Should the Christian faith be rationally defended?

by Narkissos 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Should the Christian faith be rationally defended?

  No and Yes.

  No, because one man's rational thoughts, arguments, conclusions etc. are not always anothers. Rationality is many times in the eye of the beholder.

  For instance with regard to the existence of God, rationally, I can conclude:

  That life as we know it demonstrates intelligent design. There are those in the scientific community who, while not being Christians or even theists, have themselves come to that same rational conclusion.

  That if life on earth demonstrates intelligent design, ergo there must be a designer. Various persons in the sciences have also come to that rational conclusion.

  That if life on earth has an intelligent designer this one must have had a reason to build this intelligently designed world. Intelligent life does nothing of purpose without a reason, even play has a reason.

  That if this intelligent designer had a reason to make this world then that reason should, to other intelligent life, be apparent by its design. Just as the reason for a toaster or an airplane or a typewriter would be apparent to other intelligent life.

  That the reason behind this design is more than simply the making of life because this world is much more than abundant life. Within the framework of this world lies the knowledge of (and the ability to explore and grasp onto that knowledge) all the known material sciences, of the humanities, of the beauty and the horror, of the greatest and lowest of the beasts and mankind, of the greatest love and most destructive hate and so much more.

  That there is only one intelligent life-form on this planet who has demonstrated its ability to understand all of the above and to put that understanding to constructive or destructive use. As a consequence all other life, intelligent or not, are subject to this superior life-form by virtue of their inability to disassemble or distill what has been contructed here and thereby learn from it.

  That this superior life-form is here by special design by virtue of the fact that it is the only one who has the capacity to intelligently learn and benefit from the various constructed physical systems and natural laws, the virtual laboratory of sciences as well as by the very real agonies and ecstasies that exist here in abundance.

  That because of the unique place this superior life-form occupies over all other living things, even having the potential to purposely destroy itself and all life on earth; the reason for the existence of this superior life-form must be one different than that of other life forms on this planet.

  That the possibility this planet's existence may be solely and directly the result of and for that superior life-form should be considered.

  That, if that is the case, then this superior life-form may either mean more to its intelligent designer than all the other life-forms or was made for a singularly significant purpose, one highly valued by its intelligent designer. (personally I believe the latter.)

  That, that purpose is apparent to some and will one day be apparent to all.

  Now, that's my rational thinking but I am quite sure not a few here dismissed it from the very beginning as being the rantings of an irrational mind.

  Rational defenses are in the minds eye, who hasn't spent time trying to understand the rational defenses and discussions of politicians, of the Iraqi war, of kids and prisons, of intuition (the eye of the subconcious mind) verses logical deduction (the eye of the conscious mind) and a host of other things? What's rational to one is not always considered rational to another. You can gather together the most prestigious group of scientists in any field or the most respected of religionists in any religion and find among them those who think one or more of their colleagues' thinking processes is irrational.

  Defending Christianity rationally and successfully only works with like minds and hearts. Like minds and hearts though are many times found in the most improbable of places, so in the end....

  Yes, it is reasonable to attempt to defend Christianity rationally.

  Sabrina
• 

  peacefulpete

  Narkisos...the Mystery Cults all worked on the inner 'revelation' over outer appearances. They prided themselves on the inability of non-intiates to grasp the experience. The cryptic language and imagery simply reflected the spiritual exclusiveness they reveled in. The idea of debating the value of the myths and symbolism would have been to miss the whole point. Pauline Christianity was deeply influenced by this 'saced secret' mystery approach to worship yet by connecting it with a specific historical cult of the Jews it became an imposssible hybrid. The Hellenized world mind was in transition, moving toward western style rationalism. It was not only natural but necessary that church fathers defend the new cult using what could be passed as science and history. It seems that only after they had succeeded in creating a corporeal intellectual tradition that Paul could be readopted without discomfort.
• 

  Sunchild

  Pole,

  There's no need for me to do this homework. And thank you for proving my point so swiftly. You do take some early Christian texts with a pinch of salt. I have never said I have any problem with that.

  It actually took me awhile to figure out what you were trying to say, since that's not quite what I was trying to get across. The point I was making was that, really, it doesn't matter since Paul wasn't God, and a person whose faith in God is strong will rely on Him to help them sort things out. Of course, this wouldn't mean very much to someone who doesn't believe God exists.

  Actually, the above exchange illustrates my "different sports, different rules" analogy very well. What I meant by it was that believers and non-believers play by very different rules which are often incompatible. This makes it kind of pointless for Christians to try to "prove" their faith in an atheistic context (or vice versa) since each group tends to interpret the world in very different ways. I also think that Christian attempts to prove their faith in terms of science is often a betrayal of that faith because it tends to marginalize the value of spiritual experience, as if said experience is somehow not as good as what you see and touch. It's not less; it's just different.

  Bur if you want to talk about Paul's letters, weren't they addressed to people who were already Christians? People for whom (with some exceptions) his words were accepted facts, not "proof" of some idea which was beyond their ken? If I remember right, what prompted some of those letters was a handful of people in the congregation who had introduced some rather... "interesting" teachings, and Paul was trying to keep order among the believers. It's not much different from when my pastor gives a sermon. There aren't a lot of people sitting in the pews who really need convincing.

  ~Rochelle.
• 

  Narkissos

  Thanks for all the responses. Very interesting thoughts everyone.

