Anderson on Fideism and The Status of Other Christians.

Anderson has a new article on his blog entitled, "What is Fideism?". It looks like some of my recent posts are pushing the Gangadeanians to refine their positions. Otherwise, it's a remarkable coincidence.  One game that I've seen the Gangdeanians, in particular Anderson play is that in the face of objections to their express views, they will claim that their views have been misunderstood or misrepresented. Of course, it's possible that this is true, but some suspicion is in order when this is a very frequent response and particularly, when we can cite their own words to support our original characterization of their views.

Anderson in his latest work is saying that fideism is not opposed to proof, but rather to understanding and meaning. But that does violence to this passage from Gangadean's book.

What's worse, it does violence to Anderson's own published words.

It's fine if they want to revise their position in light of what their critics have pointed out, but at least come out and say that's what you're doing as opposed to acting like that was your view all along. Of course, it might be very troubling to their followers if Gangadean ever had to revise a position in light of his critics--it would show that he isn't exempt from mistakes.

Anderson then proceeds to talk about whether everyone must have a "starting point"--namely, accepting things that are not themselves proven. He writes,

 No, not all starting points are fideism. Some starting points need proof and some are inescapable....One can’t prove the very means of proof without relying on those means. This isn’t fideism. One cannot question if questioning is possible without becoming self-referentially absurd.  That “a is a” or “a is not non-a” are the source of proof and doubt and therefore cannot be proven or doubted. 

But as I've already addressed here there are at least two problems here. One, how does one come to know when something "makes questioning possible?" Or when something is self-referentially absurd?" Or that "a is a are the source of proof and doubt and therefore cannot be proven?" I don't see how anyone could prove a thing like that. So it must be on the basis of some sort of immediate judgment. But how does this judgment fare any better than an appeal to intuition (indeed it just is an intuition in my book)? If Anderson thinks that 'a is a' makes questioning possible, and another person plainly doesn't see it, how can Anderson settle that dispute without giving a flat-footed response or "table pounding," as he puts it? [Importantly, I'm not here calling into question that "a is a" or that "a is a is required in some sense to present proofs" I'm merely pointing out that at the end of the day, their worldview rests on immediate judgments/intuitions].

Secondly, I noted how Gangadean tells us that you can accept something immediately or as self-evident if its denial is self-contradictory in an immediate way. Again, there is room for disagreement here on what counts as "immediately-self contradictory" and no way to "objectively" settle such disputes beyond mere table pounding. What is more, there's a troubling kind of relativity when it comes to which claims are such that denying them = immediately self-contradictory (as opposed to requiring a number of steps to be contradictory). It depends on your vocabulary, your definitions, your conceptual framework. Read this for more details.


Finally, Anderson ends his article with the following Q&A.

Q3: Are you saying that someone is not a Christian if they can’t prove with certainty that God exists?

Reply: No, not at all. This question could be about how we define “Christian,” or about what is “justification,” or what is “sanctification.”  It seems that being a Christian is usually defined as believing certain things. For instance, that God the Creator exists, that I have sinned against God, that this sin requires redemption and that this redemption is only achieved through the atoning work of Christ.

...That’s a significant number of things knowable by the light of nature. It doesn’t say that one must know these and give proof in order to be a Christian. That is more like asking “do I have to know these things?”  Instead, it is saying “we get to know these things.” They are knowable.

Anderson goes on to distinguish between justification and sanctification. He claims that people can be justified (so as to count as "Christians" in a sense) even if they don't count as knowing that God exists (among other things).

Of course, I never stated that the Gangadeanians think that other people aren't Christians if they aren't able to rehearse Gangadean's proof. What I said was that they don't count as knowing the basic tenets of Christianity. So it seems I've accurately portrayed their view. Again, perhaps it's a remarkable coincidence that someone is emailing Anderson about issues that I've been writing about, recently. But I think either Anderson is following my blog, or some of my readers are emailing him. Either way, there's been a mistake if anyone thinks that I was attributing to Ganagdeanians the view that other professing believers are not Christians. I meant what I said that they view other professing believers as failing to know that God exists and a number of other central tenets of the faith.

Still, there's trouble for Anderson and company. It is also their express view that eternal life = knowing God. That's part of what they call the "doxological focus" of their church. That is, it isn't their view that mere true belief in God = eternal life. It's knowledge. In fact, they cite John 17:3 ("Now this is eternal life, that they might know you) as a proof text for this doctrine.

So they can spin it however they like, add distinctions like "justification" vs. "sanctification" until the cows come home. But insofar as they make knowing God dependent on being able to produce Gangadean's proof, and inasmuch as they equate eternal life with knowing God, they are committed to the view that most Christians don't have eternal life.

In fact, they also equate spiritual death with the failure to know (or see) what is clear to reason. If it's clear to reason that God exists and the vast majority of Christians fail to know that God exists, then what should the Gangadeanians say about the state of most Christians? Aren't they spiritually dead in some important sense on this view? So I'll leave it to the Gangadeanians to work out whether, as they see things, it's fine that other professing Christians are "justified" while being spiritually dead and failing to have eternal life.