Critiquing: #067 NT Wright & Douglas Murray pt 2 — Audience Q&A

May 27, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything — Premier

Christian Story — Post-Christian World — Ethical Structure — Rationalism vs. Storytelling — Nihilism vs. Meaning

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	D	The episode’s content included broad statements and interpretations that lacked proper verification and clear references to established facts or credible sources. For instance, references to historical perspectives were not consistently supported by scholarly evidence.
Degree of Coherence	C	While the overall discussion was coherent, there were moments where arguments became tangential or lacked direct relevance to the main topic. The logical flow was occasionally disrupted by digressions that did not clearly contribute to the central thesis.
Absence of Fallacies	D+	The discussion contained several logical fallacies, such as appeals to tradition and false dichotomies. These fallacies weakened the arguments by relying on assumptions and traditional views rather than presenting logically sound reasoning.
Degree of Evidence	D	The arguments often lacked substantial evidence. Many claims were asserted based on personal beliefs or anecdotal experiences without adequate empirical support or reference to authoritative sources. This undermined the strength and credibility of the arguments.
Degree of Testability	D-	Many of the claims made were philosophical or theological, inherently challenging to test empirically. This lack of testability makes it difficult to evaluate the veracity of the arguments presented, as they do not lend themselves to empirical verification.
Rational Confidence	C-	The speakers exhibited a high degree of confidence in their arguments, which was not always justified by the evidence provided. This overconfidence suggested a bias towards their perspectives, reducing the rational objectivity expected in a balanced discussion.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

— Absence of Fallacies

“You would expect me to quote St. Paul ‘if the Messiah is not raised, your faith is futile and we’re still in our sins.’ It’s pretty basic. There is stuff that happens that was unexpected, that was dramatic, that you couldn’t actually have made up. Anyone 30 years, 60 years later than Jesus, wouldn’t have made it up like that.”

It is unclear what the grounding for this claim is. The certainty is near absolute, yet the proposition is unclear. Why would “anyone” not have made it up like that?

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Truth of the Christian Story

Syllogism:

1. If the Christian story is true, it provides a foundation for morality and societal norms.
2. The Christian story is believed to be true by many.
3. Therefore, the Christian story provides a foundation for morality and societal norms.

Counter-Argument:
The argument assumes that belief in the Christian story inherently validates its moral and societal impact. However, belief alone does not establish truth. Morality and societal norms are influenced by a multitude of factors, including secular philosophies and cultural practices. For instance, secular humanism and utilitarian ethics offer robust frameworks for morality independent of religious narratives. Additionally, various non-Christian cultures maintain ethical societies without adherence to Christian stories, suggesting that morality can thrive without reliance on specific religious narratives.

Argument 2: Ethical Structure Without Religious Roots

Syllogism:

1. Ethical and moral structures are traditionally rooted in religious teachings.
2. Modern society attempts to maintain these structures without their religious foundations.
3. Therefore, it is challenging to maintain ethical and moral structures without religious roots.

Counter-Argument:
While historical ethical structures may have religious origins, contemporary ethical systems such as humanism, utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics provide solid foundations for morality independent of religion. These secular systems are based on rational principles and empirical understanding of human well-being. For example, human rights and secular laws are established on the basis of mutual respect and societal well-being, not religious doctrines. Furthermore, many societies demonstrate ethical behavior and social cohesion without relying on religious foundations, indicating that moral structures can be sustained through secular means.

Argument 3: Importance of Historical Truth in Christianity

Syllogism:

1. The historical truth of Jesus’ resurrection is central to the Christian faith.
2. Without this historical truth, the faith is considered futile.
3. Therefore, the historical truth of Jesus’ resurrection is essential for the validity of Christianity.

