I was re-reading Case for Christ by Lee Strobel last week, and the following quote jumped out at me. Here, Gregory A. Boyd, near the end of the chapter where he has commented on and dismantled the assumptions of the ultra skeptical "Jesus Seminar", Boyd moves on to comment on the nature of faith and evidence:

"Let me get this straight," [Strobel] said. "Your Jesus -the Jesus you relate to- is both a Jesus of history and a Jesus of faith."

Boyd clenched his fist for emphasis, as if I’d just scored a touch-down. "Yes, that’s it exactly, Lee!" he exclaimed. Moving to the very edge of his chair, he spelled out precisely what his scholarship -and his heart- have brought him to believe.

"It’s like this: if you love a person, your love goes beyond the facts of that person, but it’s rooted in the facts about that person. For example, you love your wife because she’s gorgeous, she’s nice, she’s sweet, she’s kind. All these things are facts about your wife, and therefore you love her."

"But your love goes beyond that. You can know all these things about your wife and not be in love with her and put your trust in her, but you do. So the decision goes beyond the evidence, yet it is there also on the basis of the evidence."

"So it is with falling in love with Jesus. To have a relationship with Jesus Christ goes beyond just knowing the historical facts about him, yet it’s rooted in the historical facts about him. I believe in Jesus on the basis of the historical evidence, but my relationship with Jesus goes way beyond the evidence. I have to put my trust in him and walk with him on a daily basis." (Case for Christ, 125-126)

Although Boyd is a somewhat controversial figure in certain evangelical circles, I find him to be right-on in his commentary here.

Please see the "Links" area in the sidebar to the right for further resources on this topic and related areas of inquiry.

(Please note: This long post represents my initial thoughts, and not any kind of carefully worded thesis, on this issue. I hope to develop these thoughts further and in more detail at a later date.)

Sam Harris, famous propagator of straw-man fallacies (at least, IMHO) regarding the nature of faith, has this to say about science in his article "Science Must Destroy Religion":

Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world. … The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so.

To be clear from the outset, I have nothing against science; certainly, it would seem ironic at best to bemoan the wonders of science while posting on an Internet blog as I type on my laptop which is connected wirelessly through the wireless router. But as I thought about Scientism (aka Positivism, though the terms are not exactly synonymous, they are similar), ie the belief that scientific study is the only way to "real" knowledge, I was led to consider the way in which we know scientific knowledge.

The process of scientific discovery and dissemination, as I understand it, goes something like this:

Scientific Experiment

1. A scientist (or team), knowledgeable and accredited in his/her/their chosen field of inquery, performs a scientific experiment according to the scientific method.
2. The experiment is repeated to verify the results are reliable.
3. Once duly confirmed, results are scrutinized by other scientists, and published in peer reviewed journals.
4. The reports published in the journals are then condensed and distilled to their essential details to be published in the common press.
5. We read the reports about the studies, accept the results, and modify our lives/behavior accordingly.

But wait a minute … this is the process by which scientists ascertain scientific truth. As laypeople, we are active only in step #5 of the above process. When we talk about how we "know" science, the process might look something more like this:

Everyday Science

1. We read about scientific discoveries in the popular press, or hear about them secondhand from other people.
2. Not willing to believe everything we read (or hear about), we perform an evaluation of the proposed scientific discovery:
   • Is the source describing the claim credible? (ie. The BBC has more credibility than, say, someone's anonymous MySpace site)
   • Are the credentials of the person/people making the claim appropriate to the type of claims being made?
   • Do they have a potential bias that may have tainted the results?
   • Do those conducting the study have a potential reason for lying, overgeneralizing or selectively interpreting the results?
   • Are there other plausible explanations or interpretations of the results?
   • Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, so does the experiment really show a causal relationship?
3. By analyzing the evidence available to us, we make a judgment based on whether it is most reasonable to believe the claim or not.

The reasons that we have to engage in a process of personal discernment regarding scientific claims are numerous. First of all, many scientific claims are highly disputed. No, I'm not talking about evolution. 😉 But what about global warming? Is it caused by humankind? Are you sure? Some people aren't. Secondly, sometimes the claims we read in the press later turn out to be fraudulent. Numerous recent examples include Hwang Woo-suk's false cloning "research" (which was intentionally fabricated) and the Bogdanov Affair in theoretical physics where for quite some time the Bogdanov brothers' scientific peers couldn't agree whether their research (published in respected scientific journals) was legitimate or pure nonsense. Thirdly, and more practically, we know that honest mistakes are sometimes made, and it's usually best to check things out for ourselves rather than trusting authority, even though we will of course hold the opinions of those with legitimate authority highly.

