Coffee, Galatians, Paedobaptism, and a Friend - plus something like Hume
Every Wednesday I have the very special privilege to meet at Starbucks circa 8 AM with my friend and elder, Jason. We've been doing this for a very long time now (more than a year now) and it's one of the highlights of my week.
We arrange for the time to involve discussing some literature or a book of the Bible, but we also spend a good deal of the time just talking about life in general - and sometimes we only do the latter.
Recently, we've been working through the book of Galatians and today we walked through the latter half of chapter 3 which opened the door for discussing the ole paedo-credo debate. This, of course, is not the first time the subject has been discussed between the two of us (he is a pretty regular reader of my weblog). We talked for nearly two hours today on the subject and did so, I believe, quite civilly - or maybe "christianly" is a better word.
At the end of the discussion it was pretty evident to me that no more could really be added to the debate. We had stripped our respective views down to the bare presuppositions and saw pretty plainly where they clashed. For those curious, this is what they are (Jason correct me if I've misstated your position):
Jason: There is no inconsistency in holding your children accountable to Christian standards and practice, even if they are not baptized into Christ. One qualification: the Christian practice of Baptism and Communion are to be withheld as long as the child is not a professing Christian.
Me: There is an inconsistency in holding your children accountable to Christian standards and practice while they are not Baptized members of the Communion of Saints.
This is pretty much the most important question, I think, to the issue: Is it consistent? Don't get me wrong. There is tons more that is relevant to the debate, but I think if you can convince one party to one side or the other, then the rest is cake.
Here is where David Hume comes in: The argument regarding consistency is basically a question of analogy. That is, it's validity depends on the relationship of its parts and their relationship to the rest of reality and the relationships of its parts. An example can clear this up:
Assumption 1: If something is a human, then it is wrong to kill it.
Assumption 2: Adults are humans.
Conclusion 1: It is wrong to kill adults.
This is a basic modus ponens argument.
Assumption 1: If p, then q.
Assumption 2: p.
Conclusion 1: q.
But why is modus ponens true? How did logicians come to the firm conclusion that propositions can be truly established in such a way? A combination of creativity and confirming experiences. No matter how many times the theory was tested, the results just seemed intuitive. It just makes sense.
What we call "common sense" is really an expression of what most people have sensed is true. Those things which conform to "common sense" are dubbed rational, sound, true, etc. and the deviations from that are called "irrational." But never miss that at the heart of what we call "reason" is "sense." Feeling, that is. What we believe about the universe, our deepest convictions, I believe, are based on feelings.
This is why the following argument is so popularly accepted:
Assumption 1: If something is a human, then it is wrong to kill it.
Assumption 2: Unborn babies are humans.
Conclusion 1: It is not wrong to kill unborn babies.
I know, I know. This is really a gross oversimplification of the pro-choicers position. Assumption 2 is pretty darn questionable, right? I don't really think so. But that's a post for another time another day. But to shortly address it, people wouldn't kill the baby if they didn't think it was a human. I mean, if it wasn't human, then they'd feel no obligations to take care of it once it was born.
The point is, I believe that the degree to which these people can be convinced their logic is fallacious or inconsistent will be ill accomplished through rational discussion. What is driving them is their passions, their gut.
This is why we sin. It's not because we have rationally considered the options and chose sin cause we were convinced it was in our best interest. Its because we are irrationally driven to wrong doing.
This is what I pray for myself. That I would have the right passions. I know they are quite often the wrong ones so I need new, better ones.
Applying this to the paedobaptism discussion. I seriously question the extent to which I can convince Jason that his view is inconsistent. Likewise, for me to change my mind, it is thoroughly unlikely that I will be persuaded by any amount of argumentation. I would need new eyes, a new mind.
P.S. I am not dogmatic about any of this and am willing to discuss it.
We arrange for the time to involve discussing some literature or a book of the Bible, but we also spend a good deal of the time just talking about life in general - and sometimes we only do the latter.
Recently, we've been working through the book of Galatians and today we walked through the latter half of chapter 3 which opened the door for discussing the ole paedo-credo debate. This, of course, is not the first time the subject has been discussed between the two of us (he is a pretty regular reader of my weblog). We talked for nearly two hours today on the subject and did so, I believe, quite civilly - or maybe "christianly" is a better word.
At the end of the discussion it was pretty evident to me that no more could really be added to the debate. We had stripped our respective views down to the bare presuppositions and saw pretty plainly where they clashed. For those curious, this is what they are (Jason correct me if I've misstated your position):
Jason: There is no inconsistency in holding your children accountable to Christian standards and practice, even if they are not baptized into Christ. One qualification: the Christian practice of Baptism and Communion are to be withheld as long as the child is not a professing Christian.
Me: There is an inconsistency in holding your children accountable to Christian standards and practice while they are not Baptized members of the Communion of Saints.
This is pretty much the most important question, I think, to the issue: Is it consistent? Don't get me wrong. There is tons more that is relevant to the debate, but I think if you can convince one party to one side or the other, then the rest is cake.
Here is where David Hume comes in: The argument regarding consistency is basically a question of analogy. That is, it's validity depends on the relationship of its parts and their relationship to the rest of reality and the relationships of its parts. An example can clear this up:
Assumption 1: If something is a human, then it is wrong to kill it.
Assumption 2: Adults are humans.
Conclusion 1: It is wrong to kill adults.
This is a basic modus ponens argument.
Assumption 1: If p, then q.
Assumption 2: p.
Conclusion 1: q.
But why is modus ponens true? How did logicians come to the firm conclusion that propositions can be truly established in such a way? A combination of creativity and confirming experiences. No matter how many times the theory was tested, the results just seemed intuitive. It just makes sense.
What we call "common sense" is really an expression of what most people have sensed is true. Those things which conform to "common sense" are dubbed rational, sound, true, etc. and the deviations from that are called "irrational." But never miss that at the heart of what we call "reason" is "sense." Feeling, that is. What we believe about the universe, our deepest convictions, I believe, are based on feelings.
This is why the following argument is so popularly accepted:
Assumption 1: If something is a human, then it is wrong to kill it.
Assumption 2: Unborn babies are humans.
Conclusion 1: It is not wrong to kill unborn babies.
I know, I know. This is really a gross oversimplification of the pro-choicers position. Assumption 2 is pretty darn questionable, right? I don't really think so. But that's a post for another time another day. But to shortly address it, people wouldn't kill the baby if they didn't think it was a human. I mean, if it wasn't human, then they'd feel no obligations to take care of it once it was born.
The point is, I believe that the degree to which these people can be convinced their logic is fallacious or inconsistent will be ill accomplished through rational discussion. What is driving them is their passions, their gut.
This is why we sin. It's not because we have rationally considered the options and chose sin cause we were convinced it was in our best interest. Its because we are irrationally driven to wrong doing.
This is what I pray for myself. That I would have the right passions. I know they are quite often the wrong ones so I need new, better ones.
Applying this to the paedobaptism discussion. I seriously question the extent to which I can convince Jason that his view is inconsistent. Likewise, for me to change my mind, it is thoroughly unlikely that I will be persuaded by any amount of argumentation. I would need new eyes, a new mind.
P.S. I am not dogmatic about any of this and am willing to discuss it.