1

Consistency, Context, and

Christianity
This is a response to an essay by my friend Josh on his own personal philosophy. It seems
that his essay confused some of his friends (including myself). I think that this is because
he was trying to get his thoughts down quickly and failed to make some of his assumptions
and reasoning clear. So I will attempt to clarify his argument, and point out where I agree
and disagree with what he says.
What I think Josh means
Josh starts out by rejecting what he calls relativism. By relativism, I am assuming he means
the denial of absolute truth. That is, the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth
and reality is essentially just a construct of our own perceptions. Looking down this road and
seeing where it ends, all knowledge becomes meaninglessincluding the knowledge that
there is no truth. If there is no truth, then there is no point in saying anything. I might as
well stop my essay here.
On the other hand, claims to complete, 100% objective, literal truth are arrogant and fail to
take into account the finite nature of human understanding and language. We cannot make
our own reason the arbiter of truth, since our own reason is fallible. Neither can we claim
complete understanding of everything by divine revelation, since our understanding is still
subject to a finite brain. A judge can only make a certain, correct judgement if they know all
the facts. To claim absolute objective certainty about transcendent truth is in essence the
same as claiming to have all the facts. In other words, this is claiming omniscience and in
some ways is equivalent to claiming to be God.
So, we must discount relativism, or knowledge ceases to exist. On the other hand, we must
be wary of claims to knowledge of absolute truth. Hence, we acknowledge that absolute
truth exists, but must admit that complete and universal understanding of it impossible for
human beings. How then do we proceed? It is at this point that Joshs argument becomes
slightly difficult to decipher (and I do hope he will clarify it for us). As best I understand it,
Josh proposes realism, rationalism, pseudo-subjectivism and post-modernism as the way
forward. This seems to mean three things:
1. Rationalism in subjecting ideas to careful criticism. An idea must at least be
internally consistent, or we may reject it as false. We must be able to reject the
absurd. The sciences, for example, are generally well established disciplines, and
scientific knowledge is open to criticism within the scientific method. If a
hypothesis is shown to be false by repeatable experiment, then we can reject it.
2
Similarly, mathematics has formal methods of proof. Any epistemology that requires
us to reject such methods of understanding as arbitrary and meaningless itself
becomes meaningless. We assert that understanding truth, while necessarily limited
and incomplete, is still possible.
2. Holistic, contextual understanding must supplement rationalism however. That is,
understanding of an idea must include understanding the context in which it arises,
including the political, social, and historical context, as well as limitations on where
the idea applies. To illustrate this, Josh uses the example of Newtonian physics.
[W]e can say that gravity obeys Newtons law far [sic.] all measurements of scales
larger than a nanometre. Now this is true that it is a very good approximation, but
not technically the truth! The truth is in the realm of quantum physics so lets
assume that this quantum laws [sic.] is the objective actual truth (not that we know
that for certain either!). Now, scientists developed Newtonian physics before we
had adequate knowledge of quantum physics. At that point in history it was not
possible to measure things on a quantum scale
1
. These physical laws were tested
and verified by scientific method, not by pure logic or analysis of historical texts
(though these may have had an influence). So we can say that within the context of
scientific method, for scales of greater than a nanometre, Newtons laws regarding
gravity hold true. Thus it is important to understand the context for Newtonian
physics.
3. Humility in acknowledging that we are finite beings, and thus our understanding
and reasoning will always be limited. We cannot claim 100% complete knowledge of
universal, transcendent truth since this has all the arrogance of claiming
omniscience. As Josh says Once we start claiming correct clear universal knowledge
of him [God] we are on a dangerous path!
So, rationalism, contextual understanding and humility are key foundations if we want to
say that we know some truth. So far I agree with Josh (assuming I have understood his
position correctly), however I would like to say a few more things about contextual
understanding before we go further.
Contextual understanding is more than simply defining the limits of where a truth applies. It
also must deal with questions of purpose, bias or motive. For instance, if I read a book by
Richard Dawkins, I should understand that he wrote the book in a particular context. The
author is a white male who was born in Kenya, brought up an Anglican and is now an
avowed atheist. He studied as a zoologist (as opposed to a literary critic or even a physicist)
and has been married three times, and so on
2
. The more I am aware of the context in which
he writes, the more understanding I can gain of his biases, assumptions and motivations.
Understanding when, where and why Richard Dawkins writes is an important part of
understanding what Richard Dawkins writes.
Similarly, when I read the bibles accounts of Jesus, I should be aware that they were written
in first century Palestine, in the Greek language, by followers of Jesus. Jesus himself was a
Jew who mainly spoke to Jews living under Roman occupation. Some of the gospel writers
were more highly educated than others, and it is clear that they had different motivations in
writing, etc. etc. These are all important things to understand when reading the gospels.

