Friday, July 30, 2010

L 1.3

Loftus makes the statement that after encountering objections to Christianity, “It required too much intellectual gerrymandering to believe”. Another very interesting statement shows up on p. 31 that “If anyone wants to discount my deconversion and present rejection of Christianity because of my experiences, then I could discount the overwhelming number of Christian conversion experiences”.

Loftus takes the time to refer to people who have left the faith as examples of the first statement referred to. Why is there no discussion on people who have come to faith from atheism (Lee Strobel, C. S. Lewis, Josh Mcdowell)? Those people feel like non-theism requires too much intellectual gerrymandering to believe. So, who is right?

Interestingly enough, he puts both beliefs on equal ground with the second statement referred to. In an important sense, he is right to do so. There are cases that support Christian belief and there are cases that undermine Christianity. This is an issue of worldview. The disciple of Christ has God as their ultimate authority is going to find the cases for Christianity and the responses to objections to Christianity as intellectually gratifying. Obviously, the non-theist is going to intellectually side with objections to Christianity. Ultimately, the data being cited by either side isn’t in question. The conclusions being drawn from the data are in question. Why does a person choose one worldview over another? Why does a person decide theism over non-theism or the reverse? Both groups of people are saying they “followed the evidence”. Clearly, they both can’t be right in that assessment because the two positions are mutually exclusive.

If a person chooses to make God the ultimate authority in their life, there is plenty of evidence to support that belief. Conversely, no person can substantiate that God does not exist. It would require infinite knowledge which no person can possesses. Therefore, non-theism is incomplete as a belief system.

In regards to agnosticism, God has revealed Himself to us in many instances through general revelation and special revelation. There is no reason to say we can’t know God. An agnostic choosing to make no statement either way hasn’t made the problem disappear.

In summary, the evidence for or against a worldview isn't paramount. The conclusions a person draws from the evidence is the issue. Those conclusions reflect the state of the heart of the individual. Christians can support their beliefs through God as the ultimate authority whereas nontheists can't prove that God does not exist. Therefore, conclusions for nontheism or against theism can't be supported because of that monumental gap in the nontheist worldview.

No comments: