"The Burden of proof, now, lies plainly on him who rejects the Gospel: which, if it were not established by miracles, demands an explanation of the greater miracle, -- its having been established, in defiance of all opposition, by human contrivance." (p.1020, bottom of column 2)
Before I comment, let me clarify that I am in no way adverse to Christianity. I'm not interested in the slightest in disproving any religious doctrine. I personally believe that the world is better off having systems of belief, and that valuable emotional states like hope, compassion, and acceptance can best be taught through identification with religion and religious groups. God is good, even if God does not exist. Beyond that, it comes down to personal faith.
Having said that, this bit of text bothered me. It seems a subtle contradiction in his assignment of burden of proof. That is, that the "accuser" suffers this work. That "Christianity exists" does not seem to me to imply that there is some inherent, external to Christianity, truth to be accepted. He calls the divine inspiration a smaller miracle than would be the creation of a religion against strong opposing forces. This is the argument that must be accepted to let Whately slide on by without recompense. If existing entities are divinely inspired because they exist against all odds, then couldn't we also say that Hitler's regime was also divinely inspired, or terrorist groups the United Nations just simply cant find a way to quell? Is it also reasonable to say that it might not be a miracle that a religion like Christianity can be created by human origins against overwhelming odds simply by giving it time?
"Christianity exists; and those who deny the divine origin attributed to it are bound to show some reasons for assigning to it a human origin" he charges. The scriptures were put with quill on sheepskin by human hands, then edited and canonized by other humans. Then altered and changed by command of political figures. Then updated into modern vernacular several times. We don't have to "[reject] the Gospel" to fail to see a divine hand in the process of creation. From within the religion, we can see Divine Inspiration within the Gospel itself, if we so choose to take upon ourselves such Faith. But the burden of proof is not on he the rejector, for I am still not convinced that there is proof of divinity in something simply because it exists.
On a completely different topic, I wish I would have had Whately for my synthesis paper. His argument about how "Eloquence supposed to be something that cannot be taught" was very close to one direction I leaned with my paper. He argues a bit later, by backing Aristotle that eloquence can be taught "not merely by superiority of natural gifts, but by acquired habit". In other words, we don't have to rely on whether or not eloquence is natural to someone, or that they obtain it by imitation, but that they can acquire it by adopting habits, which can be taught.
Concerning the first quote, I agree with you that there is a gap in his argument. I do think, however, that it is mainly because of the social context of the time. It's the same trap that Augustine falls into; Christianity forms a part of daily life, and the Bible in considered set-in-stone proof. There isn't the diversity and acceptance of other (or no) religions within polite society. And although Whately is writing much, much later than Augustine, he is still working within a prominently Christian society. I'm not saying that it validates what he is arguing, but I think it does explain to some extent why Whately makes the argument he does.
ReplyDelete