1
Please correct me if I am wrong in this particular assumption.
2
I will freely admit that I ripped this information straight from Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) and I actually know next to nothing about Richard
Dawkins.
3
Taking this reasoning one step further however, to be consistent I must also apply this
reasoning to myself. I am not context free. When I read Richard Dawkins, or the bible, I
should be aware that I am a white, tertiary-educated male, born in Australia, and raised in a
western culture, etc. etc. Thus I have my own personal biases and motivations in reading
and thinking. In social theory, the technical name for this is reflexivity. The same rules I
apply to my understanding of others, I must also apply to myself.
This, as I understand it, is the basis for Joshs philosophy. Please do correct me if I have
misunderstood it. And this far, I agree. With some of the entailments, and conclusions he
draws however, I disagree. I think it would be very helpful if Josh were to lay out his
assumptions and reasoning behind the conclusions he draws so that we can better
understand the context he is writing from, and reduce the danger of setting up straw-man
arguments. If I do not have a clear grasp of what someone is saying and why they are saying
it, then it makes it incredibly difficult to work out where I agree or disagree with them.
Thus far, we have laid some groundwork for the discussion. If we are going to argue
anything, it should be rational and grounded in a holistic understanding of context. At the
same time we must be humbly aware that we are finite and our own limited understanding
is also situated within a context.
Where Josh and I disagree
One point where Josh and I disagree is on the problem other religions. If I have understood it
correctly, the argument is something like this: If we cannot claim 100% certain knowledge of
absolute truth, how can we claim that our understanding of God is the only correct one? How
can we say that other religions are wrong? As Josh writes, Only the extremely arrogant
would claim they have a complete understanding of God largely derived form [sic.] a few
apostles[] contextual writings to various church[e]s (indeed ambiguous and almost
contradictory at times). In our western context, Christianity and Christian thinkers have
significantly impacted our society and history. Hence, in our context, Christianity makes
sense to us. In other contexts other religions are much more appropriate for the individual.
They are still god fearing people seeking the eternal truth.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that all the major world religions are internally
consistent. This seems fair given that they have all been around for many hundreds of years.
If they are internally consistent, would it not make sense to say that they are true within
the context that people believe them? So, if I am a white, educated male living in a western
culture which Christianity has influenced heavily, then Christianity will make a lot of sense
to me in my context. But it would be arrogant of me to say that in this (and the bible in
particular) I find complete knowledge of God, and that therefore all other religions are
wrong. Who am I to say that these sincere people, who are trying to understand God as best
they can in their own particular context, are unequivocally wrong?
Obviously I disagree with Josh on this point. So far his reasoning makes sense. Before I
outline where I disagree however, I would like to clarify what I think Josh is not saying.
What Josh is not saying
I do not think Josh is silly enough to say that all religions are different aspects of the same
fundamental truth. Or even that truth manifests itself differently in different cultures. On the
surface this sounds very humble and tolerant. It does not condemn everyone who disagrees
4
with me. I would argue however, that this is in fact an arrogant claim pretending at humility.
To say that all religions are different aspects of truth when applied to their own context is
essentially to say that your understanding is superior to all the religions.
The classic metaphor for contextual understanding of religions is the story of the blind men
and the elephant. To save time, I will quote the short, Wikipedia version:
3

