I began reading on Reasonable Faith, an apologetics book written by William Lane Craig which I borrowed from a law school varsity christian fellowship senior.
The first chapter of William Lane Craig's book brought to my awareness the dispute within the theological world of the role of apologetics to Christian faith and belief. On page 29, William Lane Craig presents the issue of the relationship of apologetics towards belief in Christianity - "Does a case for Christianity proceed from a leap of faith or on the authority of the Word of God, both unrelated to reason? Or is an evidential foundation for faith necessary, without which faith would be unjustified and irrational?"
This tussle amongst the different school of thoughts plays out in the history of the church with various Christian intellectuals holding one view or another. On one end of the spectrum, there are those who are strict authoritatrian; that is to say, they hold that the ground for faith is sheer unquestionable, divine authority. This authority might be expressed in either the Scriptures or in the church. And on the other end of the spectrum, there are the rationalist with the likes of John Locke who are thinkers borne out from the period of the Enlightenment, who maintain that religious belief must have an evidential foundation and that where such a foundation is absent, religious belief is unwarranted. Then there are those on the middle ground who attempt to provide a rational foundation for authority via historical apologetics (See Thomas Aquinas).
One of the more interesting contemporary views mentioned in the book at page 39 is that of Alvin Platinga. Platinga maintains that belief in God and in the central doctrines of Christianity is both rational and warranted wholly apart from any evidential foundations for belief. He questions why can't the proposition "God exists" be a foundational proposition, such that no evidence is necessary to substantiate it. I have excerpted the nature of his argument as presented in the book at page 40 below.
"Platinga does not deny that self-evident and incorrigible propositions are properly basic, but he does ask how we know that these are the only properly basic propositions or beliefs. If they are, then we are all irrational, since we commonly accept numerous beliefs that are not based on evidence and that are neither self-evident nor incorrigible. For example, take the belief that the world was not created five minutes ago with built-in memory traces...The evidentialitst's criteria for proper basicality must be flawed. In fact, what about the status of those criterias? Is the proposition "Only propositions that are self-evident or incorrigible are properly basic" itself properly basic? Apparently not, for it is certainly not self-evident or incorrigible. Therefore, if we are to believe this proposition, we must have evidence that it is true. But there is no such evidence. The proposition appears to be just an arbitrary definition - and not a very plausible one at that! Hence, the evidentialist cannot exclude the possibility that belief in God is a properly basic belief."
And Platinga also maintains, following John Calvin, that belief in God is properly basic. Man has an innate natural capacity to accept truths of perception (like "I see a tree"). Given the appropriate circumstances - such as moments of guilt, gratitude, or a sense of God's handiwork in nature - man naturally appreheneds God's existence.
Personally, I am convicted of the belief that God exists because I see such intelligence of design in the way human beings have their respective predisposition to their various vocations, which requires a certain finesse of allocation by nature to the development of diversity of human talents and potentials, and through this diversity does society functions appropriately. So we see for example, that in society, there are those who are inclined towards the sciences, some towards the arts, some towards music, some towards athleticism, some towards manual labour, some towards learning and the academia, etc. Society functions adequately with the collectives of this diversity in human talents and potentials. This perception also gives me a sense of place and belonging in the world, that I have a purpose in my existence in contributing to society or to humanity in the way that I am created. I suppose this is what Platinga would qualify as a properly basic belief that is not self-evident that is from the innate natural capacity in man for the perception of truths. I have no doubts that communists would lambast my perception for entrenching the notion of classed-society, existentialists in the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre would deride my notion of human beings having vocation-characterized natures a case of bad faith, and evolutionists would explain away the apparent diversity of human potentials via natural selection (Do tell me if you know where I can find an account of evolutionary theory for this).
I suppose a good theory for the role of epistemology in Christian apologetics allows for a pragmatic functioning of society because not all people in society would have the time or capabilities to determine the truth of Christianity. The above-mentioned theory by Platinga allows for such pragmatism in allowing the common man to accord rationality to his belief without having to become a specialist in Christian apologetics. I don't disagree that a rationalist viewpoint of Christian apologetics would be very difficult on the common man because not all human beings can commit to such an endeavour. However, I see societal structure as providing the framework for which the rationalism filters down in society. It is this concept of the professional class which is obliged to fulfill the rationalist task of evaluating the veracity of religion by evidence, and then presenting their conclusion to the rest of society. Belief by people in society in religion is thence rational as it is backed indirectly by evidence. Such belief is qualified by the weight of authoritaty from expert's conclusion. Inasmuch as we trust the professional opinions of doctors, lawyers, and experts in their various fields, so is it that we trust a professional class devoted to determining the truth of religion based on evidence.
An aside, there seems to be a following of William Lane Craig in the Varsity Christian Fellowship. A law school VCF senior borrows much of his curriculum from William Lane Craig materials in running his Seeker Cell meetings for non-christians interested to know more about the truth of christianity. When I was having dinner with some fellow VCF seniors one day, I heard them talking about the video featuring the debate between William Lane Craig and the late Christopher Hitchens, one of the prominent figures of the New Atheism movement. They were impressed with the delivery that William Lane Craig gave at the debate and his crushing defeat of Christopher Hitchens. In fact, they thought he would have made an excellent law school mooter.
We managed to get 2 converts from the Seeker Cell ministry. The Seeker cell leader commented at a VCF sub-com meeting about how he sees the role of apologetics in VCF ministry from the outcome. We later learnt that the 2 converts were the lovers of 2 of the cell group leaders in the vcf. I jokingly told the seeker cell leader that "While I don't discount the efficacy of apologetics, you certainly can't deny the forces of attraction in evangelism!"
Love is in the air. Within the cell group I am leading, Jireh, there is this 2 year ones, a boy and a girl, who are the more regular year 1 attenders of cell group meetings. The girl seems a little clingly to the boy, but the boy seems kind of oblivious. It's romance in the making, and I shall be hush about it and be in observance of the development of affairs. Now, what can I do as cell group leader to help things along? You thinking what I am thinking? Let's make them the next cell group leaders of Jireh!
No comments:
Post a Comment