From: Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
> From the New Testament perspective there
are no strong arguments for Christianity.
> Christianity was not a set
of understandable teachings that could be comprehended
> by outsiders but
a power that brought people into relationship with God. This
power
> was the Spirit of God, unknown and incomprehensible to those who did not
have him.
I think we can begin to make some arguments for religion in general and Christianity
specifically in terms of instinctive survival traits being asserted in the human experience
the only way they can --through faith. On a basic level, how do you trust anything in
life that is illogical or without clear rational associations? You trust your feelings.
Sometimes feelings are all we have to fight survival threats beyond our understanding.
But Jesus insists that treating each other as absolute equals (turning the other cheek,
forgiveness, etc) is mandatory. Our personal (rational) self-interests being
relegated for the common good by strength of faith is the same thing as our instincts
being naturally selected to overcome the survival threats of reason.
We are rationally over-specialized. Like any species our most successful survival
traits (like reason) will inevitably work to our detriment. The species with the sharpest
teeth will have
competition issues. The most prolific
reproducers will exhaust their
food supply.
Over-dependence on any evolutionary specialization inevitably leads
to
vulnerabilities.
Our reliance on rational brain function is not immune to this
inevitability.
But overcoming reason is monumentally difficult. That is why we have evolved a
belief in God, faith in God. Faith in God is the instinctive Truth that will lead us beyond
wars, beyond the haves and the have-nots, and beyond the threats we pose to our own
survival through rational excess. Faith is an instinctive evolutionary truth about the
ultimate nature of Creation.
Whenever we choose to go with our feelings over our reason it is through strength of faith
in the survival "rightness" of the feelings that allows us to do so whether we believe in God
or not. Some people see that feeling of "rightness" only in terms of their personal survival,
(unevolved feelings like sex, gluttony, jealousy) going against all the most highly evolved
feelings that are taught in religions all over the world. Others recognize the most evolved
feelings of all as taught by Jesus (love thine enemies!) to be absolutely necessary beyond
any rational conclusions of personal survival. This is our highest evolutionary trait. Love
and faith are far more difficult to assert than any scientific discipline and far more essential
to our survival especially now that we have devised the rational means to destroy ourselves.
Faith in God is the ultimate instinctive understanding of the survival truth behind all things
seen and unseen as naturally selected in pursuit of our salvation. Religion is the monumental
effort to assert the authority of our faith (our most evolved instincts) over the zealous, rigid,
unbending demands of our reason.
This view is itself a rationalization, and as such incalculably short of the true scope and
purposes of our faith, just as any rational assessment will always be. It is our instincts
that eternally range ahead in our evolution, to our destiny, to our salvation. Instinct
was here 300 million years before our first rational conclusion dawned in our minds
and will be here, our conduit to the Spirit forever if we remain faithful to its calling.
If not, we will die at our own hands for our arrogance.
-Mike (Friend of ASA)
"My message and my preaching were not with
wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so
that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power." 1
Cor. 2:4.
"...The Spirit of truth. The world
cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know
him, for he lives with you and will be in you." John 14:17.
"...You have an anointing from the Holy
One, and all of you know the truth." 1 John 2:20.
So NT Christians had knowledge, all right,
but it was not the kind of knowledge that could make headway in the public
square. Rather, it was the kind of knowledge that changed lives, and those
transformed lives had power to change still other lives.
Any set of facts can have multiple
interpretations, including the one that denies they are facts.
So facts by themselves, whether about the world or about God's Word, won't
convince anyone of anything. In science people become convinced by getting
familiar with the data and the interpretations; in religion people become
convinced by latching onto the power they see in the witness.
If there is any value for Christianity in
debating the likes of Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, it would come less from words
said than from everything else about the witness.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Isaac
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 7:14
AM
Subject: Re: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens -
Surrending the debate epistemologically by subjecting revealed knowledge to
science
This debate occurred last Monday and was aired on
C-SPAN2 last night. I happened to see it while searching for the Red Sox game.
I ended up seeing the debate and missing the start of the Red Sox game. Maybe
I have to work on my priorities.
