Re: [asa] Reply to Glenn

Glenn wrote: "I appreciate this answer. It doesn't squirm and doesn't try
to be illogical. While I do think that you have the self-levitation issue
you, like Paul are
not denying it. You are trusting your experience."

"self-levitation" is sort of a pejorative phrase, I'd assert. The problem
might be described this way:

1. I became convinced that the claim of the atheist (there is no God; we
are simply here) was too absurd to accept, on two grounds:

a. Why is there anything at all?
b. Why is there good in the world?

2. I then became (I suppose) a theist; maybe a deist. This was a more
satisfying philosophy to hold; it sufficed for several years.

3. The next step was to observe that Christianity MIGHT be true.
Certainly it could not be disproven.

4. The next step was to reason that, if Christianity WERE true, then it
would certainly behoove me to look into it.

5. It quickly became apparent that Christianity was God to human, not
human to God. That is, it was God that had to initiate things. In this
respect Christianity seems to be unique.

6. When I told God I was willing to listen, He spoke. It was that simple.
 

You also wrote: "Let me ask what would be wrong about trusting supportive
observational evidence instead of internal subjective evidence?"

If we were in a courtroom, that argument has validity. But we are not. We
stand, you and I, before an awesome God, one who accepts us on His terms,
not ours. Observational evidence is all very fine; however it is a PERSON
whom we trust, not observational evidence, not historians.

I have had at least three experiences where I am convinced the almighty
God has directly interacted with me. Is this normative, should anyone be
able to make that claim? While it seems not (the testimony of Ruth Graham
comes to mind), it does seem to be not unusual -- a Gallup poll in 1977
came up with a 31% figure for persons (US wide) who say they have
personally had an epiphany. Why is it so low? I don't know. John writes
(chapter 1, verse 9) that "The true light that gives light to every man
was coming into the world.." As a one-time Quaker, we took that statement
very seriously. I still do.

You also wrote: "People here seem totally convinced that searching for
any evidence apart from the subjective is wrong. (Clearly I am in a tiny
minority)."

I see nothing wrong in searching for observational evidence; I will not
speak for others on the list. It clearly plays a much smaller part in my
life than in yours; I don't see that as either good or bad; it just is.
Our church subscribes to Biblical Arch Review; I am always pleased to
read of historical confirmations. But I admit I read it primarily for
intellectual stimulation, not to "confirm my faith."

You also wrote: "Why is subjective data better than evidentiary support?"

It is not a case of "better." It is a case of "what is."

I would love for your theories to be confirmed observationally. Or
anyone's theories of Genesis historicity. But I don't see such a
happening having any particular effect on my faith journey.
Intellectually, of course, it would be exciting.

Let me conclude with a quotation I have related to for a long time:

"How do I know that God is good? Or even that God is?
I don't.

I gamble like a man. I bet my life upon one side in life's great war.
I must. I can't stand out; I must take sides.

The man who is a neutral in this fight is not a man at all.
He's bulk and body without breath,>
Cold leg of lamb without mint sauce. A fool.
He makes me sick. Good Lord! Weak tea! Cold slops!
I want to live, live out, not wobble through my life somehow,
and then, into the dark."

by G. A. Studdert-Kennedy

Best always,

Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 23 18:30:18 2006