The answer for the reasons below is probably yes and
no. (Isn't it always?)
--- Glenn Morton <glenn.morton@btinternet.com> wrote:
(snip)
> >I think what I said -- or at least MEANT, was that
> I could not
> >think of any
> >way in which anything in scripture was falsifiable.
> I may well be wrong
> >though.
> >
>
> If it isn't falsifiable, then do we merely believe
> it because we beleive it
> to be true? Is faith really based on that type of
> thin ice?
> >
Whether or not I have a personal relationship with God
is not testable and hence not falsifiable. Anyone but
me can say I am merely deluded, thinking wishfully,
crazy, etc. Only I can believe it to be true or not.
More on that below.
Whether or not God acts in the world is also not a
scientific hypothesis in the traditional sense
(although folks like Dawkins and Atkins desperately
want to characterize it as such to foist atheistic
triumphalism on us all). Science can illuminate, at
the most, the extent to which there _may_ be room for
God to act within "natural" processes as we understand
them (e.g., quantum indeterminancy, chaos theory,
etc.). This understanding, of course, is subject to
possible change.
The historical content of a document can be subject to
cross checking with what we can ascertain based on a
geologic, archaeological, other historical records,
etc. Even if accurate, it does not mean the
theological claims the document makes are true,
because those are not subject to the same kind of
cross checking. Although I agree that the
verification of a document that is possible makes us
less suspect of a document than of a document that has
no indicia of accuracy at all.
In terms of Christianity, we have the witness of the
church stretching back to the apostles' experience of
the risen Christ, including documents which seem
otherwise reliable, that are written recollections of
that experience and of the experience of the life of
Jesus. The validity of that resurrection experience
can never be proven by the archaeological or other
historic records, only its consequence, which is the
Church and the faith of individuals can be seen
through things like recorded martyrdoms, Christian
symbols left in the archaeological record, written
documents, etc..
In terms of the existence of a personal God, this is
really a philosophical discussion about what
constitutes proof. Plantinga argues that belief in
God should be a properly basic belief. Skeptics
demand that it is an extraordinary claim that warrants
extraordinary proof (of course they want to import a
view of God as a magician). Atheists and skeptics
(and sadly some liberal theologians) argue that the
experience of the early Church of the risen Christ was
mass delusion of one sort or another and the
historical fact of the proclamation of the
resurrection is no more than continually compounded
error through indoctrination of dogma into helpless
children and pandering to the wish fulfillment of
credulous minds.
How do we test who is right about that? What
constitutes proof? Logical positivists demand
empirical evidence. Atheists like Anthony Flew demand
a coherent definition of God before they say the claim
that such a thing exists can be evaluated. Popperians
and A.J. Ayer demand a falsifiable hypothesis. Each
of these demands for proof is an implicit
epistemological statement of faith. No one can
empirically test empiricism. Ayer's statement that
all true statements must be fasifiable is not
falsifiable, etc., etc. Skepticism, empricism,
logical positivism, etc. are all built on such thin
foundations of mere belief. Faith that thier
epistemological perspective is true.
How is whether Genesis is historically accurate any
help vis-a-vis the resurrection and Christian faith?
If I believe Genesis is historically accurate (as far
as I can test it), but am still skeptical of the
resurrection, I should be Jewish or some form of
theism other than Christian, right?
Again, I am not saying any part of the Old Testament
is not historicaly accurate. I just don't think that
fact gets us very much closer to being rational about
being Christian. I would say it gives us one less
possible reason to be skeptical.
Thus, the New Testament witness to the divinity of
Jesus of Nazarateh is central to Christianity. The
historicity of those texts is important to verify, to
the extent possible, to determine the reliability of
the texts. But no amount of historical, archaeologic
or geologic evidence is going to convince a Peter
Atkins or David Hume who would reject anything
miraculous as either a mistaken belief
(delusion/madness/wishfulness) or fabrication because
of their epistemological suppositions. For Atkins or
Hume, no amount of historical accuracy would convince
them of Jesus' miracles, because of their strong faith
in their epistemological perspective.
If it were demonstrably proveable (which is harder
than it appears, but I will leave that aside) that a
crazed monk wrote the entire Bible in 500 A.D., I
would have more reasons to be skeptical of the claims
of such a document and the religion built around it.
However, I still have lots of data that point me
toward (but does not prove) the existence of God and
the experience of what I may simply be deluded into
believing is the experience of God in my life. The
history of the Church is also a history that arguably
manifests the work of the Holy Spirit (it also has its
tragedies and betrayals of Christian principles, as
many atheists would like to point out).
Ultimately, you accept epistemology only on faith
regardless of whether you are a hard core logical
positivist or a theist or anything else. Everything
in your and my belief system is based not on absolute
proof (which is unobtainable in ANYTHING), but on
probability. Different faith beliefs about
epistemology change how one weighs and calculates
those probabilities. Thus, we all have a substrate of
faith for everything in our lives, including our own
existence and the existence of the universe and other
persons, none of which are technically provable.
Blake
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 12:19:39 EDT