You can see and hear the debate in its entirety
at http://www.tkc.edu/debate/
The section to which Groothius objects is at 1 hr
26 minutes. A couple of minutes later, Hitchens repeats his bashing of Francis
Collins but Dinesh doesn't bite on that one.
My own reaction to this was quite different from
Groothius but I may have misunderstood both of them. It seemed to me that
D'Souza was drawing a distinction between empirical knowledge and faith-based
knowledge. On this point, I am very concerned about Groothuis's position. He
seems to feel that our knowledge/belief in God needs to be based on empirical
knowledge. Isn't this going in the wrong direction? He may be concerned that
D'Souza has sold the farm but I'm concerned that Groothius has handed the
scepter to scientism, conceding that scientific knowledge is the only
legitimate form of knowledge.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From:
John Walley
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 3:50
AM
Subject: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens -
Surrending the debate epistemologically by subjecting revealed knowledge to
science
Below is an excerpt of a blog
posting of a review of a recent debate between Dinesh D’Souza and
Christopher Hitchens at King’s College by philosopher and professor
DOUGLAS
GROOTHUIS.
I am curious to get any comments
from the list on his observations because he charges Dinesh with selling the
farm ”epistemologically and apologetically”
because he concedes faith
beliefs are not valid knowledge and knowledge can only be what is
empirically proven. This is very similar to the recent discussion on the
philosophical foundation from Rom. 20 of God having revealed real knowledge
(and not just faith) in his creation. And in fact from this scripture that
says that those that reject this knowledge are “without excuse”, it is clear
God considers this revealed knowledge to be valid and binding and manifest
to all and not some subjective idea that is subject to interpretation or the
approval of science.
I think Groothius may have
articulated it here better than I but I think we are in agreement that as
soon as we surrender this revealed “knowledge” as not being valid and
instead replacing it with only “science” then we have already lost the
debate. And this does appear to be the strategy of atheists and therefore
the danger in siding with them too strongly in their marginalizing the
arguments from ID.
Thanks
John
http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2007/10/debate-christianity-and-atheism.html
Debate:
Christianity and Atheism
Dinesh D'Souza (author of What's So Great About
Christianity) and Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not
Great) recently debated
at King's College. I will not give a point by point commentary, but
limit myself to three comments, the first of which is the most
important.
1. At 1.26 D'Souza
completely sells the farm epistemologically and
apologetically--despite the many fine points he made throughout the debate.
He claims that his religious belief is not
knowledge. He does not know
it to be true; he only believes it. In so
doing, he seems to restrict knowledge to what is empirically verifiable. But
there is no reason to do. We know many things apart from empirical evidence
(such as basic moral claims). Moreover, we can infer the existence the
supernatural from the natural (the project of natural theology; see
In Defense of
Natural Theology, which I co-edited
and to which I contributed a chapter.) D'Souza goes on to say that while he leaps
toward God, Hitchens leaps toward atheism. I
groaned loudly to myself when I heard it (although my wife probably heard
me). Many in the crowd applauded.
This is tragic. We must enter the
public square making knowledge claims, not
mere faith claims that are allowable, just as allowable as theism or some
other worldview. We need to try to out argue the opposition by marshalling the strongest possible
arguments for Christianity and against atheism. In fact, D'Souza gave some strong arguments
not adequately rebutted by Hitchens by the time he sold the
farm. There was no need to do so; and in so doing, he sets a terrible
example for Christian persuasion in the public realm (despite the virtues he
exhibited in the debate).
2. The form of the debate was poor. Neither
speaker has enough time for opening comments or for rebuttal. The supposed
"cross examination" devolved into haranguing at time, with the moderator
(Marvin O'laski) failing to intervene to keep order. Serious debates
should have strict rules.
3. Both speakers issued cheap shots by
insulting the other speaker in ways not required by their arguments. This
may get applause, but makes no logical point.
Apparently, D'Souza has come to a more mature
Christian conviction recently. He is not known as a philosopher, but as a
social critic and political writer. I never detected an overt Christian
worldview in the several books I've read by him over the years. At that
crucial time of 1:26 this weakness showed. I have not yet finished his book,
however. Perhaps I'll say more then.
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 30 12:28:36 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 30 2007 - 12:28:38 EDT