He rages comfortably against the truth

Written by David Smart, Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Metaphysics

“If you had to choose between truth and comfort, which would you choose?”

So the question is posed by Matt Oxley rhetorically to the readers of his blog as a way of introducing his thoughts on the existential tension between truth on the one hand and comfort on the other, a tension he experienced as he progressively expunged his former charismatic Christian faith, a painful process of replacing what was comfortable with what is true. Oxley is a self-proclaimed atheist who is sharing with others the dimensions and contours of his journey away from the charismatic faith that he once held dear, an itinerarium mentis in a direction opposite of mine toward an ostensibly godless view of the world and life.

“When I began recognizing this truth,” he writes regarding the deception in charismatic churches, “it was anything but comfortable.” And this former comfort he describes as a sort of uneasy truce between how he wanted the world to be and how it actually is, a cognitive dissonance maintained by a promissory note of a celestial afterlife. Now if that accurately characterizes the intellectual life of the charismatic, well then, I could hardly fault his journey away from it. In addition to the moralist burden he describes having to shoulder (i.e., “denying your carnal desires and working to please [God] all of your life”), the intellectual anorexia would surely leave me desperate for something more authentic and honest. For some of us, a group I suspect Oxley would count himself among, such intellectual curiosity is inexorable and insatiable. But just here marks a notable difference between someone like Oxley and someone like myself; we both came to a point where we lost faith in a childish understanding of God, but I did not confuse that with losing faith in God whereas Oxley did. Having said that, there is a more important observation that I should like to make about his post.

He places such a high value on truth that often he capitalizes it, almost as though the word Truth were just as good as the word God (although on his view it is better). I should think that as a former Christian he could probably define to some extent what ‘God’ means, and he certainly defined what ‘comfort’ means, but notice the odd fact that he never bothers to define what ‘truth’ means. “The way I determine what is true,” he said, “has changed dramatically,” but then notice that he never bothers to give that account. How is it that someone who esteems truth above comfort can provide an account of the latter but offer nothing on the former? He described what his perspective on truth used to be: “I used to believe that if the Bible said it [then] it must be Truth. I didn’t even have to question that conclusion; my faith allowed for that to be so.” Yes but that was when he firmly staked his yellow Gadsden flag in the soil of comfort. “It was comfortable to me and I had no reason to question it.” Things are different now, he would have us believe. Comfort was swallowed up in truth, that principle he esteems enough to capitalize but not enough to provide an account of. He surrendered comfort to pursue truth, but was that before or after determining what is true? And this issue is made all the more salient by his comment about embracing the “standard of evidence” he knew existed but ignored most of his life, which represents a potential confusion of the metaphysical (what is true) with the epistemological (how we know it).

I can appreciate Oxley’s disdain for the way he viewed the world and life in his charismatic faith, but I find myself concerned by the echoes of Eden reverberating through his equally naive approach to this new journey. Has he exchanged comfort for truth, or just one type of comfort for another? While he says that he has a very different way of determining what is true, he does not give any sort of account of that except by means of what that way used to be and no longer is. Moreover, even his description of the way he used to determine what is true is not entirely meaningful. “If the Bible said it, then it must be truth.” For that to be meaningful there must be some way of determining what the Bible said (i.e., rules and principles of interpretation). I could go on but the point has been made. I should like to offer a challenge to Oxley for an upcoming blog post:

“Please explain the way you now determine what is true.”

I am not sure I can entirely relate to Oxley’s experience of existential tension between truth and comfort. I am a critical skeptic by nature, an intellectual attitude that I had not only prior to my conversion to the Christian faith but one that has been deeply cultivated by that faith; that is to say, I have always pursued that which shakes me up from intellectual comfort, constantly seeking out things that challenge my beliefs. I am not sure why someone would prefer comfort over truth the way Oxley did; it is a foreign concept to me. But that just goes to underscore the point I had implicitly made earlier, that one does not need to lose faith in God in order to abandon a childish understanding of faith in God. Truth, logic, reason, knowledge, science, etc.; such things thrive under Christian theology, notwithstanding some weak charismatic faith that cowers with a contrary opinion. I applaud Oxley for turning his back on an intellectual wasteland, but I do not understand his choice of embracing another one.