In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant
to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side
or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete
disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending
upon ones perspective [or context].
If we apply this to religion, then the argument goes that one man in an Islamic context feels
the trunk, another in a Buddhist context feels the tail, yet another in a Christian context
feels the leg. They are all grasping part of the truth, but none has the whole of it. If this
metaphor is correct however, the only way I can know that the blind men are all touching
the same thing is if I can see the whole elephant. This then, is a claim to knowledge of the
truth that is superior to the blind men. I claim to have vision where they are blind.
One might reply that this is not the case at all. The claim is not that we know the men are
holding an elephant, but that since they are all seeking knowledge of the same thing and
come up with different answers, this suggests an elephant might be present. If we follow
this argument, then this could well be the casethere might be an elephant there. But it is
equally possible that there is not an elephant there. We have no way of verifying the
existence of the elephant. They could well be feeling a snake, a wall, and a pillar. One could
be holding an elephant while the others are not. They could have all been high on drugs and
feeling each other. We have no way of knowing and essentially fall into relativism. Truth may
well exist, but I have no way of knowing if it is there, so for all practical purposes, truth is
dead.
So, I believe the argument for different aspects of the same truth leads us in a circle. We are
back at relativism versus arrogance. Either we claim to know better than everyone else, or
we claim that nobody can know anything.
Unverifiable truth claims
I do not think that Josh is so silly as to be taken in by the Blind Men and Elephant argument.
I believe he is trying to be consistent in applying contextual understanding and humility in a
reflexive way. He gives a clear example in one of his comments:
Ok I am going to choose a religion. This is going to be based on some evidence. Let[]s make
a list
1. Accepted/Majority religion in my culture
2. Historical influence on my culture/world
3. Ethics go along with my accepted ones
Now in our context, Christianity [is] most favourable. In china, Confuncian[-]influenced
Buddhism is. Etcetera.

3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant
5
Now I can go further, and say I will claim something is 100% correct as far as we know, if it
passes those criteria above. Now the whole thing really is flawed because it relies on external
things such as defining culture. But close enough.
What I believe he is saying is that given that he has grown up in a culture where Christianity
is in a majority, then Christianity seems the most sensible and rational from his perspective.
But at least he is being honest about what his perspective is, and humble enough to admit
that his perspective might not be the correct one. As far as he knows, it makes sense, but it
is possible that he is wrong.
If all major religions are internally consistent and claim to be some kind of divine revelation,
then if we are to choose one, a choice between unverifiable claims faces us. One is pretty
much as good as another, so we will examine them on their merits and pick the one which
makes the most sense according to some criteria. Usually this will be the one that makes
the most sense in my context, and for me in a western country, this happens to be
Christianity. Further, I might also go with my own personal experiences of God. If I have had
spiritual experiences in a Christian context, then perhaps that is further evidence that
Christianity is true. For me this might be good evidence, but I must not be so arrogant as to
assume that a subjective measure like this will be convincing for other people.
Christianity
If all religions base themselves on unverifiable claims of revelation from God (or gods, or
enlightenment, or whatever), then this is the best we can do. We should at least be honest
about it. However, I do not believe that Christianity bases itself entirely on unverifiable
claims. I will not comment on other religions, since I must admit my ignorance of them,
however I will claim to know a little about the faith to which I hold.
While we do claim the bible as inspired, the heart of Christianity is not the bible, but Christ.
We centre our belief on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus did not claim to be
not another prophet claiming to speak on Gods behalf. Jesus did not claim to have the truth
or to speak the truth, but to be the truth. The unmovable mover, the unknowable knower,
the ultimate truth, made himself known by becoming a human being. The Word became
flesh and made his dwelling among us.
4
And it was not just his followers who said this
about him, but Christ himself who said I am the way and the truth and the life. No one
comes to the Father except through me.
5

Now, on its own, this does not really address Joshs concern that we cannot know anything
with 100% certainty. So what if Jesus claimed to have perfect knowledge, if I do not have
perfect knowledge by which to judge his claim. We can never be certain that he was correct.
It is still an unverifiable claim for knowledge of the divine. This is where the resurrection
comes in. If Christ was not the Son of God, the promised king, then God would not have
raised him from the dead. If he did indeed rise from the dead, then God is in essence
verifying Jesus claims.
So everything hangs on the question of whether or not the resurrection did actually happen.
If Christ did not rise from the dead, then he was clearly insane, and we might as well look
elsewhere for a moral code or world-view that fits well with our own particular preferences.
If Christ did rise from the dead, however, then we have to take Christs claims seriously and
all that that entails.

