Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?

dunsscot

Arguments from natural theology are at times needed when Christians defend the faith against atheological attacks. Yet, for the Christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for Christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness. No, Christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that God provides to those who love him. It is no wonder CS Lewis wrote about the obstinacy of belief.

Lewis and Alvin C. Plantinga have taken on evidentialism and shown that she is found wanting when judged by her own standard. Both thinkers show that Christians are in a relationship with the Most High that no one can cause them to easily doubt. Christians are thus rightly obstinate in their theistic beliefs, even in the face of supposed contrary evidence that could deceive if possible, even the elect.

Just as a man does not doubt the existence of his wife or his children, just as a wife does not question the existence of the mate that she lives with, eats dinner with, and has loving relations with--so the Christian, being in an intimate relationship with Almighty God, does not doubt God's existence (even when the way gets rough). We thus conclude with these sagacious words from Lewis:

"To believe that God--at least this God--exists is to believe that you as a person now stand in the presence of God as a Person . . . You are no longer faced with an argument which demands your assent, but with a Person who demands your confidence" (OB, 26).

Duns the Scot

Seeker

I have always supported the right of a person to believe what they wish, and I'm respectful of a Christian's belief. It is only when they stray into evidentialism that I tend to speak up, for the evidence they tend to find hardly proves their point. It is faith they should embrace.

larc

Duns,

I think Seeker has made a very good point. Faith is the answer for you, not logic.

I have a very good friend who has a PhD in Organizational Communications. Late in life, he went back to college to get a Master's in Theology. I asked him a question related to your dialogue. He said that was a matter of faith. I did not ask any more questions, and he did not offer any more elaboration. I consider him to be one of my best friends.

philo

Hey Dunscott! Can you do Immanentism next?

philo

dunsscot

Dear Seeker,

:I have always supported the right of a person to believe what they wish, and I'm respectful of a Christian's belief. It is only when they stray into evidentialism that I tend to speak up, for the evidence they tend to find hardly proves their point. It is faith they should embrace.:

With reference to comments and thought patterns much like your own, certain Christian thinkers have made the following observations. I somewhat agree with them:

"It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith" (GK Chesterton).

"In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved" (Chesterton).

The more I study varying epistemologies and examine how those who formulate such theories of knowledge have tried to apodictically ground epistemic warrant, I am convinced that we cannot prove anything apodictically except maybe that we exist in some shape or form. Maybe Augustine's si fallor, sum or Descartes' cogiot ergo sum are problematic, as Hume indicates. In other words, each proposition, at its base, seems unprovable.

When we begin to engage in self-referentiality or start to use metalanguage to make sense of a particular base language, Kurt Godel and John Barrow assure us that we cannot avoid circularity or dogmatism. They have particularly spoke about the ineluctable conundrums associated with mathematics. Math is ultimately unprovable in an apodictic sense. Even simple problems like 2 + 2 = 4 are unprovable. So it seems that religion and reason or any type of evidentialism are in the same boat ultimately.

Duns the Scot

SixofNine

To believe that God--at least this God--exists is to believe that you as a person now stand in the presence of God as a Person . . . You are no longer faced with an argument which demands your assent, but with a Person who demands your confidence"

I know these aren't your words Dens, but I am curious as to what this hack Lewis is talking about. Which God, and in what way does this Person demand the believers confidence? Also, on a more personal note, if you believe this Person demands your confidence, what do you suppose this Persons' motivation is?

bboyneko

duns the scot said:

so the Christian, being in an intimate relationship with Almighty God, does not doubt God's existence

Sure its eays to not deny the existence of your wife or child since you SEE them everyday, COMMUNICATE with them every day, as in you talk to them and they respond verbally. You can even email them, phone them, write a letter, etc.

You can touch them, fell them, smell them, be annoyed by their irritating habbits etc.

But with god, you never see him, he never talks to you, he never does anything. There is much scientific evidence for the existence of say, my cat, but there is szilch for god. Why? because he is non-corporeal. And he does not communicate with peoples.

SO you see why alot of people don not beleive in god, because if he exists, refuses to show himself.

How can you have an 'intimate' relationship with a person when that person 1) never shows himself 2) never talks to you, and when you talk to him you can never do it to his face, you have to send him something and hope he reads it or hears it, because he never sends you any verification that he has received it 3) in fact, you have never seen this person and noone else has either. You have just been told since you were little that this is a good person.

to me, that is not at all 'intimate'..in fact youd start to think that if he did exsists, he doesent really care much for you.

-Dan

dunsscot

:Duns,
I think Seeker has made a very good point. Faith is the answer for you, not logic.

I have a very good friend who has a PhD in Organizational Communications. Late in life, he went back to college to get a Master's in Theology. I asked him a question related to your dialogue. He said that was a matter of faith. I did not ask any more questions, and he did not offer any more elaboration. I consider him to be one of my best friends.:

Your friend sounds like an extreme fideist, larc. I simply do not buy that type of Tertullianist or Kierkegaardian way of processing religious information. I favor John Locke's view instead. He suggests that reason is the arbiter of faith: it protects us from spiritual abuses and forces religion to be "honest." A belief that is irrational should be rejected, says Locke. I agree, but I may temper Locke's view somewhat by noting that the word "proof" as it stands is ambiguous. Secondly, I think there are different types of proof for disparate fields. One does not present an ethical or theological proof in the same way that he/she produces a scientific or analytic "proof." We must also consider certain epistemic barriers that may attend such attempts to prove God's existence. The distinction between ontological and logical truth comes into play here.

Furthermore, if Lewis and Plantinga are correct, a Christian really has no need to prove anything about his belief in God. He or she might just as well "prove" the existence of the mate that he/she loves and adores.

Duns the Scot

dunsscot

:Hey Dunscott! Can you do Immanentism next?:

I'll write it down on my philosophical "to do' list. :->

Dan

Duns the Scot

SixofNine

Even simple problems like 2 + 2 = 4 are unprovable

btw, why do you keep saying this? Take two of something. Take two more. How many will you have?

Some things really are that simple. Self evident.

Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?

Share this