It should be clear that, while the method above ("Practical Science") does seem sensible and rational, that it is not much at all like the scientific method. Even those who are scientists themselves are experts in at most one or two fields of inquiry, so for example an physicist would need to use much the same process to evaluate the claims of an archaeologist. So, from a dogmatically scientifist point of view, only the scientists who actually conduct the study really "know" anything; most, however, even those claiming a scientism point of view, would agree that the "Practical Science" method outlined above is still valid.

     Do you have a point or are you just rambling?

Okay, okay. Lest I be accused of engaging in straw-man arguments of my own, let's say that this process of laypeople "knowing" science could indeed fall under the definition of scientism because the process we engage in is still rational and based on evidence. In that case, the types of evidence we consider in the process outlined above (bias? credibility? other interpretations?) must be considered valid evidence when making our judgments whether we believe something or not. If this type of evidence were not considered to be valid, then the layperson would have no means by which to evaluate scientific claims made by other people.

It's worthy of note, then, that these same sorts of evidence are some of the types of evidence that are routinely presented as arguing for the authenticity of the Christian faith. Arguing that Christian evidence is based on "authority" is not a problem per se, because we receive our scientific knowledge the same way: from established experts (authorities) in their fields. By examining historical, philosophical, theological, and yes, even scientific evidences, we can come to reasonable conclusions regarding the possibility of truthfulness of the Christian faith. Making the claim that there is "no evidence" to support the Christian faith is simply incorrect. Someone making that claim that there is no evidence has either never considered the evidence available or has dismissed it out of hand from the outset as evidence of an invalid type, although we have seen that there is no reason to dismiss this type of evidence. Saying that "the evidence is not convincing enough to me" is one thing, but claiming that "there is no evidence" is quite another.

Hopefully this all makes sense. Perhaps later, after further reflection, I'll try to rework this into a proper essay.

Related links:

• The Evidence for Jesus – by Dr William Lane Craig: "In summary, the gospels are not only trustworthy documents … their historical veracity shines through."
• Five Possible Theories regarding Jesus' Resurrection – "Which theory about what really happened in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday can account for the data?"
• Videos: Investigating Christianity – Lee Strobel interviews scholars in many fields to answer questions about the Christian faith. (63 different short streaming video clips)

Was browsing Amazon today (as I am wont to do a little too often as my growing Amazon Wishlist will attest) and came across this quote re the "multiple universes" objection:

As far as the endless universes argument, I'll lay the flaw on the line: THE MANY UNIVERSES THEORY EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, THUS IT EXPLAINS NOTHING. I could say with equal validity that, in a multiverse consisting of an infinite number of realities, there would inevitably arise a world where fossil evidence appears to support evolution, when in fact it never occurred. The evidence looks that way by sheer coincidence. (Free Thinker's review of Dawkins' The God Delusion on Amazon)

The objection of "endless universes" seems to come up occasionally when I'm discussing God with people. It is sometimes used in its scientific sense an argument against the Anthropic Principle, however there are more than a few problems with using multiple universes as an argument against the Anthropic Principle.

I haven't yet read Dawkins' The God Delusion, but from what I've heard about it, it wouldn't present much new information. Here are some resources I've come across lately regarding Dawkins' book:

• Skeptical Christian: The God Delusion – The Skeptical Christian's review of the book.
• London Review of Books: Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching – Terry Eagleton's literary review.
• The Complete Review: The God Delusion – Links to many published reviews of Dawkins' book (both positive and negative) with several quotes listed on the page.

As always, if you're going to read The God Delusion, I might suggest that for balance you also read McLaren's Finding Faith.

BTW, sorry for the lack of posting. The last two weeks were spent scrambling to try to get all of my papers handed in for school so I didn't have a lot of time to post.

What can we know, if anything, about God by "natural theology"? That is, how much can we know about God without revelation? To put it another way, what is available to us via general revelation, not special revelation?

I think we can know quite a bit about God via general revelation. I'll base the following comments on three assumptions:
1) God exists.
2) God is much greater, in all respects, perhaps infinitely greater, than we are.
3) God created the universe.
To clarify point #2, when we describe God we are, as finite, limited creatures, seeing God "imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror", as Paul says (1 Corinthians 13:12). So I am not claiming to be able to know everything about God, nor even fully comprehending any particular facet perfectly, only that we are able to know certain things about God's nature, albeit imperfectly. Now strap yourself in; this post will be a little longer than usual, but I think it'll be worthwhile.

