Call me a fideist

Glenn,

I really do think you have your apologetics backwards.

Although I would probably label myself a presuppositionalist, even
the most traditional evidentialist apologetics (think Josh McDowell
or John Stott here) take the following route that you are calling
fideist.

1. The Biblical accounts about Jesus (his ministry, teaching, death,
resurrection) are historically reliable.
2. Jesus claimed to from God, speaking God's word, and being God
himself; His resurrection "confirmed" those claims.
3. Accepting those claims and following Jesus as Lord, we accept
other claims, for example, the inspiration and authority of
scripture, the teaching of scripture (properly interpreted), all of
Christian doctrine (properly constructed).
4. And let's not forget the work of the Holy Spirit in convincing us
and giving us assurance that these things are true--perhaps more
important than most of us rationalistic leaning folks are willing to
admit.

While I do believe that scripture touches history and science and
that there is plenty of evidence to encourage us in our beliefs (and
that such evidence is important and valuable), I don't believe that
my faith crashes on problems. There's plenty of room for error on my
(our) part in understanding scripture, it's purpose, what the nature
of inspiration is, etc. There are also uncertainties in our
understanding of history and science. We spend a lot of energy trying
to sort all of this out, but I don't really think it's the bottom
line.

At the same time, my sympathies for presuppositionalism will make me
look even more fideistic than you probably can imagine (although I'm
not sure I would call myself a fideist).

The problem with evidentialism is that it sets up human beings as
judge over the evidence for God's existence and God's word. We decide
whether or not He is real based on our autonomous rationality and
judgment. That is also fundamentally backwards. Frankly, it's the
fundamental nature of sin--"Did God really say?" The
presuppositionalist indeed presupposes, in principle, the existence
of God and submits himself to His authority in all matters of life.
No doubt, God has left much to our rationality to sort exactly what
that means. And there's some consonance with our existence in God's
world that rings true when you work out the implications of those
presuppositions vs. when you work out the implications of other
presuppositions (say a belief in leprechauns or materialism).

Your defense of design is sounding more and more like "natural
theology". That our "proof" for God's existence is something that we
can perceive by logical arguments and that these "proofs" are more
fundamental than God's revelation of Himself in history, especially
through the person and work of Christ, in scripture through the
inspired apostles and prophets, and in our hearts through the
testimony of the Holy Spirit. This, in fact, is one of my fundamental
critiques of the Intelligent Design movement as represented by
Dembski, Nelson, Johnson, Behe, etc. They want a slam-dunk proof--and
they think they have it in the bacterial flagella and elsewhere.
Aside from their probability calculations being suspect and their
anecdotal appeal to "it sure looks designed, therefore it is", the
whole enterpise has little grounding in the way scripture seems to
suggest that God works in people's lives.

As some have said, I see design because I believe in a designer. I
don't believe in a designer because I see design.

TG

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801