Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Converts from Evidence - (nf)
Message-ID: <2288@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Apr-84 10:57:44 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.2288
Posted: Sat Apr 14 10:57:44 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Apr-84 09:25:20 EST
References: <334@iuvax.UUCP>, <561@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 100


I think Daryel's suspicion about former atheists or "anti-religionists"
not having been converted by objective evidence alone, to be valid.  In
particular, C. S. Lewis' conversion was *not* for this reason, as many
Christians like to assume.  Lewis was a brilliant apologist and communicator
of his faith and many believe that the rational argument that Lewis
presents in his books to be his own means of converson.  His books have
helped many to give Christianity serious consideration (which is why
Christians recommend them to non-believers) but I think the thoughts
worked out in most of his books came after his conversion, not before.
Lewis, like all others, had to "meet God" for the conversion to take
place.  If there is no real God behind all the rhetoric, the rhetoric
is worthess no matter how well developed.  Of course, a divine "experience"
without rational doctrine is also worthless.  There are no external
criteria by which the experience may be judged.  There has to be a balence.
One can't be emphasized to the exclusion of the other.

I too question the claims of any Christian who gives objective evidence as
the sole reason for their conversion.  The whole idea seems absurd.  It may
be a major factor in the conversion of some, but there is no way that it
can be the only factor.  As I have said before, when we consider Christianity
we consider a relationship (involving non-rational means of understanding)
not just a philosophy.

Rich Rosen seems to suggest that the Christians have "changed the tune"
of their argument, as if they have been backed into a corner and now
appeal to the non-rational aspects of religion to save them.  Well, speaking
for myself, my "tune" hasn't changed.  I don't fall into the trap of thinking
skeptics will be convinced on objective evidence alone.  You see, just
as it is foolish for Christians to point to McDowell, Lewis or others and
say "see they were converted by the *evidence* for Christianity", it is
just as foolish for skeptics to pretend that they would surely convert if
only they were presented with enough evidence and rational argument.
Much of the "evidence" that skeptics demand would either require that the
God of Christians contradict his unchangeable character or become a servant
of the whims of man.  All this with no gaurentee that the skeptic will not
find an explaination for the evidence that suits him better.

There is no getting around the necessity of having to "*taste* and see that
the Lord is good" and "you shall find me when you have sought me with your
whole heart" in order to be personlly convinced of the truth of Chistianity.
I know that non-believers like to call this "brain washing", but I think
that charge can be thrown around with equal weight from both sides, each
assuming the other are either decieved or liers.  It doesn't mean much.

Evidence definitely has an important place in obtaining knowledge, but I
think too much faith is often placed on "evidence", as if, just by the fact
of its existence, it constituted "proof" for something.  This makes the
mistaken assumption that our interpretation is always, or completely, correct.
All this is not to deny that there is good evidence for the truth of
Christianity.  But many make the mistake of equating evidence with proof.
They are not the same.  Evidence supports a claim, but it is subject to
interpretation and is often very incomplete.  To demand, or claim, that every
aspect of Christianity has the support of irrefutable evidence is foolish.
I would suspect that the belief systems many skeptics of religious belief
do not rest on the quality of "evidence" that they demand of religion.  But,
of course they are under no obligation to support thier own philosophy of
life here, only to intimate that they know better than the religious ones
by "debunking" religious belief. :-)

I don't think that the recognition that evidence and reason have limited
value in understanding something or someone necesitates that we disregard
or distrust them completely.  Recognizing a tool to have limited abilities
does not take away its value.  It only helps us not to demand that the
tool do what it can't.  I do not think the examples of non-rational means
of understanding to be an evasion of the issue of whether or not the
Christian religion is valid.  They are a simple statement of the obvious.
They apply to all of us.  We use them all the time (especially where
understanding of a *person* [such is the Christian God] is concerned) and
never stop to question whether or not we are being rational.  (See my
last response to Darrell Plank "More Skepticism of Skeptics" for those
examples).

To the skeptics who say that it is the burden of the religious ones
to support (totally by evidence and logic) their religious claims I
would remind you that this *is* net.religion.  People who make such
claims here are not out of line.  They are not forcing you to believe
them or even to read the articles they post here.  You can unsubscribe
and not be bothered.  If you want to dominate the discussion in a
newsgroup with attacks on religious belief then create net.anti-religion
and do it there.  Rich, you and others with your attitude seem to believe
that religious people have no right to say the things they say in this
newsgroup without defending every word of it.  Why don't you walk into
a church (mosque or synagogue for that matter) and tell the speaker that
he must defend every thing he says to the people gathered there with
"evidence" if he is to say it at all.  Like I said, people who write here
aren't banging your door down, demanding that you listen.

I know you are prone to believe that all this is a evasive excuse for not
taking part in your debate.  But I don't really care if you believe that.
I have already given my reasons in previous articles.  I can't make
anyone believe that they are valid reasons if they don't want to.
The truth of the Christian faith doesn't rest on the ability of any
Christian to convince people with that kind of attitude.   God help us all
if it did.  Indeed, if only intellectuals could understand Christianity
enough to become Chistians, there are many millions for whom there is no
hope.


Paul Dubuc