So first, I think we can say that God is creative. This follows from the fact that God created the universe. If God is the Creator, it means God must, in some sense, be creative. Part of being creative is intelligence. (A person might accidentally end up with something we'd call "creative", without any intelligence, by acting randomly, but we wouldn't deem it creative because it was not done purposefully.) So God would be intelligent, and it would be reasonable to say God would be (at least) more intelligent than any of us, or even more intelligent than all of us put together. Thus we could say God is omniscient (all-knowing).

Next, I think we can also say that God is omnipotent, that is, all-powerful. Not only was God creative and intelligent enough to conceive of our diverse and vast universe, but God actually acted and made it happen. Thus God has the power to do things, to make stuff happen. There is no limit to what God can do, as long as it does not contradict the other attributes God possesses. Now, God would not be limited by "time", at least not the chronological progression of events that we consider time. Since God created the universe, God would not be confined by anything within it. In this sense, then, God is outside time … God is eternal.

I'll also add that God must be, in some sense, personal. "Personal?" you may be thinking. "Why couldn't God just be an impersonal force of some kind?" One reason goes back to point #3 above. It seems a choice was made to cause our universe to exist. It wasn't something God was required to do (what would God "need"?) but chose to do. That element of choice (as well as intelligence; how can an impersonal force be intelligent?) suggests that God is, in some sense "personal", though again, in some way much more awesome than we are. McLaren is helpful here:

When people think of a person, they think of rather quaint but silly images – such as God as a Santa-esque old man … Our problem in this regard is probably a matter of words – perhaps confusing "personal" with "human". To illustrate, think of the following items: gravity, helium, water, coal, a fern, a frog, a parrot, a golden retriever, a chimpanzee, a human being … I don't know any frogs very well, but with my limited experience, they seem to have a little, but not much, in the way of personality. Parrots have more, and golden retrievers and chimpanzees more still … with each step up the ladder, we didn't lose the qualities of the previous steps; rather, we added more capabilities, more depth … while we subtracted previous limitations, going from matter to form to solidity to plant life to animal life … to human life. Let's imagine we inserted a million rungs in our ladder after human beings, each rung suggesting more developed, less limited beings, with personalities as far beyond our own as ours are beyond a bullfrog's … we'd be getting some idea of the way in which we can speak of God being personal. (Brian McLaren, Finding Faith, 129-130)

If God is not in some sense personal, in some sense relational, doesn't have something much greater than but still recognizable as personality, God would be lower than frogs, parrots and golden retrievers. That won't do. I'd say God must be, in some sense, personal.

Our list so far includes eternal, creative, all-powerful, all-knowing, and personal. What's still missing? One final thought: God is good. This is may the hardest one to accept. After all, if God is good, why do things sometimes seem so bad? But it certainly seems odd that with the trouble and strife that we see around us, every monotheistic (one-God) religion proposes that God is good. To appropriate one of C S Lewis' arguments, what would cause "primitive" man from attributing such a world to a good God if none existed?

If God is, in some sense personal, as seems to be the case from the above, how could God not be good? Caring? Loving, even? After all, if God exists, our morality, what we call good and bad, are really just terms for "Godly" and "ungodly". It's interesting to note that the Bible goes farther than calling God "good". It says that "God is love" (1 John 4:8 & 4:16).

Those are just my ideas though. We can only go so far by "general revelation" alone; eventually we must venture father into the trepid waters of "special revelation" to really know God. Why wouldn't we want to know God? Certainly a personal God could not only be known, but would want to be known, and make it possible to be known. Such a God might even go as far as coming down to our level. We couldn't comprehend God at God's own level after all. History's only person, "God in the flesh", fully God and fully human in every sense of the words, who's life (and death, and resurrection) is so compelling that today there are two billion followers around the world, is Jesus Christ. In my opinion, no other "god" compares. Check out the resources linked below, see what you think!

Further reading:

• Deep: Who is Jesus? – A five part study on Jesus' life. Fairly in-depth and information-packed.
• Shorter: Jesus: Fact or Fiction? – Interactive exploration. Many experts discuss. With videos nstuff.
• Really Short: Jesus? I Want to Know More – A brief Flash-based presentation of the "good news", the Gospel. With related links.
• As Long as you Want: Contact me