———-

Matt Oxley, “Truth over comfort,” RagingRev (2011, August 25).
http://ragingrev.com/2011/08/truth-over-comfort/

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Zemanta

Matt Oxley RagingRev

http://merelyadequate.net Mike aka MonolithTMA

It’s great that you tagged Matt. It’s nice to see an approach such as yours to examining a post by an atheist. I’m not sure if you have read any of Matt’s other posts, but I think you may find some of the answers you seek, though I would also find your suggested subject interesting.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

Thank you, Mike. I appreciate that. And yes I have read quite a number of Oxley’s posts; I spent over two hours reading his blog, including his deconversion story. Henry Kessler was right when he commented to Oxley, “Someone has not read your entire blog”u2014but then who has time to read an entire blog, Henry? It should be sufficient, one would think, that I spent a long time reading many of his posts, his deconversion story, a number of his tweets (including what he linked to), and his Google profile before composing the above response. I am not the type to shoot from the hip, as it were. I like to do my homework, which is characteristic of a critical skeptic.
Anonymous

Hello Ryft,nnI’m not familiar with you (yet), nor am I completely sure how you stumbled upon my post, but I’m glad that you’ve decided to engage with the questions and assertions I’ve posed, also- thank you for tagging me that I might be alerted to this.nnnTo begin:nnMy faith was many things, it began simply and evolved into many different things over different times and under different influences. It was never stagnant and I was always seeking Truth (I’m glad you picked up on my capitalization…it’s important); as such it morphed to and from different forms, including pentecostalism, Word of Faith, Universalism, etc…it moved because I moved in my study and exegesis as I suspect any faith might for the fervent seeker. Sometimes my passion to experience god would overwhelm my senses and bring me into a place that was more foolish than other places…this I admit. Those experiences however, do not summate my faith entirely. 80% of my Christian life was spent as a believer in the cardinal doctrines of the “orthodox faith”:u00a0 Sola scriptura, Depravity, Grace, immaculate Conception, Sola Dia, etc.u00a0 My faith was based on a very personal relationship with god, not just experiences in a church.nnnMy discomfort, as I expereinced it was far more than the result of questioning the charismatics. It was the result of questioning all of the things which I held dear- god himself, Christ and him crucified, my relationship with him.nnI did believe that I had to put my flesh to death, I’m not sure how anyone reading the scriptures I once loved could justify a Christian life without doing so. This was the cross I was to carry, that I believed we were all intended to carry.u00a0 Carrying it brought me closer to Him.nnnI often capitalize Truth when I’m talking about something that is Ultimate. The end all Be all of what IS. I do sort of revere it, I’m not alone as many scientists revere it as much as I do…but more than anything I revere the search for it. I can’t say that I’ve found it, maybe just bits and pieces and individual, smaller truths.nnnMany of your questions would have taken far too much time to cover in that particular blog post so I didn’t bother, especially since most of them have been covered in previous entries. My method of determining what is true is to determine whether or not a claim can be confirmed empirically using the Scientific Method. I’m not sure how empiricism is at all an intellectual wasteland…nor do I think you understand the intricacies of my former faith well enough to call it the same.nnDetermining truth prior to this new understanding was done by reading the Bible, asking for the “Holy Spirit” to guide my understanding. Comparing the language of the source texts to the modern translation, discussing those things with my brethren in order to sharpen one another…I find that method of truth discovery to be fallible more so than the empiricism I now embrace.nnPlease forgive me if my comment here is disjointed..I’ve been rather distracted tonight and have had to stop and restart multiple times.nnthanks again, I hope you intend to engage with me further.nnMatt OxleynRagingRev.comnnn
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

