Reason As Part Of The Defense Of The Christian Faith
One thing that I have come across often is that of Christians- sincere ones- claiming that reason has no place, or, at least, is not necessary in the defense of the faith. I write this now to show that it is a must.
The common alternative posited by those who do not hold to reason as part of apologetics is that of faith, among other things.
The problem with faith is that it is completely arbritary. Those whom are against the Christian faith might as well say, "I have faith that you are wrong and that I am right." What shall we say to them then? The appeal to faith, then, is clearly fallacious inasmuch as that it is based no or little evidence whatsoever[1]. Shall we wage our eternal life on poor evidence?
At this point, Christians who are still hesitant to employ reason in the defense of the faith would appeal to religious experience- like pointing out a miracle that has happened to them, prayers that have been answered etc.
However, as the skeptic would point out[2] (who already assumes such things like naturalism) miracles can't happen, and even if they did to you there is no way you can be sure that you are not deceived, delusional or lying. Not to mention that you cannot prove that such a miracle ever happened. As to such things like answered prayer, the unbeliever would say that such things are merely coincidences...nothing special.
The Christian would finally fall back on such things as an appeal to teleology, or to some form of Pascal's wager. But by then they are already employing reason as part of the defense of their beliefs.
It should be obvious that faith or religious experience alone cannot be employed in apologetics. This is not to deny their validity, but to merely point out that they are logically useless. Only if one uses reason can we provide certain proof that the Christian faith is indeed true.
______________________________
1. See the article by Holding who argues that faith is loyalty based on prior evidence. See also Bahnsen's article.
2. I do not deny that God answers prayer or does miracles. I am arguing from a skeptic's point of view at this moment.
The common alternative posited by those who do not hold to reason as part of apologetics is that of faith, among other things.
The problem with faith is that it is completely arbritary. Those whom are against the Christian faith might as well say, "I have faith that you are wrong and that I am right." What shall we say to them then? The appeal to faith, then, is clearly fallacious inasmuch as that it is based no or little evidence whatsoever[1]. Shall we wage our eternal life on poor evidence?
At this point, Christians who are still hesitant to employ reason in the defense of the faith would appeal to religious experience- like pointing out a miracle that has happened to them, prayers that have been answered etc.
However, as the skeptic would point out[2] (who already assumes such things like naturalism) miracles can't happen, and even if they did to you there is no way you can be sure that you are not deceived, delusional or lying. Not to mention that you cannot prove that such a miracle ever happened. As to such things like answered prayer, the unbeliever would say that such things are merely coincidences...nothing special.
The Christian would finally fall back on such things as an appeal to teleology, or to some form of Pascal's wager. But by then they are already employing reason as part of the defense of their beliefs.
It should be obvious that faith or religious experience alone cannot be employed in apologetics. This is not to deny their validity, but to merely point out that they are logically useless. Only if one uses reason can we provide certain proof that the Christian faith is indeed true.
______________________________
1. See the article by Holding who argues that faith is loyalty based on prior evidence. See also Bahnsen's article.
2. I do not deny that God answers prayer or does miracles. I am arguing from a skeptic's point of view at this moment.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, November 12, 2005 at 2:39 PM.
|