  Metatron:

  Equating Western modernity with Christianity is wrong imo. The former is also tributary to the historical struggle with the latter -- especially from the Enlightenment onwards.

  Rochelle:

  I enjoyed reading your story on your website. Even though we have walked very different ways I do appreciate your open mind and your earnest endeavour to make sense of all significant experiences in your life, without rejecting any of them or squeezing yourself into any orthodox pattern. Reminds me of Paul Tillich's title The Courage to Be (fascinating book btw).

  Gumby:

  Interesting point. Some time ago I reacted in a similar way to a poster saying "I believe in God, not in the Bible": "Hey, where did you get this concept of 'God' in the first place?" I think there is still the possibility of integrating the fact of literary creation within a personal (and most likely liberal) approach to "faith".

  Pole:

  All I said was that different forms of apologetics have been present in Christianity from day two (day one being the life of Jesus).

  Excellent remark -- whether there was ever a "day one", be it a "historical Jesus" or a "spiritual experience", writing always occurs in day two (Derrida again) and so includes a measure of apologetics. But of course the kind of apologetic strategy involved is quite different according to the texts (cf. Peacefulpete's post). E.g., Jesus refuses to give any sign or demonstrates his power through miracles.

  Logansrun:

  "Can the Christian faith be rationally defended?" would be quite another thread. I primarily wanted to address the reluctance to apologetics (or a specific kind of it) which is apparent in the work of some NT and later Christian writers such as Kierkegaard.

  Sabrina:

  You make a good point bringing up the issue of intellectual affinity. When I read what rationally convinces you I can really see no more than the "optical illusion" of teleology. But it just proves that our minds are different.
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Narkissos,

  Teleology; I had to look that one up.

  Thanks for the comment on my post, Narkissos. I appreciated it very much.

  Have a Happy New Year!

  Sabrina
• 

  AlanF

  Narkissos said:

  : Is the Christian faith as a whole something to be defended on rational grounds? Or is it a "special grace", an esoterical teaching, which only some are effectively called to believe? What do you think and why?

  According to The Gospel According to Luke -- of course it is supposed to be defensible on rational grounds! Note Luke 1:1-4 (NWT):

  1 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.

  It's obvious that a great many Christians are fully aware that the Christian faith is impossible to defend on purely rational grounds, and so they resort to the sort of pseudo-rational arguments set forth by (as you quoted) Sören Kierkegaard. But, in view of Luke 1, such arguments are nothing more than knowing excuses to avoid giving a rational defense that the potential defender knows he cannot honestly and rationally give.

  I have no beef with anyone who simply says, "I believe such and such." But I reserve the right to argue against any and all persons who say, "I can prove such and such." I especially reserve the right to argue against those who claim that their belief makes me or others into evil people -- which the Christian faith inherently does.

  AlanF
• 

  Narkissos

  AlanF,

  Luke-Acts is certainly the best (or worst!) NT example of the apologetic, "day-two" (as Pole wrote), proto-Catholic kind of Christianity. And to this day it is still central to any Church catechism. It usually takes years of dogmatism for people who learn Christianity through it to realise that there are very different kinds of Christianity (e.g. Johannine or Pauline) within the NT. But they are there anyway.

  As to Kierkegaard, I often think of him as the "swan song" of mystical or subjective Christianity in the face of mounting criticism. He chose to disregard Bible criticism rather than struggling with it (which nobody could still do one generation later) and switched to the subjective realm instead. Escapism? Maybe. But while this didn't really save Christianity from the lost fight of apologetics (despite Karl Barth's attempt at that) it did open new insights in philosophy (existentialism, from Heidegger to Sartre) which, I think, are better than "pseudo-rational": at least he demonstrated that rationality was not limited to objectivity, and I hold that as a highly valuable contribution to the history of thought.
• 

  Sunchild

  Narkissos,

  I enjoyed reading your story on your website. Even though we have walked very different ways I do appreciate your open mind and your earnest endeavour to make sense of all significant experiences in your life, without rejecting any of them or squeezing yourself into any orthodox pattern. Reminds me of Paul Tillich's title The Courage to Be (fascinating book btw).

  Thank you kindly. That's such a lovely compliment that I can't say much which wouldn't sound foolish in response. Still, I think I was born on the fringe, so there's really not much purpose in my trying to be normal. *g*

  I've never heard of that book, though. I may have to check it out sometime.

  Peace to you,

  ~Rochelle.
• 

  PinTail

  There is no rational to faith, its beyond understanding, its to be felt by the one having it.

  May the Force Be with You".
• 

  outbutnotdown

  I was trying to find a way to express my feelings about this topic and then Alan F said this:

  I have no beef with anyone who simply says, "I believe such and such." But I reserve the right to argue against any and all persons who say, "I can prove such and such." I especially reserve the right to argue against those who claim that their belief makes me or others into evil people -- which the Christian faith inherently does.

  I have always found it very telling that Christian teachings "inherently" makes other religions' viewpoints wrong/bad/evil. Jesus, as great/peaceful/enlightened as he might have been, was basically creating a following by condemning all other teachers before him. It started with the Jews and then spread to the other nations.

  How "great" was that?

  Jesus - "Pick up your torture stake and continually follow me!"

  Wasn't this an invitation to all masochistic people to start a movement? Then these same people became the leaders of his new movement.

  I know my comments area little harsh but how positive a group did he attract?

  I'm with Alan F.......... believe what you want to believe.......... but when what you are trying to teach me does me more harm than good..... leave me alone.

  Brad