A few days ago I posted about the research I had done into the authority of the Bible. But, yesterday I was challenged about the reasonableness of always looking for the logical answer.
The big-name Christian apologists are, basically, modernists. Their method of apologetics is to show that belief in the God of Christianity is entirely compatible with human rationality. In other words, they are accepting the proposition that human rationality is the standard against which God is judged. This may not be particularly glorifying to God but it certainly glorifies human rationality.
They might say that they are accepting this proposition as a starting point because it is the mindset of those that they are going up against, and hey, we’re into contextualization and starting from where the other person is coming from, but you can’t be a Christian and leave that starting point unchallenged. The Christian starting point is that God is the standard against which everything, up to and including human rationality, is judged.
This is why I have no interest in debates between prominent atheists and prominent apologists. They both place their ultimate faith and authority in the human capacity for reason and logic and in the need to make rationally defensible choices. In that sense, they’re both arguing the same side.
Worse, if you do go down that road, what kind of a God can you end up with? A God who is rationally defensible may be the clockwork god of the Deists but not the surprising, challenging and sometimes confusing God of the Bible.
From the blog of Simon Cozens
For a moment I questioned whether I was barking up the wrong tree and whether the research I had done was relevant to a generation that questions truth and authority anyway. Well,
1) Knowing that there is accurate and reliable evidence for God, creation through intelligent design, Jesus and his death and resurrection is important for me, even if it has no real bearing on my conversations with others.
2) My belief in the rationality of the evidence for God does not necessarily mean I believe that God is rational. In fact, I think I believe God to be totally irrational. Rationality would probably have put paid to the world at the point of the flood, even if it had been allowed to continue that far. I wonder even, if a rational God would have given us free will.
3) It’s too easy to assume that times have changed and that we now need to adapt our communications to a postmodern audience. The problem is that audiences are very rarely made up of just postmoderns, and even when they are, there’s a sliding scale with some postmoderns looking very like modernists. Although, I agree that debates aren’t the most effective form of communication. Were they ever?