Stumble It!Last time I quickly reviewed the importance of historicity to my faith in on Apologetics (Part II). I noted that to some extent the martyrdom of the apostles of Jesus was important to me. It seems that, although there is some need to accommodate the lack of rigor in the representation of historical facts in ancient literature, there still needs to be a reasonable degree of reality represented by such documents for my faith to hold together. This is a point of pressure that has always existed for me.
A Sidenote on the Tradition of Science and the Tradition of Faith
I believe in miracles, the resurrection of Christ, etc, not because I believe science says they are possible (it denies this), but because I believe the traditions which talk about them are reliable.
Thus, I believe that science is, to some degree, not the last word. There are some truth claims about which it can not speak. The miraculous nature of the acts of God in history is one of those things. It is interesting that a paradigm of knowledge based on the foundation of being able to accurately, independently and repeatedly observe and verify cause and effect relationships deems itself sufficient to make pronouncements on events of 2000 years ago which can neither be directly observed, much less repeatedly so. However, to the extent that the current church claims a supernatural basis for any repeatedly observable phenomena in its current day, I believe it is appropriate to subject such claims to scientific analysis (Benny Hynn and others of his ilk, take note).
On the Balance of Evidence
To get at the truth of anything, it is important to remain open to the evidence or force of argument on both sides of any debate, but after weighing the evidence and arguments, you must make a decision as to the likely veracity such things. For me, the balance still convincingly speaks to the truth of the miraculous and supernatural nature of the stories of both the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures.
More on this topic at Apologetics (Part 4)
——-
If you are not yet using a reader to follow this blog: Get yours here.
Tags: act of god, apologetics, belief, Christian, Christian Scripture, Christianity, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, faith, god and science, god in history, hand of god, heaven, hebrew scripture, hell, historicity, historicity in scripture, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Mere Chirstianity, miracles, New Testament, old testament, purpose in life, purpose of life, reasons for faith, resurrection, science and god, scientific method, the canon, the nature of scripture, the truth, Theology, tradition, truth, unbelief, veracity, Washington
Monday, August 18, 2008 at +00:0020083931UTC18: pm31
Kai –
It’s interesting to read your thoughts on apologetics as it is a topic that used to be very much THE gateway into the community for folks (in the era Josh McDowell published his books) but not as much as of late. Now I think the gateway is experience as you described – of God drawing folks to himself and into community – and then after a while when doubts begin to surface then apologetics take on a more prominent role. I also had a period when my doubts came to the fore. For me it was also important to recognize the likely historic veracity of the faith, but ultimately when I realized that I could still doubt after all my doubts had been reasonably addressed I recognized that there is/will be always room for faith – even the folks (disciples and others) who saw Jesus in the flesh and his miracles firsthand did not necessarily believe. The Pharisees and the scribes asked for signs (although they had already seen plenty) but Jesus did not give it to them. In John 3 Jesus makes the point to Nicodemus that there is no seeing without believing, that the upside-down truth of the kingdom of God is not verifiable from the outside – because it ultimately is a matter of faith. Not against reason, but not 100% verifiable by reason either. I think that is the part of what Barth is getting at when he says that God must reveal godself, that without God’s self-revelation we have no hope of knowing God.
I found Brian McLaren’s “Finding Faith” to be a great read – it is my favorite book to give to folks who are exploring/wanting to deepen their faith. I like his 4-stage schema of growth in faith, that he sees doubt as part of the growth process, and that doubt can give way to a much more sophisticated faith. His “New Christian” series is also good for us folks who grew up in the church and/or have seminary training.
Side note: I see here on your blog you have some links to biology. I don’t know your background – my undergrad is in biology and I find that the more I learn about the complexity of the human body or even the most simple microorganism, I find it harder and harder to believe that there was not a designer behind all of it. What about you?
Monday, August 18, 2008 at +00:0020084531UTC18: pm31
[...] Posts On Apologetics (Part 3)On Apologetics (Part II)Top 100 Books on the Emerging [...]
Thursday, August 28, 2008 at +00:0020080931UTC28: pm31
Hi Rachel, thanks for this thoughtful note, as was your last. I’ll say here that I, ultimately, don’t think there is the so called ‘leap of faith’ to which (I think) you refer.
We are simply too rational as creatures to withstand the kind of cognitive dissonance that your faith seems to necessitate (actually, I don’t think you hold this tension either, but I do think you confuse an issue here that I will try to get at).
If Jesus makes the point that there is no seeing without believing–then I think I am correct in saying it is not for lack of reasonableness that people refuse to believe. They persist in unbelief despite the reasonableness of belief. That is the point of the exchange between them. If you do not have eyes to see or ears to hear, you will not accept the evidence which those senses bring to you.
Thus the persistence of unbelief in the face of the historical acts of God among the ancient world, especially as recorded by the peculiar people of Israel, the miracles and life of Jesus and his disciples, etc… I think you have this point backward.
BTW, I don’t think anything is 100% verifiable by reason. In order to recognize truth from fiction we must incorporate doubting mechanisms into our learning apparatus, thus it can–and should–never be eliminated.
As to seeing the hand of God in nature. I am sympathetic to your point. For many years I argued that it all can’t simply be explained by mere physics. The creation is a wonder of incredible magnitude and I am moved deeply and in many ways by it, but ultimately, I think evolution is a materialist mechanism.
For many centuries Christians ascribed any mystery to an act of God, but as we became more sophisticated in our understanding of the physical world, it has become apparent that in fact, most things are readily explainable by the laws of nature which are bound.
This is not to say that God cannot enter into and/or is not present in this world, just that such actions are not the norm (with the exception of God’s sustaining will), or we would not be able to make any sense of the world. Not that that matter, but it just so happens that we can, and that seems to be the way God wanted it.
I can speak of the way ‘God wanted it’ because I DO believe that God is the ultimate author of the universe. He is the first cause, but his first action and sustaining will appear to be sufficient to explain all that we see since in those actions the laws of nature and the exact circumstances of the universe appear to have been set in motion. This is not the deists’ universe, but something more elegant even than that…
I hope this helps explain my positions…
Thursday, September 4, 2008 at +00:0020085930UTC04: pm30
[...] If you liked this post, perhaps you want to read Apologetics (Part 3)? [...]