Re: Call me a fideist

On 5/26/05, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
> Rich Blinne wrote:
>
> >What I find most dismaying about Glenn's approach is the intangibility of
> >the resurrection because it is not repeatable. I respect the courage of
> >theoretical falsifiability of Christianity. The Apostle Paul did that but
> >the topic WAS the resurrection. The apostles staked Christianity's
> >reputation on it being tangible, but Glenn's definition of tangible is too
> >restrictive. His repeatability criteria would also make historical science
> >not real science..
>
> Rich, The difference between us and Paul is that we have to believe Paul.
> He had access to living witnesses--we don't. He had access to existing
> historical records--which no longer exist. From our temporal vantage point
> all we can do is believe the resurrection. We can't really approach any real
> historical examination of the event except through the records of the
> adherents of this new religion and all those documents were written 20+
> years after the event by people who believed. Thus, this isn't something one
> can actually say is as sure a historically documented event as we are often
> told. It doesn't mean it isn't true, it is only saying something about the
> evidence for it.
>
> Now, the problem I keep trying to get people to focus on is the fact that
> the religious world is much larger than NOrth American christianity. Try
> living in a place where no one shares your theology, or even has a theology.
> You quickly realize how sheltered North American Christians are. One can't
> start with "Assume the Bible is true therefore...."
>

Unlike Terry, I am not a presuppositionalist. My starting assumptions are:

1. The general reliability of sense perception
2. The law of non-contradiction
3. Law of Causality

From these and observing the Universe, I see that a God is possible and it
is rational that He might have a revelation. Of the alleged revelations out
there, the Bible makes the most sense as that Revelation. Further, it is
generally reliable history. Given that the Universe is ordered and that the
supernatural is NOT the norm (the lack of ID gaps is a plus not a minus),
something like the resurrection proves Jesus as a messenger of God and His
witness to Scripture takes it from generally reliable to the Word of God.
Once that is established the fact of God as Designer is established.

That's how I break the circles. Terry breaks them differently but he isn't
begging the question, either. I know that my camp accuses
presuppositionalists as fideists but the charge is bogus. Philosopher
Michael Sudduth will be coming out soon with a book entitled "The Reformed
Objection to Natural Theology". His perspective is from a moderate
evidentialist one. From what I have read from the drafts it is a fair-minded
summary of the love/hate relationship between Reformed Theology and Natural
Theology. I'll let this list know when it is published so that the ASA can
do a book review of it.
Received on Thu, 26 May 2005 18:13:10 -0600