Discussion Grounds

Luke,

Thanks for answering my question in the spirit in which it was intended. No, my theology does not require me to believe there was a moral issue involved in your loss of faith, except in the universal sense that we all have an issue called sin to deal with. I don’t really think we need to get into that right now, because the main question I asked you has been answered.

I lived in Southern California for thirteen years, in Riverside, Pasadena, Tustin, and even 2 1/2 years in Big Bear Lake (beautiful country, but a very hard place to connect with people for friendships). It’s all changed a lot since I left there in 1993. I loved it there, except during and after the Landers and Big Bear earthquakes of 1992. What I miss most about Southern California is the diversity of people and environments there. It’s just a really interesting place to live.

In your third letter you identified this as a fundamental point at which our ways separate:

1. You think Christian belief is properly basic; I do not.
2. I think there is a possible world which contains nothing supernatural; you do not.

And it seems that your belief about the second springs from the first. So that is our point of divergence.

And you are concerned that

If Christian belief is properly basic to you – such that you believe it is warranted without a shred of evidence – then it will be hard to shake you from such a position, and ultimately futile to argue over the evidence itself!

That’s not quite the position I would state. First, I think that theism, not Christianity, can be a properly basic belief. I don’t know of anyone who would claim that knowledge of Christ can be had apart from the record of the Bible. The sense in which theism can be properly basic is that of a direct awareness of God, leading directly to belief in him. Yet there is also a related, specifically Christian experience of God through the Holy Spirit in which God confirms the truth of his Word to the believer.

So then what of evidences? They are not out of the picture at all. There are appeals to history and other evidences throughout the Bible. Look at it this way: God is pure and holy, and one of the things he is incapable of is lying. The Bible purports to be his Word, so it certainly ought not to affirm what is false. It makes claims about events in history. Historical events can be studied by methods of historical inquiry. If such study showed that the events recorded in the Bible did not happen or were significantly unlikely to have happened, then I would have to conclude that what I thought was a properly basic belief was an improperly basic error.

I could also have illustrated that point by referring to evidences relating to philosophical, existential, or even scientific considerations, not just historical. So if you’re worried that a discussion on evidences is moot, it’s not. I will admit that I do not expect or require evidences to produce certain proof with respect to God and Christ. I follow a best explanation approach instead: recognizing that any phenomenon could have multiple explanations, which one is the most satisfactory? And I also follow a cumulative evidence approach: no one set of evidences by itself can bear the whole weight of belief, but in concert with another they are very convincing.

So if the next question were, “Why do you believe, Tom?” I would begin my answer, “I believe because of the convergence of a whole constellation of reasons, ranging from my experience of God, to my experience of myself and other humans, to philosophical arguments and to historical evidences.” Each one of those reasons could be individually challenged, but as these challenges multiply in number, their strength weakens rather than grows; for they comprise a set of beliefs, all of which are necessary in order to sustain an atheistic viewpoint, and many of which are implausible. The result: it takes more “faith” to be an atheist than a Christian.

So that is my position in its most general, introductory form. I think a good direction to go from here would be to take some reasons for belief and work through them one at a time. What do you think?