Fri 17 Aug 2007
Chronological Snobbery
Posted by Darren under Christians , Epistemology , Faith , Philosophy , Skeptics
Lately I’ve been hanging around Foru.ms (formerly known as ChristianForums.com, RIP), mostly in the Apologetics, Christian Philosophy & Ethics, and College / Bible College forums. Recently I observed a fine example of a fallacious sort of argument that we might call “argument from overwhelming”.
Greg Koukl might call it the steamroller tactic. In its electronic, forum-based version, a person will post (usually as his/her first and only post(s) on a forum) a ridiculous amount of information, usually copied and pasted from other websites. Then, they will add their own comments as the last paragraph of the post, something along the lines of “See Christianity has been proven wrong!”
Now, I’m sure people of every religious persuasion are guilty of doing the very same thing. But this sort of tactic is dishonest regardless of who is doing it. The perpetrator can confidently fold his or her arms and gloat, since it’d be practically impossible for someone to respond to everything that has been pasted into the thread.
Anyways, the post on CF demonstrated a second fallacy. The thread I quote from below has been rightly deleted as trolling/spam, but I saved a copy of the post before it was removed. Here’s a portion of what the author actually wrote him/herself:
The truth is that all religions were simply made up by ancient peasants that didn’t have the science and facts we do today and just took a guess based on nothing which is that a ghost with magical powers created everything.
Here we have an example of the fallacy of chronological snobbery. (Which, I just learned, was coined by C. S. Lewis and friend Owen Barfield.) Essentially, it is the unjustified assumption that all thinking, art, science, etc of previous eras is inherently inferior to our own. (As an aside, this comment also uses loaded language as its author builds a straw man depiction of God.)
Chronological snobbery assumes that all “ancient” people were ignoramuses who can’t be trusted. Where the line is to be drawn in history to divide these supposedly ignorant savages from today’s enlightened, intelligent thinkers is never explicitly stated, but likely lies just prior to the birth of the person espousing such a view. I certainly hope that, a hundred years hence, everything we think and believe isn’t dismissed out of hand by those living in 2107 just because “Everyone in 2007 was ignorant of modern science.”
Even though ancient peoples were indeed ignorant of many areas of modern science, they still knew how to make accurate historical claims. For example, people knew that, generally speaking, dead people stay dead. Unless, of course many independent witnesses were convinced, to the point of their own deaths, that a dead mad had risen …
Related reading:
- The Facts Concerning the Resurrection - Dr Gary Habermas explains why even if we don’t accept the Bible as “inerrant” we can build a case for the resurrection using only facts agreed upon by the vast majority of critical scholars.
- Good people - What makes a person “good”? What did Jesus say when he was asked this question?
September 2nd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I disagree with your objection. 2000+ years ago, scientific knowledge was undoubtedly totally inferior to today. End of. There may have been the odd pearl of philosophical wisdom knocking around but on questions of origins of species and the cosmos they did not have a clue. Or do you think they did? Flat earth etc etc? As to historically accurate claims there is a cringingly embarrassing absence of evidence that vast chunks of the bible are true or that the people mentioned in it even existed, especially in OT.
We don’t mock or dismiss out of hand the knowledge of our forefathers, but we’d be fools to believe it per se when other, unquestionably superior logical explanations exist. This is why I don’t brick it when sailing an ocean, as I now know it doesn’t have an edge/precipice over which I will fall to my death.
People in 2107 would be similarly foolish to believe anything I believe now when they have, since my time, discredited or improved it. If they haven’t “dismissed out of hand” the wrong stuff then shame on them.
September 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 am
Daver, I actually do agree with most of what you’ve said. Your last paragraph aptly helps us to differentiate between the kind of snobbery I’m referring to and rightly rejecting a particular belief: “People in 2107 would be similarly foolish to believe anything I believe now when they have, since my time, discredited or improved it. If they haven’t “dismissed out of hand” the wrong stuff then shame on them.” If it has demonstratively been proven wrong, then it would not be considered snobbery to dismiss it. Of course scientific knowledge has progressed by leaps and bounds in the last 2000 years. The point of the post was that an a priori rejection of ___ (whatever) merely because it is old is unwarranted.
Re the historicity of the OT, I can’t really comment on that too much since most of my study has been on the historical reliability of the New Testament. However I would suggest that since a large portion of the OT is a historical record of a single (and often small and centralized) culture which existed thousands of years ago, we shouldn’t be too surprised that only a single record of that history has survived. Regardless, as linked at the bottom of the original post, Habermas’ case for the resurrection is, not dependent on the historical reliability of the OT nor the NT, and is built upon only facts that are agreed upon by critical historians and well attested in the extant documents.
Incidentally (this is almost entirely unrelated to the topic of this post) an interesting book on the prevailing idea of ancient “flat earth” theories (esp by the time of Columbus) is the short book by historian Jeffrey Burton Russell (University of California, Santa Barbara) titled Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians.