Saturday, January 15, 2005
Vox Apologia - Apologetics as experience...
Phil, at Every Thought Captive, is co-sponsoring a Vox Apologia with Razors Kiss. Their first question is, What does apologetics mean to today's church?
We are emotional creatures... us humans. Whether it be the experience, the high, or the rush, we find ourselves genuflecting to the notion that the validity of our existence should be determined by the level of passion we experience.
The Church is not entirely unaffected by such seductive thinking.
However, Christianity is not a religion based simply on emotion. Contrary to how Christianity is typically pitched in the West, it is not grounded in the experience. Agape love, a core principle of the Christian religion, is initiated not by feeling, but by choice.
This in no way negates the existence, or the importance, of the emotional aspect of Christianity. As I stated, we are emotional creatures... but we are also rational creatures. God has chosen to interact with humans through very rational means. Despite the fact that Jesus related to humans at an emotional level, we must not forget that he also taught them at a rational level. Furthermore, the very act of reading God's Word, that of the written text, can only be accomplished through rational activity.
Fides et Ratio.
A comprehensive understanding of the Christian faith reveals that the faith described in the scriptures is not a blind faith, but a faith supported by reason. If we are to truly understand just what it means to follow Christ, then we must see that following Him entails loving Him with all our heart, soul, and mind. In other words, Faith and Reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Yes -- and we worship Him in spirit and in truth.
I am all for rational thinking.
But if our emotions are not developed
and healed our rational thinking will be effected.
Most of our actions and decisions are emotionally based.
At some point, our emotions will always need to be dealt with regardless of how rational we have become.
Ancethcal,
I agree that we need to have a balance between emotion and logic.
Paul,
I would agree with you that, in the final analysis, the Christian steps out on faith to acknowledge God's existence. Where I would probably disagree with you is with regards to how that step of faith is categorized (i.e., a choice made blindly vs. a choice made from reason). I consider Ron Nash' description, from his book Faith & Reason, to be exquisite: As a Christian, I am interested in sharing my faith and my reasons for holding those beliefs. I have little use for misguided Christians who regard philosophy or science or any intellectual pursuit as somehow incompatible with Christian faith. I have little respect for uninformed Christians who think that reason and logic are threats to the Christian faith and who describe faith as some kind of irrational leap into a dark abyss.Also, I would argue that your analysis is not made from outside the boat I am sitting in. In other words, you yourself cannot hold to truth claims without also taking a step of faith. Despite your adherence to a system such as methodological naturalism, you are not able to establish that the belief that there is no God should be the default. If I am under no obligation to rationally justify God's existence, then you cannot rationally measure my huge leap of faith. Such a leap becomes mere opinion.
Paul...do you exist?
My husband teases me sometimes about the people I "talk to" on the computer...he asks me how I know I'm not talking to...a Yeti, or a Warg, or whatever.
Why must the "default" be "nothing?" Who decided that? In a world full of "somethings," it seems more likely to me that the default would be a "something else" rather than a "nothing."
On evidence...what is evidence? It comes in different forms. Why must you insist on a certain kind before accepting certain things?
Yes, Pixies do exist. There's one living in my house :-)
Paul,
My faith is not grounded apart from reason but is built up upon reason. For instance, the historicity of the documents we now know as the New Testament provide us with a very reliable indication that what we now read is what was originally written. The appearance of Jesus Christ, while encompassing the miraculous, is not presented as some mystical and enigmatic event, but is tied to real places, people and events. Another avenue of reason is the use of an apologetic such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Rationality, therefore, provides the basis with which a person can ultimately make a choice, by faith, to follow Christ. This is, in no way, a leap of blind faith.
With regards to your default, consider that before you can know anything, you must believe something. It’s all well and good that you assume that nothing exists until provided sufficient evidence… but at least admit that such an assumption can never be justified by the very methodology it uses. So, you’re entitled to believe that the default for anything is nothing, but you cannot demonstrate why it should be more than an opinion.
I do not believe in Yetis precisely for the very reason you posit – a lack of a preponderance of evidence. Do you see the difference with regards to my faith in Christianity? It’s not that I believe for no reason, but that I consider the reasons sufficient to justify belief. You, on the other hand, appear to consider the reasons insufficient to justify belief. As you have alluded to, we both use similar methods, but are coming to different conclusions.
Lastly, although I argue for rationality with regards to a foundation for faith, I take the same position as Ron Nash (and Alvin Plantinga) with regards to whether it is necessary to have evidence to make a particular belief rational. See an earlier post I did on the topic.
Paul,
You miss the point by asking for some specific form of proof of miraculous activity.
I gave you a few examples (from the myriad) of how my faith is built on reason. That is a world apart from then asking for a particular proof of supernatural activity.
The resurrection of Christ is established historical fact. That you don't believe it is because of an a priori belief that people don't come alive again after dieing. You have chosen, for whatever reasons, to disregard the historically based evidence as presented in the New Testament (and other documents). This is no different from two jurors coming to different conclusions in a trial.
BTW, why limit your question to miracles? You could just as easily ask, can you tell me one of the events in 1776 Philadelphia that is established historical fact? All you could rely on would be historical records. Because of your refusal to believe that the witnesses 2000 years ago truly saw what they described, you reject it.
Post a Comment