Must you set aside your beliefs when addressing problems with them?

“I am skeptical of your choice of adjective. I don’t think that an approach to violence in the Bible that assumes the truth of Christianity should be called a “head on” approach.”

I found Jason’s declaration to be perplexing at best and absurd at worst. Apparently he was suggesting a Christian can’t address difficulties in their view directly and without compromise. What, apart from prejudice against Christians, could motivate such a strange claim?

Fortunately, Geoff picked up on this absurdity and so he replied to Jason as follows:

“So would an approach to violence in the Bible that assumes the truth of Atheism be called a “head on” approach? Does not everyone make assumptions WRT their paradigm?”

Unfortunately, rather than just admit that he was wrong, Jason responded to Geoff by digging himself a deeper hole. He wrote:

“It depends. What Randal does, strictly speaking, is more than just assume that Christianity is true. He uses the truth of Christianity as a filter through which he interprets the rest of the Bible. I am not asserting that this is a bad approach, just that it is not “head on.”

“If an atheist using the truth of atheism as a filter through which he interprets the Bible, then this would be analogous to Randal’s approach.

“I think it is possible, however, for both an atheist and a Christian to take an approach to interpreting the Bible that does not involve making any assumptions about the truth or falsity of any religious claim. We can approach the Bible as we would any text (such as the Odyssey or Ulysses). In interpreting the Odyssey we don’t (and shouldn’t) assume either the truth or the falsity of the Ancient Greek religion. We (atheists and Christians alike) can take a similar approach to interpreting the Bible. I think that this would be the most objective approach and would be more “head on” than Randal’s approach (at least what I know of it).”

I’m sorry to say that I find Jason’s response little more than a load of bafflegab. Let’s take a closer look at his comment.

Jason makes a distinction between (i) assuming Christianity is true and (ii) assuming Christianity is true and interpreting the Bible based on the belief that Christianity is true. Next, he claims that (i) is consistent with a head-on (i.e. direct, uncompromised) treatment of one’s belief, but (ii) is not. Finally, since he refers to atheism as well, I take it that the conceptual distinction between (i) and (ii) is one that he intends to be readily generalized beyond Christianity. Since Jason neglects to offer that formalization, I’ll venture to do so here:

General Principle for Treating Problems Head-On (GPTPH): Any attempt to engage in direct and uncompromised treatment of a problem in one’s belief system is consistent with (i) assuming the truth of the belief system, but it is not consistent with (ii) assuming the truth of the belief system and addressing the problem based on the belief-system.

Alas, this makes no sense.

Imagine, for example, that I’m a materialist qua mind and I want to address the problem of qualia “head-on”. According to the GPTPH, I can engage in my enquiry with the assumption that materialism qua mind is true just so long as I don’t allow the belief in materialism to affect my treatment of qualia in any way.

Huh?

Or imagine that I’m a Keynesian economist who is facing a serious economic downturn following the implementation of some Keynesian policies. According to the GPTPH, I can address this problem whilst assuming the truth of Keynesian economics, but I can’t allow those economic beliefs to inform my response to the economic problem we now face.

What?

This is sheer nonsense. If one can properly assume the truth of one’s beliefs while addressing a problem with those beliefs, then one can do so whilst allowing those beliefs to guide or inform the treatment of the problem.

If you like this article, please consider joining The Tentative Apologist Kiva Group to support entrepreneurs in the developing world.