4
John 1:14
5
John 14:6
6
It is at this point that Christianity is open to inspection. If we can show that the historical
event of Jesus death and resurrection did not happen, then we can reject Christianity as
false. And so, we can examine the bible as a collection of historical documents (not a history
textbook, as some are fond of accusing Christians of doing). We can also examine other
documents from the period and see what they have to say. Thus, Christianity is open to
historical analysis.
Now, to make a sweeping generalisation, post-moderns are usually suspicious of history.
History is always written by the winners, is the catch-phrase that allows historical
knowledge to be called into question. We must be fair however. Certainly, historical study is
not free from bias or motive, but neither is science. History is a well-established discipline
with its own methods or verification. Historical discoveries are published and peer-reviewed,
just as scientific discoveries are.
Now, even historical analysis does not give us 100% certainty that we are correct. Nor do
Christians claim that they have 100% certain, literal knowledge of everything there is to
know about God. But, if our historical investigation supports it, we can say with a degree of
certainty that Christ rose from the dead, just as I can say with a degree of certainty that if I
drop a sphere from a height, it will accelerate at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared. If
this is true however, then I must be rational about it. If Christ did rise from the dead we
must take his claim to be the only way to know God seriously. Similarly, I must reject claims
that there are other ways to know God.
In saying this, I am not saying that I have 100% literal certainty that my belief is right and
other beliefs are wrong. But if I am going to be rational and realistic, I must accept the
consequences if Jesus did or did not rise from the dead. If not, then the lynch-pin falls out
of Christianity. If Jesus did rise, then the consequence is that other religions must be wrong.
In a similar way, if I accept that Newtonian physics are an accurate description of the way
bodies interact for scales greater than a nanometre, then I must reject classical element
philosophies that explain things using earth, air, fire and water.
In this sense, whether I find Christianity easy to accept or not because of my context and
background is irrelevant. Yes, Christianity may make less sense to someone else from a very
different context, but we are not making an arbitrary decision between equally tenable, but
unverifiable propositions. If I were an arts student
6
I may find the nuances of quantum
physics difficult to grasp. Even as an educated engineer, I still find quantum physics difficult.
But my difficulty or ease in understanding it does not take away its explanatory power. If
quantum mechanics failed to explain and predict atomic and sub-atomic phenomena, then
we would reject it, since its claim is to explain these things. If Jesus claimed that he would
rise from the dead as testimony to his claims, then we can likewise accept or reject his
claims on the historical evidence for his resurrection.
We must apply our ground rules of rationality, contextual understanding and humility all
together. We can assert that we dont have to take everything the bible says literally. And
that is true. But when we read the bible we look at it rationally. We attempt to understand
what the writer was trying to say to the audience at that time period. We place it in context.
Certainly, when Jesus spoke he was talking to a crowd of [J]ews and gentiles in the small
valley in the [Middle East], 200 years ago, and was [in] a backend of the [Roman Empire].
They did not know [modern] [Asia] existed, of the [Americas], nor of the teaching of
[Confucius]. There was a heavy influence of many teachings by the classical [Greek] schools,
largely thanks to them [preserving] the Old testament on [Jews] behalf via the [Septuagint].

6
Please forgive me if you are an arts student.
7
That and the technology of the [Roman Empire] being underpinned by [Greek
enlightenment]. This is all true. It does not mean however, that Jesus was stupid. When he
claimed to be the Son of God, he was not claiming to be the Son of God only if you are a
Jewish peasant born in the first century living under Roman occupation. Lets not use context
as an excuse to throw rationality and realism out the window.
Not everything in the bible is intended to be taken literally, but neither is everything
intended to be taken figuratively. Even less is every interpretation of it equally truthful, for
then we remove rationality and become relativists. We use rationality and contextual
understanding to look at what the bible says for itself, while humbly acknowledging that we
are finite, limited, even sinful human beings. When we do so, we find claims about Jesus
that we must take seriously if we want to call ourselves Christians.