RE: [asa] The empirical basis of knowledge

Iain wrote:
>>Yes and I've read books on the evidence for the resurrection, and I've
read atheist websites dissing the whole concept as a myth. At the end of
the day you have to decide which one you're going to believe, and that
belief is based on conviction and the work of the Holy Spirit, and not on
empirical evidence alone, although it's true that empirical observations may
incline one towards belief. <<<
 
So have I read both sides, and that is why I tend to look for verification
elsewhere than at the resurrection. And then I get criticized for doing so
upon this list and told how I should rest it all at the cross, which as you
note, one can read both sides of the issue. Maybe some others should read
those atheist sites to see how epistemologically insecure their belief is.
 
And to address the issue of this thread, one must distinguish what you asked
from 'knowing'. You said what basis was there for becoming a christian. That
isn't the same as saying I KNOW it is right. One believes it is right--that
is why it is called faith.

glenn
They're Here: The Pathway Papers
Foundation, Fall, and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:01 AM
To: Glenn Morton
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] The empirical basis of knowledge

On 3/20/07, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:

For Iain, Merv, David Siemans, David W.

 
Iain Strachan wrote:
 
>>>What empirical basis is there in the decision to become a Christian? At
the end of the day, one may see evidence that pulls you in that direction,
but the crucial deciding factor was (I always understood) conviction by the
Holy Spirit. How do you measure that empirically? How do you measure a
"leap of faith" empirically? <<<
 
In my personal case, it was empirically obvious that the Christians were
happy, I wasn't and I wanted what they had.

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question. Yes, it's empirically obvious
that Christians are happy, but that observation doesn't lead logically to
the KNOWLEDGE that Christianity is true. People can be happy because of a
self-delusion. In the end you had to make a step of faith (as did I)
because you believed that the reason they were happy was because
Christianity was true - that the difference it made in their lives wasn't
just a placebo effect.

Some will say that the empirical data for the resurrection is good enough
for them, for indeed, with out that empirical claim of a risen Lord,
Christianity would have been still borne.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 20 06:38:47 2007