Counter-Argument:
This argument relies on the assumption that the historicity of religious events is crucial for the validity of the faith. However, the value of religious beliefs often lies in their ethical teachings, community practices, and personal significance rather than their historical accuracy. Many religious traditions, including Buddhism and Hinduism, thrive without verifiable historical claims, suggesting that the spiritual and moral guidance offered by these beliefs is independent of their historical veracity. Emphasizing historical truth may overlook the broader impact and relevance of religious teachings in guiding ethical behavior and fostering community.

Argument 4: Stories vs. Propositions in Human Life

Syllogism:

1. Human life is fundamentally based on stories rather than mere propositions.
2. Postmodernity highlights the significance of stories.
3. Therefore, stories are indispensable for understanding human life.

Counter-Argument:
While stories are crucial for meaning-making and cultural continuity, propositions and empirical evidence also play an essential role in human understanding. A balanced approach that integrates narrative and rational analysis is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of human life. For instance, scientific advancements and technological progress rely on empirical data and logical reasoning. Similarly, legal and ethical systems are grounded in rational propositions and principles. While stories provide context and emotional resonance, propositions offer clarity and precision, both of which are vital for a nuanced and holistic understanding of the world.

Argument 5: Nihilism and Meaning

Syllogism:

1. Nihilism is difficult to sustain in practical life.
2. Humans inherently seek meaning and storytelling.
3. Therefore, nihilism is impractical and meaning is essential.

Counter-Argument:
Cosmic nihilism presents a legitimate philosophical stance questioning inherent meaning. While some claim it is challenging to sustain in daily life, it encourages critical examination of accepted norms and values. The quest for meaning can exist independently of religious or traditional narratives, suggesting that meaning can be derived from personal, secular, and existential sources. Existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus argue that individuals can create their own meaning through authentic choices and actions. This perspective allows for a diverse range of meaning-making processes that are not constrained by pre-existing religious or cultural narratives.

◉ Addressing Argument #2:

Ethical Structures Do Not Require Religious Roots

The proposition that ethical structures necessitate religious roots is a topic of considerable debate. This essay posits that ethical structures are fundamentally grounded in human emotions, particularly compassion, and do not inherently require religious foundations. Furthermore, the appeal and persistence of religions are similarly rooted in the spectrum of human emotions.

Humans experience a constellation of emotions that shape their interactions and societal norms. Among these emotions, compassion stands out as a cornerstone of ethical systems. Compassion drives individuals to care for the well-being of others, fostering altruistic behaviors and social cohesion. This intrinsic human emotion forms the foundation of ethical principles such as justice, empathy, and respect for others.

Ethical systems, often perceived as moral constructs, are deeply embedded in emotional responses. Upon closer examination, the facade of moral systems reveals that compassion and related emotions are the true underpinnings. For instance, the principles of fairness and justice can be traced back to the emotional drive to prevent suffering and promote well-being. These principles, while sometimes codified within religious frameworks, are not exclusive to them.

Religions gain traction and popularity by resonating with the emotional needs of individuals and communities. The religions that endure and grow are those that best accommodate and address human emotions such as hope, fear, love, and belonging. These emotions drive individuals to seek meaning, comfort, and community, which religions provide. Therefore, the success and appeal of religions are largely due to their alignment with human emotional needs.

Similarly, the popularity of moral systems hinges on their ability to resonate with our emotional landscape. Ethical frameworks that emphasize compassion, fairness, and mutual respect appeal to our innate emotional drives. As such, moral systems that effectively integrate these emotions tend to gain broader acceptance and adherence.

At the very base of both moral systems and religions lie human emotions. It is these emotions that shape our ethical principles and spiritual beliefs, guiding us toward creating cohesive and compassionate societies. Understanding this emotional foundation allows us to explain the ethical structures that can and do exist independently of religious doctrines, thriving on the universal human capacity for compassion and empathy.

It is debatable whether a facade of a religion or moral system over human emotions is necessary. I suggest there is no degree of social stability that religions or moral systems provide that cannot be exceeded with an ample dose of raw compassion.

---

We warmly invite you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Your thoughts and perspectives are invaluable in enriching this conversation.