of the external world.  Some philosophers maintain that we have some knowledge, ‘built in’ to our minds, independent of the experience of our senses, but even if that is so the vast majority of the data we have to reason with comes from the external world, via our senses.

However, Christianity says that there are some things that are not pre- programmed into our minds, and which are not discoverable by our senses.  Knowledge about these can only come via Revelation.   As an example, the medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas said that whilst the existence of God could be concluded through reason, the doctrine of the Trinity could not, and that we could only know it through God having told us Himself.

In practice, this means that where a doctrine like Marxism or Humanism claims to be entirely based on deduction and induction from basic principles, a religious ideology contains statements about the world which are not derived from our reasoning or our experience, but are simply taken as a given.  This is not to say that Christianity is not susceptible to reason, or that it is impossible to give rational arguments for or against it.  Aside from the parts of it due to revelation, the remainder can stand or fall on the logical and empirical evidence it provides.  And, of course, the veracity of the revelation stands or falls on the strength of these other parts.

I would, therefore, propose the following distinction.  A secular ideology is one in which the conclusions follow via induction and deduction from premises drawn from sensory experience and from innate knowledge, if such a thing exists.  A religious ideology takes its premises not merely from innate knowledge and sensory experience, but also from Revelation, which is defined as knowledge that could not be derived from either, but is given by an external power.

The other issue, is, perhaps, more important.  From the point of view of most secular ideologies, our progress through life is like a boat crossing an ocean.  We have several maps, each with different shoals and currents marked upon it.  Our job is to decide which map is correct, and then to follow it.

From the point of view of Christianity things are rather different.  The ship is sinking, if it has not already gone down.  We are clinging to the flotsam among the waves, and the sharks are circling. However there is the sound of a helicopter above, and we think that we can see a rope through the spray.  Our concern for the moment is simply to survive and our choice, if it is one, is whether or not to take the proffered rescue.

There are a few things I should make clear.   First of all, I am not for a moment suggesting that in any way that non- Christians have it easy, or never encounter trauma or suffering.  Far from it.  I believe that life is far easier with God than without.  It even used to cross my mind that it was, in some way, cheating.  In fact, living life with the help of God, from the Christian point of view, is cheating in rather the same way as it is cheating to run a marathon using two legs.

The comparison is merely meant to indicate that if Christianity is correct, then matters are rather more urgent than we had thought.  It is not a merely academical discussion.  What hangs in the balance is everlasting life or eternal death, and we do not have it in our own power to secure that life.  If Christianity is correct, it is a life raft to a drowning sailor, not just a map.  It would be rational for the captain of a ship to deliberate long and hard over which map of a region was accurate.  It would be rational for him never to come to a dogmatic conclusion any way, unless forced by circumstance.  But it would not be rational for the sailor to refuse the rope flung at him for fear it is a mirage.

I am not for a moment suggesting that one should not think rationally about Christianity.  It would be a foolish sailor who failed to check if the thing he was grasping was a rope or a serpent.  I do not mean to repeat the old reproach, “Do not think, but believe”.  But rationality itself demands a different approach to Christianity as an ideology.  What I am saying is that constant questioning and constantly seeking for certainty are no longer rational once you think that the balance of probability is far enough in favour of Christianity being correct.

There are other questions and objections, yes.  You may not want to serve the Christian God.  You may think that Christianity is nonsensical.  I know I have had all these doubts in the past, and more. However what I will say is this.  First of all - and in comparison to what is next this is really just academic point scoring - on logical grounds there is a real difference between a religious ideology and a secular one.   Secondly, that difference seems to me to rationally require a different attitude towards it.