You and I had been discussing the concept of how one arrives at an
acceptance of the truth of Christianity. The C. S. Lewis book SURPRISED BY
JOY, in which he describes his acceptance, had been mentioned, along with
Bill Hamilton's story (somewhat similar to Lewis's) and my story (also
somewhat similar).
The Christian claim IS a strong one: it says, "If one really wants to know
the truth, and have it proven to him, this will take place."
Following is the latest dialog between you and me:
Russell "But if someone goes beyond mere intellectual curiosity (which, by
the way, I hardly think is "mere"), doesn't that imply that they are
bringing something more subjective into it?"
I wrote: "Without a doubt. The thing one brings to it is a willingness to
commit to the answer. More specifically, a willingness to commit to the
answer that you *want*.
Russell wrote back: (here I paraphrase for I lost part of your answer) that
one needed to "want" the answer that Christianity was true. You also went
on to say that " And you know what? That's fine, as long as one doesn't
pretend that this answer was arrived at entirely by objective, logical
means. "
--------------------
I see I was unclear in my last post. Apologies. . Let me rephrase it.. I
will capitalize to show wording changes.
"The thing one brings to it is a willimgness to commit to the answer,
WHATEVER THAT ANSWER MAY BE. More specifically, a willingness to commit to
the answer that you "want," I.E. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
If I go to my doctor and he decides I have cancer, I want to know that..
That is because I must commit myself to a life where that is a truth. I
don't like the truth, but that's not relevant.
When I asked God (whom I certainly did not "believe in") some years ago to
prove himself to me, I wanted him to prove himself to me if he were able to
do so. And I had every intention of committing myself to that truth, were
it proven to me, whether or not I approved of it.
Neither C. S. Lewis, nor I, approved of it, BTW. At least not at the
start.. Specifically, I did not "want" the Christian faith to be "true," at
least not in any sense that would have me change my life. I liked being "in
charge." I was a good guy, moral, faithful in marriage, did good deeds,
etc. But I wanted to do it "my way."
Just as I would not want cancer to be true -- it would change my life. But
if I found out it was true, I'd want to know that truth. So with
Christianity.
Your closing sentence says. "That's fine, as long as one doesn't pretend
that this answer was arrived at entirely by objective, logical means."
There is a problem here. The word "pretend" suggests dishonesty; let me
change your sentence to read,
"that's fine, as long as one doesn't assert that this answer was arrived at
entirely by objective, logical means."
If "objective" is taken to mean "belonging to nature" then no problem. I
agree.
The answer I arrived at (that Jesus the Christ was, indeed, who he claimed
to be) was arrived at, by me, by a process more akin to a court of law than
a scientific research project. Some things have to be arrived at that way,
of course; this is one of them. It became apparent to me, although I was
not pleased with the situation, that Christianity being true was simply so
much more probable (by the data I had examined and the thought processes I
had gone through) than any of the several alternatives (Lunatic, Liar,
Misquoted, etc.). Moreover, as I asked for evidence, it was given to me.
Never, it seems, in a form I could specify beforehand! So, here I stand; I
can do nothing else. I have a skeptical background; educated as a
physicist; career in computer technologies. Christianity did not "fit." But
that would make no difference if it were true!
I read recently of two philosophers who attacked the question "What
evidence of God's existence would convince me." Woody Allen was one -- he
said the sudden appearance of an extra 11 million dollars in his checking
account would do. Of course he was joking -- if 11 million showed up in his
account (or your or mine) tomorrow, neither of us would think "God did it."
Much more likely a bank error.
The second guy, more seriously, wanted to see a Cecil de Mille type
production, with all kinds of spectacular pyrotechnics, etc. He was more
serious. But again, if you, or I, stepped out of our home to see such a
display in the skies, the "God did it" hypothesis would almost certainly
take second place to a more naturalistic explanation, possibly that we had,
finally, cracked under the stress of living!
Evidence of God's existence & care for me is -- it has to be -- private
knowledge. I can talk about some of it -- but it still remains private. I
cannot replicate it for you -- or anyone. I assert here, however, that it
came, and was real. Not by the physical senses; not by hallucinations, much
more subtle than that.
But what the claim says, is that you can have your own "proof." Anyone can.
But you canot have it without a commitment to the possible answer. At least
that's how I see it.
Durango is particularly lovely tonight.
Peace and blessings.
Burgy