No worries, Matt, I am unfamiliar to several billion people. I’m just some guy from Canada who enjoys critically engaging theological and philosophical issues and contributing to an equally obscure Christian apologetics blog along with some good friends of mine. There is no reason for you to be familiar with me. And how did I stumble upon your blog? Through you, of course, because you visited an IRC chat room belonging to some other friends of mine. I noticed a conversation you had with Brian Knapp from the Choosing Hats blog; I liked what I saw and looked you up.nnI appreciate the additional details about your former faith; much of that I was already aware of, having read so many of your posts as well as your deconversion story. The only reason I characterized it the way I did is because the charismatic angle held the most prominence in your various autobiographical reflections. Whenever you speak about your former faith and how you engaged it (whether on your blog or in Facebook conversations), you consistently employ charismatic language about feelings and personal experiences and what have you. It is not as though I was trying mischaracterize you in any way; my description of it as a “former charismatic Christian faith” was a product of having listened to you speak in your own words. An intellectually robust thread may have arisen somewhere along your journey but, if so, you have spoken of it so infrequently that I never discovered it in any of your introspections or conversations that I explored.nnAs for the manner in which you eventually questioned things like God, Jesus Christ, soteriology, orthopraxy and so forth, well, that may have to wait for future blog posts. And that may not be long; I already discovered two other issues you wrote about that I look forward to critically analyzingu2014in addition to things you have said just here.nnSpeaking of which, I was hoping you could provide a bit of clarification. In answer to the challenge I posed in my article, you said that your “method of determining what is true is to determine whether or not a claim can be confirmed empirically using the scientific method.” Do you mean to suggest that X is true if and only if it can be empirically confirmed? Surely you are conscious of the self-defeating nature of that position. Yes? See, this is why I thought you should write a blog post in answer to my challenge. It’s not really something one can answer in a comments field.nnYou said your journey involved discussing pertinent issues with your brethren in order to sharpen one another. I look forward to engaging you in just such an enterprise, as you and I challenge one another.
http://merelyadequate.net Mike aka MonolithTMA

Good to know, thank you.
Anonymous

Ryft,nnRegarding your last question,” Do you mean to suggest that X is true if and only if it can be empirically confirmed?”nnOf course not. My understanding of something has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true. Likewise my belief that something is true doesn’t make it true…nnThings may be true without supporting evidence, but I’d not call those things true unless I knew it to be the case.nnI’ve got an illustration to that effect at the end of this post:nnhttp://ragingrev.com/2011/08/proof-and-evidence/
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

u201cThings may be true without supporting evidence,u201d you said, u201cbut I would not call those things true unless I knew it to be the caseu201d (emphasis mine). And with this reply you validate the point I had raised within my article. When it comes to determining what is true you mentioned embracing the u201cstandard of evidenceu201d you knew existed but had ignored most of your life; and this, I had underscored, u201crepresents a potential confusion of the metaphysical (what is true) with the epistemological (how we know it).u201d I would agree with you that X can be true even if nobody knows it. For example, I would put to you that the inverse-square law was true even when no humans were around to know it. This represents the very point I was making, that your empiricist criterion for determining what is true commits a categorical error, confusing the metaphysical with the epistemological (i.e., there is a difference between whether or not X is true and whether or not you know it).nnSo, again, u201cPlease explain the way you now determine what is true.u201d But perhaps in a blog post, allowing you the time and space to address it thoughtfully, which I do not think the comments area of a blog really affords you.
http://twitter.com/HenryKess Henry Kessler

Actually, when I visit a blog I really find interesting, I try to take the time to read the whole thing. But, I have a lot of time on my hands these days (when the little one is asleep). But, it is nice to see someone think before they speak. I just felt that Matt has explored most of the issues you brought up. I understand that reading it all takes time. Sorry to sound so blunt.
http://twitter.com/HenryKess Henry Kessler

Actually, when I visit a blog I really find interesting, I try to take the time to read the whole thing. But, I have a lot of time on my hands these days (when the little one is asleep). But, it is nice to see someone think before they speak. I just felt that Matt has explored most of the issues you brought up. I understand that reading it all takes time. Sorry to sound so blunt.
Anonymous

