Re: Call me a fideist

Glenn,

I think you've missed my point entirely.

In my summary of the evidentialist arguement, I did not start with
"Christianity is true" or "the Bible is true" as you claim. It starts
with "the Biblical accounts are generally reliable." This is
empirically verifiable--I'm guess that this is what George is getting
at to some degree. I will suggest that given the historical nature of
God's dealings with mankind that history is the primary place where
Christianity is verified or not. If you reject the historical as
being fundamentally untrustworthy, you will not find much ground for
Christianity being true.

Affirming the general reliability of scripture you have to deal with
the person and work of Jesus Christ. His claims are pretty exclusive
as I read it. That encounter isn't just one that North American
Christians have.

Once you accept the authority of Christ, you get to the claim that
Christianity and the Bible is true and from then on it's totally
logical to operate from that basis. But please note that my argument
doesn't start there.

That being said, I still have my reservations about the
appropriateness of the creature deciding whether or not the Creator
is true or which version of him is true. The method of a posteriori
confirmation of presuppositions due to their "success" in the way we
(and everyone) actually lives is also a method of rational
confirmation--it's not an irrational or a totally circular approach.
[As an aside, much of my approach fits nicely into post-modernist
ways of thinking. However, I reject the the general notion of
incommensurability. Worldviews can be tested by how well they
actually work.]

Finally, my comment about design which you quickly jump on. There is
nothing in design arguments that distinguish between any kind of
theism. That's why Christian theists, Islamic theists, Unification
church theists can all join together in advocating ID. Personally, I
don't think that ID folks are being disingenuous when they say that
"designed" life on earth could be some great experiment by ET's. If
design in the sense that they're promoting is detectable it doesn't
necessarily have any convincing apologetic function. ET's are a more
logical conclusion to draw for the atheist (oh, there i am slipping
into presuppositional thinking again).

TG

>Terry wrote:
>
> >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.
>
>
>
>The thing I find amazing is that people don't seem to understand
>that historical tales are often wrong. Generations of US school
>children were taught about George Washington and the cherry tree as
>if it was true. I also find it amazing that as many times as I have
>referred to the need to distinguish christanity from other religions
>in this discussion, everyone still acts as if there were no
>competing religions on earth with which one must ask the
>question--how do I know which religion is true. The reason I can
>not accept your view that I have the apologetics backwards is summed
>up in the last line of your post. "I believe in a design because I
>beleive in a designer." That is not very firm a foundation for
>belief in design. WHICH designer--the aliens which the ID folks
>throw out as a sop to the courts so that they can appear as
>non-religious and scientific? WHICH designer--Allah, Krishna,
>Jupiter?
>
>
>
>Until people try to understand that the position I am coming from is
>one in which there is MORE than one religion on earth with a chance
>of being true, they won't understand the questions I am asking.
>
>
>
>No, don't get me wrong, I do beleive in the resurrection, I beleive
>that as far as one can go they accounts are reliable, but, one can't
>simply say that there is no chance that they could be wrong. To
>paraphrase your last sentence, we can't simply say, "I believe in
>God because the Bible says so." Why? Because the Koran tells us
>that much as well.
>
>
>
> >2. Jesus claimed to from God, speaking God's word, and being God
>
> >himself; His resurrection "confirmed" those claims.
>
>
>
>Yes, but only if you are operating within the presuppositional
>framework of Christianity being the only possibly true religon. The
>world is a bit bigger than North America.
>
>
>
>
>
> >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).
>
>
>
>No problem with this. As I said, no one seems to understand that
>one can't use this logic IF one looks at the existence of other
>religions and asks: Could they be true. The logic doesn't work.
>
>
>
>Ah, I know a good analogy. A YEC will tell his followers, I believe
>in a vapor canopy having covered the earth because there was a
>global flood. You say, hey, there is no evidence of a global flood,
>only evidence of local floods. He says, Accepting the claims of a
>global flood, we can accept that the waters above actually existed.
>Try, just try, to argue the guy out of that poor logic.
>
>
>
>In a world of competing religions, we can't stand on an apologetic
>which starts with: "Assume the Bible to be the word of God.
>Accepting that, then the resurrection is true, creation is true, and
>design in the universe is true. Why people can't understand that I
>really don't know.
>
>
>
>Or in deference to others, in a world of competing religions, one
>can't make much use of an apologetic which starts with: "Assume the
>resurrection is true therefore the Bible is the word of God,
>creation is true, and there is design in the universe.
>
>
>
>Why would the non-religious find that a compelling argument? Why
>would the Hindu find that a compelling argument?. The problem with
>western apologetics is that it is only focused on its own culture
>and doesn't understand the wider world out thee doesn't share our
>presuppositions.
>
>
>
>
>
> >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).
>
>
>
>If anyone in any religion starts with statements like "assume the
>Koran is true therefore..." their apologetic is a classic begging
>the question. And that, I would define as fideistic.
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.
>
>
>
>Which God? Allah? Jehovah? Shang Di?
>
>
>
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
>Absolutely agree SO LONG AS one has already accepted the authority
>of a particular religion upon his life. But not before.
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.
>
>
>
>Not proof, just evidence. As with science, nothing can be proven.
>But one can have a more rational basis for saying that the
>Christianity is true than merely starting with "I believe the Bible
>is true therefore...."
>
>
>
>This basis is very similar to what I see on a Zoroastrian web page:
>"All our Scriptures are sacred, including the Gathas, Yashts, and
>the Vendidad. We pray all of them in our Fire temples, before the
>Sacred Fire, and they have immense spiritual power, their very
>utterance in the sacred Avestan language serving to further
>righteousness and fight evil."
>
>
>
>For their apologetic they start with "I believe the Gathas, yashts,
>and Vendidad are true, therefore.. Zoroastrianism is correct."
>
>
>
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
>I will agree with you that we will never have a slam dunk proof.
>But must our choice be between a slam dunk, and no evidence
>whatsoever? That is what I think I see being offered here. The ID
>folks offer what they view as slam dunks, most here seem to offer
>nothing.
>
>
>
> >As some have said, I see design because I believe in a designer. I
>don't believe in a designer because I see design
>
>
>
>WHICH designer? Ahura Mazda?

-- 
_________________
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