Here is the question I have for Christians:
If you were to be presented with compelling evidence that Christianity were false, would you forsake Christianity?
I'm not asking whether or not you think evidence like this would ever be found, or whether or not you would double and triple check it (let's assume you spend 40 years checking it and become an expert in the field). I'm also not asking whether or not you can imagine what this evidence would be like. Let's say that the evidence is as strong as the evidence against Mormonism. (see http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/mormonism-anachronism-2.html)
This is a hypothetical question and we are assuming the evidence is valid!
Please let me know what your response to this question is!!!
Yes.
ReplyDeleteYes, I would change. Blind faith, when God gave us reason, is wrong, I believe.
The real conundrum is that we have no evidence that Christianity is true OR false.
We certainly have historic confirmation that Jesus lived, etc.... and other parallels with scripture exist in part in history and science.
But... we have no evidence. That is where faith is, I suppose, supposed to come into play.
But if the proof that Christianity is downright wrong were presented before me, it would go against reason not to forsake my beliefs.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment! My answer to the question is also yes.
However, I think we do have evidence! Some examples would be the Bible, historical texts like The Antiquities of the Jews, the existence of the universe, the ability for humans to know things and feel emotion, the existence of morality...
The post http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/1-month-review-where-weve-been-where.html has most of the popular arguments for and against God's existence as well.
Oh! Also! Here is a post on faith: http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/does-faith-have-to-be-blind.html
I would love to hear your thoughts!
Anonymous: I concur with Josh in that I think there is significant evidence for Christianity; at least, there is a great deal more for it than there is for a cosmic Big Bang or the creation of all live by evolution. I’d like to ask: if the evidence we have is insufficient, what would you say is missing?
ReplyDeleteHey,
ReplyDeleteJoshua, you say "However, I think we do have evidence! Some examples would be the Bible, historical texts like The Antiquities of the Jews, the existence of the universe, the ability for humans to know things and feel emotion, the existence of morality...".
I first need to clarify what I meant earlier. We certainly have a large amount of evidence for a God/ a created universe. In fact, I would argue that there is more evidence, and it is far more logical, for there to be a God. I am most certainly a theist. (I have thought about it a great deal in the past several years).
However, the evidence (though still there) is much, much more scant for Christianity. You point to Scriptures as "evidence"... and in a sense, it is. But, what of the other sacred texts out there, from the plethora of other religions. They may claim their books as "evidence" for their God. Therefore, I don't consider this a very strong argument. [One might point out that there is significant historical confirmation of biblical events. This is most certainly true, and is another fortifying and crucial bit of evidence. But again, other religious texts exist that are historically verifiable.]
My point is that while it is very probable and plausible that God exists and is the creator of the universe and everything in it, one (by definition, because of the ambiguity of what we've been presented) cannot be so sure that God can be so... defined and boxed in by the parameters of Christianity. Oh, it's certainly possible. Totally, man.
I mean, I'm really hoping it is (well, most of me is, anyway).
The point I'm trying to iterate is that we don't have absolute, confirmatory, concrete evidence that God exists (though I personally believe with my entire heart he does). We also do not have confirmatory evidence that God is the triune God, the Christian God in the form of Father Son and Holy Spirit; in fact, we can logically not reach the conclusion of the latter. The first is most likely true (God exists); the latter may very well be (God is the Christian God).
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I need to clear something up. I think you are misunderstanding me. The Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Gospel of Thomas, etc. would also be evidence. Just because something is evidence does not mean that I agree with it- it may be negative evidence, positive evidence, unconclusive evidence, or some other kind of evidence.
By listing the Bible as 'evidence' I did not mean that I think it proves the existence of the Christian God. Saying that something is evidence and drawing a conclusion based on that evidence are entirely different things.
Also, I encourage you to read more of my blog posts! I get the feeling that you don't understand where I'm coming from.
I would especially recommend these:
Fundamental Assumptions Parts 1 & 2.
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/fundamental-assumptions.html
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/fundamental-assumptions-part-2.html
Cool.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad I read those. Also, the Mormonism post is exceptionally interesting.
Now I feel like I have a grasp of what evidence is.... basically anything that we have in our world that could possibly be significant. And I see now that you're examining all the evidence (positive, negative, etc.) thoroughly.
Do you agree with me, though, on the fact that you can be more certain (that is, it is more probable) that God exists than the Christian God exists?
Thanks a ton for reading! I'm glad you enjoyed the posts!
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you that a better argument can be made for the existence of a god, or some sort of higher being, than for the Christian God!
Im confused about the terms faith, blind faith, and evidenced based reasoning. If faith is believing what is not seen or heard, shouldn't faith be blind? If one believes that everything is the universe cannot be understood, then why should that person be hesistant to have blind faith? Man cant even determine how much he can know, so why not accept the necessity of faith? My point is that i see unmerited disdain for the term blind faith while too much stock is put in evidenced based reasoning to solve one's theological questions.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteIf I may, I would like to recommend one of my previous posts to you! It discusses precisely what you are talking about in your comment.
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/does-faith-have-to-be-blind.html