Ryft,nnI thought today that I’d attempt to answer your questions regarding the determination of Truth. I’m afraid however that you’ve not posed the question in such a way that I feel it can be appropriately dealt with. You are, as far as I can tell, making some assumptions regarding my position which simply are not true.nnnnTruth means that something is – when something is true it is a fact. I’m not sure how, in any way, that I’ve been confusing “truth” with the “knowledge of the truth” – in fact in a post from August I’ve dealt with the definition of knowledge which should satisfy any critique you currently have of my position:nnhttp://ragingrev.com/2011/08/popular-misconceptions-defining-knowledg/nnSpecifically this part: “[Knowledge is] the place where quantifiable truths meet belief”.nnThings can absolutely be true regardless of whether or not you or I believe it to be the case. Gravity was real before it was ever considered, quarks existed before we observed them, and there are probably a hundred million things that we don’t know about yet that are still true (And probably some things we accept as true that are not). I’ve never claimed otherwise. I’ve never even claimed that truth must be quantifiable in order to still be truth.nnMy claim has been from the beginning that I cannot call something true or claim that I know something unless it can be quantified empirically, not that anything that fails to fall within this realm is decidedly false, but that I cannot claim it as knowledge unless it does.nnThe Standard of Evidence that I follow is that of empiricism and the scientific method.u00a0 It is how I determine what I know to be true. There could be things that do not meet the standard of evidence that are true, your god may be one of those things – but I cannot make a claim of truth regarding him and I cannot force myself to believe any claims of truth that fail to meet the standard of evidence.nnnThanks,nnRev.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

You said that truth means u201cthat something is,u201d that is, when something u201cis a fact.u201d But what does it mean for something to be a fact? Are you suggesting that true and fact are synonymous terms, that if X is true then it is a fact and vice versa? If so, then my question remains unanswered (although now re-worded): u201cHow do you determine what is true (i.e., a fact)?u201dnnHere is the problem I am trying to address. I say X is true, while you say not-X is true. Assuming logical first principles for the sake of argument, we cannot both be right (law of contradiction) and cannot both be wrong (law of excluded middle). What is the criteria for determining which is which?nnIt is difficult, if not impossible, to critically evaluate the epistemic criteria underwriting what you know to be true without a coherent grasp on what true even means. That is, if truth has anything to do with the definition of knowledge (e.g., justified true belief), then it is vitally important that truth be intelligible. Truth must be quantifiable in order to be intelligible.nn(This is not the first time you have referenced that article of yours, so I will write a response to it tonight.)
Anonymous

When have I said not-X is true?
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

You have not explicitly said u201cnot-X is trueu201d in any of your posts or our conversations, but it is implicit in your worldview and in everything you sayu2014which can be readily seen the moment we expose what X stands in for: u201cGod is necessaryu201d (i.e., the final reference point of all predication). Therefore,nnDavid: u201cIt is true that God is necessary.u201dnnMatt: u201cIt is true that God is not necessary.u201d
Anonymous

I believe you are incorrectly defining my position on the necessity of god in order to shift the burden of proof, or at the very least to make it shared.nnMy position is not “Not X” oru00a0 -X, it is:nn if(X), prove X nnThere is no assumption there, only the lack of an assumption – my position is not an equal opposite to your own, it is the lack of belief in a concept that has yet been proven to me.nnI don’t believe in Santa Clause because I see no evidence for his living existence.nnYou believe in Santa Clause because you either see evidence for his existence or because you’ve assumed that those presents couldn’t come from anywhere else.nnIf you can present good empirical evidence then I’ll begin believing in Santa Clause, but until then I can’t.nnMy position is not one of Belief, it is one of a lack of belief. It is a zero position on the ideas of God and Santa Clause, not a -1 position.nnIf theism is defined as “belief in a god”.nnthen a meansu00a0 “without”nnI am an a-theist meaning “without belief in a god”.u00a0 It is NOT “belief in no god (or -X)”.nn

The Aristophrenium

4

14